 SUPERNATURAL SATURDAY
To kick this one off, there are probably a few things I should mention about it. For starters, it's a made-for-TV British documentary, running just about 45 minutes in length. Secondly, the official title for this IS 'Ghosts *ON* the Underground' not 'Ghosts *OF* the Underground' (in case there's confusion with the poster). But lastly, and most importantly, this is one of the eeriest documentaries about hauntings I've ever seen. Skeptic or not, this one's a lot of fun to sit down with and feel those creepy tingles one may remember from ghost stories around the campfire. I've seen a few haunting documentaries, but none of them really gave me that specific feeling until now. Perhaps it's being a tiny bit familiar with the tube (which I used a lot for travel during my UK visit), and being able to recognize that the London Underground is a pretty naturally spooky place. The film itself goes through interviews with various underground workers as they recall their creepiest and eeriest ghost stories from their experiences. All sorts of information is given to us about things like mass graves that have been tunnelled through, as well as church crypts, plague pits, and a bunch of other stuff your typical Canadian traveller wasn't thinking about during his trip to London, using the tube as his primary source of transportation. To be quite honest though, I don't say that as though it creeps me out now. I say that wishing I knew a lot of this information before my travels because famously haunted places always fascinate me. That said, according to this documentary, it's no surprise that these tunnels are considered one of the most haunted places in the world. When it comes to ghosts, hauntings and the like, I tend to have a sort of agnostic approach to it all. Seeing is believing, and while I have seen and heard things that I cannot explain, that does not necessarily mean "ghosts". Generally, the skeptic in me outweighs the believer, but I still love and appreciate a good ghost story. As far as I'm concerned, if that little excited tingle in my stomach shows itself, or a chill runs up my spine, or I get goosebumps, then the story did what it set out to do effectively. These stories are told through the eyes of the underground workers, and all of them have a great tale from their experiences working down there. One can't help but admire some of the subtleties in these stories that once again show that sometimes simple is better. As usual, with any documentary like this, I wouldn't recommend any true, hardened skeptics watch it (which they probably won't anyway) just because I can see it being picked apart pretty easily. One has to go into this with something of an open mind, or at least with the will to have some spooky fun with something, if only for the season. In my humble opinion, this is probably one of the best documentaries one can check out in time for Halloween, just because its a nice, quick viewing of a strong collection of ghost story recounts from these underground workers. Some often result in a worker leaving and never coming back, some show areas of the tubes very few people are willing to walk down, and some are just plain fascinating for being unlike anything you've heard. I do praise this documentary for its overall execution. The stories generally go uninterrupted, it's sprinkled with a bunch of interesting quick-read factoids, and it's very atmospheric. They make a point of showing you the hustle-bustle of everyday life in London and following it up with how empty it gets after hours. Then all you have to do is imagine being left down there all alone, and occasionally, perhaps, having to walk down those unlit tunnels to inspect things, armed only with a torch (that's a flashlight for us North Americans, it's not like these workers are tomb raiders). The whole thing can be found very easily on YouTube - in fact, here's a quick link. I truly think that whether you're a skeptic about these things or not, there's, at the very least, some Halloween intrigue and/or fun to be had with this documentary. 4/5
0 Comments
 THRILLER THURSDAY
This is definitely one of those movies I remember liking right from the get-go, but also remember a LOT of people not liking it, and perhaps taking me for some kind of nut for thinking it was good. Quite honestly though, I haven't given it a second watch until this particular viewing, so going into this, I did wonder if my mind would change. But it didn't at all. In fact, I think I grew to appreciate it, even more, this time around, and I don't just speak of the twist ending that seems to have people either coming or going with this title. But more on that, shortly. The truth of the matter is, I think this could become a new, at least semi-annual Halloween watch for yours truly. We open in barely post-WWII, 1945 where Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman) is seen having a dreadful nightmare, awakening with a start. She and her two extremely photosensitive children, Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley) reside in an out-of-the-way country home on the beautiful island of Jersey (I speak from personal experience!) in the Channel Islands. Three new servants have been hired to tend to the house; housekeeper Bertha Mills (Fionnula Flanagan), gardener, Edmund Tuttle (Eric Sykes) and a mute girl named Lydia (Elaine Cassidy) who... actually I don't really know what her job is, but she's there too. Anyway, it's not long before Grace begins hearing strange voices and strange things start occurring, leading Grace to believe there's some "others" around. Now, anyone who has seen this already knows the twist ending, and I daresay a lot of "others" who haven't seen it even know. But still, no spoilers. That said, it really is the way this ends that puts that cherry on top of the otherwise creep-fest of a sundae. It's interesting to note that back in 2001 when I first saw it, I kind of just took it as a rather enjoyable ghost movie and moved on. Now that I've seen it again, I have to give it up for the atmosphere of the film. The childrens' photosensitivity leads to the house constantly having to block out the sun. The idea of the overprotective mother also puts an uneasy feeling in my stomach - as in, she doesn't let these kids go anywhere or do anything. They're inside, safe and sound from anything that can harm them. I should probably add that the two child actors here are actually pretty great. They both do fear and other genuine emotions quite well, and it's very easy to buy that they're siblings. The only thing is, sometimes it's only the siblings you can actually hear. My one complaint about the film is that it's so quiet in so many parts! I ended up almost missing a bunch of dialogue along the way. Otherwise, though, I really do enjoy this story. It's a great tale for Halloween time, and it's ultimately pretty original (although I will say there was a certain other famous ghost movie that ended similarly out at this point). There's a real creepy suspense to the film all throughout, and the way the camera plays with shadows and lighting is hauntingly beautiful. So, I understand at the time a lot of my peers giving this one a cold shoulder, but I highly recommend giving it a second viewing! This is one of those movies that demands you curl up on your couch in a blanket with all the lights in the house off. It does a good job of gently tugging at your nerves with its suspense and build-up, and there's a lot of this house in the dark that I'd be weary about sneaking around in at night time. Even the house, itself looks haunted, and the post WWII era aspect really adds to that, because WWII is one thing that always springs to mind when I think of ghosts who may very well exist on some plane. Anyway, definitely check this one out this year before Halloween hits. It's a great campfire tale that, at least in my opinion, goes underappreciated. 4/5  WEIRD-OUT WEDNESDAY
It's no secret that this is a film just about as legendary as 'The Exorcist' when it comes to the early days of demons, the occult and other such things. The thing is, 'Rosemary's Baby' came quite a bit before 'The Exorcist', and largely ends up being a little less entertaining for me now but does manage to fit its time like some sort of perfect glove. With that always comes a sort of admiration and respect for the film, even if it isn't entirely up my alley. Plot-wise, we have a stage actor named Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes) and his wife, Rosemary (Mia Farrow), who move into a new home. This home captures their eye with a particular Renaissance Revival design. However, the couple is warned by their friend Hutch (Maurice Evans) that the building has a dark past that consists of witchcraft and even murder. However, the couple passes it all off as superstition and moves in anyway, breaking things in with a nice love-makin' sesh. Now, let's cut to the chase, shall we? Considering this was 1968, and the film's classic status, I think its safe to say everyone knows by this point what the film ends up being about. But I do feel the need to point out what makes this classic material in its own right. The whole gist of the tale here is that Rosemary is impregnated by the Devil, himself, as the Devil has selected her to carry his demonic hell-spawn offspring. But the real horror from this movie comes from the idea of whether or not what she experienced in the process was real or just a dream - giving us the famous line "This is no dream! This is really happening!" So its the whole idea that she's likely carrying Guy's baby, but... who knows? What makes matters worse is that Guy keeps insisting she sees the same doctor, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy) who, at least to Rosemary, doesn't seem to know his ass from a hole in the ground. Her only real hope is to go behind Guy's back to see an otherwise recommended doctor, Dr. Hill (Charles Grodin). With all that said, I think for its time it actually is a very well-done film. I mean, as far as 1968 horror is concerned, this does a very good job of getting into one's psyche and just messing with the viewer, using subject matter taken MUCH more seriously at the time. The downside from my perspective is that this is a movie with a whole lot of talking, so the horror aspects of it are mostly pretty subtle, save for two scenes that capture the imagination quite well. I refer to the scene with the aforementioned famous line, and of course, the way the film ends. Despite the thought I have of this being much more directed toward women, the ending does leave one with a very uneasy feeling. It's not scary, but it leaves you with a bit of a knot in the stomach. This is widely regarded as being one of the best horror films of all time. I think it has earned that right, but it has everything to do with the time of its release, having it predate so much that we're so used to today. It's difficult for me to say that I truly enjoyed this movie all the way through, though. Personally speaking, I was bored for most of it, and it's over two hours and definitely feels like it. But I'm also glad I finally saw it, and I can admit that it has its place in the genre. It just happens to be another title I can fully respect and give credit to for what it is, but it's not so much for me I would give this a 3 if not for its legendary status and recognition for what the film meant at the time. It may deserve a second or third viewing to see if it grows on me in any way, but sincerely... I'm way more of an 'Exorcist' type. 4/5  TRICK-OR-TREAT TUESDAY
Here's another one of those great family favourites I put on that list I mentioned in my 'Hocus Pocus' review. Even though that was a list of a pretty randomized 20, I would have to say that this has to be somewhere at the top of that list as far as good, wholesome, family-friendly Halloween fun goes. And yes, I do say that with a bit of a bias toward these two charming characters, who we've seen in a few different things up to this point. There's something I love about the way these two play off each other. Wallace (Peter Sallis) is a sweet, charming man but a bit of a bumbler, and Gromit is the silent dog whose facial expressions say everything he needs to. My appreciation of Aardman Animations goes beyond these two as well, with films like 'Chicken Run', 'Arthur Christmas' and 'Shaun the Sheep' - just a few examples of some rather hilarious, yet wholesome entertainment. Interestingly enough, 'Curse of the Were-Rabbit' marks Wallace & Gromit's only full-length film so far, and I have to give them bonus points for making it a Halloween film! If you go through my list of 20 (as posted earlier), you'll see a lot of it is pretty hard to find, or otherwise painfully obvious, while this lies somewhere in between. I don't hear a lot of people talk about it during the Halloween season, but in my opinion, it's one of the best light-hearted Halloween-related things one can watch during the spooky season. This is one of those movies one can use to shine just a little bit of light on the otherwise scary and/or suspenseful thrillers and horrors they're watching through the month of October. In this feature, we see cheese-loving inventor, Wallace and his faithful dog, Gromit working in animal control with their humane company "Anti-Pesto". The big deal at the moment is rabbits who have been invading people's crops. This is made even worse by the fact that these people are attempting to grow giant vegetables for the upcoming Giant Vegetable Competition at Tottington Hall. After the pair rand up a massive group of rabbits in one, Lady Tottington's (Helena Bonham Carter) garden, Wallace attempts to use one of his new inventions to try brainwashing the rabbits into not liking vegetables. As one can imagine, this all backfires and, long story short, it ends up creating a giant rabbit who terrorizes the local gardens. Just to add to the story a little bit, there's a love-interest thing going on here between Wallace and Lady Tottington, but Wallace does have to deal with that "jock" type in the form of Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes). However, thankfully, this all takes a back seat to a lot of the other stuff going on throughout the film, and it's clear that this is out to have fun first - just like most, if not all of Aardman Animations' work. It's actually a good collection of (yet again) family-friendly material that doesn't have to rely on a love story of any sort to keep things interesting. So, if you're in the mood for something your kid can watch that plays well for Halloween but really isn't scary, you need not look any further. One might wonder what kind of monster a were-rabbit could be, and what it might do to human beings, but to make it a little extra kid-friendly, the big threat here is against vegetables and not people, so even though the monster, itself could be a sort of scary idea, the execution of the monster is nice and tame, so you probably won't have to worry about getting your kids to bed after something like this. It may have a moment here and there, but for the most part, it's just fun all around. 4/5  MONSTER MONDAY
Not to be confused with 2021's 'Godzilla vs Kong', I believe that this is the original "monster vs monster" movie, and films like 'Freddy vs Jason' and 'Alien vs Predator' owe a debt to this film for paving the way. Directed by the legendary Ishirō Honda (one could probably consider him the King of Kaiju), it actually marks the third film in each franchise, following 'Godzilla', 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters', 'King Kong' and 'Son of Kong'. It also marks the first time either of these monsters were ever seen in colour and widescreen, which today might be something like seeing a franchise do 3D, or D-Box for the first time (still waiting for that no-glasses 3D though - I'm looking at you, James Cameron!) In doing a bit of homework though, I enjoyed reading about how this project came to be. Willis O'Brien, a stop motion animator for the original 'King Kong' outlined a story in which Kong goes up against a giant Frankenstein monster. But honestly, I'd probably watch that if it ever came to light. But when the outline was handed to producer John Beck, Beck gave the project to the Toho company, which produces 'Godzilla' films, and the film became this instead. It's probably for the best, considering what this ended up being, but you gotta feel bad for O'Brien in this scenario. Either way, 'King Kong vs Godzilla' is, to this day, the single-most attended 'Godzilla' film in Japan, and that's probably saying a lot considering there are about 36 of them. Pacific Pharmaceuticals head, Mr. Tako (Ichirô Arishima) believes that the TV shows his company are producing are becoming dull and boring, and he needs some kind of publicity stunt in an attempt to boost ratings. This is when he's told about a giant monster (Kong) who resides on the remote Faro Island. Tako immediately sends two men, Osamu Sakurai (Tadao Takashima) and Kinsaburo Furue (Yû Fujiki), to the island to essentially go get the monster for him. Their journey here is actually quite entertaining as they meet the island's locals, right down to giving a kid a couple of cigarettes. This is where you get the idea that the film doesn't take itself too seriously, and knows you're here for a good time. Meanwhile, as an American nuclear sub called the Seahawk attempts to navigate a field of icebergs, they just so happen to find the one that has contained Godzilla since 1955. This is probably where I should mention that I don't pretend to understand how continuity works with these films, and I believe they are meant to be a little more like stand-alone "what-if?" stories... but I sincerely have no idea. All I know is from anything I read about 'King of the Monsters' ending, the big lizard shouldn't be trapped in an iceberg. But I digress. Godzilla is unleashed and heads toward a Japanese military base, leaving devastation in his wake. Skipping ahead, of course, Kong is eventually captured and brought back to Japan where the two monsters eventually meet and have their ultimate battle; Kong is used as a defence, and somewhat assisted by the humans. And I've gotta hand it to them, they do a pretty good job at delivering a good fight between them... okay, so maybe not a "good" fight, but they do deliver what we came here to see. With that, I should probably mention what may be obvious to some. This is the kind of movie where you know it's low-budget, using guys fighting in suits (Shoichi Hirose as King Kong and Haruo Nakajima as Godzilla) and scale models, and you can't help but have fun with it. In closing, I should mention that these kaiju films have always been one of those things I think are casually cool. I'm never usually hyped for anything like this, but if I do watch it, I'll usually have quite a bit of fun with it. But I'd be hard-pressed to find one I've had more fun with, and that includes more recent films! Cheesy and silly as the film may be, it does deliver what the title promises, and it kind of brings you back to the days of watching cartoons and playing with action figures. This is by no means a masterpiece, and could even be seen as "bad", but it's also not meant to be taken seriously and that much is evident with a lot of comedy. It may sound weird, but I might very well prefer this old hunk of cheese over 2021's film of the same concept, if only because this didn't try to be anything deep or have any meaning behind it. I came to watch these two titans clash, and dammit, that's what I got! 4/5  SLASHER SUNDAY
This is a bit of a difficult one to find, but I think it's one I can recommend to any old-school horror fans with the right mindset. If I were to narrow it down, I'd say you get a little bit of 'Friday the 13th' (terribly foolish teenagers), a little bit of 'The Hills Have Eyes', and just a teeny-tiny hint of 'Texas Chainsaw' (both having to do with deranged, homicidal families AND the brutality of some of the kills). It's not exactly what I'd call a "hidden gem", as it's just bad enough. But it was clearly something for its time - 1981; just one year after 'Friday the 13th' came out, giving the idea of camp horror (as in summer camp horror) a huge boost... well, I guess it gave campy horror a huge boost too, but the point is, this one's not bad for its time. It all starts when a pair of hunters, Ty (Mike Kellin) and Vachel (Charles Bartlett), begin exploring a creepy, abandoned church while nice and drunk. Suddenly, their truck crashes into a tree and explodes (and it's actually kinda funny), and the two find themselves the "intro victims" (as I like to call them) to this slasher flick. Vachel is murdered, and Ty runs into the woods, somewhat aimlessly. I want to take the time to point out that Vachel's kill is a great example of having one's imagination fill in the blanks with horrors worse than we see on screen... doubly worse for any men watching. And it's all done by an unseen assailant with an almost pig-like, squeal of a chuckle. So the film zooms off to a creepy start. Soon, Ty runs into a camper full of college students heading to a property one of them owns. Among them are the almost typical five we get from most movies like this: Warren (Gregg Henry) and his girlfriend, Constance (Deborah Benson), along with Jonathan (Chris Lemmon), his brother, Daniel (Ralph Seymour), and his girlfriend, Megan (Jamie Rose). Here, Ty provides the role of harbinger, begging the group to allow him to tag along and save him from whatever's chasing him. As any smart group should do, they deny this "crazy person" his ride, but Ty sees one of the people who was chasing him jump onto the back of the camper, thus making him their problem now. To keep it simple, it ends up being your rather typical raving serial killers vs a group of teens and/or young adults. There IS more to it, but it's still nothing you've never seen before. However, for 1981, it does make for a pretty decent underground slasher movie, but only if you have the right frame of mind for it. If you're gonna have any hope of enjoying this, you'll also have to be able to appreciate movies like the 'Friday the 13th' saga, as it's all pretty typical and unsurprising stuff. This gets right down to the matter of an innocent "survivor girl" or "final girl" who manages to find herself and the power to stand up and fight against what has been ruining her life recently - usually to some pretty kick-ass results, and let me tell you, this one's no exception. Speaking personally, I tend to be quite a big fan of slasher flicks for the same reasons some people tend to dislike them. There's something to me about the overall predictability of everything that I find genuinely entertaining. Movies like this, for me, equal grabbing a tub of popcorn and just enjoying the more fun aspects of it all. For instance, if someone is doing something we, the audience, all know is a ridiculously stupid move, all that equals is a laugh for me. This one does a good job of forcing the audience to imagine some of the off-screen kills, which I enjoy a little more as I'm less of a gore-hound and more of a suspense nut. I love having my brain do the work as opposed to just seeing it all in plain sight - but hey, sometimes that plain-sight stuff can be fun too (looking at practical effects). If you can somehow manage to find this, and you are a collective fan of the three movie titles I mentioned in the beginning, I'd say that this one is pretty well worth checking out. It definitely feels like it fits in the time of the old-school slasher, and much like with something like 'Texas Chainsaw', the graininess of it all somewhat adds to the atmosphere of everything. It's something you can watch and have a good time with, and not too gory visibly, but quite disturbingly gory if your mind can properly fill in the blanks. All in all, I enjoyed it for what it was and may want to introduce some fellow fans of the genre to it. But it's definitely not a list-topper of any sort either, and most of the fun lies in how terribly corny it is. But still, its not without its merits! 3/5  SUPERNATURAL SATURDAY
I suppose one could consider this one a bit of a cheat, as it's actually more of a lean toward a true crime documentary. However, with that said, the idea for this title being included here is the underlying concept of a real Boogeyman type who was used to form an urban legend of sorts, basically as simple as "be good or this mystery man will take you away". Growing up, most of us have something like this - a deterrent to any sort of bad behaviour. For many, it's something like the Bible, or even some kind of educational children's programming where we'll get our ideas of what's inherently good or bad. But for some, the actual fear is needed, and therefore urban legends are formed. The legend of Cropsey is made so much scarier upon finding out that this child-snatcher was real. Among those who learned the truth were filmmakers Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio, who grew up with the Cropsey legend while living on Staten Island, NY. The tale was used on them in order to keep them away from exploring the abandoned buildings that were once the Willowbrook Mental Institution - a truly terrifying place when it's talked about in the doc. Cropsey was said to be an escaped patient who was also a child-snatcher, often depicted as having a hook for a hand or wielding a bloody ax. In 1987, the legend became real when Jennifer Schweiger, a 13-year-old girl with down syndrome tragically went missing and never was found. Now, as adults, Josh and Barb are still somewhat haunted by these memories, thus creating this documentary in order to uncover what they can behind this great mystery. This not only has to do with whatever happened to Jennifer but four other missing children as well. As things unravel, it all soon points toward one man, Andre Rand, who earned the apt, albeit truly disturbing nickname of "The Pied Piper of Staten Island". As the film unfolds, what really ends up striking you is how disturbing a lot of this gets. Some really creepy yet real footage is used to illustrate a few things, but what really stands out is the imagery of the old psychiatric hospital and its ways - especially when you hear descriptions of the place. Beyond that, the two filmmakers do some pretty deep digging and unveil a lot of truth that's actually much scarier than anything the Cropsey urban legend had to offer. I've seen a few true crime docs in my day, but what makes this one so unique is the urban legend aspect of it. When I was too young to know any better, I was once told by a babysitter that I'd be taken away to the "Funny Farm" just because I made her laugh. But the idea of being shipped away and separated from my family terrified me, even if I did think that it was just a big farm with animals. Years later, I discovered that the term "funny farm" could (but probably shouldn't) be used as harsh slang for the psychiatric hospital. So relating to these two filmmakers, I also one day discovered that something that scared me as a kid ended up being a pretty scary place that really exists. So, if you're into the whole true crime thing, I can recommend a whole whack of great true crime documentaries that cover famous "heavy hitters" (credit to 'Last Podcast on the Left' for that terminology). But I'd really highly recommend checking this one out for the spooky season, due to the concept of this being an urban legend that was actually very real, and there are few things in life creepier than that. The film is thorough, eerie, and atmospheric, and will really open your mind to thoughts like "maybe some things aren't as crazy as they seem"... because nine times out of ten, in the world of true crime, they're actually quite a bit worse. This is one I'd highly recommend to true crime fans, but if you can handle things, I might just recommend this as a general doc for the Halloween season above most other true crime docs that exist out there. This one's just plain special in its own way, and there's no other way to put it. 4/5  FRIGHTFUL FAILURE FRIDAY
Friday's theme this month is pretty obvious upon looking at its titles. Put simply; movies that are so incredibly terrible that at some point or another they've probably ended up on a list of "worst movies ever made". One may very well remember watching a specific episode of 'How I Met Your Mother' in which Ted debates that the worst movie ever made was this title above 'Plan 9' (also on this list). Of course, things are always up for debate, but one can't really deny that any of these titles belong on a "worst ever" list of some sort. If you decide to check these out for yourself, I'm gonna go ahead and recommend either a 'Rifftrax' copy or a 'Mystery Science Theater' copy, because my God do they add to the comedy of it all. One may very well argue that the first time around on any of these titles should be seen as is, but I'd personally highly recommend doing such a thing with someone already very familiar with it. Otherwise, you're kinda just looking at a bad movie on your own, which is far less entertaining (trust me). Think of these to be on the same level as 'The Room', which tends to be the big bad title everyone has seen. It's far, far, FAR more entertaining with an audience, or at least someone's voiceover poking fun at it the whole time. But I digress. There's a lot to unpack here, and so on with the review. We open (and it's a long one, so buckle up) with ultimately forgettable leads, Michael (Harold P. Warren), Margaret (Diane Adelson), their daughter, Debbie (Jackey Neyman Jones) and dog Peppy, taking a trip through El Paso, Texas, looking for a hotel called Valley Lodge. Eventually, they reach a strange place tended by the real star of this movie, Torgo (John Reynolds), who "takes care of the place while The Master (Tom Neyman) is away". He doesn't know of such a place as Valley Lodge, but eventually, Michael talks Torgo into letting them stay the night, despite the Master's probable objections. I could go on in more detail, but to make a long story short, through the night a bunch of random dark stuff happens involving the Master, his wives, Torgo and whatever the hell the entity Manos is. Ultimately, it's the family being threatened by the Master's ways, and it's nothing new, except perhaps for the extremely poor execution of it all. I know that all might sound rushed and sloppy, but... so is the movie. In truth (as it often is with films like these), it's the making of the movie that's a little more fascinating than the movie itself, and it all comes down to Harold P. Warren, himself, who wrote, directed and produced the film. The film is the result of a bet that Warren made with Stirling Silliphant; a screenwriter best known for his film 'In the Heat of the Night'. The bet involved Warren stating that he could probably produce a horror film on his own. After getting some friends and local actors to participate, the film did eventually get made and does give Warren a bit of a technical win. But anyone who has actually seen this movie understands why it's ultimately still a huge loss on Warren's part (unless you count the film's cult following it's grown over the years). The film existed, but was very poorly received and only played in El Paso theaters and drive-ins for a very short time. Eventually, 1993 gave us a 'Mystery Science Theater' episode that featured the film, and it finally fell out of extreme obscurity but was still quite hidden away for a while. Over the years, the good old internet has given the film a pretty well-known name now, but as a cult classic for terrible movie lovers. And when I say terrible, take all of this into consideration when it comes to the film's criticisms from the masses - technically deficient overall, badly edited, continuity errors all over the place, the soundtrack is basically elevator music, bad visuals, terrible acting, terrible pacing, and a whole lot of disconnected scenes that mean nothing at all, perhaps most famously, a couple making out in a car who keep getting bothered by a cop because... *shrug* The 'Mystery Science Theater' episode, however, did result in a generous boost of 'Manos' DVD releases, as suddenly people were interested in seeing something so awful. But what's really mind-blowing is that eventually, in 2018, a prequel, 'Manos: The Rise of Torgo' was made along with a sequel, 'Manos Returns'. I mean, I didn't learn that until working on this review, so (especially with some returning cast members) I'm gonna have to find these movies one day if only to explore this fascinatingly god-awful world that Warren has provided with actors actually reprising their roles! I'm not sure to expect better or worse from them, but one thing is for sure, the original 'Manos' is easily one of the worst movies in existence... and totally worth checking out in the ways I suggested earlier. 1/5  THRILLER THURSDAY
So, just to take the time and explain a few things people may not be altogether clear on, some of Thursday's titles may feel like they belong on Wednesday's list. Perhaps the best example, '1408', ends up being a matter of the way searching for titles in each category worked. '1408' didn't spring up in my search for "psychological thrillers" nearly as fast as it did in my search for "classic thrillers" (which is kind of weird, but there we have it), so JUST in case anyone else asks me about it, that's the basic answer. Now, on with the show, as we open Thriller Thursdays with a cult classic of sorts. And I've gotta say, no offence to any of this film's fans, but I'm having a tough time understanding exactly why it's so popular. Going into this, I only really knew a few things about it (again). I knew it inspired the opening scene of 'Scream', which sort of became the 'When a Stranger Calls' for my generation (and was MUCH better - yes, I said it). But one must give credit where credit is due, and I would imagine that in 1979, this whole concept was much scarier as, I believe, it hadn't really been done before (I could easily be wrong about that). But it should be noted that the film's opening sequence is largely based on the urban legend of "The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs". The legend itself is largely said to be based on a real event on March 18, 1950, when a babysitting 13-year-old girl named Janett Christman was murdered. The whole opening to this film is what makes it as famous as it is among its fans. Essentially reciting the urban legend, a babysitter named Jill Johnson (Carol Kane) is called to babysit two children. Once the children are put to bed, the phone calls start, as a voice on the other end asks if she has checked on the kids. Ignored at first, the calls keep coming, which eventually leads to Jill calling the police. The police trace the call, and as pretty much anyone reading this already knows, they discover that the call is coming from inside the house. Jill is spared, but we do discover (thankfully not with any visuals) that the two children had been murdered that night. And all in all, the opening sequence is pretty much the scary part of the movie. Funny thing is, I sincerely thought this whole movie was about this girl in the house being stalked the whole time. Turns out... I was WAY off. Fast-forward seven years, and we find that our killer, Curt Duncan (Tony Beckley) has escaped from a psychiatric facility, where Dr. Mandrakis (Carmen Argenziano) hires private detective John Clifford (Charles Durning) to attempt to find him. By the way, I should mention that Duncan ends up in a really silly-looking fight that made me laugh quite genuinely. The whole thing turns into a bit of a dull manhunt movie, but I will give credit for the ending being just as solid as the beginning. This film isn't without a decent share of thrills, but I will say that one has to sift through a lot of talking just to get there. If I'm to recommend this to anyone, it would mostly be based on the playing out of the urban legend, as it's actually executed quite well. Then read a quick Wiki synopsis, and fast-forward to the end. I don't mean to step on anyone's opinion though. I think this is just another one I don't quite get as to why it's so popular, and there's no shortage of those (I really should make a Top 10 list one day). I found that the film had its moments, but was actually altogether quite dull and boring. Add to that the fact that this is NOT at all what I expected, which was more or less a bottle movie involving a babysitter trying to make it through the night while protecting the kids. It just goes to show that sometimes we can assume too much about something based on what little we see of it. Anyway, this doesn't come as a high recommendation from yours truly whatsoever, but I think it may still be worth checking out for some, if only to see if you can fit in with the seemingly massive cult following this has behind it. As for me, I'll stick to 'Scream'. 2/5  WEIRD-OUT WEDNESDAY
Wednesdays are all about movies that mess with the mind. Among the many titles that I stumbled on for it, 'In the Mouth of Madness' seemed to stick out as a sort of cult phenomenon favourite. To be quite honest, I don't even really remember this movie being a thing, despite the fact that I'm familiar with the title. Considering who is attached to this, it's kind of a wonder it took me so long to check it out. Besides a fresh from 'Jurassic Park' Sam Neill in the starring role, this one's also directed by John Carpenter (who needs no introduction), and written by none other than Michael De Luca, who also penned one of my biggest guilty pleasures, 'Freddy's Dead'). Otherwise, he's better known as a producer. But the 'Freddy's Dead' connection grasped my curiosity just enough to make it a must-see. We open at a pretty heavy-looking psychiatric hospital where patient John Trent (Neill) is paid a visit by Dr. Wrenn (David Warner). Trent strangely seems to insist that he's not crazy, yet finds safety and comfort in the confines of his room, which he has covered in crosses. Trent then recounts the events that led him to be where he is. It begins when Trent, a freelance insurance investigator, has lunch with an insurance company owner, requesting that Trent investigate a claim by Arcane Publishing. Trent is soon attacked by an axe-wielding maniac who, before the attack, asks him if he reads famous horror author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow). We soon learn that the maniac was actually Sutter Cane's agent, who apparently underwent some kind of mental warp, killing his family, after reading one of Cane's books. Arcane Publishing's director, Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston), eventually brings Trent in and asks him to investigate the seemingly sudden disappearance of Cane in order to get the manuscript for Cane's final novel published and boost their sales. It's said that his horror books are so popular and well done that they outsell Stephen King by... I forget the exact amount, but it was a lot, and pretty unrealistic when we consider the King, himself. Anyway, tagging along with Trent is Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Julie Carmen), who claims that Cane's novels can cause all kinds of fun mental instability to some of his less stable readers - namely paranoia, memory loss and getting disoriented, to which Trent remains skeptical, believing it all to be some kind of publicity stunt. A clue ends up unveiling a map of New Hampshire, and a location known as Hobb's End; a fictional town in a real state. The pair end up heading towards this fictional town. The thing I kept bearing in mind here was that in 1994, paper maps were still being used, so God knows where these two thought they were going. Regardless, strange things do start happening on their drive, and eventually, they do find themselves in the apparent fictional town. Right around here is where the film sort of starts to go off the rails, but in that fun way we want from a movie known for its "mind-f*ckery". I won't go into too much detail here, but what follows is altogether creative and fascinating, if not a little off-putting at times. I think if I were to give the film full credit for a few things, they would start with the use of practical effects, helping get some of those visuals crawling under your skin. But there are other pretty great effects here that aren't really scary or gross so much as just plain awesome. For those who have seen it, I'll just say that the "face-tearing scene" near the end is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, and despite what people seem to want to call it, there is no blood or gore involved. That, along with a lot of other things going on here, really managed to kick my imagination up a notch, and I was thankful to not see so much of the typical. I do praise this movie for various other things too, effects aside. I really appreciated Neill's performance here, as I felt like I could really buy every emotion he was throwing at me. Beyond that, the very concept of the whole thing is, in its own way, quite terrifying. It does play on the whole aspect of "am I crazy or not?" which can be truly disturbing to some. By no means is this Carpenter's best work. The great subtleties of 'Halloween' aren't there, it doesn't really have a valuable message like 'They Live', and more than anything, it seemed like Carpenter and De Luca were on some sort of crazy drug the whole time they were making this. It has a very "what the hell did I just watch?" feel to it, but I might say that if you're looking for a good, scary, trippy mind-f*ck of a flick, this could be worth your time, if only once. 3/5 |
RSS Feed