Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) in Movies
Oct 2, 2021
Sweet lord, this was a chore to sit through. The Elm Street series managed to tread a pretty solid path up until this point. Even the iffy fourth entry has some merit, but The Dream Child just gloriously falls apart. For starters, and I really try not to be cynical, but I do like when movies in general follow a set of rules. The main rule for ANOES is simply, don't fall asleep if you want to stay alive. By Part 5, it's really unclear if this still applies, and no one involved is even pretending to be making a coherent film apparently I don't expect Oscar winning screenplays from cheesy slashers, but the dialogue is especially awful. The entire cast sound like they've been given different scripts, the editing is all over the place, even Freddy (who is now in full blown quip mode) is spaffing one-liners that don't make a lick of sense. Then there's the small matter of the narrative falling off the rails in almost every aspect.
The only saving grace is the abundance of practical gore, which is pretty decent for the most part, but otherwise, fuck this entire film man.
The only saving grace is the abundance of practical gore, which is pretty decent for the most part, but otherwise, fuck this entire film man.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Saw II (2005) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
At first glance, Saw 2 is, like most sequels, more of the same but bigger. We have the police looking for Jigsaw's latest victims and we have the victims themselves playing the games. This time, however the scope is much bigger. The victims are not just chained in one room, they have a whole house to explore and the whole game is much more personal for one of the detectives.
The thing is, Saw 2 manages to add to the law put down in the first film. It expands on Jigsaw's motivation, expands his plans and uses two characters from the first film, Amanda and the 'Pig' and reveals that they were/are the same person. It is these additions to the law that help make the Saw franchise stand out from some others. Other franchises have the slashers going around killing their victims and repeating the same few bits of information unless it is important to that film. Of course, a big part of saw 2 are the kills but it does work on furthering the story and laying the ground work for more films.
It goes with out saying that there is blood and gore in this film but it suites the tone and isn't as over the top or as unrealistic as some other films.
The thing is, Saw 2 manages to add to the law put down in the first film. It expands on Jigsaw's motivation, expands his plans and uses two characters from the first film, Amanda and the 'Pig' and reveals that they were/are the same person. It is these additions to the law that help make the Saw franchise stand out from some others. Other franchises have the slashers going around killing their victims and repeating the same few bits of information unless it is important to that film. Of course, a big part of saw 2 are the kills but it does work on furthering the story and laying the ground work for more films.
It goes with out saying that there is blood and gore in this film but it suites the tone and isn't as over the top or as unrealistic as some other films.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Serial Mom (1994) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
"𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳?"
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵!"
𝘔𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵: 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘐. Does anyone do the satirization of stuck-up suburban values as originally and/or as brutally entertaining as John Waters? Most other directors would have turned this into a threadbare lecture that refused to have any sort of fun. But here we have this beautiful concoction of B-movie theatrics, gore, pitch-perfect performances, jovial filth, rock-solid lampooning, and A1 comedy - so lovingly inspired by low-budget camp and slashers of the 60s-80s that it honestly could pass off as one in many respects. Kathleen Turner is a live wire - in one of the most religiously entertaining female performances of all time, it has a blast radius that would make a military warhead quake. This is the type of role that just demands your attention, perpetually switching between these polar opposite demeanors at the drop of a hat with expert-level talent and all game for the ensuing absurdity. Which on its own would have been enough to carry 93 minutes of fun but then the film is also super clever and uproarious without rest. Had an ear-to-ear smile on my face for most of the runtime and laughed so often that my mouth began to give out mid-laugh due to the muscles simply being too worn out from overwork. Quotable as fuck and every scene is memorable, a total killer.
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵!"
𝘔𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵: 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘐. Does anyone do the satirization of stuck-up suburban values as originally and/or as brutally entertaining as John Waters? Most other directors would have turned this into a threadbare lecture that refused to have any sort of fun. But here we have this beautiful concoction of B-movie theatrics, gore, pitch-perfect performances, jovial filth, rock-solid lampooning, and A1 comedy - so lovingly inspired by low-budget camp and slashers of the 60s-80s that it honestly could pass off as one in many respects. Kathleen Turner is a live wire - in one of the most religiously entertaining female performances of all time, it has a blast radius that would make a military warhead quake. This is the type of role that just demands your attention, perpetually switching between these polar opposite demeanors at the drop of a hat with expert-level talent and all game for the ensuing absurdity. Which on its own would have been enough to carry 93 minutes of fun but then the film is also super clever and uproarious without rest. Had an ear-to-ear smile on my face for most of the runtime and laughed so often that my mouth began to give out mid-laugh due to the muscles simply being too worn out from overwork. Quotable as fuck and every scene is memorable, a total killer.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated My Bloody Valentine (1981) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
My Bloody Valentine is an entertaining and somewhat charming slasher that released just as the sub genre was really gaining some traction.
Unfortunately, it suffers from a couple of things - a low budget that shows at times, and secondly, cuts made due to the MPAA in order to secure an R Rating. The wide released cut version loses its edge a little, an edge that really makes this movie stick in your brain.
The uncut version has some truly staggering gore effects here and there. All practical of course, and it's the kind of violence that genuinely adds to the overall experience.
MBV has plenty of positives to shout about - the on location shoot in a small mining town in Nova Scotia really adds a lot of personality to the back drop, and the whole second half of the film was filmed in a genuine mine. It feels authentic and genuine as a result.
The characters are all working class regular Joes as well, and feel relatable.
The killer, [spoiler alert] AKA Harry Warden, has of course earned a place in horror history. The gas mask and jumpsuit get up he wears alongside his humble pickaxe makes for a minimalist yet memorable villain.
There are better slashers out there for sure, but My Bloody Valentine is still a pretty damn good watch, especially on Valentine's Day - it works as a film to get cosy too with someone special, whilst simultaneously being a good tonic for someone who fucking hates everything about it. A stroke of genius in that respect!
Unfortunately, it suffers from a couple of things - a low budget that shows at times, and secondly, cuts made due to the MPAA in order to secure an R Rating. The wide released cut version loses its edge a little, an edge that really makes this movie stick in your brain.
The uncut version has some truly staggering gore effects here and there. All practical of course, and it's the kind of violence that genuinely adds to the overall experience.
MBV has plenty of positives to shout about - the on location shoot in a small mining town in Nova Scotia really adds a lot of personality to the back drop, and the whole second half of the film was filmed in a genuine mine. It feels authentic and genuine as a result.
The characters are all working class regular Joes as well, and feel relatable.
The killer, [spoiler alert] AKA Harry Warden, has of course earned a place in horror history. The gas mask and jumpsuit get up he wears alongside his humble pickaxe makes for a minimalist yet memorable villain.
There are better slashers out there for sure, but My Bloody Valentine is still a pretty damn good watch, especially on Valentine's Day - it works as a film to get cosy too with someone special, whilst simultaneously being a good tonic for someone who fucking hates everything about it. A stroke of genius in that respect!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Black Christmas (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2020
Fuck I really hated this.
Ignoring the politics side for a moment - it's a hugely poor horror film. It's devoid of any scares, it cuts away from any gore, and perhaps worst of all, it has the audacity to be called "Black Christmas" - which is quite simply one of the best slashers ever made.
Did this film even start as a Black Christmas remake? It basically goes: Men are shit - some people get killed offscreen - weird supernatural twist - oh shit, it's Black Christmas, better throw in a glass unicorn sculpture.
The supernatural part is something I'm not mad at actually - at least it tried something different rather than being a straight re tread.
Then of course, there's the aformentioned politics, which is what most people's issue is with this film. Feminist messages in horror movies can be hugely effective - the original Black Christmas does it well for example - but I can't help but feel that the message this version putting out there is severely mishandled. As a guy, I am willing to hear how I'm wrong in this instance, but it feels sooooo over the top with what it's trying to do. It's not too hard to be on board with for the most part, but the final scenes really go for it - I mean the lines "you're insane!" "No, we're just men" - really!? It just feels very in the nose to me.
Other than that, this film is turd. It gets a star for Imogen Poots and the creative snow angel death scene at the start. Watch the original instead.
Ignoring the politics side for a moment - it's a hugely poor horror film. It's devoid of any scares, it cuts away from any gore, and perhaps worst of all, it has the audacity to be called "Black Christmas" - which is quite simply one of the best slashers ever made.
Did this film even start as a Black Christmas remake? It basically goes: Men are shit - some people get killed offscreen - weird supernatural twist - oh shit, it's Black Christmas, better throw in a glass unicorn sculpture.
The supernatural part is something I'm not mad at actually - at least it tried something different rather than being a straight re tread.
Then of course, there's the aformentioned politics, which is what most people's issue is with this film. Feminist messages in horror movies can be hugely effective - the original Black Christmas does it well for example - but I can't help but feel that the message this version putting out there is severely mishandled. As a guy, I am willing to hear how I'm wrong in this instance, but it feels sooooo over the top with what it's trying to do. It's not too hard to be on board with for the most part, but the final scenes really go for it - I mean the lines "you're insane!" "No, we're just men" - really!? It just feels very in the nose to me.
Other than that, this film is turd. It gets a star for Imogen Poots and the creative snow angel death scene at the start. Watch the original instead.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated There's Someone Inside Your House (2021) in Movies
Jun 2, 2022
Movie starts with a young teen coming home, the house is empty but the egg timer is ticking away, he calls out to see if anybody is home but there is no answer and he thinks nothing of it, finishes his phone conversation and goes to sleep. He is woken up in the middle of the night by the egg timer which is now in his room, this freaks him out and he calls the police, but is interrupted by random photos placed around the house of a secret he has been keeping and we soon have our first kill. A video of his secret is then sent to everyone and as this video also contains another jock, that jock is shunned at school and ends up sitting with a different group of teens, which is who the movie follows.
After the second kill, everyone becomes aware that the killer is going after those with a secret, meaning bad news for one of the teens.
This movie has many cliches used in teen Slashers, such as running anywhere but outside when trying to escape the killer, going to parties despite a killer being on the loose, the killer wearing a mask, people blaming each other and of course the killer having a plan to frame someone. Despite this (and the look a like masks which bared no resemblance to the victims) I did enjoy this movie. The acting wasn't spot on all the time but good enough for me. I also felt that the music wasn't right for the movie as it had more of a strangers things vibe than horror.
After the second kill, everyone becomes aware that the killer is going after those with a secret, meaning bad news for one of the teens.
This movie has many cliches used in teen Slashers, such as running anywhere but outside when trying to escape the killer, going to parties despite a killer being on the loose, the killer wearing a mask, people blaming each other and of course the killer having a plan to frame someone. Despite this (and the look a like masks which bared no resemblance to the victims) I did enjoy this movie. The acting wasn't spot on all the time but good enough for me. I also felt that the music wasn't right for the movie as it had more of a strangers things vibe than horror.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) in Movies
Apr 27, 2022
The Hellraiser franchise has certainly hit some low notes by the eight entry in the series, but you know what? Hellworld ain't one of those low notes, and this a hill I am willing to die on.
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
It's without a doubt, the cheesiest Hellraiser thus far, and the first one to really lean into the dumb, sex-crazed teenager horror usually associated with slashers. It kind of works. There's a bit of an identity crisis going on. It's part slasher (complete with an I Know What You Did Last Summer set up), part typical Hellraiser, part Saw (this was the mid 00s after all), part haunted house horror. Suffice to say, there's a lot going on, and the plot even manages a semi decent twist during the climax which is a rarity with these later entries. It sometimes feels a bit muddled but most importantly, it's something different at this point! 5-7 all feel VERY similar so I can respect the fresh angle Hellworld was aiming for. Throw Lance Henriksen into the mix, alongside a returning Doug Bradley (unfortunately with little screentime yet again), and some early roles from Henry Cavill, Katheryn Winnick, and Khary Payton, and you have a pretty solid cast doing their best to traverse a typical low budget horror script. When all is said and done, it ain't too shabby, and even has the courtesy to include some memorable gore, and brings back the much loved Chatterer.
Hellworld is way more entertaining than it has any right to be, and is easily the best of the Rick Bota trilogy, which isn't exactly a high bar to clear, granted. Either way, it deserves more love!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
Part V of the Friday the 13th franchise is an absolute blast, and no one can tell me otherwise. Is it silly? Definitely. Does it go overboard with its goofy characters a little too often? Damn right it does (pretty sure someone gets called "a dildo" at one point) Are there better Friday films out there? Yes sir, but none of this stops the fact that Part V is a decent, entertaining, smack bang middle of the 80s slasher.
The killer this time around isn't Jason Voorhees, even if it is only by name, and this "mystery" surrounding the killers identity achieves two things - 1. It adds a whodunnit element to the series, otherwise only ever seen in the original and 2. It keeps the killer offscreen for most of the runtime, saving budget costs by not showing much in terms of kills (although that belt against the tree death is a doozy). This results in a less gory sequel, especially after the more brutal Part IV, but it's not a big issue. The whole thing almost feels like an R-Rated episode of Scooby-Doo. The reveal of the killer is definitely weak though. Not enough set up means and underwhelming payoff.
There are soooooooo many characters in this. I swear there are still new ones being introduced up until the last 20 minutes, and they're all just body count fodder for "Jason". Not necessarily a bad thing, pretty standard practice by now. I did like little Reckless Reggie. That dude is awesome. Way more awesome than Tommy Jarvis, who is just a whiny bitch for the whole runtime. Thankfully Thom Mathews is just around the corner.
It's not the best Friday movie, but far from being the worst. As far as 80s slashers go, it's damn good time.
The killer this time around isn't Jason Voorhees, even if it is only by name, and this "mystery" surrounding the killers identity achieves two things - 1. It adds a whodunnit element to the series, otherwise only ever seen in the original and 2. It keeps the killer offscreen for most of the runtime, saving budget costs by not showing much in terms of kills (although that belt against the tree death is a doozy). This results in a less gory sequel, especially after the more brutal Part IV, but it's not a big issue. The whole thing almost feels like an R-Rated episode of Scooby-Doo. The reveal of the killer is definitely weak though. Not enough set up means and underwhelming payoff.
There are soooooooo many characters in this. I swear there are still new ones being introduced up until the last 20 minutes, and they're all just body count fodder for "Jason". Not necessarily a bad thing, pretty standard practice by now. I did like little Reckless Reggie. That dude is awesome. Way more awesome than Tommy Jarvis, who is just a whiny bitch for the whole runtime. Thankfully Thom Mathews is just around the corner.
It's not the best Friday movie, but far from being the worst. As far as 80s slashers go, it's damn good time.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated 31 (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2018 (Updated Feb 3, 2018)
Richard Brake (2 more)
Some interesting dialogue
Cliffhanger ending
Blood, guts and profanity... my 3 favorite things
I am and always will be a horror movie fan. And a Rob Zombie fan as well. While most in the horror community dispose the man, and do their best to ignore his reimagining of John Carpenter's beloved Halloween. I get his vision. I understand his process.
In 31, Zombie goes out of his way to remind us all of why he is here in this genre and why he should be here to stay.
The script penned for this flick is nothing short of dreadful, but in a good horror film That's what you want. His dialogue is full of pull no punches vulgarity that would make anyone blush. And his pattern of killing off his stars is brutal to say the least.
Capped with an amazing performance by Richard Brake, who from the beginnng of movie, let's you know that he "ain't no fucking clown!!!".
His ability to capture the true disgustingness that lives in every single one of us, that fire that burns in your body when someone cuts you off when your driving to work. Or bumps into you while walking by. That feeling that says, "Fuck, I'd love to kill that person,"... well he lets the beast out in this film.
He turns 5 mild mannered hippie carnies into vicious animalistic slashers. Killing at first out of that need for survival. Then killing because they had to do it. And finally killing because they were starting to enjoy it.
Zombie does what he does, sets them up to be knocked down as only he can. Chuck I'm some great one liners and awesome profanity filled dialogue, sprinkle it with some over the top kickass blood filled deaths and an acting performance by Richard Brake that I can't help but praise and you have a recipe for a disturbing good time. As Doomhead suggests in the opening sequence of 31. In hell everyone loves popcorn.
In 31, Zombie goes out of his way to remind us all of why he is here in this genre and why he should be here to stay.
The script penned for this flick is nothing short of dreadful, but in a good horror film That's what you want. His dialogue is full of pull no punches vulgarity that would make anyone blush. And his pattern of killing off his stars is brutal to say the least.
Capped with an amazing performance by Richard Brake, who from the beginnng of movie, let's you know that he "ain't no fucking clown!!!".
His ability to capture the true disgustingness that lives in every single one of us, that fire that burns in your body when someone cuts you off when your driving to work. Or bumps into you while walking by. That feeling that says, "Fuck, I'd love to kill that person,"... well he lets the beast out in this film.
He turns 5 mild mannered hippie carnies into vicious animalistic slashers. Killing at first out of that need for survival. Then killing because they had to do it. And finally killing because they were starting to enjoy it.
Zombie does what he does, sets them up to be knocked down as only he can. Chuck I'm some great one liners and awesome profanity filled dialogue, sprinkle it with some over the top kickass blood filled deaths and an acting performance by Richard Brake that I can't help but praise and you have a recipe for a disturbing good time. As Doomhead suggests in the opening sequence of 31. In hell everyone loves popcorn.