Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Viy (Spirit of Evil) (1967) in Movies
Sep 21, 2021
Soviet horror movie from the 1960s rather unexpectedly turns out to be a close spiritual cousin of the kind of films that Hammer et al were making in the west at the same time. A trainee priest finds himself compelled to spend three nights reading prayers over the body of (supposedly) a wealthy landowner's daughter - but the corpse bears a striking resemblance to that of a witch he earlier killed...
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
Not the longest of films, which is just as well as the pacing may require patience on the part of the viewer; after a very eerie sequence early on, there's a long wait until the stuff with the protagonist's vigil in the second half. Nevertheless, it's worth it, mainly because the special effects are remarkably good, well up to the standard of equivalent western films of the same period (and probably better). Not particularly scary or graphic by modern standards, but the climax has a creepy sort of power to it and the overall impression is of a classy and well-made film; if there's a political subtext to it, it's very well-hidden.
Darren Fisher (2436 KP) rated 13 Dolls In Darkness (2017) in Movies
Jul 24, 2022
I have been an obsessive fan of horror films since I was a kid in the 70's. Brought up on Hammer and Universal monster films it wasn't long before I delved into pre-cert exploitation films and that is where my preference has been ever since.
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Over the last 20 years I have felt that the horror genre hasn't really offered it's fans anything new (bar a few exceptions). Having been left despondent, disappointed and bored senseless by the over-saturation of remakes, reboots and just plain dull horror fare, it comes with great surprise that a black and white silent film from Australia would be the breath of fresh air that the horror genre desperately needs.
The plot of 13 Dolls is pretty straightforward. Marjorie receives a letter from her ailing mother to return home after a 13 year absence. On her return home Marjorie realises that things are not what they seem...
Written and directed by the talented Zeda Müller, this is a film that demands your attention from the start. With its eerie score and moody camerawork it sets a very atmospheric and claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It's a great take on the 'old dark house' horrors of a bygone era, Robert Wiene and Tod Brownings early work springs to mind... yet draws on influences from the likes of Dario Argento, Mario Bava's gothic horrors, giallo and slasher films (there are some nicely placed references for the sharp-eyed viewer). The fact that this is a silent film (I'll get to the score in a bit) actually works in its favour. Gone are the usual mundane dialogue pieces that fill out most horror films these days and the viewer is reintroduced to dialogue cards when required to move the story along. This also means that the actors are given room to act through expression and emotion and they all do a sterling job.
The masterstroke of 13 Dolls though is the excellent use of camerawork and soundtrack. The soundtrack is interspliced with sound effects (church bells, howling wind, dripping taps etc) and moody piano/tension building synths, all used to full sensory effect. The footage and score intertwine brilliantly together and I found some scenes genuinely eerie and creepy (a rare feeling for me whilst watching a new film these days).
Overall 13 Dolls is a mesmerising experience, interspersed with some cleverly executed gore scenes, and at a scant 75 minutes long, it motors along at a cracking pace.
So, you have probably guessed that I liked this film a lot. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you are looking for something different. It's a great film and I for one am looking forward to Zeda Müller & Co's next venture...!
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Plague of the Zombies (1966) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Plague of the Zombies starts when Sir James Forbes (Morell) takes his daughter Sylvia (Clare) to Cornwell, to help a for student of his Dr Peter Tompson (Williams) with a string of cases which can’t be explained by the normal science.
When Peter’s wife Alice (Pearce) dies, the two try to figure out what killed her, only what they discover isn’t human. Soon it appears the village is being over run by the zombies and they must hunt down the master controlling them.
Thoughts on The Plague of the Zombies
Characters – Sir James Forbes is the respected doctor that gets called upon to help with an unknown medical case, he will help his former student uncover the case, he does believe something unusual is going on and starts to worry about his daughter. Sylvia is the daughter that goes on the journey, she becomes the target from the master who wants her to become his bride. She is the typical 60’s damsel in distress. Dr Peter Tompson is the one who called for help knowing his mentor wouldn’t let him down when it comes to figuring out the unexplainable. Alice is Peter’s wife that is the latest to become cursed with what is happening within the village, she makes it feel more personal for the two doctors.
Performances – Andre Morell as the more experienced doctor is entertaining to watch through the film, he fits the wiser role with ease. Diane Clare fits your typical 60’s horror figure for the era, never doing much more than screaming. Brooke Williams doesn’t make his character feel like a doctor though.
Story – The story follows a doctor that is asked to investigate a new outbreak of a disease in a small village, only to learn it has connection to voodoo and zombies. We must think that this story was put together before zombie movies had over taken the world, the idea behind voodoo and zombies was always a connection which works for the ideas being used in this story. the story might not be the most intense and does end up being rather safe with how everything being handled, never managing to reach any level of creepiness which could be associated with voodoo zombie creation.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from the ideas of zombies and voodoo, which for the time, was one of the scarier elements of horror, even if it has been watered down in the modern era.
Settings – The film is set in a small Cornwell village, which shows us how the community has become considered, while also showing how the community could stick together with a more evil idea going on.
Special Effects – The effects in the film comes from the zombie creations, which show us a wonderful use of make-up, with other elements of the film coming from how injuries are inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – Alice rises.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not as creepy as it could be.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that when released would have gotten more scares, now it has dated and just doesn’t connect the audience in the same way it once did.
Overall: Hammer horror 101
When Peter’s wife Alice (Pearce) dies, the two try to figure out what killed her, only what they discover isn’t human. Soon it appears the village is being over run by the zombies and they must hunt down the master controlling them.
Thoughts on The Plague of the Zombies
Characters – Sir James Forbes is the respected doctor that gets called upon to help with an unknown medical case, he will help his former student uncover the case, he does believe something unusual is going on and starts to worry about his daughter. Sylvia is the daughter that goes on the journey, she becomes the target from the master who wants her to become his bride. She is the typical 60’s damsel in distress. Dr Peter Tompson is the one who called for help knowing his mentor wouldn’t let him down when it comes to figuring out the unexplainable. Alice is Peter’s wife that is the latest to become cursed with what is happening within the village, she makes it feel more personal for the two doctors.
Performances – Andre Morell as the more experienced doctor is entertaining to watch through the film, he fits the wiser role with ease. Diane Clare fits your typical 60’s horror figure for the era, never doing much more than screaming. Brooke Williams doesn’t make his character feel like a doctor though.
Story – The story follows a doctor that is asked to investigate a new outbreak of a disease in a small village, only to learn it has connection to voodoo and zombies. We must think that this story was put together before zombie movies had over taken the world, the idea behind voodoo and zombies was always a connection which works for the ideas being used in this story. the story might not be the most intense and does end up being rather safe with how everything being handled, never managing to reach any level of creepiness which could be associated with voodoo zombie creation.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from the ideas of zombies and voodoo, which for the time, was one of the scarier elements of horror, even if it has been watered down in the modern era.
Settings – The film is set in a small Cornwell village, which shows us how the community has become considered, while also showing how the community could stick together with a more evil idea going on.
Special Effects – The effects in the film comes from the zombie creations, which show us a wonderful use of make-up, with other elements of the film coming from how injuries are inflicted.
Scene of the Movie – Alice rises.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not as creepy as it could be.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that when released would have gotten more scares, now it has dated and just doesn’t connect the audience in the same way it once did.
Overall: Hammer horror 101
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dracula (1958) in Movies
Nov 5, 2020 (Updated Nov 5, 2020)
The Vampire Rises Once More
Dracula- is a great movie. Hammer films is a excellent studio, cause their brought back the universal monsters and put their own spin on it. And with Dracula their put their own spin on Dracula. And did it work, yes.
First Christopher Lee played as the creature in The Curse of Frankenstien, now he plays as Dracula. When you think of Dracula you think of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Christopher Lee played Dracula more times then Bela Lugosi. But both actors are iconic, legends and icons.
The plot: On a search for his missing friend Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen), vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is led to Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle. Upon arriving, Van Helsing finds an undead Harker in Dracula's crypt and discovers that the count's next target is Harker's ailing fiancée, Lucy Holmwood (Carol Marsh). With the help of her brother, Arthur (Michael Gough), Van Helsing struggles to protect Lucy and put an end to Count Dracula's parasitic reign of terror.
In the United States, the film was retitled Horror of Dracula to avoid confusion with the U.S. original by Universal Pictures, 1931's Dracula.
Its a excllent film.
First Christopher Lee played as the creature in The Curse of Frankenstien, now he plays as Dracula. When you think of Dracula you think of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Christopher Lee played Dracula more times then Bela Lugosi. But both actors are iconic, legends and icons.
The plot: On a search for his missing friend Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen), vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is led to Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle. Upon arriving, Van Helsing finds an undead Harker in Dracula's crypt and discovers that the count's next target is Harker's ailing fiancée, Lucy Holmwood (Carol Marsh). With the help of her brother, Arthur (Michael Gough), Van Helsing struggles to protect Lucy and put an end to Count Dracula's parasitic reign of terror.
In the United States, the film was retitled Horror of Dracula to avoid confusion with the U.S. original by Universal Pictures, 1931's Dracula.
Its a excllent film.
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
The Boys is adrenaline fueled "shock" TV at its best. It is begging you to watch it, even if it sometimes makes it hard to watch. But what makes The Boys work so well is under all the drugs, sex and violence, it has a lot to say.
The show follows Billy Butcher (Karl Urban) as he recruits a team of people who have bern wronged by Superheroes. In The Boys universe, the superheroes tend to not care so much about callateral damage, and honestly, most of them are douchebags (think Captain Hammer from Dr Horrible's evil singalong blog) .
As we learn more about their word the show not only becomes an obvious satire on superhero culture, but the our society as a hole. The religion episode, is one that really stands out as not being afraid to take shots.
The effects, mostly work pretty well, and nothing was bad enough to take me out of the escapeism. The acting is a bit all over the place, but Karl Urban really commands the screen.
It should be said that this is not for everyone. It is one of the mist graphic (non horror) things I have ever seen, and if you're not used to it you may find yourself checking out early. If you can handle the violence, it's worth it
The show follows Billy Butcher (Karl Urban) as he recruits a team of people who have bern wronged by Superheroes. In The Boys universe, the superheroes tend to not care so much about callateral damage, and honestly, most of them are douchebags (think Captain Hammer from Dr Horrible's evil singalong blog) .
As we learn more about their word the show not only becomes an obvious satire on superhero culture, but the our society as a hole. The religion episode, is one that really stands out as not being afraid to take shots.
The effects, mostly work pretty well, and nothing was bad enough to take me out of the escapeism. The acting is a bit all over the place, but Karl Urban really commands the screen.
It should be said that this is not for everyone. It is one of the mist graphic (non horror) things I have ever seen, and if you're not used to it you may find yourself checking out early. If you can handle the violence, it's worth it
Jean-Pierre Gorin recommended The Honeymoon Killers (1970) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Rasputin, the Mad Monk (1966) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Mad Monk
Rasputin, The Mad Monk- is a entertaining horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Dec 14, 2017
I put off seeing this movie for the longest time. At one point I didn't want to see it. I thought I had seen a lot of movies just like it. But this was definitely something different.
From the start of the movie you just new something crazy was going to happen. You see a black guy just snatched from the street and you just know something is going down. Now I thought all the men were brought to the house by the girl, because that just was how it looked by the photos in her closet. So it was kind of weird to see the brother kidnap someone at the start of the movie. But it just showed how insane the family was.
Like most horror movies they always start very lighthearted. You have the fun girlfriend, the smart ass best friend and even the cute little dog. Then as the movie progresses it really makes you start to get nervous in the right places. You know something is gong to happen but you don't know what. And then BAM! They lay the hammer down and you know you better run. Now the twist was done in a very curious way, they didn't just throw it in your face like some horror movies. They really eased you in and took there time to let it play out.
One cool thing I liked about the movie is the comic relief every once in awhile. I think it made it seem more real and then back into the shit. But thats what you get with Jordan Peele. By the time you got to the end you knew what was going to happen and that's ok, sometimes you can still enjoy a movie when you know how it will end.
Last thing I will say is the this movie had an Eli Roth feel to it. If you have never seen his movies, shame on you. But it was really refreshing to see a movie that another director did that had the same appeal. A lot of time you get a director or writer trying to copy another style and just failing, but this worked out regardless of Jordan trying to mimic that style or not.
Well thats about all the time I have. Please leave comments below if you agree with me or not. Pass out those kodus. Until next time, enjoy the show.
From the start of the movie you just new something crazy was going to happen. You see a black guy just snatched from the street and you just know something is going down. Now I thought all the men were brought to the house by the girl, because that just was how it looked by the photos in her closet. So it was kind of weird to see the brother kidnap someone at the start of the movie. But it just showed how insane the family was.
Like most horror movies they always start very lighthearted. You have the fun girlfriend, the smart ass best friend and even the cute little dog. Then as the movie progresses it really makes you start to get nervous in the right places. You know something is gong to happen but you don't know what. And then BAM! They lay the hammer down and you know you better run. Now the twist was done in a very curious way, they didn't just throw it in your face like some horror movies. They really eased you in and took there time to let it play out.
One cool thing I liked about the movie is the comic relief every once in awhile. I think it made it seem more real and then back into the shit. But thats what you get with Jordan Peele. By the time you got to the end you knew what was going to happen and that's ok, sometimes you can still enjoy a movie when you know how it will end.
Last thing I will say is the this movie had an Eli Roth feel to it. If you have never seen his movies, shame on you. But it was really refreshing to see a movie that another director did that had the same appeal. A lot of time you get a director or writer trying to copy another style and just failing, but this worked out regardless of Jordan trying to mimic that style or not.
Well thats about all the time I have. Please leave comments below if you agree with me or not. Pass out those kodus. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.