# The Horror Film Watch



## ravenus

*THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE - John Hough*


Adapted by horror master Richard Matheson from his own book _Hell House_, this is a modern day take on the haunted house or Bad Place (as Stephen King would refer to it) archetype. The protagonists, a physicist with experience in parapsychology and two psychic mediums are courted by an offer of $100, 000 each if they can exorcise the notorious Balasko mansion - Hell House - a repository of shocking perversion during the life of its owner and fearful even after because of bizarre events that have caused the death of almost all the members of two previous missions to cure its evils.

What differentiates this from countless other films that deal with haunted houses is the constant juxtaposition of the hard-headed rational with the supernatural. The characters are well fleshed out and refreshingly non-stereotypical. The testy arguments between the medium and the physicist make for gripping viewing, and no small credit to the actors that play them superlatively. Hough's direction is very intense and it's a great surprise that he never did any thing else of much consequence. The other highlights of the film are the excellent sets and absolutely spectacular visuals (by Alan Hume whose work spans from the _Carry On_ films to _Return of The Jedi_) - I am guessing that Kubrick got some of his ideas for _The Shining_ from this film. The only disappointment, apart from a couple of silly Argento-esque scenes involving a black cat, comes from the hokey climax exorcism. But even with this caveat, this film remains a must-see in the lists of the true horror fan.


*PS:* I think this thread ought to be made a sticky, what say?


----------



## Foxbat

Ravenus: I've moved your post to Reviews because, quite frankly, I think you've written a very good review of the film. 

I like the idea of having 'Film Watch' stickys (could have one for SciFi, Fantasy etc.) but I'll seek some further advice from the other mods.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Great stuff - site is being updated to include such reviews - are you up for that, Ravenus?


----------



## ravenus

I said:
			
		

> Great stuff - site is being updated to include such reviews - are you up for that, Ravenus?


 I would love to wrie about horror films, although my movie watching is restricted to what I get hold of, based on recommendations and reviews from people and sites I trust, which generally does not include the newer films.


----------



## ravenus

*KOLCHAK – THE NIGHT STALKER (John Moxey)* 

A modern-day re-telling of the vampire legend, Night Stalker was adapted for American television (ABC-TV) in ’71 by *Richard Matheson* from a novel by *Jeff Rice*. Since I have not read Rice’s novel and cannot attest to its quality, I will content myself with saying that this in most parts an excellently scripted film by Matheson, who with his rationalization of vampire lore in _I am Legend_ was an apt candidate for this adaptation. 

The setting is vulgar Las Vegas, the vampire is Skorzeny, a frightening quasi-animal being, and his nemesis, his Van Helsing, is Carl Kolchak, a down and out hard-nosed reporter looking for the scoop that will restore his name in the big circles. In gritty non-stylized fashion the film follows Kolchak’s attempt to cover the mysterious murders where the victims have been drained of blood and a robbery at the blood bank, all the while uttering rapid-fire reports into his tape-recorder. This is juxtaposed with the authorities’ clampdown on disbursing information, skillfully depicting Kolchak’s frustration at not being allowed to break out his big story. Initially believing the killer to be a maniac with a vampire fixation, Kolchak is forced to revise his skepticism when he sees Skorzeny brush off scores of policemen and their bullets without so much as a twinge. The climax has Kolchak tracking the vampire to his lair and vanquishing him, only to find his hopes for the big story squelched by city authority adamant about not scaring away business. 

Director John Moxey does an admirable job at the helm, always lending the proceedings a believably mundane (though in no way uninteresting) air. The acting is quite serviceable, with special mentions to *Darren McGavin* for Kolchak and *Barry Atwater* for Skorzeny. Skorzeny is splendidly depicted as a formidable loathsome beast, thanks to an adroit combination of shadowy shots, eerie non-flashy make-up and of course, Atwater’s performance. The use of a crucifix in the climax strikes me as the lone false note since even the deliberate irony of this cliché in an otherwise intensely contemporary narrative does not convince one to accept it without wincing.


----------



## Foxbat

Night Of The Living Dead

This is the restored version which is a part of the Trilogy Of  The Dead (Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead, Day Of The Dead). All directed by George A. Romero.

Night Of The Living Dead was made on a shoestring budget in 1968. Black and White, 4:3, mono sound. This new version has a much improved picture quality(although grainy in places)  and  sound (it doesn’t say so anywhere in the literature but I’d swear it was now a very subtle encoded Dolby 5.1) The film also claims to have an extra 15 minutes footage which should please all the Romerophiles out there in DVDLand. 

The very simple story of a group of individuals barricaded in a house - besieged by flesh-eating zombies is given a good shot in the arm by the added charge of claustrophobia and diverging viewpoints within the group. Cut off from the outside world, the limited choices drive this band of people to ever desperate measures. Meanwhile, the danger grows greater by the hour as more creatures converge on the house and inside, disparate minds seek their own survival – even if it costs their companions their lives.

It is a film that revels in its black and white simplicity – feeding on its stark surroundings just as the ever-present zombies try to feed on them. There are some very up and down performances from the actors – parts very wooden whilst in other scenes, life grips them as they desperately fight the monsters outside and simultaneously battle  the creatures of their own inner fears.  

For all its faults, this is a film that grips, that grinds and then buries our heroes into the dust. Romero is not scared to sacrifice his people, this is not your typical Hollywood, don’t expect it to be all roses at the end. 

This is a film that will make you think twice about taking that late night shortcut through the graveyard. Yeah, we know it’s all a load of rubbish…..still no point in tempting fate, is there?


----------



## Foxbat

Dawn Of The Dead: The second film in Anchor Bay’s recent release of  The Trilogy Of The Dead on DVD.

This time the Zombies are in colour- but still a 4:3 ratio. The disc transfer itself  gives a good, clear picture with very little colour leakage. There are a few moments of grain and a couple of times where bad bits of film make their appearance but, on the whole, very acceptable given its age and low budget origins. 

Where the disc falls down a little is on the sound. Whereas Night Of The Living Dead benefited from some very obvious reprocessing, the sound here seems to be a straight port (mono). But it gets worse, it sounds like the whole soundtrack has been recorded through an old sock. People who have invested heavily in the sound side of things might find this a bit irritating., On the whole, this is an annoying but not fatal flaw.

The film itself is iconic and probably needs little introduction here. Suffice to say that in many fans eyes this is _The_ Zombie flick. Our heroes are barricaded in a shopping mall – which leads to some very strong visuals. I just love the camera shots of Zombies and then switching to mannequins within the mall clothing departments. Also intriguing is the way the Zombies have some sort of instinct that leads them to this place. Just what exactly is Romero saying about us and our consumerist habits? Is there an irony in the fact that Zombies consume Humans in this shrine to consumerism?  Hmmm…I wonder.

And all this against a background of that irritating muzak we have come to expect in these places.
Again, the acting quality is variable and the whole film a tad on the long side - but very effective nonetheless. Even after so many years, there are still parts of this film that has me on the edge of my seat.

A highly recommended film that raises one final question: Why oh why won’t anybody give George Romero a really decent budget? The results could be very interesting.


----------



## Foxbat

Day Of The Dead: The final part of George A. Romero’s Zombie trilogy.The Dead have inherited the Earth. Mankind is in a minority.

The disc itself is a 1.85:1 ratio (which means it will fill the whole screen of your standard widescreen TV)  but is not anamorphic – which translates to: decent picture but not as good as it could have been. Of course, as always, this is probably more a budgetary limitation rather than a creative choice. Same for the sound. We’ve moved into the realms of stereo (after all – we are talking 1985) but nothing to write home about.

Here’s a fascinating fact – stereo was actually developed for film, not for music – and the first film to use a stereo soundtrack was Fantasia (1942….or thereabouts). 

Our heroes are now a mixture of military and scientist holed up in an old bunker. Above ground, a chainlink fence keeps back a horde of Zombies - whilst below, the scientists work on ways of combating the threat. Despite the use of a helicopter and radio, the group are not sure if they are the only ones to survive this holocaust – which adds tension and causes friction between the two factions. 

Oblivious to all of this, one scientist carries out his own grotesque experiments on the Living Dead, which provoke some moral questions both within the group and for the viewer. 

The Zombie make-up has, by now, improved considerably and moved away from the bog-standard gray face and ‘ketchup for blood’ routine. Now our walking dead are much more putrid and in various states of decay. Claustrophobia (enhanced by much dim artificial lighting)  is there in abundance – along with paranoia and the many other rollercoaster effects of being surrounded by hordes of creatures wishing to feast on your flesh.

The acting was quite okay in this one, although, by now, some of the characters have become a bit clichéd. Although they are all new to the trilogy, it is the usual cross-section of people you tend to find in these kinds of flicks – the paranoid captain, the mad scientist, the brute who gets upset if anybody hurts his pal, the guy who cracks and can’t take anymore (that would be me) and the token female.

A decent enough film but the weakest of the three in my opinion. I suppose it does exactly what it says on the tin. So, if you like Zombies and gore and all that stuff then give it a whirl.

If not….well…it kind of reminds me of a scene from another film – Natural Born Killers. An old Indian recites the story of a woman who finds a wounded snake. She takes it in and nurses it back to health – and then shows surprise when the snake bites her.
“Listen,” says the snake, “You knew what I was when you took me in”.
Nuff said.


----------



## ravenus

Is it alright to have discussions in the reviews threads?

Assuming so,
I really liked _Day of the Dead_ and my order of preference in the series would be Dawn-Day-Night. It had an intense claustrophobic atmsphere and I thought the performances were mostly quite excellent. I would specifically disagree with Foxbat for his 'token female' observation. I thought the female protagonist in Day was one of the best I've seen - capable and resourceful without trying to come across as gung-ho. I think all the women who bemoan the lack of good heroines should give this one a look.
In fact one sees a progression in strength of the women protagonists in the Dead series. In Night she is mostly a catatonic wreck, in Dawn she is braver and more resigned to her situation while in Day she is picking up the pieces and actively trying to put things back to normal.


----------



## ravenus

*MARTIN - George Romero*

Martin is a vampire but unlike any you have sen before. Stripped of all notions of the romantic and the supernatural he is seen more as a victim of grotesque circumstance and his own psychological makeup. Martin comes of a deeply disturbed stock with oppressive religious fixations and has a deeply introverted silent geeky personality. He comes to stay with a storekeeper uncle who believes he is actually an 84-year old vampire. This fantastic situation is brilliantly contrasted by the deliberately staid and prosaic setting of the movie. Romero gives us the American version of Orwell's Aspidistra community as the backdrop for his deconstruction of the vampire myth. Martin constantly taunts his uncle's superstitions about the nature of vampirism ("There is NO magic", he repeatedly says), but he IS driven by a bloodthirst, the origin of which is never really explained to us...is it pathological or psychological or what? We don't know. Martin hunts his victims, solitary women, injecting them with heavy sedative and then cutting their wrists to drink blood. He is also achingly hungry for sexual affection, clumsily wrapping his drugged victims around his naked self, trying to soothe them saying "Just go to sleep, it'll be alright."This tragic, sordid spectacle is contrasted with surreal B/W visions where Martin sees himself as a powerful vampire of an earlier age who is able to seduce his willing victims. The movie is filled with scenes of palpable bleakness and pitch-black ironic humor.

This is Romero's most visually creative film, with a brilliant juxtaposition of the real and surreal worlds of Martin. John Amplas is a brilliant fit in the title role - with his wonderfully expressive sorrowful eyes and his feline physique he makes us root for his character, even when he is slitting wrists and drinking blood. All the other characters are also performed brilliantly. In conclusion, I think this film makes a greater impact on me than the Living Dead series because it feels absolutely intimate and personal throughout.


----------



## ravenus

*HAXAN - Benjamin Christensen*

This was a brilliant silent film made circa 1922. The film primarily aims to provide a historical and social perspective on witchcraft in the medieval era. Christensen used different techniques to portray his vision - he starts off showing authentic ink illustrations depicting either actual witch trials or popular lore about witches showing them as servants of the devil. This part of the film seems almost quaint since a lot of the illustrations are of a crudely detailed variety, which is amusing but not really gripping from an aesthetic point of view. He intersperses the illustration with dramatized sequences depicting popular perceptions of witch-lore. Since this is a silent film the narrative is in the form of cue cards, and the shots are accompanied by a background of prominent classical pieces. Some of these dramatized sequences are amazingly well shot; the make up and costume for the demons is incredibly good and some of the special FX look very much ahead of the period in which the film was shot.

The film's core really takes life with its dramatized depiction of a typical witch-hunt scenario: the superstition-fueled paranoia of the masses which causes innocent folks to get labeled as witches, the methods of physical and mental torture used by the religious inquisitors to literally force these accused to 'confess' their guilt, and they in desperation and anger naming others as accomplices thus making for a vicious cycle of religious terror. The film depicts this in a deliberate matter-of-fact way that raises our emotion at the kind of injustice and anarchy that prevailed in the bygone societies. The screenplay and visual treatment is really brilliant in this segment and we get a palpable idea of the mass hysteria of that time.

The only problem IMO comes in the last stage when the film's social agenda cuts into its dramatic value by attempting to draw parallels between the perceptions of society in the medieval and modern age, about how a lot of what is accepted as psycho-somatic illness today would have been considered as witch-like behavior then.


----------



## ravenus

*Curse of Frankenstein - Terence Fisher*

*CoF* was the first of the Frankenstein movies made by Hammer Studios. Unlike the Universal films, Hammer's series focussed on the character of Dr. Viktor Frankenstein as opposed to the Creature (which many movie-goers mistakenly think is called Frankenstein). He is portrayed here as an obsessed and ruthless scientist who will brook no resistance and stop at nothing in his experiments, even going to the extent of killing an old man with the intent of obtaining his brain. He is not evil but utterly amoral, unconcerned with the theological implications of his work.

Given its qualification of being foremost a potboiler, this is quite a good film with some cool ideas in Jimmy Sangster's script and an _excellent_ performance by Peter Cushing as Viktor Frankenstein. Cushing breathes life into the role like few others can, making the doctor a thoroughly believable, if none too likeable, character.

The film has it's share of flaws: Besides fixing some of the more glaring plot holes, getting a slightly more stylish look and better actors for the supporting roles would have helped (though Christopher Lee in a brief role as the creature is good enough). But this is still definitely worth the watch and, in my view, a hell lot more entertaining than the stodgy 1994 Kenneth Branagh - Robert De Niro movie.


----------



## ravenus

*KWAIDAN - Masaki Kobayashi*

A set of 4 ghost stories, the last one left incomplete.
3 of the stories were shot well, but the fact that the stories were very slight and rather too predictable for the horror fan reduced their value for me. I'll talk about what I felt was the best episode in the lot

*Hoichi the Earless*

Hoichi's story is of a blind youth in a monastery who is called by a mysterious visitor to perform his rendition of the legend of the courageous Heike clan - not realizing that his visior comes from the spectral world and that he is actually performing for the ghosts of the Heike nobility. Sensing danger to his person, the priest has Hoichi's body painted over with holy scripture to render him invisible to the spectres, but something goes horribly wrong and the consequences are macabre.

With the advantage of a script that actually fills the bulk of its shooting length, Kobayashi has provided us with one of the most ravishing, sumptuous, *GODLIKE* visual experiences on screen. He often uses painted backdrops and the visual tones have a richness that suggests a painting more than a photograph. The composition and arrangement of shots is simply *MASTERFUL*, no two ways about it. Some annoyances like hastily bunged in slapstick humor but even that notwithstanding it remains indeed an awesome experience that one has been fortunate enough to face.


----------



## Foxbat

DVD Region 1 
*Dracula: The Legacy Collection*

This 1931 version by Universal provides Bela Lugosi at his finest. His mannerisms, accent and piercing eyes provide the yardstick against which all other Draculas are measured. The Director, Todd Browning provides a moody kind of filming and relies heavily on dialogue. In a sense, the lack of action adds credibility to this work – makes it in a way more thought provoking. Despite the special effects being quite limited at the time, the Dracula transformations are pulled of with subtlety and skill – usually relying on a description from another character, a shadow of a bat or just a panning of the camera. This, in a sense, adds to the air of menace that Dracula brings with him as he crosses the sea to England. The most powerful scene is probably when Van Helsing and Dracula meet for the first time – and the quality of acting here is first class. Also, in my opinion,   this film has the maddest, baddest and best Renfield  actor by a mile – just check out his laugh!

Somebody once said about Plan 9 From Outer Space that ‘No matter what time of day you watch this film, it always feels like you are watching it at three in the morning’.
The same can be said for Dracula. It just has that effect.

The actual transfer itself is fairly good but the film is really starting to show its age. There is some noticeable frame damage in places but not too much to detract from the film itself.

But why review a film of such age and one that is already so well known? 
Because, delve deep into this disk and there is a diamond waiting to be found. 

Let me set the scene:  I want to see a film as it was meant to be seen – with the best possible transfer to the new technology that pervades every moment of our modern lives.  I don’t like change and, in general, I’m not interested in extras on the DVD. It was almost by accident that I switched on the alternative score – composed by Philip Glass and performed by the Kronos Quartet. 

Simply amazing! This wonderful score is a masterpiece of incidental music. Unlike the original soundtrack which just kind of goes on and never really synchronises itself to the screen moments (is it Swan Lake? I can’t quite place it), this moody piece of brilliance rises and falls with the dialogue and action. It positively enhances, changes and…..I can’t believe I’m writing this….actually improves upon the original.

And finally: this is the Region 1 version which also includes the Spanish version (which many people say is actually better than Lugosi’s), Dracula’s Daughter, Son of Dracula and House of Dracula – all for below $30

If you buy the Region 2 version you get Dracula and House of Dracula.

If you have a multiregion player you’re laughing. If not, then let there be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as, yet again, Region 2 buyers lose out. But never fear, the R2 version is still worth buying just to get that new soundtrack alone  –so, all is not lost – and we have not yet all become God’s Madmen.


----------



## ravenus

*CREEPSHOW - George Romero* 

Creepshow arose from a collaboration between Romero and Stephen King, based on their mutual love for horror comics under the E.C. label. The hallmark of these stories is supposed to be their ironic humor wherein wicked/stupid people get their due punishment in macabre and often amusing ways. The film is designed as a campy comic-book type experience with deliberately one-dimensional characters that serve as wonderfully convenient victims for the bad things that happen to them. 

The movie consists of 5 main episodes. 

1. *'Father's day'* deals with a nasty old man that got his head busted in by his daughter while yelling for his cake on father's day. And one day he returns from the grave for his cake. Awful story, told also in a totally awful way. Complete waste of time, not even recommended for Ed Harris fans that want to catch his early acting roles. 

2. *'Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill'* is about a retarded hillbilly farmer who finds a meteorite in his farm and dreams of making money off it, only to find strange things happening to him. This one offers stray glimpses of backwoods humor and the dubious pleasure of a laughable performance by Stephen King (da man himself). 

3.*'Something to Tide You Over'* and 4. *'The Crate'*, both macabre revenge dramas. Romero is in much better form here, and extracts good performances from the lead actors in these stories. It's also nice to see Leslie _Naked Gun_ Nielsen in a non-trademark role as a ruthless husband who buries alive his wife and her lover in sand to have them slowly drowned by the tide. Tide also features some excelent juxtaposition of visuals to a competent keyboard score. But one flaw in both of these episodes is the use of gaudy colored lighting for the actual horror scenes. It looks terrible and greatly reduces the impact of the scenes. 

5.*'They're Creeping Up On You'* is the last and _best_ story of the lot. About a Howard Hawks inspired reclusive billionaire tyrant Upson Pratt (Fantastically portrayed by E.G. Marshall) who lives in a germ-proof apartment, shouting orders over the phone to his subordinates who he treats like dirt. Some marvellous black humor here, for example Pratt cheerily greeting the wife of the man he drove to shoot himself, saying "_I heard your husband went out with a bang_." 
Pratt's germ-proof fortress comes undone when he begins to notice roaches scampering across the place. The small trickle gradually increases and the final scenes showing the massive assault of roaches on Pratt's apartment and his person is not a sight for the squeamish.


----------



## littlemissattitude

ravenus said:
			
		

> 5.*'They're Creeping Up On You'* is the last and _best_ story of the lot. About a Howard Hawks inspired reclusive billionaire tyrant Upson Pratt (Fantastically portrayed by E.G. Marshall) who lives in a germ-proof apartment, shouting orders over the phone to his subordinates who he treats like dirt. Some marvellous black humor here, for example Pratt cheerily greeting the wife of the man he drove to shoot himself, saying "_I heard your husband went out with a bang_."
> Pratt's germ-proof fortress comes undone when he begins to notice roaches scampering across the place. The small trickle gradually increases and the final scenes showing the massive assault of roaches on Pratt's apartment and his person is not a sight for the squeamish.


Um, ravenus...I think you mean Howard Hughes, not Howard Hawks.  But it's a good oops, since Howard Hawks helped invent the "screwball comedy" which, as World Book Online tells us, "ridiculed the eccentric or silly behavior of wealthy characters."  Since Howard Hughes most certainly qualified as an eccentric, wealthy person, it's an appropriate juxtaposition to have made. 

By the way, there is a film coming out fairly soon about Howard Hughes's early life, called "The Aviator", directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes.

Sorry if this derails the thread.  Then again, as much of a non-fan of DiCaprio as I am, "The Aviator could turn out to be a horror film, at least for me.


----------



## ravenus

Quickies rather than full reviews but this'll have to do:

2 horror movies adapted from books I haven't read. 

*Salem's Lot - Tobe Hooper* 

This 2-part TV adaptation of *Stephen King*'s book, which in itself was a modern-day take on _Dracula_, turns out a very so-so movie with many meant-to-be-scary parts being rather hokey. The idea of an entire town of people being taken over by vampires never really comes across. It has some good parts like mostly due to some decent acting (especially *James Mason* as the Renfield replacement Straker), but tends to be dull on the whole. 



*The Devil Rides Out - Terence Fisher* 

Based on a *Dennis Wheatley* novel about a group of people fending off the diabolical advances of a black magic coven...that guy's supposed to have written a lot of pulps using the occult as plot device.

Anyway the film, produced by Britain's famous *Hammer Studios*, maintains a mostly energetic pace with the actors, headed by *Christopher Lee* (playing the good guy for a change) and *Charles Gray*, appearing to have a lot of fun in their roles (also catch a young *Paul Eddington* who went on to play that beloved bumbling politician in  BBC's _Yes Minister_ and _Yes Prime Minister_series). The campy goings-on are quite entertaining even if often inconsistent...in this movie Satan appears far more easily despatched than his alcolytes. After the 2/3rds mark, apart from a cool scene where the protagonists from inside a sacred circle face off against a variety of nasties including the Angel of Death himself, it flags somewhat and is not one of the classic Hammers but still a nice modern-day diversion from their usual horror flicks.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Thanks for those - interesting to find what the adaptions were like to film - and nice to see you still around.


----------



## koma

Dawn of the dead

Not the original, the remake...
Great film this, with FAST zombies as opposed to the old slow motion lot.
Can't really be compared to Romero's classic but is certainly worth watching...

Land of the dead

Romero's latest (and worst) effort.
A complete waste of time, money and effort. Don't bother...


----------



## Foxbat

*The Pete Walker Collection*

Starring: Susan George, Sheila Keith, Jack Jones, Leo Gen, Judy Huxtable,  and others.
Directed by: Pete Walker
Region 2 DVD

Anchor Bay presents us with a coffin shaped boxed set containing five movies by Pete Walker who is (arguably) one of the great shapers of British Horror. Unlike Hammer and its contemporaries, Walker avoids leaning on the Gothic trinity of mad scientists, monsters and the supernatural, he instead brings us the mundane normality that is middle class life in 1970s British culture. But beneath this veneer of  Home Counties suburbia there lurks a dark beast that lives  behind the twitching net curtains of those middle class dwellings. And in this sense, Walker is less Hammer and more leaning in the same direction of David Lynch when he unearthed what lay beneath the white picket fencing in America in shows such as Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet.

But Walker also likes his  horror straightforward and in your face. There is not a lot of subtlety once the action begins.

The collection starts with *Die Screaming Marianne* starring Susan George a few months before her infamous role as the victim in Sam Peckinpah’s _Straw Dogs_. This movie is more intrigue and less downright horror as it tells the tale of Marianne on the run from a mysterious figure called ‘The Judge’. 

Next up is *House Of  Whipcord* which begs the question – what would it actually be like if we took the law into our own hands. A blind ex-magistrate and an insane ex-prison governess do just that. The main significance of this movie is the appearance of Sheila Keith who plays a hard-faced and sadistic warden  -easily believable and incredible scary. Keith would go on to deservedly become a stalwart on the British horror scene.

*Frightmare *sees Keith back again, this time as a newly freed asylum intern…..the trouble is, she’s still absolutely crazy and soon goes back to her old ways…..lets just say that Walker was being imaginative with a drill long before _Driller Killer_ appeared on the scene.

*House Of  Mortal Sin *looks at the results when a sex starved, crazy priest finally loses it for good. For the third time, Sheila Keith makes an appearance as the sadistic lead villainess and, as usual, steals the show.

*The Comeback *stars seventies crooner Jack Jones (never heard of him) and has some nice set pieces of more straightforward horror. It is probably notable for the appearance of  Bill Owen who later went on to great fame in _Last Of The Summer Wine._

All in all, not a bad bunch at £29.99. The film quality is not the greatest and it looks like most were just straight transfers from other mediums with little or no tidy up but they are still all quite watchable. I think the most notable thing when viewing a collection like this is how what was once so shocking is now not even blinked at. 
And with that in mind, I have to say that this collection is not for those of you out there brought up on the latest CGI or brain blasting sound effects. These movies were made in the days when slide rules were the tip of technology and the only digits worth counting were your fingers(if you don’t know what I’m talking about, ask somebody over 40).

 Still, if you are a bit of a connoisseur of Horror and fancy a tipple of vintage British seventies screen screams, this is definitely worth having a look at.


----------



## The_Warrior

*The Hills have Eyes Remake*


ick


----------



## Addy

koma said:


> Dawn of the dead
> 
> Not the original, the remake...
> Great film this, with FAST zombies as opposed to the old slow motion lot.
> Can't really be compared to Romero's classic but is certainly worth watching...
> 
> Land of the dead
> 
> Romero's latest (and worst) effort.
> A complete waste of time, money and effort. Don't bother...



I actually liked Land of the Dead. Better than any recent remakes, in my view.

I suggest you guys also watch Shawn of the Dead. A hilarious zombie movie spoof.


----------



## Sabina

This is juxtaposed with the authorities’ clampdown on disbursing information, skillfully depicting _Kolchak’s_ frustration at not being allowed to break out his big story.


----------



## aquamarine

*Horrorible,Horrorible..........T_T*


----------



## Who's Wee Dug

Just watched 30 Days of Night a very atmospheric and forboding dark,dark film.


----------



## Lemmy

It's been a while since this thread was updated, so allow me to continue where it left off with a few reviews. Some good, some bad, some old, some new. We'll have something for everyone over here. 

Let's start with a little movie called *[rec]*.  It's a spanish movie with a rather simple premise. A reporter for a spanish tv-channel visits a firestation at night to make a report on their lives and work. Naturally she brings her cameraman with her, and we see the entire movie through his camera. Very much like in movies like Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. It's an effective way to get right down there with them, so you won't feel as distant from the action as you usually do in other movies.

The reporter and her cameraman visits the firestation, as I said, and as it's night, not much is going on. But then all of a sudden an alarm goes off, and they think it's a great chance to get some action. They go with the firemen to an apartment building where someone have heard strange noises coming from the room above. It's occupied by an old woman, and they fear she might have had an accident or something and that her life might be in danger. Only it turns out they were part right. Lives are in danger, alright. Everyone's lives...

When I first saw [rec], I wasn't sure waht to expect. I don't usually watch spanish movies as I hate to read subtitles, but [rec] is really well done and made me forget everything outside the screen. In fact, after fifteen minutes, I had forgotten they were speaking spanish. When the horror part kicks in, it's relentless and brutal, and far better than anything Hollywood has come up with the last decade. Some of the special effects are bad, but not so much it matters. But there are so many other, small things going on that you get sucked into the story right away, and it keeps you there until the end credits roll. I have seen a lot of horror movies the last twenty five years, but [rec] is by far one of the best ones. 
*Verdict: 9/10*


*Lost Boys*
Oldie, but goodie. If you haven't seen this one yet, do yourself a favor and see it. Yes it's vampires, but the scary kind. Forget Twilight, these are the real vampires. Or as real as they get. Twilight was a mess with sparkling vampires, Anne Rice created realistic, yet boring vampires, and Hollywood has misunderstood the whole concept. But Lost Boys is something in between. These vampires are realistic and acts like vampires should, yet they are pretty darn scary at times. A true masterpiece.
*Verdict: 9.5/10*

*Lost Boys 2: The Tribe*
Many people don't even know this one exist, and trust me, that's for the better. If Lost Boys 1 is a classic in a good way, this one is a classic in the worst way possible. It's horrible. The vampires are boring and stupid. The main character are one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen. The story doesn't make sense. In fact, I dare say the name is a disgrace. Avoid at all cost.
*Verdict: *_(I couldn't even finish watching this abomination)_

*Lost Boys 3: The Thirst*
That's right, folks. They made a third one. The second was horrible beyond human understanding, so naturally the third one is... um... actually it's pretty good? Don't get me wrong, it's nowhere near the first one. But still, it's miles ahead of the second. The second movie was mostly about new characters fighting new vampires in a new location, but Lost Boys 3 are in many ways centered around Edgar Frog (Corey Feldman) and focuses on his retirement as a vampire hunter. But naturally there are more vampire sightings, so what to do? Bring in the expert and let the mayhem kick off.

It's not a great movie by any means, and it's no surprise it (like the second) was released direclty to DVD. But still, it's an entertaining movie with a lot of gret moments, funny one-liners and lots of action. I really enjoyed it, and I know many of you will to. Just don't expect anything near the quality of Lost Boys 1.

As a micro spoiler, I'm very tempted to add a bonus point for the brilliant ending. It not only opens up for a Lost Boys 4, but it changes a few things as well and makes the potential for the next one very interesting. 'nough said.
*Verdict: 7/10*

As a bonus trivia, Corey Feldman has not only confirmed Lost Boys 4 recently, but he also confirmed a tv-series focusing on the Frog Brothers. Yay or nay? Hell, yeah!


----------



## Caledfwlch

Lemmy said:


> It's been a while since this thread was updated, so allow me to continue where it left off with a few reviews. Some good, some bad, some old, some new. We'll have something for everyone over here.
> 
> Let's start with a little movie called *[rec]*.  It's a spanish movie with a rather simple premise. A reporter for a spanish tv-channel visits a firestation at night to make a report on their lives and work. Naturally she brings her cameraman with her, and we see the entire movie through his camera. Very much like in movies like Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. It's an effective way to get right down there with them, so you won't feel as distant from the action as you usually do in other movies.



Much love for Rec here, a brilliant and fairly original new take on the Zombie movie, with its combined Supernatural/Science take on the Deadheads.

I love the idea of demonic posession being passed via a rabies type virus.

Rec 2 is equally awesome, and 3 and 4 have been greenlit by the spanish studio. I suspect 3 or 4 is going to be "dawn of the dead in Barcelona" with the action moving out into the streets.


----------



## Lemmy

And thanks for ruining my clever spoilers.  Nah, just kidding. I haven't seen [rec 2] yet, but I certainly will. Not so sure about nr 3 and 4, though. The first one is brilliant because it had a great story to tell, and I'm confident they can drag it out in a sequel. But two sequels after that? How much more than they possibly do with the story?


----------



## Lemmy

More movies:

*The Wolf Man (1941)*
This is a pretty old movie by now, but trust me, it's still awesome. I'm not so sure I would call it a horror, but more a tragedy with horror elements. It's a tragic story about a man who returns home after several years, only to be attacked by a werewolf. He manages to kill it, but only after the wolf bites him and gives him a curse. From now on, he will turn into a werewolf every full moon and go on a killing spree, and he can't do anything to stop it. 

It's an old movie in black and white, and the special effects are pretty dull by modern standards. But the acting is superb, and the story very well written. I have a hard time finding any flaws with this movie at all.
*Verdict: 9/10*

*The Wolf Man (2010)*
Del Toro's take on the story about the Wolf Man isn't bad, but it's a completely different movie. Right from the start it's clear it aims to be scary, and in some ways it succeeds. The special effects are pretty good, the acting decent, and at times it's a very entertaining movie with a rather predictable story. There is a few twists here and there, but nothing you didn't see coming from miles away. While the guy in the first movie was cursed with lycantrophy, this movie seems to be cursed by modern age. People want blood and gore, and that's what they get.

The problem is it wants to be a remake of the first original movie, yet it casually adds a twist to the story that ruins the whole point. It's hard to care about the characters, and the twist doesn't make sense. In the end I just didn't care much about it and was glad it was over. And how come modern movies have to be so damn long? The first one is just over an hour, but that's more than enough. This one is well over two hours, and I felt the last thirty minutes was a pain to sit through. Not because it was bad, by all means, but mostly because enough was enough. If it had been thirty minutes to an hour shorter, I would give it two points more.
*Verdict: 6/10*

*Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)*
Another remake, another failure. To get it out of the way: Freddy Krueger was scary in the first few movies, but he turned more and more into an 'audience hero'. He was always the badguy in the movie, but he was the reason people kept watching that crap no matter how horrible the sequels got. New Nightmare was great, but Elm Street 4, 5 and 6 was junk. The remake goes back to the roots and tries to make Freddy scary again, and in some scenes it sort of works. Sort of.

I know a lot of people hate the new Freddy, but I'm ok with him. I don't like him much, and he certainly won't be remembered the way Robert Englund is. But still, Jackie Earle Haley wasn't a bad choice either. He was pretty darn good as Rorshack in Watchmen (the only movie I've seen him in), and he's not a bad Freddy. The makeup they used on Freddy this time looks ridiculous compared to the old one, but they wanted to make him look more realistic as a burn victim. He looks very different than the original, but he was supposed to look different. If that was a bad choice is up to anyone to decide.

Anyway, the story is so and so. The 'Freddy's background' part is pretty cool, and there are some interesting bits with Freddy killing people. The problem is there are too many bits without Freddy at all, which would be fine if the characters were interesting. But they are not. The main heroine is one of the most boring people in movie history, and the others are not much better. In a way I don't blame Freddy for killing them. If they had tried to put me in a movie like that against my will, I would probablybe pretty angry too. 

That said, if they were to make a sequel with a better Freddy-makeup, a better story and better actors, I'm all for it.
*Verdict: 5/10*


----------



## Starbeast

ravenus said:


> *KOLCHAK – THE NIGHT STALKER (John Moxey)*
> 
> A modern-day re-telling of the vampire legend, Night Stalker was adapted for American television (ABC-TV) in ’71 by *Richard Matheson* from a novel by *Jeff Rice*.The acting is quite serviceable, with special mentions to *Darren McGavin* for Kolchak and *Barry Atwater* for Skorzeny. Skorzeny is splendidly depicted as a formidable loathsome beast.


 


Foxbat said:


> *Night Of The Living Dead, *
> *Dawn Of The Dead*
> & *Day Of The Dead - George Romero*


 


ravenus said:


> *CREEPSHOW - George Romero*
> 
> Creepshow arose from a collaboration between Romero and Stephen King, based on their mutual love for horror comics under the E.C. label.
> The movie consists of 5 main episodes.
> 
> 1. *'Father's day'*
> 2. *'Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill'*
> 3.*'Something to Tide You Over'*
> 4. *'The Crate'*
> 5.*'They're Creeping Up On You'*


 

*These are some of my favorite horror films of all time!*


----------



## Lemmy

So why not review Creepshow 2 and 3? I haven't seen the third one (and from what I've heard that's just as well), but the second is pretty good.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Has anyone on here ever read the original script for Day of the Dead? 

It is brilliant. The film we did get, brilliant as it also is, was only a little part of Sir George of Romero's vision, I believe it was budget issues, because it required a far larger cast, etc tha meant it was stripped of a lot.

There are a lot of rumours that the guys who remade Dawn, want to do a sequel, but "not Day" but I think they should have a read of the original script, because frankly, how the Dawn remake ends, those last camcorder shots on some island is how the original Day began


----------



## Kiercoria99

One of the actors in Creepshow 2, Dan Beer, went to my little bitty high school in upstate NY.  I think he was in The Raft story.


----------



## zray13fu

Thank you


----------



## zray13fu

This is very useful


----------



## zray13fu

Which highschool


----------



## Starbeast

*Zombie 2* (1979)

Lucio Fulci's unauthorized sequel to Romeros's _Dawn of the Dead_. In this zombie cult film, actors Tisa Farrow & Ian McCulloch battle against the rising dead which were resurrected by voodoo. The movie has some very shocking and disturbing zombie violence which may put you off your popcorn, that combined with an effective haunting soundtrack and continuous ritual drums gives this island horror movie a chilling atmosphere.

a.k.a. - _Zombie_


----------



## j d worthington

Question: Which version of this did you see? The original American theatrical release, or the restored version? There is a surprising amount of difference, including the fact that the damned film actually _makes some sense_ in the latter version... and manages to be a genuinely eerie (as well as unsettling) experience a fair amount of the time.... (I still think his *The Beyond* and *House of Clocks* are better films, though....)


----------



## dask

I like Fulci but Zombie 2 was so bad I never finished it. The guy who could do so much with so little tripped on his shoe string this time.


----------



## j d worthington

Again, I have to ask: which version did you see? From the title, most likely the original (American) theatrical release, which is (in my view) simply bad. (Though there were about four or five films in that series, including a couple which used tiny bits of footage from Fulci and were completed by others.)


----------



## dask

j. d. worthington said:


> Again, I have to ask: which version did you see? From the title, most likely the original (American) theatrical release, which is (in my view) simply bad. (Though there were about four or five films in that series, including a couple which used tiny bits of footage from Fulci and were completed by others.)


 
My mistake, J.D. I checked my "grue view" stash in the garage (my wife hates that stuff) and found it wasn't Zombie 2 I couldn't finish, but Zombie 3 which came in a 3-pack along with Zombie's 4 & 5. I really liked the first Zombie by Fulci but am not sure whether I've ever seen #2.


----------



## dask

Well, according to Amazon.com Zombie 2 and Zombie are the same film. There is no Zombie 1. Releasing it as Flesh-Eaters, Zombie 2 was a business decision to capitalize on Romero's Dawn Of The Dead. Interesting. Rue Morgue ran a special Fulci issue a few years back and if this was mentioned I have since forgotten it. Anyway, so there's no confusion, Zombie --- or Zombie 2 --- was a great film. But it's not for everyone.


----------



## Starbeast

j. d. worthington said:


> Question: Which version of this did you see? The original American theatrical release, or the restored version? There is a surprising amount of difference,(I still think his *The Beyond* and *House of Clocks* are better films, though....)


 
In 1979 I saw the American version while working at a movie theater, it was easy to follow the story. Basically a daughter searches for her father and discovers her dad was working to stop a "zombie" outbreak on an island. Unfortunately the rising dead get out of hand and she escapes back to New York only to discover that the city is overrun with the flesh eating cadavers.

However, I have heard of other versions of the movie where all of the horror was edited because the film was too shocking, which of course leaves the movie with nothing to see. This film was also banned in some parts of the world too.

But over here in America, I can still remember the screaming audience and patrons squirming in their seats when the zombies were eating and killing people. Today I own the special 2-disk edition. 

And *The Beyond (1981)* is an awesome movie because of a bigger budget which was generated by the money that was made by _Zombie 2._



dask said:


> My mistake, J.D. I checked my "grue view" stash in the garage (my wife hates that stuff) and found it wasn't Zombie 2 I couldn't finish, but Zombie 3 which came in a 3-pack along with Zombie's 4 & 5. I really liked the first Zombie by Fulci but am not sure whether I've ever seen #2.


 
Originally the film was called _Zombie_, but since Lucio was inspired by Romero's _Dawn of the Dead _(even though it was a sequel to _Night of the Living Dead, _which technically would had made Lucio's film _Zombie 3. But that's another film.)_, he wanted to make a follow up film to it, so he retitled it _Zombie 2._ However the film told it's own story about how the nightmare began. I think Mr Fulci should have left the title as _Zombie._


----------



## dask

I've yet to see The Beyond but I've heard about it and, yeah, would like to see it.


----------



## j d worthington

From my understanding, it got the *Zombie 2* title because Romero's *Dawn of the Dead* was released in Italy as *Zombie*; and, as this was intended as, if not a direct sequel, at least a film in the same set-up...

SB: It may be there was more than one American theatrical release. I've seen an earlier version, which was released on videotape (before the advent of DVD), and it wasn't the gore which was cut... it was the bulk of the storyline and character-development. Hence, it became little more than a series of gore scenes with a little nudity thrown in for good measure. Once the other material is replaced, while it is still over-the-top in the gore department for my taste (as is *The Beyond*, for that matter), it is nonetheless a rather good film, and one of the few of that extreme sort of cinema which I like having on my shelves...


----------



## Starbeast

j. d. worthington said:


> From my understanding, it got the *Zombie 2* title because Romero's *Dawn of the Dead* was released in Italy as *Zombie*; and, as this was intended as, if not a direct sequel, at least a film in the same set-up...
> 
> SB: It may be there was more than one American theatrical release. I've seen an earlier version, which was released on videotape (before the advent of DVD), and it wasn't the gore which was cut... it was the bulk of the storyline and character-development. Hence, it became little more than a series of gore scenes with a little nudity thrown in for good measure. Once the other material is replaced, while it is still over-the-top in the gore department for my taste (as is *The Beyond*, for that matter), it is nonetheless a rather good film, and one of the few of that extreme sort of cinema which I like having on my shelves...


 
You are right Mr Worthington about the _Dawn of the Dead_ retitled as _Zombie,_ I had forgotten, and I even have the Italian version with the title _Zombi. _

Anyway, when I first discovered _The Beyond,_ it was on VHS and retitled as _The Seven Doors of Death._

I still need to see *House of Clocks *


----------



## dask

Starbeast said:


> Anyway, when I first discovered _The Beyond,_ it was on VHS and retitled as _The Seven Doors of Death._


 
Retitled and heavily edited I understand. That kind of crap makes me so mad.


----------



## j d worthington

It happened a lot with Fulci and Argento. The original release here of *Phenomena* (as *Creepers*) was simply horrific (no pun intended); and lacked all the subtleties of the full film while retaining all its vices. *Suspiria* didn't suffer as badly, but was still not, as I recall, as coherent as it might have been, and so forth. I've still to see a restored version of *Profondo rosso*, so don't know about that, but suspect the same would apply there.

Luci suffered even more from this, given that his violence and gore were even more extreme. Oddly, though, it was often as much -- or more -- the scenes which contributed to the actual plot or character development which ended up being excised as was the gore. *Paura nella città dei morti viventi* (*City of the Living Dead*) is a seriously flawed film from the get-go, but at least it is somewhat better in the restored version, while *Quella villa accanto al cimitero* (*The House by the Cemetery*) is at times almost unwatchable as a story (though if you're into it for the gore, as with pornography being into it simply for the sex scenes), then perhaps all the better; yet it, too, makes more sense and develops an atmosphere of creeping menace when seen in its restored version. In each case, the gore generally becomes at least more logical -- in a weird, horrific fashion -- with the restorations, rather than simply having no more point than to titillate.

And, of course, several of Fulci's films develop his theme of the Gates of Hell and their opening into our world, often having a tinge of Lovecraftian angst or the exoticism of Clark Ashton Smith, to whom he gives nods in some of them. I think that is what drew me to Fulci, really; the development of this theme seems to hint at more than what we see on the surface.

Incidentally, I recently came across an interview with Fulci which allows some interesting insights into these films, with especial reference to *House by the Cemetery* and its ending:

http://www.shockingimages.com/fulci/interview2.html


----------



## natalienoo

j. d. 
Just to clarify - Zombie and Zombie 2 are the same film, and Zombie Flesh Eaters is a separate film.  Is that right?


----------



## j d worthington

natalienoo said:


> j. d.
> Just to clarify - Zombie and Zombie 2 are the same film, and Zombie Flesh Eaters is a separate film. Is that right?


 
Nope. All three are (ostensibly) the same film, just edited differently and issued under different titles.

This happened a lot during that period... along with a few others, such as the 1950s... with horror films. The one which I think has had the most title changes (and in this case, I wouldn't recommend seeing it under any title, unless you come across a review which indicates massive changes due to restoration), is:

*Anthropophagus*/*The Grim Reaper*/*Snuff* -- with a few other titles I've heard it had over the years....


----------



## Diggler

j. d. worthington said:


> *Anthropophagus*/*The Grim Reaper*/*Snuff* -- with a few other titles I've heard it had over the years....



Yeah this is a classic, and definitely one of the best from Joe D'Amato. Who was a hack director, but still had fun with what he did.


----------



## natalienoo

Alright, cheers for the info.  I remember watching Zombie Flesh Eaters the day that the London Bombings happened.  I'd had far too much to drink and thought zombies may cheer me up.  They didn't.  And I remember thinking _is it the alcohol in my system, or do they occasionally switch languages and actors in this film_?


----------

