Search
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.
A Bleaker Predicklement
Games
App
The year is 1884 and Victorian London is ready for the greatest Adventure ever told. Part story,...
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Eaten Alive (1977) in Movies
Mar 2, 2019 (Updated Mar 2, 2019)
He's out there and he's got murder on his mind!
When a films opening line, said with a southern drawl, is "My name is Buck and I'm rarin to fuck", you know you're in for a treat. The actor responsible for it's delivery is a pre Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund who's main aim is to screw women in a very uncomfortable place, and I don't mean in the back of a VW. This opening line obviously made an impression on Quentin Tarantino as he later stole it for the equally unpleasant coma rapist, Buck in Kill Bill Vol 1. Either that or he had overheard Harvey Weinstien whisper it to a pot plant.
Director Tobe Hooper once again sticks it to the southern redneck after having painted them as cannibal, inbred, power tool enthusiasts in his previous film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.
The basic premise of this movie is a guy who runs a B&B and isn't too fond of the local brothel and consequently likes to feed it's clients to his pet Crocodile. Yep you heard me. Crocodile, not alligator... Crocodile. And that really is it in a nutshell.
Unlike Texas Chain Saw which, while not especially gory but very gritty and full of moments of tension, (see the drawn out dinner table, hammer scene), this is more straight up gore flick and lacks almost everything that made Hoopers earlier film top of most people's 10 best horror movie list.
I'm not saying that this film isn't worth your time. It does have a silly charm all of its own and while pretty whacky I do tend to enjoy it. Robert Englund appears to be having fun building on that nasty streak that he will later put to such good use in A Nightmare on Elm Street. The film also stars Texas Chain Saw final girl Marilyn Burns.
Don't watch this expecting great things because this isn't Texas Chain Saw. It isn't even Texas Chain Saw 2, (that film had Leatherface and Dennis Hopper square off in a Chainsaw sword fight so I won't hear a bad word against it).
Not brilliant but certainly not bad so give it a watch.
Director Tobe Hooper once again sticks it to the southern redneck after having painted them as cannibal, inbred, power tool enthusiasts in his previous film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.
The basic premise of this movie is a guy who runs a B&B and isn't too fond of the local brothel and consequently likes to feed it's clients to his pet Crocodile. Yep you heard me. Crocodile, not alligator... Crocodile. And that really is it in a nutshell.
Unlike Texas Chain Saw which, while not especially gory but very gritty and full of moments of tension, (see the drawn out dinner table, hammer scene), this is more straight up gore flick and lacks almost everything that made Hoopers earlier film top of most people's 10 best horror movie list.
I'm not saying that this film isn't worth your time. It does have a silly charm all of its own and while pretty whacky I do tend to enjoy it. Robert Englund appears to be having fun building on that nasty streak that he will later put to such good use in A Nightmare on Elm Street. The film also stars Texas Chain Saw final girl Marilyn Burns.
Don't watch this expecting great things because this isn't Texas Chain Saw. It isn't even Texas Chain Saw 2, (that film had Leatherface and Dennis Hopper square off in a Chainsaw sword fight so I won't hear a bad word against it).
Not brilliant but certainly not bad so give it a watch.