#01 Serial Mom
#02 [REC]2
#03. Bloodsucking Bastards
#04. Train to Busan
#05 It Follows
#06 Hush
#07 Lights Out
#08 Cabin in the Woods (Re-watch)
#09 Krampus: The Christmas Devil (2013)
#10 The Conjuring 2
#11 Jason Lives: Friday 13th part VI (Re-watch)
#12 The Babysitter (2017)
What an awesome movie. Great story, great acting and just a very enjoyable movie.
This was one of the most conflicting films I've seen in terms of enjoyment. I kept feeling like it was one of the more fun films I've seen recently but then at other moments it felt like one of the worst ones in a bit.
It was cool to see one of the first splatter films or so I've read but I'll have to return to this at some later point to have a better understanding of my thoughts on it.
So this finally saw an actual release. I'm glad I got around to seeing it after so long but I was a bit disappointed honestly. It felt like most of the good moments have been gifd to hell and back around the web so it didn't leave a lot elsewhere for me here.
It's completely different content wise but in terms of mockumentary type horror films, Lake Mungo remains my fave.
Watched this to go with my viewing of the 2017 adaptation earlier. I honestly prefer the execution of Pennywise as seen here mostly but hoo boy did I have problems elsewhere. Not sure how much of this is as a result of this adaptation versus the source material itself but I genuinely didn't like any of the
adult portioned stuff including the final encounter
.
I watched this on cable tv which with ads made it a whopping 4.5 hour affair so maybe I'm not in the greatest moods in regards to this. I'll return to it on dvd or blu-ray at a later date.
If this was a short film that cut off around 10-15 minutes in when
Don flees on the boat
it would honestly be in the running as an all-time favorite. As the film stands overall though it's just okay and pretty underwhelming coming from 28 Days Later. I think mostly for me it comes down to the pacing and characters. None of the characters connect with me like most of the ones in Days did so when shit starts popping off (and oh does it) it's hard to be really engrossed.
Even still, I'd 100% be here for a 28 Months Later at some point as I'm sure it will at least meet or surpass this one (and most similar cinema of late) for me.
I didn't know that you were doctors.
Doctors? We're not doctors.
I beg your pardon, I thought you knew what you were talking about.
I'm nearing the end of my Hammer journey, and I sense their creative juices are wearing thin. This sequel retreads a lot of ground of previous Frankenstein films, particular Revenge of Frankenstein, revolving around transferring brains. The plot itself is really a bit confusing as it's unclear what Frankenstein is capable of in his mad science and what he isn't. The continuity is non-existent by now so they are borderline standalone.
Perhaps to compensate for the dodgy plot, they really upped the gore and sex in the film, with a number of gruesome surgery scenes, and unfortunately a gratuitous and entirely unnecessary rape scene. It has nothing to do with the rest of the film and pushes Frankenstein into way too evil territory. So there's problems in this film to say the least.
That said, there are a handful of a good scenes throughout, and the entire third act is very good, much better than the rest of the film, building to a strong climax to go out on.
Bio Hunter is pretty much what you expect it to be: not super deep (despite all kinds of psychobabble), but everything looks cool and it proceeds along at a speedy clip. The plot here is pretty typical, but I must confess it was a nice surprise to see that the cool looking monster is in fact one of our heroes, but the other monsters we come across are pretty swell-looking, too. I can see the comparisons to Wicked City, but this is really its own thing with its own vibe and themes to tackle. The whole "slowly losing your humanity" theme here offers up no new commentary, but I did like that they did show a gradual devolution for Kamada in his beast form as his posture takes on more and more animal characteristics by the big final battle. If there is a weakness, it's that there's really not much to the characters besides Kamada, with his fellow Bio Hunter, Koshigaya, not having much of a personality other than his creeper mustache, and the female lead, Sayaka, just kind of being there until the plot calls for some lighter molestation. The film isn't particularly great when it concerns sexually-tinged violence, but at least when compared to something like Wicked City, it is largely more suggestive and murders being framed with the sexual element (apparently, only the livers of young female adults will do?) rather than going for outright violation, aside from a late "oh, come on" moment involving another oral tentacle attack that's never not super gross. Other than that bit, it's wholesome, trashy fun that's quite competent in all aspects, and at just under an hour long, feels like it's got just enough material to keep you interested and leave you with a solid impression.
I'm in the middle of watching Cube and I just gotta stop in here to say how much I hate the "leader" character in this. The dialogue is made worse by how terrible of an actor that guy is. Yeesh. Definitely my least liked movie I've watched so far this month and I'm not even finished yet.
edit: Oh I think they might be
framing him as the antagonist now but still he's an awful character
So this movie just came out on SyFy today, from what I can tell. It seems to be about this kid who's from the Village Hidden in the Sand, and manifests a sand Stand to destroy her enemies, and Tobin Bell is this evil mastermind who watches people from monitors as others do his bidding. Being a SyFy movie the effects and acting are pretty mediocre but I'm behind right now so I'll take what I can get to pad out my movie count a little, at least for now
Directed by McGee, The Babysitter is aiming for a Boy Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse take on the Satanic Cult thing. It takes a bunch of visual ideas, jokes, and stories from better movies and implements them as if they're somehow novel or interesting this time around.
Look, I don't hate it; it's far from awful. But for whatever reason its dialogue, its visual tricks, its plotting, none of it really connected. Its the type of movie that wants its audience to think they're smarter than the movie after watching. Its a fine line to walk. Sometimes it works (See: Piranha 3D) but more often, it doesn't (See: Piranha 3-Double D). So I dunno, I'm sure for most people it works, but for me? Eh. But I'm weird so what do I know.
Movie 1 - Dracula (1931) [NEW]
Movie 2 - Dracula 2000 [NEW]
Movie 3 - Dracula (1979) [NEW]
Movie 4- The Creature from The Black Lagoon [NEW]
Movie 5 - Dracula's Daughter [New]
Movie 6 - Son of Dracula [New]
Movie 7 - El Bar [New]
Movie 8 - Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula [New]
Movie 9 - John Carpenter's Vampires [New]
Movie 10 - Blacula [New]
Movie 11 - Dollman vs Demonic Toys [New]
Movie 12 - Frankenstein 1931 [New]
Movie 13 - Bride of Frankenstein [New]
Movie 14 - Corpse Bride [New]
Movie 15 - Little Evil [New]
Movie 16 - Alienate [New]
Movie 17 - Mary Shelley's Frankenstein [New]
Movie 18 - Cult of Chucky [New]
Movie 19 - The Babysitter [New]
Movie 20 - Freddy vs Jason [Rewatch]
Movie 21 - The Mummy (1932) [New]
Movie 22 - The Invisible Man [New]
Movie 23 - The Body Snatcher Movie 24 - The Mummy (2017) [New]
This isn't what I'd classify as a "good" movie. Like I heard the tales, but sometimes think folks just exaggerate, but no this movie literally takes like a 30 minute break in the middle in order to properly build up a shared universe that may never happen. Playing that Amazing Spider-man 2 card.
This is only hurt by the fact that the central narrative isn't that good to begin with and by the time we got into the final act spent most of it checking my phone. Alas
I tricked myself into The Body Snatchers, it was on TCM saw it had Karloff and Legosi so assumed it was an Universal pic, but it lacked a certain charm and looked it up afterwards to realize it wasn't. Still an okay movie, though as TCM commentary noted nothing to do with Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Movie 1 - Dracula (1931) [NEW]
Movie 2 - Dracula 2000 [NEW]
Movie 3 - Dracula (1979) [NEW]
Movie 4- The Creature from The Black Lagoon [NEW]
Movie 5 - Dracula's Daughter [New]
Movie 6 - Son of Dracula [New]
Movie 7 - El Bar [New]
Movie 8 - Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula [New]
Movie 9 - John Carpenter's Vampires [New]
Movie 10 - Blacula [New]
Movie 11 - Dollman vs Demonic Toys [New]
Movie 12 - Frankenstein 1931 [New]
Movie 13 - Bride of Frankenstein [New]
Movie 14 - Corpse Bride [New]
Movie 15 - Little Evil [New]
Movie 16 - Alienate [New]
Movie 17 - Mary Shelley's Frankenstein [New]
Movie 18 - Cult of Chucky [New]
Movie 19 - The Babysitter [New]
Movie 20 - Freddy vs Jason [Rewatch]
Movie 21 - The Mummy (1932) [New]
Movie 22 - The Invisible Man [New]
Movie 23 - The Body Snatcher Movie 24 - The Mummy (2017) [New]
This isn't what I'd classify as a "good" movie. Like I heard the tales, but sometimes think folks just exaggerate, but no this movie literally takes like a 30 minute break in the middle in order to properly build up a shared universe that may never happen. Playing that Amazing Spider-man 2 card.
This is only hurt by the fact that the central narrative isn't that good to begin with and by the time we got into the final act spent most of it checking my phone. Alas
I tricked myself into The Body Snatchers, it was on TCM saw it had Karloff and Legosi so assumed it was an Universal pic, but it lacked a certain charm and looked it up afterwards to realize it wasn't. Still an okay movie, though as TCM commentary noted nothing to do with Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The found footage subgenre, much like others in horror, is home to either two types of films. These tend to be either gems or lazy opportunities to make money. Luckily Troll Hunter is in the former group. Which is funny to me because while Troll Hunter is a good found footage flick, I'd be more comfortable labeling it good despite being found footage. The best films in the genre use the format to enhance the entire experience, like the Blair Witch Project. That story could only be told through found footage means, while Troll Hunter would have worked just as well as a regular ole movie. The more eye rolling bits were as a result of its subgenre trappings, "Hey we need a camera for this", that kind of stuff. As far as the actual movie goes, I really liked the use of actual folklore and how the story was built around it. Which was often hilarious as many of these moments were played straight despite the absurdity of it all. Pretty good time and the troll effects were pretty good as well.
Now this is a true sequel! Cool continuation of the story from the first and actually expands what is possible in the series. The shared dream combat was a fun way to add on to the first film and not just be a rehash and things felt more even this time between Freddy and kids. Also immediately recognized Lawrence Fishburne's voice and this is easily the earliest thing I've seen him in so that was a fun little surprise.
So another movie with a lot of building up towards the ending and then it just falls flat completely. The world building wasn't very interesting, the found footage concept was even worse then usual and the characters left a lot to be desired.
So I'm guessing the Sasquatch was real and it was killing the men and using the women as mothers to make more? Kind of lame we never actually got to see what it looks like at all and the ending didn't really explain much of anything. Like did that guy that try to stop them know what was going on?
#18 - Silver Bullet - One of the better werewolf movies of the 80s, and a decent Stephen King adaptation. Though the actual werewolf looked pretty lame, its well acted, and has some great moments.
#19 - The Lost Boys - Happy 30th anniversary to one of the all time classic vampire films. For some reason, I thought this movie was much more violent than it actually is. I also found out that the saxophone guy is doing horror conventions now, and I find that to be absolutely hilarious since his claim to fame was 30 seconds of screentime shaking his ass and glistening all over the screen. Too bad the sequels never panned out. Forgot how great the soundtrack was as well.
I've got to get this out of the way right off. This can be a rather sleazy film at times that's not going to win any awards for depiction of women in cinema. The way women are portrayed here is offensive at worst and problematic at best. They are often treated as lower on the intellectual scale than their male counterparts, sneaky and secretive while being sex crazed, objectified by including them in nude scenes for no real reason, or killed off by stabbing them in their vagina's (literally death by rape). Horror films are often criticized for the treatment of women, giallo's or slasher's in particular. Many of the best films in that genre actually feature strong women in strong roles, particularly in Argento's work such as Deep Red.
What Have You Done to Solange? should not be devoid of this type of criticism, but it still somehow uses these faults to make a greater statement on equality, male gaze, and does so while tackling a controversial subject matter. I know this sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but the film portrays women in a negative light to show the effects of what a male dominated society has on them.
Others aren't left off the hook either. The protagonist, or the genre's typical everyday wannabe detective, is a teacher who gets himself romantically involved with the 16-18 year old girls he teaches all while being married to his overly shrewd wife. This behavior is acceptable to many in the film because of his marital situation, but also condemned by others. The setting is a conservative christian school, and the hypocrisy is in full force as the very same people that condemn the teacher for his actions are the same kind that are responsible for the oppressive society their female students are brought up in. They'll talk of how the behavior of their students is shameful or wrong while using their spare time to be peeping toms. Every action these young women make are the direct result of presenting the image that is expected of them by their male superiors. So the question shouldn't be 'What Have You Done to Solange?' instead it should be 'why did you have to in the first place?'
Yeah, that's not as good of a title. As for the other elements of the film, it's particularly well made. I was very invested with the central mystery. It's a whodunnit story that kept me guessing the entire way through and managed to draw me in everytime another piece of the puzzle was revealed. The director was the DP from Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More and his eye is on full display. Even the scenes of shock have a side effect of me thinking just how creative the framing, movement, or editing was. One death scene in particular made my jaw dropped due to my reaction of simultaneously being repulsed, offended, and hilariously impressed that the filmmakers had the guts to include it in the first place. Of course the images become more memorable when you've got Ennio Morricone providing a lush and often melancholic score to them.
What Have You Done to Solange? is an offensive piece of Italian schlock that elevates itself within the genre by providing a statement on conservative religious values in a male dominated society. It contains an engrossing mystery, gorgeous visuals, and a beautiful soundtrack. As a result, it's a powerful film and one of the better giallo's I've seen so far.
You should watch Apocalypse Now if you haven't. It's not horror or anything, but it's one of the greatest films ever made and features an incredibly young Lawrence Fishburne. A little bit of trivia: Fishburne lied about his age so he could get the role (he was fourteen), but due to the notoriously difficult production he was seventeen by the time filming wrapped.
The found footage subgenre, much like others in horror, is home to either two types of films. These tend to be either gems or lazy opportunities to make money. Luckily Troll Hunter is in the former group. Which is funny to me because while Troll Hunter is a good found footage flick, I'd be more comfortable labeling it good despite being found footage. The best films in the genre use the format to enhance the entire experience, like the Blair Witch Project. That story could only be told through found footage means, while Troll Hunter would have worked just as well as a regular ole movie. The more eye rolling bits were as a result of its subgenre trappings, "Hey we need a camera for this", that kind of stuff. As far as the actual movie goes, I really liked the use of actual folklore and how the story was built around it. Which was often hilarious as many of these moments were played straight despite the absurdity of it all. Pretty good time and the troll effects were pretty good as well.
I thought it was neat how they made the trolls "realistic" looking and yet still had the fairy tale designs you'd see in old wood carvings or illustrations. You'd normally see a film pick one or the other.
I'm falling behind on website stuff (have a couple reviews and an interview pending) and keeping up with posting my 31 days picks everyday gets to be time consuming. I'm still doing it, mostly, but leaving them soley on letterboxd.
I try to avoid rewatches during these marathons but I felt like watching this again so I did. So good. So bleak. So cynical. And while it's all very far-fetched, it works on its own internal logic, unlike a lot of fiction with a similar premise. An all-time classic as far as I'm concerned.
A movie about what happens when a mist, that hides deadly creatures within, envelops a small town...
The movie is based on a Stephen King novella. The tension in the movie really comes into play as soon as the mist takes over the town and some of its inhabitants are holed up in a local supermarket. There is tension between the outsiders and locals. There is tension throughout the movie due to the mist obstructing any view past the windows and doors of the supermarket. People start forming "groups" and eventually disagreements start and they go after each other all the while trying to survive the creatures that are out in the mist.
Really fun movie to watch due to the tension, the build up, the tiny bits of gore and just the acting that made you like some and and hate some people. All in all, the 'bigger' question does not get answered but the ending is far from a Hollywood ending you could get, which is nice for a change.
I was hoping they would have a released a sequel/prequel, just to explain some things but, the movie in itself was a good watch, IMO. -7/10
Watched this on Friday. I've seen this movie, well the entire franchise actually, probably 10-15 times. Never get tired of it, these and nightmare on Elm Street got me through High School (taped them off the Scream Network... I miss the Scream Network). It's a classic and there's not much else to sau. One really cool thing is that the sex scene is entirely focused on the woman getting off, female orgasms are incredibly taboo even to this so having the sex scene focused on her pleasure is actually prettu progressive for that era.
24. Friday the 13th Part II (1981)
Sackhead Jason is the best Jason. There is one incredible shot in this movie where Ginny is in a cabin and you see just out of the corner of the screen a barreling Jason running towards the window. It's the best shot in the franchise. Another progressive notch is having a wheelchair bound character who is seen as sexually attractive and one of the group no questions asked. He lives and dies no different from anyone else and that rocks.
25. Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
The mask arrives. There's nothing all that special about this one really other than the mask but that alone makes it noteworthy. Thin characters and the most obvious fake head ever abound but it's still an F13 classic. I loce these fucking things what can I say.
26. Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
A sentimental favourite of the fandom and it's obvious why. Solid acting elevates these paper thin characters and makes them likeable. The most horrific death scene is in this one and you see nothing... it is the screams of pain and "he's killing me" that make it so chilling. Feldman is a gem and Crispin Glover is the always wonderful Crispin Glover... will never forget "Hey Ted where the hell is the corkscrew?".
I think what makes F13 remarkable is that these kids all just seem like normal teens... sure there are some archetypes but by in large they are all believable... and they are for the most part really likeable so you do kinda feel bad when they die unlike other slashers.
Jason is an incredible force of nature. He exists to kill and kill and that's what makes him work. He's an icon and for good reason.
This marks the end of running Jason... onto zombie Jason with first a detour into not Jason.
7. What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
I was inspired to watch this after the excellent Feud earlier this year. A pretty good thriller! Bette Davis is tremendous in this, and Joan Crawford's performance is very good as well, though she is given less to do; this is definitely Davis' vehicle. There's a ton of contrivances in here to keep the plot going, which really grated on me after a while -- why, at no point, does Blanche ever scream for help outside the window? There's a sympathetic neighbor, who is frequently outside, just 10 feet away! I also couldn't stand how
every time Jane leaves the house to run an errand, and we see Blanche make some effort to free herself, Jane is back almost immediately. Aldrich never makes an effort to make the two timelines (what's happening in the house and what Jane is doing elsewhere) sync up, so no matter what Jane is doing, it takes Blanche seemingly hours to, say, write a letter or make her way down the stairs to the phone.
It's just a phony way to ratchet up tension. Those annoyances aside, though, I liked this for the most part. Also, Crawford was way hotter in this than Feud made her out to be.
7/10
8. Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter
Like most everyone here, I also watched a Friday the 13th for Friday the 13th. This one gets a lot of praise from fans of the series, but I didn't really see what the big deal was. It's just Jason killing people. I know that's the basically the mission statement of the entire franchise, but I feel like the better ones should deviate from that formula somewhat; this one was just formula. I think it's the first to not happen at Camp Crystal Lake, which I guess is something, but then it raises the question why is Jason killing these people in the first place? Whatever. The kids are alright; Crispin Glover's dancing is *fucking amazing* and had me laughing for the entire scene. The kills look good, and the ending was interesting, though I think I liked Part 2's way of defeating Jason,
where the final girl pretends to be his mother[/b]. Overall, just thought it was ok. Not bad, but not especially interesting either. I'd rank it better than the original, which I thought was awful, but not as good as Part 2 (I skipped 3).
6/10
Nancy's actress did 4 characters: Creepy school Girl Nancy, Valley Girl Tiff, Dominatrix Mistress Olga and News Anchor Sharon Stokowski... they were all soo good and really made watching the Network fun.
#14 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
As a direct sequel to Dream Warriors, which I loved, my hopes were high for this one. Tonally it is similar and builds on everything its prequel set up. And again, the plot advances and the world is expanded, but for some reason it just feels off. It feels empty. Less passionate. I cant quite explain it, its just less special. Its not a bad movie by any means, and I still like a lot of aspects from it. Theres some stunning (and gross) imagery and special effects, as well as some solid writing and fun kills. Freddy outdoes himself yet again, further increasing my love for him as one of my favorite antagonists. 6.5/10
Five young Chilean friends go for a weekend in the countryside, the silly bastards. Don't they know what always happens? Sure enough, this foolhardy bunch is soon captured by a supremely messed up family of nutjobs, and all kind of crazy blood-drenched shit starts going down.
With full-on, over the top acting and an absurdly melodramatic script, Sendero frequently comes across as a highly-strung soap opera. What keeps it watchable for a horror fan is the crazy amounts of gore. This is a gruesome movie. The practical effects aren't the best I've ever seen, but they're perfectly serviceable and used with a charming enthusiasm that is hard to fault. Decapitations, degloved limbs, gouged out eyes, heads smashed in with rocks, extremeties chopped off, heads blown off, all sorts.
The plot is bonkers – basically, I think the psycho family are harvesting tourists for a shadowy organisation, led by an enigmatic but supremely powerful old guy, who's using the women for breeding, and the rest for slavery? Food? I wasn't really sure, just like I wasn't really sure why there were blind people chained up in the basement.
The heroine of the piece is Ana, though maybe heroine isn't the right word to use, considering she's a complete nightmare for the others. At various points in the movie she unwittingly
shoots one of her mates to avoid being shot herself, leaves behind another to be stabbed, lets a little kid get captured and killed by the psychos so that she can (yet again, fail to) escape, accidentally disembowels her ex-boyfriend and then shoots a woman in the head who stopped to help her,
which seems a little unfortunate. But at least she perseveres in the face of tough odds, eh?
Verdict: Not exactly a masterpiece, but if you fancy an hour and a half of lo-fi South American gore then this could be right up your alley.
With a title like that, I was surprised there was no title drop in the film, even when there was an ideal scene for it midway in. Guess that was too hokey even for Hammer.
This was a peculiar entry with an uneven tone. It gave considerably more weight to the inevitable resurrection of Dracula than the last film's rather perfunctory one, with a long buildup to the ritual. As a result the film is pretty slow paced and Dracula himself doesn't appear until nearly half way through, and even then hasn't a lot of screentime.
The tonal issues come from the fact that his targets this time are entirely unsympathetic assholes. They're liars, hypocrites, abusive to their families and eventually murderers. So really, you cheer when Dracula goes about killing them off. It's all well and good when you root for Jason going about offing obnoxious camp counselors in outlandish ways, because that's just Friday the 13th' shtick, but it feels strange here in the Dracula series.
There are a couple of a pleasant characters caught up in the mess, but almost the entirety of the film except the last ten minutes revolves around this group of villainous men first getting duped into resurrecting the Count, then getting gradually killed off by him. Thus the climax feels a bit rushed and limp after all that.
It's not bad in of itself, but it's a real odd one out, and I wouldn't call it good either.
I guess this one can technically be considered a rewatch. I was probably only 4 or 5 when I saw Saturday the 14th as a kid and I have no idea if I actually sat though the entire thing or not (probably not). I was always curious about seeing it again and what better day to watch it than on a real Saturday the 14th? Unfortunately, this is one that should have stayed a faded memory.
The name may lead you to believe it's a slasher parody, but it's not. A family inherits a house that contains a mysterious book that unleashes a series of monsters and a whole lot of nothing happens. It's kind of cute in that early 80s way and Jeffrey Tambor plays a vampire in it, but it just isn't funny. Skip it and watch House or Elvira: Mistress of the Dark instead.
Rating:
out of 5 Bub salutes. (2.5 is considered average on this scale)
What the hell, this movie is such a pleasant surprise. I saw McG's name on it and was incredibly skeptical. The movie is nonstop with jokes and thrill from the very beginning to the end (and mid-credit sequence). The cast is a smash with everyone delivering their exaggerated characters and dialogue. Robbie Amell is a standout beyond the two leads. The humor, I though, was hilariously on point and the editing fast paced. Hopefully this movie gets more attention, as it's easily McG's magnum opus (man that's sad).
Psycho You know, I thought I'd seen this before and maybe I did or maybe it feels that way because this one is so pervasive in pop culture, not sure. I do know this is definitely a classic for a reason and Perkins was spot on for the role. I can also say that it was a masterpiece entry for serial killers.
Hey remember how I said in the previous review that the last film took its time building to the resurrection of Dracula? Well for this entry that's right out the fuckin window. Dracula is resurrected before the two minute mark of the film has passed. How does it happen?
A random rubbery vampire bat flies up to Dracula's ashes and vomits blood on them. That's it. Also, his ashes have inexplicably teleported back to his castle after he was nowhere near it in the last film. It's ridiculous and hilarious.
This one had very little in the way of plot, and the little there is feels quite stretched out. To compensate, they raise the gore and body count to insane levels. Dracula gruesomely massacres an entire church full of villagers with his bats, stabs a woman to death (???), burns his servant, played by the Second Doctor no less, with a red hot sword, impales a character on a meathook four years before Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out, all sorts.
It's absolutely trashy and wild.
Yet frankly it's an improvement over the previous entry, in spite of said trashiness, or maybe because of it. It's entertaining nonsense. Christopher Lee gets a lot more to do as Dracula this time, which takes a sort of back to basics approach for Dracula. instead of having him out on a revenge quest again, the film just has him hanging around in his castle being a chilly but polite host to guests, who of course tries to feed on them later. He also has some of his powers from the novel, like controlling bats or climbing up sheer walls, and he has the most dialogue since the first film.
I need to give props to the ending too which features
Dracula being struck by lightning, bursting into flames and plummeting off his castle ramparts. No words
.
I'm tapping out on the Dracula series with this entry, I hear the remaining two, Dracula AD 1972 and Satanic Rites of Dracula, are hot garbage and I think I have really seen all there is to see by now.
A large leechlike parasite, genetically engineered to cause uncontrollable lust in its host population, infects the denizens of a high-class Canadian apartment building, and the next thing you know everyone's a sex zombie. Despite dating from the early 70s, this entertaining, influential David Cronenberg movie already has many of the body horror elements that would become his trademark.
overpowers, kills and strips a teenage girl before cutting open her stomach, pouring acid into the wound and then cutting his own throat with a scalpel
it's clear this isn't a film to shy away from violence and provocative imagery. Everyone gets infected in the movie, even kids, which leads to some extremely inappropriate parental behaviour at one point. I think transgressive is the word I'm looking for.
Verdict: Originally titled Orgy of the Blood Parasites, a name I really wish they'd kept, Shivers is frequently repulsive, always entertaining, and definitely recommended.
If ever there was further proof that Francis Ford Coppola lost at least part of his mind during or after the making of Apocalypse Now, his delirious and excessive adaptation of Dracula would be it.
Despite being the closest out of all the adaptations to its source material (even despite the incredibly large addition of a centuries spanning love story being the core of his vampiric affliction), it feels so very different. It has the blue fire in the woods, Dracula's hairy palms, and epistolary story telling, but everything is played with such manic theatricality that it eschews all the verisimilitude the novel strove for. Coppola gives in to a great many mad temptations with this film, from shooting it entirely on massive sets created on sound stages and employing exotic costumes from a famed Japanese designer. Even the performances are incredibly surreal, oscillating between terrible and intentionally off-putting though I'm still not entirely sure which is which. Coppola also amps up the sexual subtext of the story to lurid proportions, although it hews closer to the tone of softcore pornography than the risque artistry (probably?) it strives for. Although with this film's particularly twisted sense of humor, it's honestly hard to tell.
But I can easily forgive the mess that this film is because it's such an inventive and exuberant love letter to not just the source material but cinema itself. Meticulous storyboarding played a pivotal role during the production of this film and it shows, as even as some of the performative choices may be a bit..suspect, the visual storytelling at play is nothing short of astounding. Coppola uses dissolves, in-camera special effects, under-cranked dolly shots, and just about every other practical camera effect in the book to give absurd life to this madcap take on Dracula.
I can't leave out Oldman in all this, since it's his performance that holds this whole production together, with his particular brand of theatricality giving Dracula by turns horrifying and tragic presence that sets him clearly apart from the many other excellent takes on the character and places him among the best of them.
