Change Your Image
WildestDreams
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dracula (1931)
Too many flaws
The only impressive aspects are the lighting techniques throughout the movie and a few of the sets. Three minutes in, some Hungarians plainly state that "Dracula is a vampire". Every viewer is aware of this fact beforehand, but it is a lame choice to explicitly state it so early on. This characterizes the lack of suspense and intrigue in the film.
The performance of Dracula is hailed as iconic, but he is not menacing or creepy. The awkward timing of his speech and movements, and the repetition of vacant stares more so give the impression that he is mentally challenged. It is unclear what the closeups of his clean-cut and fang-less face is supposed to be doing for the audience.
When he arrives in London, Dracula advertises himself and his new address to everyone he meets. The property is adjacent to a sanitarium. The sanitarium contains a living quarters where a Dr. Seward lives with his daughter. It is said that Dr. Seward's daughter is in grave danger. This warning is issued by a man who returned to London at the same time as Dracula's arrival. But Dr. Seward is unable to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. He ignores repeated warning and his daughter indeed becomes in grave danger.
People in London are being mysteriously killed, yet all the pretty ladies choose to sleep with their windows open. This makes for convenient access for Dracula in bat-form. He nails 2 ladies on back to back nights in this manner.
At times, characters observe that "he or she has a pair of strange marks on their neck!". A black marker could have achieved this effect sufficiently, but the audience is shown necks that are unscathed. Even with a strong imagination, the absence of bites on the supposedly bitten is hard to look past.
The most foolish element of 1931's Dracula is that Dr. Van Helsing could have taken Dracula out at any time. Dracula tells everyone where he lives, Van Helsing knows vampires must hide from daylight, and he knows how to dispose of vampires. He waits until the last minute to act, allowing the victims to pile up.
These observations have nothing to do with the movie's age. There is a stunning lack of intelligence to it. And Dracula himself is written as a cunning powerhouse of a creature. His portrayal in this film is not clever nor strong.
Frankenstein (1931)
Impressions of a horror obsessor
Fast-paced and engaging. Gothic atmosphere is immersive. The creators used the novel as a springboard to invent a sort of separate mythology. They succeeded totally.
I don't pretend to be an expert on old cinema. But I do need to explain how impressive this is:
Even with fewer tools at hand to obscure the fiction of a motion picture, I could not outsmart this movie. I watched 1931's 'stein and the '35 sequel back-to-back, alone and in the dark. I was then victimized by various nightmares throughout my sleep.
To the parties responsible for these high- caliber classics: well-played, folks.
Repulsion (1965)
Don't believe the hype
To say that this review contains spoilers would imply that there is anything good about "Repulsion" to spoil. There isn't. There is no development of plot or characters. There are no twists; there is no climax or resolution. "Repulsion" is just a remarkably impotent "descent into madness" film that garners no intrigue whatsoever. I haven't felt this burned by an acclaimed classic horror film since I watched "Don't Look Now".
Neither the main character nor her insanity is ever explained. There aren't any provocative implications towards any such explanations, either. It's as if they just decided to make a fraction of a movie. A short story or even a Youtube skit could have properly handled the intended subject matter. "Losing one's mind" is a concept that has been explored in many films, new and old, and done right.
"Repulsion" is as bleak as oblivion itself. Not Hitchcock bleak, not mind-warping "Carnival of Souls" bleak, bleak as in unfinished. Fractional. We get no back-story on anybody. We see a woman's crazy sister, Carol, having repetitive hallucinations and blacking out. Over and over. And she does inexplicable things in her house, like leaving meat sitting out for days to rot and killing a harmless man who was hopelessly in love with her. We do see a kill scene involving a men's shaving razor, but it is laughable. The guy just stands there and takes it while a skinny blonde manically gives him death by a thousand razor blades. Yeah, not stabbed. Just slit repeatedly. That is as exciting as it gets in "Repulsion".
So, who is she and why is she crazy? We simply never know enough about Carol to feel anything. Was there a traumatic event during Carol's childhood? Something her sister could attest to? Was there a recent incident that caused her to come unhinged? Was she just always insane?
Assuming she was always insane is actually the most plausible conclusion to be drawn, since her "descent into madness" is anything but delicate. She starts off as an introverted bitch that can at least hold down a job, but in a matter of a couple days she devolves into a lunatic who can't take care of herself or control urges to kill. But assuming that, we must then wonder: how did she make it this far in life if she was a homicidal freak with no grip on reality by default? As unbalanced as Polanski decided to make this woman, a lifetime of warning signs would have been impossible to miss.
There is no place for "Repulsion" in cinema. I'm not sure if one could make a more ungrounded film if they tried. I can offer no insight into how or why it has gotten the nod of the head from so many critics and audiences for 50 years running now. Do yourself a service and skip it. No matter how eccentric your taste in movies is, no matter how patient of a viewer you are, do not watch it. There is no redeeming aspect of "Repulsion". All historical relevance considered, it is simply a miserable piece.
La casa sperduta nel parco (1980)
Has potential
The House on the Edge of the Park has a lot of potential and a lot of shortcomings. The various plot holes coupled with the low body count tested my patience as a viewer, but I still enjoyed myself on the overall. The standoff situation that envelops most of the movie becomes drawn out long before the conclusion, and yet there is just enough tension and suspense retained to qualify the film as an effective piece of minimalism.
The film is ultimately successful because it has edge. The events that unfold range from disturbing to subtly disquieting, but there is a maintained undercurrent of dread from start to finish. The sexual exploitation, while overdone to a fault, results in some uniquely discomforting scenes. And to give nothing away, I will just say that the finale is surprisingly strong.
In spite of everything that works against this movie, it resonated with me in some of the best possible ways an old school horror film can. I think this little guilty pleasure is a great candidate for a remaking. Two films it can be compared with (The Last House on the Left and I Spit on Your Grave) both had remakes that improved upon their original releases.
Malevolence (2003)
Very solid
Malevolence is a slasher with constitution. It showcases the elements of classic American slasher cinema while avoiding the usual pitfalls of the genre. Specifically, I mean it doesn't cheapen itself with random nudity or romance angles (no sex-raving, party-hardy teenagers camping in the spooky woods or daring each other to spend the night in an abandoned building). And there is no supernatural folklore, no metaphysical presence or hokey curses. The no-frills nature of the story gives the movie a decidedly dark tone. In the absence of cute stuff like teen lust and black magic, the viewer is focused solely on the good, old-fashioned, man-made evil at hand.
The plot itself is a "when worlds collide" situation and it works well. Three parties converge. One of them is good (single mom and daughter), one is very evil (the villain), and the group of crooks is caught somewhere in the middle, as one of them serves as the story's "flawed hero". But the evil one, the malevolent villain, is the focal point, as should be. Without rendering the rest of the characters disposable, the tale ultimately affords the most development to this iconic villain. The guy is genuinely scary and unnerving, the type that makes one's blood run cold upon sight.
The only drawbacks to this movie are the meager budget and the fact that the movie sags a little in the middle, during those "Michael Meyers chase through dark buildings" scenes (hey, they made the Halloween movies sag a little, too). The film may have some familiar themes, but Malevolence is several cuts above the usual noise.
The Innocents (1961)
Untouchable
The Innocents is a superb old-school British ghost story. Moreover, its a remarkable film on all accounts. The only things dated about it are the vintage opening credits and of course the black and white.
The cinematography is rich, the atmosphere is dead on, the dialog is razor sharp, and the horror is deeply effective. Each character is affectionately handcrafted and each scene delicately builds upon the supernatural intrigue. The creepiness and paranoia build up to an epic finale that will prove to be nightmare-ishly memorable to even a seasoned horror enthusiast. In short, this movie is a transcendent classic.
The 1989 version of The Woman In Black seems to borrow heavily from this film, which I personally had seen first and thoroughly enjoyed also, but The Innocents blows it away.
The Possession of Joel Delaney (1972)
Breathtaking, powerful, and moving
This is essential 70's supernatural horror. The acting is all solid and the story is told remarkably well. The mythology is executed perfectly. Its well defined, but not so overly explained that all the mystery is rung dry. Joel and his family are very believable, which adds this "day-in-the-life" feeling to the movie. This makes the discomforting events that unfold all the more effective to the viewer. The suspense drew me in from the first minute and never let up. On top of that, the shock scenes are genuinely shocking even for the 70's. The ending may be a bit formulaic but the overall experience is in no way dampened by it. The only real problem I had with this film is the stiff, generic title that compelled me to hold off on watching it for too long.
Dread (2009)
An instant classic
Highly refreshing; monumental horror of the modern era. Dread is a flawless mix of storytelling and gruesome, sadistic terror. Its deeply original, and should be extremely discomforting even for toughened horror followers. Beneath unrelenting suspense is a dark and addictive tale of college buddies and one truly demented individual. The film is air tight through and through, but I have to admit the ending is so intense that by the final scene I was relieved it was over. I search extensively for top notch horror cinema and Dread is at the forefront of what I've come across. The essence of the horror story is captured in every way in this movie.
Night of the Scarecrow (1995)
Pure 90's gold
This film is long lost treasure for horror scavengers. Its often labeled as "supernatural horror", but its true strength is in the slashing scenes. The story of the small town with a curse wouldn't be as engaging without the fantastic slasher edge. The kill scenes look like they are straight out of classic Italian horror: amazing gore effects done without computers. The kills are innovative and realistic looking, including some Saw-worthy torture sequences. The plot is hardly original but it turns out to be just sufficient enough. If you somehow combined Maniac, Children of the Corn, and Pumpkinhead into one movie, it would come out something like Night of the Scarecrow.
Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988)
A departure of the worst kind
I recommend avoiding Sleepaway Camp's initial sequels no matter how much you loved the original. Forget they were ever made because this and part three have no resemblance to the first one. They aren't even enjoyable movies in their own rights, they're just plain shallow.
The basic premise is this: Angela saying sassy things whilst hacking off campers. I'm the biggest fan of sequels, but does anybody really want to see their slasher villain look into the camera to deliver a corny one-liner whenever they go to off somebody? Its the same formula that led horror icons such as Freddy Krueger and Chucky to become mere parodies of their themselves as their sequels went on.
Thankfully, the series creator (who is also the writer/director of part one) had almost nothing to do with these trash sequels. Better still, he created his own direct sequel in 2008, Return to Sleepaway Camp, which is excellent. It ignores the two sequels from the late 80's altogether and you should do the same.
The Cottage (2008)
Thoroughly sloppy
The Cottage had a couple good things going for it. The acting is pretty solid overall and the soundtrack is excellent. The background music is classic 80's slasher horror orchestra, a real treat for horror fanatics. I wanted to love this movie, I wanted to like it, but it falls apart in so many aspects.
One major problem is that the crazed farmer's face looks like a cheap plastic mask. He was supposed to have been disfigured in a farming accident, but the makeup is just horrible on him. Some cover-boy...
The biggest downfall of this film is the lack of logic. I'll describe 2 of the many examples: A man has been stabbed through the leg with a pick ax. He pulls it out and tosses it aside, knowing full well he's in the middle of nowhere with a homicidal maniac chasing after him. Why wouldn't he keep the pick ax for a weapon?! He can't run away with that hole in his leg, and eventually the maniac comes chasing after him with that very same pick ax. How incredibly stupid is that?!
Another laughable example of sloppiness: the Asian goon squad. Their actions are inexplicable and their motives are never explained. They appear to have been hired for a hostage negotiation and a possible hit, but they never attempt to make contact with the rest of the characters. All they do is creep around the cottage, even when there's ample opportunity to make a move. And they're armed with only hunting knives. What kind of assassins don't carry guns?!
The top Netflix review says The Cottage is brilliant. I say, as the British might put it, its rubbish.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
A mess of overly contrived nonsense
Two stars because I did finish it (regrettably). I understood "the point" loud and clear, but to regard this film as some kind of intricate, genre-straddling masterpiece of cinematic renaissance is insulting on so many levels. The Cabin In The Woods is pure convoluted junk. It's as if they couldn't come up with one good solid plot with which to drive the movie. So they utilize a caterwaul of plots which are half-baked and mostly stolen. Worse yet, the subplots that they actually came up with on their own reach a level of cheesiness that surpasses all but the guiltiest of cheesy 80's horror. Aside from the story, the script is fundamentally generic and blatantly melodramatic. The special effects look great, but everything else about this film is a God-awful mess.