The Thing

The Thing (1982)

Runtime: 109 minutes

Directed by: The incomparable John Carpenter

Starring: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David, T.K. Carter, Richard Dysart

From: Universal

How have I not reviewed the movie on this page until now? I've had this page since August of 2009; I am baffled too but at least I finally mixed that mistake. Read why I love this movie below: 

For a movie to write about on Halloween I figured it should be one that's awesome, and for a long while I've been thinking of giving this a proper review, and the time has finally come. After all, I think that John Carpenter has directed plenty of films that are at least “good” but this one is my personal favorite.

I will make the assumption most known the plot and what happens in Antarctica, Winter 1982 where an accident happens involving Swedes... I mean Norwegians and an Alaskan Malamute dog ends up in the American camp. What results is an alien that can imitate any organism and that naturally leads to plenty o' paranoia. I admit the conceit of the alien is pretty wacky (not only can it imitate any organism but also absorb its thoughts and personality) but who knows what otherworldly life forms are capable of so I can't say it's impossible... plus, that was the original novella Who Goes There?, by John W. Campbell, Jr., and as 1951's The Thing from Another World only loosely followed that story, this was a case where there was a good reason for a remake.

The grotesque abominations that Rob Bottin created are definitely still incredible and those effects thankfully are effective even 35 years later; as tubular as they were, they aren't the only reasons why I rate this so highly. The setting was brought to life and at least for me, you feel as frozen as the characters were living in such a frozen world. The all male cast was filled with memorable characters (led by MacReady, played by someone I wish I was related to in Kurt Russell) and it was great seeing them all handle this threat in their own ways. Then you have people trying to figure out who if anyone has been replaced, and the legendary scene where they came up with a way to via blood to figure out the conundrum... it's awesome as the paranoia is so thick you can cut it with a knife and along with all the horror there is also plenty of suspense.

The film also shows plenty of skill behind the camera. Shooting in such conditions must not have been easy but you can't tell from watching the movie. While it was not in his wheelhouse, the Morricone electronic score is tremendous, as he was aping what Carpenter would have done on the keyboard. Way back when, the Razzies used to have a Worst Score category, and somehow what Morricone did here was nominated. This is great proof of something I have known for many years now: the opinions of the Razzies has always been worthless and their opinions should be discounted. I could go on for paragraphs as to why this is the case, but them always having such a hard-on and hating Sly Stallone is a big reason alone.

Anyhow... when it first came out the critics nor the public did not care for the movie, for whatever reasons. The poor box office performance isn't such a surprise considering the competition included E.T., Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Blade Runner. Thankfully the passage of time has allowed for The Thing to receive all the accolades it did not receive in 1982. Talking about this movie on Halloween was wholly appropriate and a spectacular idea on my part.

M (No, Not The Original)

M (1951)

Runtime: 88 minutes

Directed by: Joseph Losey

Starring: David Wayne, Howard Da Silva, Martin Gabel, Luther Adler, Steve Brodie

From: Columbia

Sorry for being late; I was wrapped up in a few things, including that insane World Series game. Now, here's a film undeservedly obscure. I explain why below: 

This may be an assumption but I will presume that even here or other movie sites, there are plenty of people who did not know there was an American film noir remake of Fritz Lang's seminal classic. I have known of it for awhile now but I don't want it to sound like a humblebrag. The film is not easy to track down (at least, it's not on the streaming sites) so when TCM played it late last night, there was no question how I was going to spend my Saturday night.

The plot: it's what you'd expect if you seen the original. There is a child killer (although it doesn't take as long to see his face), you see the anguish of the parents who had it happen to them, innocents are falsely accused by an agitated public, the police raid the joints owned by “the criminal underworld”, so that crime element wishes to find the killer themselves so their businesses remain profitable, the blind man with the balloons, “street people” are hired to look for him-this time it's blue-collar people and teenagers and not such derelicts as the homeless-and I dare not reveal more. There are differences, and I'll leave it at that.

What helped me think of this movie as very good was not only how the general plot was copied and the transplanting of the setting to sunny Los Angeles does work and the Communism scare of the time was an underlying theme (some people in the cast were victims of the Hollywood blacklisting movement)... it is the cast and crew and high-level filmmaking skill which helped make this worth watching, a remake I wish was easier for people to see aside from rare screenings by TCM. The setting of The City of Angels worked as various landmarks were used, including the Bradbury Building; that's been in plenty of media but the appropriate thing to mention in late October of 2017 is that is where much of the final act of Blade Runner takes place, as it's J.F. Sebastian's home.

It has a quality cast, some of them noir veterans: Raymond Burr, Howard Da Silva, Martin Gabel, Luther Adler, Steve Brodie, Norman Lloyd and Jim Backus. But it is David Wayne who plays the titular M. The character is different from the original film's Hans Beckert, so Wayne's performance is not a copy of what Peter Lorre did. He wasn't legendary like Lorre's star-making performance but that doesn't mean it was not dynamic nor memorable. He delivers a scintillating monologue in the final minutes and thankfully that can be found on YouTube.

This is about 20 minutes shorter than the original so there are some minor plot points and scenes that were omitted. Even with that noted, I say this is a worthy remake and something I wish was easier for people to see (at least the DVD can be purchased for cheap from Amazon) as it not only is a quality noir but a film which isn't a pal imitation of a film all movie fans should see.

Rewatching Films

That is what I've done the past two nights; I won't be watching anything tonight so I'll be back Saturday night. The films in question were Chillerama, which I hated even more than the first time, and Dying Breed, a horror movie I saw 5 1/2 years ago and remembered nothing about. Even after seeing it a second time, I remembered nothing from the first viewing... but it's irrelevant as Dying Breed is not too good.

The Snowman

The Snowman (2017)

8% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 137 reviews)

Runtime: 119 minutes

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jonas Karlsson, J.K. Simmons

From: Universal

Yes I have seen this and yes it is as atrocious as you've heard. Read the details below:

Mister Police... where's the rest of the script?

I haven't really dived into the Nordic Noir genre in any form, but I am familiar with it and before I had even heard of this film, I knew of author Jo Nesbo and the series of books based on the famous detective... Harry Hole. Yeah, it's pronounced differently in Norwegian so it's not hilarious there like it is in English, but it's impossible for me not to guffaw. Plus, the English pronunciation is used in the movie! I saw the trailers and they seemed fine and when it has a notable cast and a director in Tomas Alfredson who directed a movie I love (Let the Right One In) and a very good spy thriller in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, “a disaster” was something I never could have predicted, then I heard the toxic buzz a few weeks ago and I knew that something really went wrong. Then it actually came out and the reviews were absolutely brutal. Now I was curious... could it really be that bad?

Yes, yes it was.

From the trailers (which by the way are partially made up of footage that appears nowhere in the movie... and I am talking about important scenes such as the climax that were obviously changed) people should know this is about a detective who teams up with Rebecca Ferguson to stop a goofball who builds snowmen by the people that they murdered. I haven't read any of the book but multiple people have said it is far different and far more moody than the novel, which was a thrilling page-turner. Then there was how this was originally going to be directed by Scorsese (!) (boy did he dodge a bullet here; it's bad enough he is still an executive producer) and Afredson came on late in the game, and the shoot was way too short and somehow it wasn't discovered until editing that chunks of the script never got filmed, and even after reshoots an estimated 10 to 15% of the story did not even receive a second of footage. What a disaster.

As an aside, this does waste a talented cast, who are typically given nothing to work with. There is a famous actor who is in a few scenes (I am being vague as and he's had recent serious health issues. He's doing better now but at the time of filming... he did not look well. He was even dubbed; his presence in this film and the performance under those circumstances plays no part in my rating. I am glad he got a paycheck and I am happy things have not gotten worse. To steal a quote from someone else, this dubbed voice does not sound like the actor at all; instead, it sounds like Tom Hardy as John Fitzgerald in The Revenant! The worst part of that was how it was obvious you rarely saw this actor speak... then when I saw them try to do ADR and it was CLEAR the voice did not match what his mouth was doing, suddenly it made sense.

I am not sure if this would be any good even if they got to film everything their hearts desired; the script just may have been a crappy version of a good book, something destined to make those fans angry. Perhaps Harry Hole would have always been hyped up as “a great detective” and none of those skills would have actually been shown, as that's in the finished product. But I have to presume we wouldn't have had so many subplots brought up then forgotten about, and maybe all the time spent with Oslo getting the Winter Olympics... excuse me, “Winter World Games” would have had a point. Maybe there would have been actual clues for Harry to spot so he could solve the case by being brilliant instead of stumbling into things or the killer being really stupid and making himself known to Harry; yes, the main poster for the movie lied there. Perhaps there was an explanation for why on two occasions the villain was connected to the 1972 instrumental pop song Popcorn, by Hot Butter-you likely have heard it before and never knew its name-only for that never to be heard again. There's no logical explanation for why this person would love early 70's Moog/synth music.

But what we got, what a mesmerizing dumpster fire. The opening scene was rather confounding, and so is the ending, for different reasons. It's a crap sandwich, except the bread is made of sewage. I could go on and on concerning its badness but take my word for it, the poor reviews from critics, film fans and even the Average Jane & Joe (this has a D Cinemascore, for crying out loud), it's all correct. I realize that making Hollywood movies is quite the complex, taxing ordeal involving hundreds of moving parts so it's not surprising that even excluding the dreaded “studio interference”, many films are not as good as they could and probably should be. Here, I am baffled... this is a film released by Universal, with famous and respected people in front and behind the camera, and they wanted to make a series of films about a popular fictional literary character known by a certain segment of people all around the world... how did this go so badly they released the movie as is instead of trying to do even more shooting to fill in some of the gaps? Why is the script so different from the spirit of the novel? There's no reason for this to turn out as appalling as it did. The chances of this being a franchise have... melted away...

Diabolique

Diabolique (Les Diaboliques) (1955)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Directed by: Henri-Georges Clouzot

Starring: Simone Signoret, Vera Clouzot, Paul Meurisse, Charles Vanel, Jean Brochard

From: Filmsonor/Vera Films

Yep, this movie's awesome. See why below: 

I figured it was time for me to watch and review a classic, and a classic this is. The film is pure Hitchcockian... heck, Hitch wanted to make it too but legendary French director Henri-Georges Clouzot got the rights to the screenplay first. Some aspects wouldn't have been allowed in a Hollywood film (especially the cursing; when it came out in the United States, some parts were edited out) so this being made in France was for the best.

The plot isn't too complicated: both the wife and the mistress of an awful tyrant of a human being that runs a low-rent boarding school (comprised of really bratty kids, but maybe that's just me) conspire to kill him. You see the way he acts and treats people, it's not hard to believe at all that those two ladies would come together to commit such a serious act. It happens, but... I dare not spoil the rest, except that the ending is incredible. After all, the last thing you see from the movie is a titlecard telling you not to tell anyone else what happens in the movie.

The two ladies, they clearly have different personalities. The wife is a nervous wreck-she isn't in the best of health-while the mistress is pretty strong-willed. It was always intriguing watching those two interact, although the best part of the film is how it always builds suspense and as its patient, it means being on edge often as the screws slowly turn and you see how their plans turn out and how they react when certain developments happen. Thankfully there are some minor characters that are wacky so they provided a few needed laughs.

It wasn't until last night that I had remembered there was a 1996 Hollywood remake; I am sure I hadn't thought of it in about 20 years. Shock of shocks, I understand it's no good. I know the story was turned into a pair of old TV movies with different titles and I'm sure they're fine... but this is easy to track down so I say this is a must... especially if you love Hitchcock films. The acting, the filmmaking, all the unnerving moments, characters being wracked with guilt... its legendary rep is deserved.

Altered States

Altered States (1980)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Ken Russell (no relation)

Starring: William Hurt, Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, Charles Haid

From: Warner Bros.

What an unusual yet enthralling movie this was. While it's hard to fully describe using only words and not spoiling much, I still attempt to explain why below: 

Here is one of those movies where I remember the movie's poster as a VHS cover from my days as a kid when I saw it while browsing the videostores. Yes, I am dating myself here. Yet it wasn't until last night that I finally gave it a shot. It is pretty good, and no surprise that it's weird given the director is Ken Russell... no relation. But he wasn't the first director hired to do the film and by his standards this is somewhat normal.

The plot: William Hurt plays a typical William Hurt kind of character... a haughty, arrogant but brilliant guy (he is a college professor of psychology at Harvard, after all) who meets then marries fellow genius Blair Brown as he and Bob Balaban do experiments in sensory-deprivation tanks. It's done for research reasons but apparently it's a real trip. We flash-forward in time and their relationship is troubled; he ends up in Mexico and yeah it's a trope, but he meets an Indian tribe and takes some wacky psychotropic drug and he gets the bright idea to combine that with being in a sensory-deprivation tank; it creates quite the result that is an incredible scientific breakthrough... but it's also quite dangerous, to say the least.

No surprise given the background of the two leads that big concepts and 10 dollar words are thrown about. I don't mean that negatively; I am just clarifying what sort of film it is. Things are usually over the top, sometimes ridiculously so. Yet it's always compelling and the psychedelic images you get to see are definitely unforgettable; for sure the images are better seen than described. They are quite wild and quite bizarre. Considering it's a movie about the mind and how much of it is still a mystery along with talk of mankind's origins, no surprise this is quite the trip, in several different ways.

This is based on a Paddy Chayefsky novel; he did not like either original director Arthur Penn or Russell and did not like this film adaptation; I haven't read the book so I can't compare the two. I can say that this is a different sort of horror movie and if what I described sounds enticing, then you can check this out.

Seven Blood-Stained Orchids

Seven Blood-Stained Orchids (Sette Orchidee Macciate Di Rosso) (1972)

Runtime: 92 minutes

Directed by: Umberto Lenzi (RIP)

Starring: Antonio Sabato, Sr., Uschi Glas, Pier Paolo Capponi, Rossella Falk, Marisa Mell

From: Several Italian companies

I paid tribute to a memorable director that recently passed away, and I am glad I saw a good movie for this purpose: 

I knew that after I had heard the sad news of Umberto Lenzi passing away, I needed to soon watch one of his films in tribute. While I need to rewatch some to give them more proper reviews, in the past 5 years or so I've seen eight (including this movie) of his motion pictures; most were poliziotteschi but there was also the infamous Nightmare City, which is his insane version of a zombie picture. He's an Italian genre director in the best of ways; the stories are wild and over the top, there's plenty of sleaze, many badass moments... I've only seen a small percentage of his work but I've enjoyed most of it so I was saddened to hear he passed away. As I need to see more giallo in general, why not go with something I could easily track down, and it's one of the many genre efforts which has a great title.

The plot: A woman (Giulia) escapes “The Half-Moon Maniac” (at least that's their name in the dubbed version on Amazon) and she-along with Antonio Sabato, Sr.-has to solve a case which involves her and six other women (explaining the title of the movie; it's not as random as it sounds). Even their nickname has an explanation: the killer leaves a silver half-moon medallion with the corpse of each victim, because... well, there's an explanation as to why.

If you're expecting this to be stylish like an Argento giallo, then you should expect to be disappointed; you'll also be crestfallen if you think this will be a masterpiece. Yet I can still say it's good. The deaths were fine overall, with one pretty memorable. There was an interesting connection that tied all the women together and the mystery aspect was satisfactory, although Giulia having trouble remembering faces was a little convenient. The killer wore black gloves and sometimes used a small knife as a weapon, so they definitely fit in the genre. This definitely is a Lenzi picture, in that there's plenty of sleaze and several women appear topless. There's also wackiness involving hippies, and there's also a homosexual element and as it's Italy in the 1970's... it's not the most nuanced portrayal but I have seen worse.

If you want to see a giallo which focuses hard on the mystery aspect (yet still has some good horror moments), this may work for you.

Savageland

Savageland (2015)

Runtime: 81 minutes

Directed by: Phil Guidry/Simon Herbert/David Whelan

Starring: This is a faux documentary

From: The Massive Film Company

Here is an obscurity actually worth tracking down, which thankfully is an easy task to accomplish: 

As occasionally happens, I hear a movie get recommended on a messageboard and beforehand it was unknown to me but the praise attracts my attention. Well, a few months ago someone praised this faux documentary and while they were vague, what was said did pique my interest. Last night I finally got around to seeing this (at least for the past few months it's been available on Amazon Instant, and if you're a Prime member the film is free) and I am glad I did. Even in horror circles this is obscure so I am happy to shine some light on it.

For something that had to be microbudget, this manages to be pretty haunting and that was done through a simple device. The plot: the tiny town of Sangre de Cristo (Blood of Christ), Arizona has all its citizens die or vanish one night except for one guy: Francisco Salazar, who is accused of killing everyone. Blaming solely him sounds preposterous but as the movie makes crystal clear, the town is not far from the Mexican border and as the entire state is full of prejudiced people and it's by a mostly white town and Sangre de Cristo is mainly comprised of Hispanics, anti-Mexican fever is blazing hot so it is easy to make him a scapegoat, albeit one who has an unwavering story, even if it sounds totally illogical. But suddenly there are photos discovered that this budding photography buff took and... I dare not spoil what the photos show, except the pictures are worth many thousands of words as they make you imagine the horrors that happen.

As a random aside, I'll mention now that the cast is full of unknowns... except Len Wein. Yes, comic book fans, the guy who passed away only about a month ago and was involved with the creation of such characters as Wolverine, Storm, Swamp Thing, Nightcrawler, Lucius Fox, and I am sure many others. He plays a famous photographer who only appears a few times but does explain why Salazar would keep on using his camera and the explanation does make sense.

There were a few moments where I went “wait a minute” after something happened and the very ending seems like something someone erroneously stated the film “needed”; I took that all into consideration and I can still give this movie a nice rating. With not a lot of money, they used the clever idea of letting a roll of three dozen black and white photographs show what happened and it managed to be pretty impactful; it also allowed for some harsh story beats to be presented and lessening the likelihood of those beats being a turn-off.

Such things were issues when this film was made a few years ago-despite what it says on Letterboxd, it only was released this year; filming took place a long while ago-but I presume the filmmakers had no idea that in late 2017, both the border between the United States and Mexico & the treatment of minorities by the police would be even more significant issues. Anyhow, factoring in the rough around the edges moments (like realizing that the filmmakers aren't as familiar with the legal system as they perhaps should be), the film is still worthy enough for horror fans to give it a shot.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

Runtime: 104 minutes

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

Starring: Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd, Joanna Cassidy, Charles Fleischer, Stubby Kaye

From: Touchstone Pictures

I could have sworn I had watched and reviewed this here before; I did a search and saw I was mistaken, so here we go:

As I am sure many 7 year olds did in the summer of 1988, I went and saw this movie on the big screen; in this case it was with my mom and two sisters. I enjoyed it at the time, but it wasn't until later in life that I fully appreciated the movie. After all, it should come as no surprise that as a 7 year old, I had never seen a film noir, let alone something like Chinatown. As an adult I can now acknowledge such things and how clever this movie is.

I imagine most are familiar with the plot of how it's 1947 Hollywood and the universe is where humans exist alongside the cartoon world, and the story is totally noir with hardboiled down on his luck detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) taking what he thinks is an easy job where he has to take some pictures for a studio head turns out to be much more, a conspiracy involving an evil judge and a sexpot woman is unwittingly involved... and what an interesting character Jessica is: many are overcome with desire by merely looking at her and yet among all the men she could marry, she chose one who made her laugh.

The film is great in how it works both for kids and adults. I appreciate the adult story involving such serious drama as Valiant being haunted by his brother's death along with the things that would be appealing to younger folk, such as all the humor and finding it easy to believe that this world exists and you never doubt the idea of humanity co-inhabiting with the cartoon world. I've heard about all the effort it took to make fantasy a reality; as it's not a CGI creation that makes it a hell of a lot more impressive.

As a kid I watched plenty of old cartoons so of course I loved seeing the plentiful amount of different classic characters from a wide variety of different studios and I'll admit, it's still awesome seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse (or Donald and Daffy Duck) interact with each other. By the way, the old urban legend of Donald calling Daffy an awful racial slur... it's bollocks.

I am thankful that as an adult I can rate this movie so highly and enjoy its unique story and also believe every second of it, and note that when he did it (even in some terrible movies I saw a long time ago) Christopher Lloyd could play an unforgettable villain. If you haven't seen this in ages or even if ::gasp:: you have never watched this at all, I say this is a problem you need to rectify.

Amityville: The Awakening

Amityville: The Awakening (2017)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: Franck Khalfoun

Starring: Bella Thorne, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Mckenna Grace, Cameron Monaghan, Kurtwood Smith

From: The “wonderful” people at The Weinstein Company

This... this is really bad. I give many details as to why: 

Would you believe that McG's The Babysitter (as available on Netflix Instant) wasn't the only Bella Thorne movie to be released online late last week? This is so “good” that it was put on Google Play... for free. Only because of that did I see this film that sat on the shelf for several years. No matter how bad it was, the way the brothers Weinstein treated that (and many other films) is pretty gross, although what was made public about Harvey recently-and it's now news that apparently his brother Bob did similar behavior-that is a hill of beans in comparison to the humongous problem that exists in Hollywood... and many segments of society, to be honest. I just presume it's in general gone on for decades and hopefully this means that at least there will be attempts to stop such repugnant behavior and gross sexism.

But let me get back to discussing why this is so bad. The story is so ridiculous and full of logical fallacies. Thorne is an angsty teen who happens to move into the alleged haunted house on 108 Ocean Avenue (as it's known now; it used to be 112 Ocean Avenue) with her mom (Jennifer Jason Leigh!), younger sister and twin brother, who is in a vegetative state due to an accident, and if you actually want to watch this film (which I wouldn't recommend doing), wait until you hear the circumstances behind it. Thorne and Leigh don't get along and it's just not enjoyable to watch. Let me mention some bullet points that are comprised of examples:

* This is not terrifying. At all. Even worse, the lame tropes that litter far too many horror films in these modern times are included. There's a random old pop song, stupid jump scares that don't actually scare you, a young kid talking to a malevolent spirit they did not realize was putting on a facade of being friendly, etc.

* The film is meta. That is not good in this case. The original Jay Anson book (which is how the whole business of presenting a goofy story that people still believe is true, even though in all probability it is not) is namedropped, along with he 1979 James Brolin/Margot Kidder movie; they exist in this universe. Alright. Regrettably for them, we are shown some footage from The Amityville Horror film (because the movie is watched in the house!) and all it did was make me want to watch that again instead. As goofy as that was, at least it was wildly entertaining between the over the top moments (many of which were in the book) and Rod Steiger devouring the scenery due to him being out of control with his performance.

* There's a minor character named Terrence who goes to the same school as Thorne's character. What an obnoxious A-hole he is. He acts like a Men's Rights Activist and probably watches Rick & Morty as he feels like he's Rick.

* This movie had the temerity to say the Ryan Reynolds Amityville Horror “blows” because it's a remake. Yep... I imagine it's not great but in comparison...

* They try to explain why you had events in the house 40 years ago but nothing happens again until now. It's goofy and the characters laugh at it like it's a dumb suggestion; only, nothing else is ever suggested, so am I to presume this is the canon explanation?

* MUSIC BY ROB. This is an actual credit. The homeboy's full name is Robin Coudert-who has worked in the genre before-and honestly, how can I take him seriously if he just calls himself Rob?

* I could go on and on but you're better off watching or rewatching the 1979 movie; at least that way you can enjoy the epic combination of James Brolin's hair and beard. There is at least EIGHTEEN movies with Amityville in their name; I know that some have to be even worse than this... after all, some have dealt with haunted objects from the house ending up many hundreds of miles away, including dollhouses and clocks. There is plenty of recent horror you can find streaming somewhere which is more worth your time than this drivel.

Honeymoon

Honeymoon (2014)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: Leigh Janiak

Starring: Most of this movie is just Rose Leslie and Harry Treadaway

From: Fewlas Entertainment

You know, this is a horror movie on Netflix Instant actually worth watching; see why below: 

I figured it was time for me to watch some more modern horror during this spooky season so I went with a flick I heard praise for a few years ago but never got around to watching until now. This is one of those films that takes its time, but I am not saying that in a pejorative way; it's not dreadfully dull and boring like some recent horror movies... I won't name names...

Bea (Rose Leslie) and Paul (Harry Treadaway) are indeed a couple that just got married. They have their honeymoon at a cabin owned by Bea's parents. They are an average couple of average means. They act like typical newlyweds, meaning that yes, “sex” is a part of the equation, and frequently. Most of the movie is just those two characters. One night she wanders aimlessly in the woods and that's when things change... the time spent before that was important as not only did you get to know the two, but you see how differently they act to each other after that fateful night.

I don't want to say much else as the probably cliché phrase “going in cold” does apply here. Besides, the movie can be interpreted several different ways, and how you like this may depend on how well you think this succeeded at delivering a certain message. Me, I say that the movie was successful at being ambiguous and the story read literally works in large part due to not only the filmmaking craft but also the performances of Leslie and Treadaway. I appreciated how it wasn't a standard horror movie, although there are still some gross moments. I now know why it got some strong praise at the time; it can currently be streamed on Netflix Instant and I am sure it's better than a lot of the dreck you can find in the horror section on that service.

Friday The 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Rob Hedden

Starring: Jensen Daggett, Kane Hodder, Scott Reeves, Sharlene Martin, Peter Mark Richman

From: Paramount

Oh, what a silly piece of crap this is. See me explain this below: 

As yesterday was Friday the 13th and I've watched/reviewed the first 7 in this franchise, this was the logical choice for me. Paramount's meddling, the film having a pitiful low budget and the MPAA rearing its ugly head again really hampered this movie and yet I can still say it is OK, even if part of the equation is me laughing AT it.

I am sure everyone knows by now how Jason ends up on a “cruise ship” that looks like a tanker ship full of oil or gasoline and not only is the NYC stuff reserved for the third act, it's mainly Vancouver and only a small fraction was actually filmed in The Big Apple. The movie is stump dumb and pretty inept; I could go on and on about flubs and logic errors, but I say a lot of the blame goes with Paramount for slashing the budget at the last minute; what a thing to do for a franchise that made them money.

I'll say that the cast and crew did try, and Jensen Daggett was likable as the lead girl, Rennie. The way the ending turned out was a little baffling, including how Jason looked... either he suffered a lot of water damage at the bottom of Crystal Lake or they decided to (and I'm borrowing a phrase here) make him look like a Muppet. Maybe they had some of the “top dollar toot” cocaine that the bitchy trampy Tamara was using. While the kills were unfortunately neutered because of the MPAA being melonheads at the time, there still were memorable moments-such as the ultimate fate of Julius-and some stereotypical yet still enjoyable characters. Thus, I can say this was OK and this being different helps, although the idea of Jason in New York City could have been pretty awesome. At least Metropolis's The Darkest Side of the Night was quite the late 80's tune.

The Foreigner

The Foreigner (2017)

54% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 59 reviews)

Runtime: 114 minutes

Directed by: Martin Campbell

Starring: Jackie Chan, Pierce Brosnan, Michael McElhatton, Dermot Crowley, Charlie Murphy (no, not that one; this is actually an Irish actress)

From: STX and many other companies, most of them Chinese

As an aside, maybe I should be more careful in where and when I see a film. Once again, the crowd at a theatrical experience I was at wasn't great, and thus I wanted to break the noses of several people but in actuality I just stared them down as I walked out of the auditorium at the movie's end.

Anyhow, last night I saw this movie's premiere. I was interested; as the movie's marketing stressed, Jackie Chan would be appearing in a film getting a wide release in the United States for the first time in a long while; in fact, if you discount a movie I always will presume is atrocious (the Karate Kid remake) it's been almost a solid decade. Plus, judging by the trailers he was doing some acts you'd expect from a villain. I realize he was mad because Pierce Brosnan was not giving him help he thought he'd be able to give in the wake of Jackie's daughter dying in a London bombing attack but it was still a surprise as at least in the past 40 years he has turned down roles-including those in Hollywood films-where he'd be the villain as he only wanted to be seen as the hero in China.

As this is brand new I won't spoil anything important, or who should be considered the heroes and villains in this movie. I'll just mention that while it's explained in the movie, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an important plot point. I am old enough to remember them but I imagine some of you have no idea. Basically, in the latter half of the 20th century there were extremely violent clashes over a segment of the population wishing Northern Ireland would not be a part of the United Kingdom and instead be united with the Republic of Ireland. In addition, Chan was in his early 60's when he made this movie so it's no surprise he doesn't do his astounding martial arts like he used to (or with such frequency); that said, what you do see is still entertaining, plus it's a nice change of pace for me to see him act and emote.

This isn't great and some aspects of the plot can certainly be questioned. Even then, I thought this was a good time; as I heard someone else mentioned, the style of this and even the musical score will remind you of a certain crime drama director. I understand this is based on an early 90's book (which explains the IRA elements) and that is also why Jackie is playing a Vietnamese man; he was a producer on this so he was OK with playing a different nationality. The story doesn't always mesh well together but I can still say I was entertained by this picture.

Bones

Bones (2001)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: Ernest Dickerson

Starring: Snoop Dogg, Pam Grier, Clifton Powell, Ricky Harris, Michael T. Weiss

From: New Line Cinema

Yep, another movie I am revisiting for the first time in many years. Read what I thought of this below: 

As sometimes happen, the inspiration to see this random movie came from a messageboard discussion. In this particular case, some people were talking about this and I remarked that I watched it in full on VHS... soon after it came out but that was it and I honestly did not remember a damn thing about the movie besides it starring Snoop Dogg and Pam Grier. I was surprised when I saw the name of cult favorite Katharine Isabelle in the opening credits.

A fellow Letterboxd member described this as “a blaxploitation Hellraiser movie” and that did make me laugh. One plot element is definitely “borrowed” from the original Pinhead movie. Snoop Dogg is Jimmy Bones, who is a “numbers runner” (but he's also a drug dealer & it's basically played like he's a pimp, because of course) in 1979; he is murdered and his brownstone home becomes a tomb where his spirit is trapped. In 2001, a group of of young people (three of them are brothers and white step-sister) buy that place and (again, because of course) they want to turn it into a nightclub, even though the neighborhood is now a really bad, barren ghetto. There's also a black dog that's a manifestation of Bones. Not to spoil anything, but I'll just mention that Jimmy Bones does return, and his fashion sense is “cosplay of The Undertaker.”

I wish I could rate this at higher than average, but it takes awhile to get going, there are some dopey moments, some of the acting is not great and a character or two is annoying. Let's not even talk about how poorly much of the CGI has aged. It's regrettable as “urban horror” should always be more of a thing and the general idea of someone coming back to life looking for revenge on those that wronged him is clearly a good one, and that was the best part of this movie. The movie is flashy and it is pretty stylish; at times it's real colorful (almost as if it's a giallo) and there are interesting ideas present. I just wish the bones of the story (I know, I know) would have been more solid.

As is, it's an intriguing film which doesn't quite work but because of the presence of director Ernest Dickerson (who has directed good films and also various music videos) this is at least average which makes it better than many of the genre pictures you can find on services such as Netflix Instant and when you narrow it down to just “urban horror”, this might as well be The Exorcist in comparison to some of the travesties you find there.

I Walked With A Zombie

I Walked with a Zombie (1943)

Runtime: A lean mean 69 minutes

Directed by: Jacques Tournier

Starring: James Ellison, Frances Dee, Tom Conway, Edith Barrett, 

From: RKO

Thank heavens this lived up to the hype I heard about beforehand. Read some details below:

Last night this played on Turner Classic Movies. Last month I saw the original Cat People; I mentioned it on a messageboard and it was recommended to me that I see this one. Of course I was familiar with the film but this was my first viewing.

This movie isn't a “zombie picture” in a traditional sense; there is plenty of voodoo as a Canadian nurse travels to a fictitious Caribbean island to take care of a young woman who is in a catatonic state. Throughout the short 69 minute runtime, there are plenty of chilling moments, bits that I will never forget. I dare not divulge many of the secrets for those wanting to see this in the future (as there's a lot to unpack), except that there's a bug-eyed man you see a few times, and there's a haunting image I'll never forget; the same goes for how this ends.

This is a low-budget affair but they made the most with the money and it is easy to believe they are actually in the Caribbean. Like in Cat People, light and shadow are used perfectly. The history of the region and how the white European man colonized the area and treated the poor natives is one of the plot points; I mention that as an example of how this isn't just “another low-budget horror flick” from a long time ago, and its highly lofted reputation is deserved.

Boogie Nights

Boogie Nights (1997)

Runtime: 155 minutes

Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring: A great cast, including Mark Wahlberg, John C. Reilly, Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, & Don Cheadle

From: New Line Cinema

Monday night I rewatched this film; by sheer coincidence, Tuesday was the 20th anniversary of the movie's debut. It is an excellent motion picture, as I describe below: 

NOTE: I swear I did not know this until after rewatching the film late last night but 10/10/97 is the day this premiered; what better time for this review than on its 20th anniversary.

Of course this is an excellent movie I've seen before-several times in fact-but this bold look at various people involved in the 70's porno industry in Southern California (and their downfall in the 80's) hadn't been watched by me in WAY too long. I was happy to fix this and I am happy I can still give this my highest rating.

I understand those who wouldn't care for it, whether it's the subject matter, the hard R rating this has, or anything else. I have no problem with the decidedly adult tale where high school dropout Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) becomes porn star Dirk Diggler due to being hung like a horse. Along the way there are plenty of colorful characters who end up in wild situations and yet the film is still believable as (among other things) all of them act natural to each other and for example, you get to see Dirk befriend Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly) over discussion about working out.

The characters all have their hang-ups, their flaws, their relationship problems, etc. For example, Jack Horner (the great Burt Reynolds) wishes to make pornography that is comparable to “real” cinema. Those things happened in the first half (the rockin' 70's) and at a big party in the middle of the film-which is literally the end of the decade-some important things happen, including a shocking moment that's the sign the movie is making quite the change.

You enjoy the characters by this point so when it's the 80's and things go to hell, you do feel bad for them even if some of them do a few unfortunate things, usually involving drugs. Really, don't do those hardcore drugs. There's the performances from the incredible cast that is a great asset but it's the filmmaking in general that stands out the most. I had forgotten how often the camera moves around, but only in the best of ways. Zoom ins and zoom outs, and plenty of the camera following the characters around. The best is the opening scene, where in a few minutes we meet the most important characters at the nightclub run by Maurice (Luis Guzman).

I haven't seen everything that P.T. Anderson has done and not everything I have watched I even liked. Yet I think this is still the best thing he's ever done. All the little details and even touches like the wild 70's being filled with popular music while the 80's has a lot less of that (it's mostly saved for an unforgettable scene with Alfred Molina), I think this film is still outstanding, and I am glad I can wax poetic about it on its 20th anniversary.

Billy The Kid vs. Dracula

Billy the Kid vs. Dracula (1966)

Runtime: 73 minutes

Directed by: William Beaudine

Starring: John Carradine, Chuck Courtney, Melinda Plowman, Virginia Christine, Walter Janovitz

From: Circle Productions Inc.

Would you believe I've seen the hokum once before? It's not atrocious, but that doesn't mean it's any good. Read why below:

Much to my delight, this film was on Turner Classic Movies Sunday night (yes, really) and long ago I had seen both this and its companion film, Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter; shock of shocks, neither is any good but as this was on I might as well see it a second time.

The plot is quite simple: Dracula (John Carradine) ends up in the Wild West, where he ends up at a ranch. Via contrivances, he impersonates the uncle of a blond lass, whose boyfriend happens to be Billy the Kid. There are also German immigrants who are there to try and convince people this dude actually is a vampire. This is only 73 minutes long so they did not try to write a Dostoyevsky novel with the script.

It definitely is silly and goofy, and has the attention to care and detail you'd expect from William Beaudine, who was known at the time as “One Shot”, which was not a description of his drinking habits but rather how quickly he filmed his movies. Yet while it's a piece of crap, I did not find it to be an awful piece of crap so I can't give it a bottom of the barrel rating. At least I could laugh at its shoddiness and marvel at the doofy vampire mythology it created, where not only did Carradine walk around in the daytime, his way of hypnotizing women is... bugging his eyes out and usually being bathed in red light. That dude did try... he was the highlight of the movie for sure.

Bring 'Em Back Alive

Bring 'Em Back Alive (1932)

Runtime: 64 minutes

Directed by: Clyde E. Elliott

Starring: This is a nature documentary starring Frank Buck

From: RKO

What a curio this was; not very good, mind you, but you'll see what I mean below: 

Not being able to sleep after a night that included both drama and a drunken oaf almost crashing into me on the road after taking a turn way too fast and spinning out... that means I was still up at a rather odd hour so I saw this obscurity on Turner Classic Movies. I understand the movie was rather popular at the time but for reasons about to become clear, it's something no one knows about now.

This documentary at barely over an hour is about an animal trapper named Frank Buck who was in what is now known as Malaysia to capture animals for zoos. The title refers to how he's not an animal hunter and that is a huge humblebrag on his part... yet he's an A-hole who takes baby critters from their moms (including a poor little elephant) so perhaps he shouldn't pat himself on the back so hard. Thank heavens zoos do not operate this way; despite what the psychopathic nutjobs at PETA would like to say, most zoos are reputable and do a lot to help animals. Maybe you shouldn't also chop down an entire tree in order to capture a young orangutan, nor refer to the adult natives as “boys”.


Then there's how the movie was more staged than a Kardashian show. There are plenty of animal confrontations, but it's so blatant how they set it up and none of it happened naturally, not even a They Live-like fight between a tiger and a python. Sure, I got laughs from the tawdry narration done by the middle-aged mustached Buck and I'd love to see how they created those obviously fake sound effects (I imagine some idiot snarling into the mic) but this is incredibly condescending 85 years later and even though this Pre-Code entry features some topless natives, stick with Planet Earth instead if you want to see all creatures great and small in the wild.

The Tin Star

The Tin Star (1957)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Anthony Mann

Starring: Henry Fonda, Anthony Perkins, Betsy Palmer, Neville Brand, John McIntire

From: Paramount

I've mentioned before that I need to watch more Westerns. Late last night on TCM they showed this film, one I wasn't too familiar with beforehand. Each Friday night this month they are playing a bunch of Anthony Perkins movies, and he is one of the two stars; the other is Henry Fonda. The plot was simple enough yet it was pretty entertaining.

Fonda was an ex-sheriff bounty hunter who ends up in a small dusty town to collect a bounty, and he sticks around for a few days; he stays at the house of Betsy Palmer and her half-Indian son and he helps out young neophyte sheriff Perkins. As you'd expect, he was a nervous neurotic awkward character and while he only has the position temporarily, he is poor at the job, so he asks Fonda for help. There's also the likes of Lee Van Cleef and Neville Brand; not to give a spoiler but it was not surprising to me that Brand was one of the villains.

That little kid was pretty annoying at times; otherwise, I have little complaint about this well-filmed movie. It was always enjoyable seeing Perkins learn from a master and be good at his job. It was also good seeing Fonda develop a relationship with both Palmer and her boy, who thankfully was not a mongoloid freak... there is the expected genre moments; plenty of people ride horses and pistols are in fact used to shoot at people. The main roles were cast perfectly... between the inexperienced sheriff, the veteran bounty hunter and the tough mom. That was an asset, along with a rousing final act that was done with patience and care.


This random Western discovery is proof to me that I should delve into the genre more often.

Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 220 reviews)

Runtime: 164 minutes

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Jared Leto

From: Warner Brothers/Columbia/Sony

In the review below, I'll do something highly unusual: give massive spoilers for a new movie. I do so at a certain point; the first part of the review is the typical for me. Give it a shot below:

I never do spoiler-filled reviews but this is the rare opportunity where I have to do so as otherwise I can't adequately explain why this did not work for me like it has worked for a lot of people already. Yeah, it's the story which I had issues with. In theory it certainly should work; it was the execution which I am iffy about. First, I'll say some general things then I'll get to the spoilers.

The original Blade Runner I've seen a few times; the first was soon after the Director's Cut came out then the other times were as adults. The initial viewing I was “meh” on but I was a dumb kid. As an adult I realized the movie's great. I could be wrong but I doubt additional viewings of this will drastically change my mind. I won't reveal anything about the story here except for one plot point in the trailers, which is that Ryan Gosling looks for Harrison Ford, and eventually finds him.

I can list positives: the cast does a swell job overall. Ford doesn't always put in a lot of effort in his Old Man movie roles, but he really goes for it here. If you can see this on an IMAX screen or another Premium Large Format screen-Dolby Cinema at AMC, Regal's RPX, Cinemark's XD, etc. then you should; if the auditorium has speakers on the ceiling (like Dolby ATMOS or Barco 11.1), all the better as I did with Dolby Cinema at AMC and aside from sounding/looking amazing, the ceiling speakers were used often. The cinematographer is Roger Deakins so no kidding it's a visual treat. Even with there being plenty of grey, I usually marveled at what I was seeing. The soundtrack... if you loved what Vangelis did back in 1982 then you should love this as that was an extension of that. The world you get to see does look like an evolved and expanded version of the Los Angeles 2019 of the first BR.

There was enough to where I can say this was “fine” but as most rate this a lot higher, I need to explain why I feel this way. Now is the time for SPOILERS. This is the last warning; leave this review now if you haven't already watched the movie and plan on seeing it.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

As previously mentioned, the story was the movie's bugaboo. On the surface it seems fine: the theme is continued of both what it means to be human and being fearful of mortality. Gosling being a Replicant makes sense (and Lord, he acts like his characters in Drive and Only God Forgives, meaning he was perfect as the cop known as K) and you get to spend plenty of time with him struggling with what he is. Him having a VR girlfriend named Joi who also helps him on his case was weird but after the fact, I realize that Replicants need lovin' too... I have no problems with her character, what she did, or especially her physical appearance...

Onto the general story. The idea of there being a new company that makes Replicants (Wallace) and Wallace himself wishes for a way for them to be made faster so new worlds can be conquered faster so there being the discovery of a kid born of a human and a Replicant solves his problem. Replicants wishing for more freedom and the offspring actually not being perfect but instead having a serious disease, all of these ideas are great and a great story can be made.

What was the biggest letdown: the film was so predictable and obvious to me. I presume that in the first act, it was supposed to be obvious those buried bones are those of Rachael; I can't say for certain but I'll make that presumption. You then have to wait at least 10 minutes for the characters to catch up and discover this themselves.

I don't think you're supposed to realize before the big reveal that Gosling isn't the offspring of Deckard and Rachael like what was hammered home for much of the film. That idea was stressed so much I eventually figured out that couldn't be it and there would be a swerve. It wasn't long after he met The Girl in the Plastic Bubble that I started to think it had to be her who was the child. The length of the scene and her reaction at one point seemed odd at the time; I was suddenly struck while watching it that her reaction had to mean something, thus I made the guess. I was disappointed when I was proven right as it was so obvious for me and I am not one who either tries to figure out the movie while watching it or can usually nail the plot twists.

Then, I don't quite buy or get the explanations given for why K and the audience were so convinced via plenty of clues which suggested he was the starchild or whatever you want to call it. To me it seems contrived for the sake of a big twist and I am not sure why a big twist was even needed. It just seemed like a waste of time spending all that time making you think K is special when in actuality... I had various niggles with the story but I explained what my biggest hangups were. I do have to mention the film's length. A few weeks ago I discovered it was 164 minutes long and what a shock that was; I enjoyed being in this world but the runtime did not need to be 164 minutes.

Many people thinking of this as a sterling film experience, a sci-fi masterpiece and comparable to the legendary, influential original. It was nice to see and hear and yet I thought it was a hollow experience and I wish I wouldn't have been able to telegraph such an important plot point. Eh, at least there's the original and that will always hold up.

Child's Play

Child's Play (1988)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: Tom Holland

Starring: Catherine Hicks, Chris Sarandon, Alex Vincent, Brad Dourif, Dinah Manoff

From: MGM/UA

A lot of people are talking about the franchise this week, as the new film (the seventh!) was just released on Netflix Instant. Below, I talk about the original:

As sometimes happens, it was messageboard discussion which spawned me watching a film. Of course I've watched this before but plenty of people here have been talking about the new Cult of Chucky (it's not just been Letterboxd where it's a hot topic) and the entire franchise in general. I'll just say I haven't seen all seven (!) of those films; there being that many is amazing, although it does help that one person has had control of it the entire time-Don Mancini-and he can make what he wants, and he's been able to take things in weird new directions. I know there are those who rate the series pretty highly and are impressed the seventh entry isn't as bad as a sexually transmitted disease like many 7th films in a franchise are. Eventually I imagine I'll watch/rewatch at least some of the sequels.

This OG film, yeah it is patently absurd, Brad Dourif using a voodoo chant to transfer his soul to a children's doll. Yet they did try... it helps that you enjoy both Andy Barclay and his mom, and even detective Chris Sarandon too. The kills aren't spectacular when it comes to brutality or blood & guts, I was OK with that as I know between the low budget and the effects of the time, things had to be done differently. While not graphically gory, the people Chucky dispatched still met rather painful deaths.

Like I said, it's easy to sympathize with both 6 year old Andy Barclay and his mom Karen. She is a single mom with one kid who has to work at a department store and she is struggling to get by. Then, there's Andy; he's a little kid and he has a toy based on his favorite cartoon character come to life, starts killing people, threatens to kill him, and people start thinking that HE has suddenly turned into a little psychopath. Rough. In addition, it also shows the hysteria that was a thing back in the early 80's over those ugly Cabbage Patch Kids dolls and what unfortunately has continued after 1988 with not only other toys, but also the gross trend of Black Friday, where people have been hurt and sometimes even killed over gross businesses selling various material items for cheap.

Anyhow, this was better than I had remembered so I am glad it was something I finally saw again.

The Wolf Man

The Wolf Man (1941)

Runtime: 70 minutes

Directed by: George Waggner

Starring: Lon Chaney, Jr., Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Evelyn Ankers

From: Universal

I thought about seeing two films last night, but after seeing this I was suddenly struck with fatigue and I figured I wouldn't even be able to stay awake any longer... thus, I only watched this piece of classic Universal Horror: 

TCM is showing classic horror all this month each Tuesday night; it made sense for me to see some of those films; why not see a wide range of genre entries all throughout October? Universal Horror seems like a must anyhow. This movie, my main impression was... what a pushy creepy guy Larry Talbot was, and not only was that the lead character, it was even before he was bit by a werewolf!

This dude rolls back into his old home area, and immediately he uses his dad's telescope to peep on attractive blonde Gwen Conliffe and he is then all over this dame, not taking no for an answer and thinking it's OK to meet up with her despite her telling him not to. Sure, they eventually go out for a long romantic walk... in the woods with Gwen's friend and he tries to save that friend from the werewolf, but at least with my eyes and in 2017, it did not play quite like it did in 1941. I know that some won't care for the subplot involving the old Gypsy stereotypes but that personally doesn't bother me too much... of course I am not Romani but I can comprehend why they would feel differently.

Even with all that said, I can give this film a favorable rating. It being well-made is always an asset. Things like light/shadow and some fog during the appropriate scenes set a great mood. Except for constantly being a horny wolf throughout, Werewolf Larry I guess wasn't so bad a guy; I can't complain about Lon Chaney, Jr's performance. The cast as a whole is fine but it's Chaney and Claude Rains who are the best. As Chaney comes to believe his fate, his pops Rains is of course incredulous at his son's claims. That is a lot of this movie; it takes time before you see Larry in his first iconic appearance as the werewolf.

While this isn't my favorite of the classic Universal Horror of old, that does not mean this is not pretty good.

Nosferatu

Nosferatu (Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens) (1922)

Runtime: 94 minutes

Directed by: F.W. Murnau

Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav Von Wangenheim, Greta Schroder, Alexander Granach, Georg H. Schnell

From: Prana Film

Whoops, it's time for me to catch up. Monday night I watched the new 4K print of Suspiria on the big screen, which was an awesome experience. I was impressed by how it looked and how it sounded. I'll be posting two reviews on Wednesday proper. For now, this silent classic: 

It is an amazing feat to play a role SO well and disturb so many people throughout the years that a movie was made which says that you actually were that creature and not an actor playing a role... I am referring to 2000's Shadow of the Vampire, and indeed Max Schreck was great as Count Orlok, i.e. Count Dracula, as this was a blatant unauthorized version of Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. One day I'll see Shadow of the Vampire but for now, this German Expressionist horror classic.

Everyone knows how hideous and horrifying Orlok was (a drastic change from the usual suave Dracula) but there are several people in this that are just bizarre-looking human beings. That adds to the creepiness factor of this tale; I don't need to recap the plot as it's the typical Dracula story. Our main character (Thomas Hutter) is rather nonchalant about being in a remote castle with a host who is quite ugly and he thinks that the bite marks on his neck are from mosquitoes. Others believing that “a plague” was happening when it was actually Orlok, that is more understandable.

Shreck in the role is a huge asset due to how well he plays it, but another big help is the direction of the great F.W. Murneau. His talent really shined here. It being a silent was not a big deal for me at all. I was invested in the story so reading the interstitials was no problem... not that it ever has been. The unique silent thing of various scenes being tinted various colors worked like aces here. The score that was used on the version shown on TCM that I watched was note-perfect; Berndt Heller can be thanked there. There are unforgettable moments, such as Orlok rising out of the coffin (I imagine many have stumbled upon that moment somehow even if they have never watched the movie in full).

Even if you don't really dig the silent films, if you have even a little interest in horror, this incredibly influential motion picture needs to be seen.