Every Halloween, I do the same thing. Once I’m certain no more trick-or-treaters are coming, I take down the decorations, make a three layer nacho dip, turn off the lights and watch John Carpenter’s The Thing.
There is nothing I don’t love about this movie. From the opening scene it has the viewer asking questions, and every answer leads to new questions. This movie combines terrifying monster horror and psychological thriller in the best way. Even when the killer is revealed, it may not be the only one, and you are kept guessing even after the credits roll.
The special effects are gorgeous, in the most disturbing way, and look fantastic on my new 4K HDR copy. The panoramic helicopter shots of Alaska and British Columbia (doubling for Antarctica) are stunningly beautiful, but also isolating. They establish early on how far from civilization these men are and that, when people start dying, there is no escape, nowhere to flee to.
It’s unfortunate that the last article of the series is going to be so short, my whole thing is usually nitpicking films, but I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve watched this film and I have no notes. None. The acting is great, the editing, pacing, music, foley work, everything about the production enhances the story. It’s why I never get tired of watching it.
If you’ve never watched The Thing, I highly encourage you to. Turn off the lights and grab yourself some tortilla chips. I’ve got a dip recipe I can share with you.
Oh and if you’re not ready for bed when the movie finishes, put on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Happy Halloween!
We are on the second to last night of the marathon, and it occurred to me that I had not yet watched a zombie movie. So I’ll correct that oversight with what will turn out to be the oldest, lowest budget, yet highest rated movie so far. It has an average rating of 95% on 82 reviews and an audience score of 87 on Rotten Tomatoes and I agree with them.
In the intro I wrote 30 days ago, I said I wanted to see if older movies still held up. Some did, some didn’t, but this one, the oldest of them all, sure does. Okay, it’s in black and white, but so was Clerks, the film stock is cheaper than colour and when you’re on a tight budget, you save money where you can. The look also helps hide the weakness in the makeup, it’s nowhere near as detailed or polished as a modern B movie, especially the eyes. Without the cloudy contact lenses that are affordable and common today, the zombie’s eyes are too intelligent looking and don’t make them look dead. That’s about it for the negatives though, the rest of the film is great.
The cinematography is well done, the editing, the music, even the acting is surprisingly good for a cast comprised almost entirely of first timers. The pacing and tight script keeps you interested and engaged the whole time. Like most good zombie films, a lot of the drama comes from the humans. I loved that you are made to dislike Harry right from the beginning, but that he turns out to have been right in the end. Speaking of endings, that was a surprising, but sadly all too realistic way to close out the story.
It’s interesting to me to go back and watch the grandfather of modern zombie movies and see how it differs to the lore of today. First, they never call them zombies, the news people refer to them as ghouls, but technically a ghoul is a creature that is still living. Second, these zombies use tools, so they aren’t completely mindless. They’re also afraid of fire, which we don’t really see these days.
I liked it, I liked it a lot more than I thought I would and I encourage any budding filmmaker to watch it themselves and see that you don’t need a huge budget or well known actors to tell a good story. You just need talent.
Clive Barker neither wrote, nor directed this film, but it is based on one of his short stories from the Books of Blood collection (Volume 5, “The Forbidden” if you want to read it yourself). Bernard Rose is both writer and director, and the movie stars Tony Todd and Virginia Madsen.
So the story starts out amazing. It is moody, atmospheric, lots of benign jump scares to get your heart going. They set up the characters and their relationships, It’s a cool premise, with two PhD candidates working on their theses about urban legends, when they hear the tale of “Candyman” and begin investigating it. Not believing it to be real, they naturally perform the ritual to summon him. Well, Virgina Madsen’s Helen does. Her colleague Bernadette (played by Kasi Lemmons) only says his name four of the required five times, while standing in front of the mirror and of course, nothing happens… or does it.
*SPOILER ZONE*
So this for me is where the movie takes a turn and wastes potential for a really amazing story. Helen is later walking through a parking garage and hears a voice calling her name. She turns around and sees the silhouette of someone who looks like Candyman, then she passes out. When she wakes up, she’s in a bathroom that’s not hers, she’s covered in blood and there’s a woman screaming on the other side of the door. So of course, Helen gets arrested for murdering a dog and child abduction (because the baby from the apartment is missing). This sets up a fantastic premise, they could have made this a much better horror mystery. Was Helen framed by the gang member she identified to the police earlier? Did the spirit of Candyman do it? Was it really Helen, who did it while she had blacked out? Was she possessed? That’s a great story, but it doesn’t last long.
Bernadette is killed in Helen’s apartment and Helen is taken to a psychiatric hospital. So at this point, the criminal framing her theory is out the window, but it might still be Helen who’s the real killer. Nope, we are quickly disabused of that notion when her psychiatrist is killed, while she’s strapped to a chair in front of him. It’s impossible for her to have done the deed. So they took what could have been a fantastically told mystery and turned it into a standard supernatural killer movie.
Now, I will say, Tony Todd is amazing. The man has a presence and charisma that carry this movie. I firmly believe it would not have been as successful a franchise without him, because the “lore” of Candyman makes no sense.
First, why is he called Candyman? The legend is about a black artist who is murdered for falling in love with and getting pregnant a wealthy white woman, and is then mutilated and murdered by hired thugs. Where’s the candy? And why would the murderers cut off his hand and attach a hook to it, only to then kill him with bees (random) and burn the body? The whole thing SOUNDS made up, like a tale that is exaggerated and built upon by different tellers over generations, which many urban legends are, and that’s an idea worth exploring. It could have been about how legends are exploited by people to control others (like the gang leader) or how the stories can inspire people consciously or unconsciously to mimic them (Helen is the killer all along), instead we have a ghost who can do almost anything, has a hook for a hand and is covered in bees because it looks cool.
I may be overly harsh with this, but I think it’s because they took what could have been a psychological horror masterpiece and turned it into a standard supernatural slasher flick that is saved from obscurity only by Virginia Madsen and the aura of Tony Todd. I don’t know anything about the films production, but the feeling I get, and it is just a feeling, is that the studio saw the first half of the film and said, “Naw, we need more blood and more Candyman. Oh, and add in a lot of bees. Bees are scary.”
I thought I had seen this movie already, but after watching last night, I realize I must only have seen the trailer, or maybe caught snippets of it on TV, because I didn’t remember any of it and believe me, the one thing I think everyone can agree on about Videodrome is that it is memorable.
This film is unlike most of the others I’ve watched this month, in that it belongs to a category of horror I’m not a fan of. Body Horror. I don’t enjoy movies like Hostel, Saw, The Human Centipede or others of that genre, but Videodrome is different.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
The premise of Videodrome is this. Max Renn (played by James Woods) owns a small TV station in Toronto, and he’s always looking for something he can air that will push the boundaries of what’s acceptable to broadcast, in an effort to draw viewers. His technical specialist shows him snippets he was able to de-scramble of an encrypted satellite broadcast of people being tortured. He tells him it’s called Videodrome and Max starts to become obsessed with it. Then Max starts hallucinating, and the movie really takes off.
It’s not the bizarre imagery and special effects that make Videodrome interesting to me, it’s the incomprehensibility of it. I complained a lot about Possession being weird and not making sense, so it may seem contradictory that I liked those qualities of Videodrome, but the difference is that here, it all fits in the context of the story. See, the thing is, we don’t know what’s real and what isn’t. The film is shot solely around James Woods’ character. We are never given anyone else’s perspective or point of view and once we know that not everything he sees or experiences is real, how can we trust ANY of the things we see?
In literature, he would be called an unreliable narrator. He isn’t lying, it’s just that he can’t distinguish what between what is real and what isn’t, so we the viewers can no longer trust what we see. I don’t mind weird, I like weird, and even when things don’t really make sense, I okay with it, if the not making sense is an organic part of the story and characters. In those cases, it’s actually great, because it leads to discussion among the audience. Is Nicki really dead? We don’t know for sure, just because we don’t see her again doesn’t mean she is. Especially since it turns out the videos weren’t really being broadcast from Pittsburg at all… or were they? Was the conversation with Peter real? At what point did Max break from reality? Is the Videodrome signal even a real thing, or did Max suffer a psychotic break?
The movie has probably been discussed to death in film classes around the world where smarter people than me can break down it’s commentary on popular culture and our addiction to screens or something, but I just think it was a wild journey about a mans fading grip on sanity.
You can watch Videodrome on Amazon Prime if you have a subscription, I think I’m going to find a bluray copy with director’s commentary to watch it again. This is a film I’d really love to hear “making of” stories about.
I had never heard of this movie before reading an article on a blog called Longbox of Darkness. The premise sounded interesting. A trio of female reporters find themselves staying overnight in a house occupied by a hostile being lurking in the basement. I really liked that The Howling had reporters as the main characters, and this movie stays Barbara Bach, who I only knew from her role in The Spy Who Loved me. Also in this film are Sydney Lassick, a terrific character actor who’s face is instantly recognizable, even if you don’t remember his name, and Stephen Furst, that most will know as Flounder from Animal House, but as a lifelong Babylon 5 fan, he’ll always be Vir to me.
Even though they share many similarities, this movie fixes a lot of what I didn’t like about The People Under the Stairs. It’s hard to discuss what I really enjoyed without spoiling some things so continue reading only if that doesn’t bother you, or you have a short memory.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
The pacing and structure is great and the movie subverts your expectations at almost every turn. You start off thinking it may be about a stalker ex boyfriend, then maybe about the creepy owner of a museum, then maybe a ghost, or something else. It keeps you guessing, so it keeps you interested.
I also loved that the killer, didn’t turn out to be the actual monster, but another victim of the true villain of the story. The more I sit here thinking about it, the more things I find I liked. The violence isn’t overdone. There are no over the top killings with fountains of blood, everything is realistic and believable, especially once we find that the killer is more of a developmentally stunted man than a monster intentionally setting out to hurt people.
I’m surprised this movie isn’t better known, or better rated. It may be the lack of a high body count or extreme gore factor that prevents it from penetrating the consciousness of fans of this genre, but I find all of that works in it’s favour, in the context of the story.
Despite how the poster looks, this is not p[art of the Mad Max franchise, it is the second movie written and directed by Wes Craven, and it is much better than some of his later works *cough*peopleunderthestairs*cough*. To set your expectations though, this is a low budget grindhouse film. It doesn’t have the polish of A Nightmare on Elm Street, but it still works.
There’s probably a name for this category of film where people are preyed upon by a family of cannibals. It’s not unique and there’s probably a name for it on TV tropes, I’m just too lazy to go look it up. I don’t want to go into too many details, the story is pretty thin, and we aren’t given much in the way of backstory for most of the characters, so almost anything I write would be a spoiler. I’ll just say, I liked the fact that more than one person survives the ordeal, the action is well paced and surprising and once the stranded family figures out what’s happening to them, they get smarter and don’t all fall apart.
It’s not award winning by any stretch, but it’s a fun popcorn movie. It’s surprisingly less graphic than I would have expected for a movie like this, but maybe they cut it down to avoid an X rating. This is one case where I would be interested in seeing the re-make. Maybe that can be the theme for next year.
My wife watched the first thirty minutes of the film with me, then she stood up and declared “This is a bad movie” and went to bed. I’m not going to go that far. People have different likes and dislikes and it’s unfair to make statements like that based on your own personal tastes. I’m not going to disagree with her though, simply because of who made the film and that I have seen much, much better from Wes Craven.
I’ve gotta check IMDB, but this may have been his first stab at a horror/comedy and the comedy side of it is kind of weak, I didn’t laugh much and the villains were more cartoonish than menacing. The dog was the scariest antagonist and the biggest threat the hero faces. You know what the movie is like? It’s like Home Alone, but they make the kid the burglar and then they mashed it with the X-Files episode “Home”. I’m also not a fan of stories where the villains only motivation is ‘They’re crazy because they’re inbred’. That’s lazy writing in my opinion.
So far this month I have watched 25 horror movies, and without even realizing it, 99.9% of the cast in these movies have been white people. The only people of colour I can remember are the Native Americans in Prophecy and a single black man in The Ninth Gate, who had I think had only one line. When people talk about unconscious biases, this is an example, so it’s awesome that Brandon Quintin Adams was cast as the hero in the movie, but less awesome that the script leans so strong into bad stereotypes. His sister is a prostitute, Ving Rhames’ character is a burgler, they are so poor that this brilliant child sees no way of helping his family except to turn to crime… like seriously, none of the other movies I’ve watched this month have the hero start out by committing crimes and THIS is the one with the black star?
It’s ranked well on Rotten Tomatoes, and I’ve seen many comments about it being an underrated classic. I’m not one of them. I had never watched it before last night and will most likely never watch it again, unless my memory fails as I get older and forget I watched it, but hopefully I remember my blog entry exists and I can re-read this. If I’m in the mood for a Wes Craven film, I’ll stick with Nightmare, or New Nightmare or Scream. I have never watched The Hills Have Eyes, so maybe…
As of 2025 Johnny Depp has been in over 70 movies and has a net worth of approximate $150 million dollars and it all started with A Nightmare on Elm Street. He’s not even the star of this movie, Heather Langenkamp is, although, it could be argued it’s really Robert Englund’s Freddy Krueger.
It’s interesting what scares us when we’re younger. My mother made a big production of getting my brother and me to watch the movie that scared her the most when she was younger. The Exorcist. We thought it was okay, but nowhere near as frightening as she seemed to find it. Wes Craven’s tale of a serial killing pedophile that stalks you in your dreams however, terrified me like no other movie ever has. After watching it, I slept on the floor in my brother’s room with a camping knife under my pillow, and not one word of that is an exaggeration.
I’ll cut to the chase. Yeah, it still holds up. This movie is so well made, it comes close to being called perfect. Okay, maybe perfect is pushing it, but watch the movie and look at those visuals. The makeup, the practical effects, they built an entire set that could rotate upside down for the scene where blood fountains out of the bed. They squeezed that $1.1 million budget for every penny and it shows on screen. This was all in the days before CGI was commonplace, everything was handmade. A lot of times when you watch a blue-ray copy of an older movie, the HD transfer can highlight some of the trickery filmmakers use, greenscreen in particular often stands out, but not here. My cheap BD collectors set looks amazing and even scenes like Freddy passing through the bars of the jail cell, are visually seamless.
The premise of the film itself is a perfect canvas for this genre. Everyone has had a nightmare at some point in their life, it’s part of being human, so we can all immediately relate to Tina’s sense of terror and relief upon waking, right from the start. Also, the way our brains just accept the strange and nonsensical while dreaming gives the effects people freedom to do what they want. Another aspect of dreams that aided tremendously, is not knowing when they’ve ended. The uncertainty of what’s real and what isn’t throughout just heightens then tension.
The film is structured well, it grips you from the opening scene and even the quieter parts aren’t dull enough to make your attention wander. The scene with Glen calling his mom on the phone still makes me laugh. Not having watched Psycho yet, this was also my first experience with a movie tricking you into thinking someone was the main character.
Since we’re on the subject of main characters, can we talk about Nancy Thompson? Personally, I think she ranks right up there with Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor in the world of badass cinema heroines. While most “final girls” in a horror movie get the title simply by being the last one standing, Nancy does research, she makes a plan and seeks Freddy out in an attempt to end his murder spree.
Maybe I’m gushing too much about a movie that made such an early impression on me, but it’s refreshing to find one that still looks and feels so good even when re-watched 40 years later.
If you’ve never seen A Nightmare on Elm Street before, then I apologize for the spoilers, but I promise, you’ll most likely forget everything I’ve said within the first few minutes of pressing start.
There are sequels. A lot of sequels, one re-make and a TV series, but I’m not going to review them this month. They’re not bad, personally I think the 2nd movie gets more hate than it deserves, but there aren’t a lot of nights left before Halloween and I’m in the mood for more variety before our time runs out.
Remember how I said Stephen King didn’t like Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining? Yeah, that’s mild compared to how Allan Moore feels about ALL of the movies based on his works. Given how often people have taken his ideas and characters and stripped all the meaning out of his graphic novels, I’m not surprised by his reaction, and From Hell is no exception, but it is a really good Jack The Ripper story.
This is probably the most beautiful serial killer movie I’ve ever watched, and I mean beautiful in the filthiest way. This film looks, sounds and feels exactly the way I imagine London’s East End did in 1888. It’s obvious how much time and care went into the costuming, set design and all the extras to make Whitechapel look like the densely populated slum it was. It all makes the city look alive and real, but do NOT mistake this tale for historical re-telling of the world most famous serial killer.
This is more of a Hollywood telling of a conspiracy theory than a serious attempt to portray the facts of the killings. A lot is omitted and many ‘facts’ are fabricated entirely. It’s a good story, and is entertaining, but it probably pissed off serious true crime aficionados almost as much as it did Moore. I’m not sure how I feel about that, personally. On the one hand, it’s a movie, it should be looked at purely as fiction, but when it’s told so well, you KNOW there is a significant percentage of the population that is going to believe everything in it is true, like so many people who’s beliefs about the Kennedy assassination were informed entirely by the Oliver Stone movie.
The acting is great. Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Robbie Coltrane (I always love when he’s in a movie and will not watch anything HP related if he isn’t playing Hagrid), Ian Richardson, Sir Ian Holm (there are scenes were you can see the foreshadowing of a ring influenced Bilbo at the end), the cast is absolutely stacked and everyone does a great job, but Heather Graham is seriously mis-cast. Don’t get me wrong, she did a great job, and I think she’s a wonderful actress, she just didn’t fit the setting and the character. I know why they cast her, when they decided to fabricate a love story between Inspector Abberline and Mary Kelly, they needed an actor as beautiful as Johnny Depp to pair him with, it’s just that she doesn’t blend in with the other victims, or even the city itself. I’ll let the actual Brits comment on how convincing her and Depp’s accents are.
As a movie, I loved it. As someone deeply interested in the Ripper murders, there are more accurate tellings out there. I’m on a Johnny Depp kick, should I watch Sleepy Hollow next? Probably not, I don’t remember enjoying it. Maybe Sweeney Todd? Does a movie from 2007 fit within the time-frame of the challenge? Oh wait, I know the perfect movie…
This movie is surprisingly ahead of it’s time. It’s about an AI that takes control of a smart home and kidnaps the woman who lives there, and it was made almost 50 years ago. Although, people back then obviously thought we’d be further along technologically than we actually are. This smart home was making drinks for people and opening doors, while I still can’t get Alexa to just remove the picture-in-picture on my Fire TV after my Blink doorbell rings (all three are Amazon products by the way).
At it’s heart, Demon Seed is a mad scientist/monster story a la Frankenstein, set in the budding computer age. I loved the initial robot body that Proteus builds for itself. It shows imagination on the part of the writers to not go the obvious humanoid route, and instead a collection of interconnected triangles that allowed it to re-configure it’s shape. TARS from Interstellar reminds me of it in a way.
The movie was well done and I enjoyed it, but I didn’t love it. I’m not sure why exactly, but I didn’t get as strong a feeling of menace from the AI as I should. Many of the scenes are disturbing, but… I don’t know. I can think of other films with computer villains that felt far more unsettling and creepy, like HAL from 2001 or GERTY from Moon. Maybe it was the lighting, the editing, pacing, the voice acting? Maybe all of it. It wasn’t bad, don’t get the wrong impression, I just felt, in comparison to other movies I’ve seen, it could have been stronger.
Demon Seed is currently streaming for free on Tubi in Canada, so you can check it out for yourself if you feel like it.
Late to the party, as usual 