Review: Friday the 13th (1980)

Decades after the murder of two young counselors at Camp Crystal Lake, the site is reopening. A new group of counselors is arriving, refurbishing the place, and with them, they bring some bad habits young people might have. Soon, one of the group is missing, and it's only the beginning of a horrible series of events...

Slasher classic "Friday the 13th", directed by Sean S. Cunningham, written by Victor Miller, was surfing the wave of success created by "Halloween" (1978), but took the genre to the next level.

The tactics of repeated, short bursts of blunt, bizarre graphic violence on screen had been explored before, in Italian gialli, esp. "Ecologia Del Delitto" / "Reazione A Catena" ("A Bay of Blood", 1971). "Friday the 13th" takes the slick approach of what could be thriller made for TV, but adds spikes of gory violence, with some little hints at the supernatural, and maybe the psychedelic. But most of all, it does all of that in such a way, that the brutal murder scenes become the focal points of the movie. The story is good enough to drive things forward, and build suspense - then the violence comes from out of nowhere, it happens center screen, well lit, well laid out, just long enough so the viewer can take it all in and start screaming, only to calm down and wait for the next surprise to happen. 

There's a certain rhythm to "Friday the 13th" that hasn't been seen before. Where previous films would slow down and explain, "Friday the 13th" just enters the next round of build-up to some youngsters getting punished for their little sins in somewhat creative ways.

It's a gory mid-budget horror film, that is probably best seen as a comic strip for grown-ups, so it's not precisely profound. In fact it's very blunt, and has more in common with "Blood Feast" (1963), than with the subtle "Psycho" (1960). 

Which is its biggest quality: Very much like "Evil Dead" (1981), it does not pretend, it delivers. "Friday the 13th" is simple, to the point, superficial, but not stupid. The movie puts its focus on the thrills, but it has a rudimentary story that actually matters. Technically, it's very solid filmmaking, sometimes inventive and stylized, but not arty or experimental. The acting and imagery overall is great default material, with the occasional subjective camera thrown in, or some creative-bizarre shots and edits. The jump scares are numerous, and the gore scenes are spectacular to this day. The haunting music created by Harry Manfredini is one of a handful of elements that give the movie a very sophisticated, almost "classic" Hollywood touch. Some mature camera work when required, and the appearance of actress Betsy Palmer, are two other such elements indicating good old handicraft.

This film isn't an intellectual piece of art, that should be obvious by now. It doesn't want to educate. (Or, only in a very crude way.) It's entertainment, and it's very well done. "Friday the 13th" hits the sweet spot between heavy and dumb, it's quite literally the textbook definition of the kill-em-one-by-one slasher. It's a must see for all horror geeks and gore hounds anyway, but not just for collector's value or common knowledge - it's also an easily accessible, and exciting horror movie. 

44 years after release, there are far more elaborate, daring, or gory slasher films than "Friday the 13th", but it still stands out as one of the most recognizable, well rounded, and effective.

Verdict: The slasher's slasher. 7.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th_(1980_film)

Trailer video:

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqqej9T2gqI

  

* * *

Want to read another movie review? Click here to see all.

 

"28 Years Later" (2025) trailer released!

In just a couple of hours it got more than 1 million views on YouTube: The trailer for long awaited zombie* movie sequel "28 Years Later" has been released by Sony Pictures Entertainment.

After 28 Days Later (2002), which was a big success and is regarded as one of the best modern zombie horror films, and especially after 28 Weeks Later (2007), which was a satisfying sequel, a lot of people quite naturally were imagining another episode in the series titled "28 Years Later". And, after only 23 years, here it is, set for release in June 2025.

The trailer looks quite decent. It does tap a little bit into horror movie trailer stereotypes, with some fancy editing, trying to create that supposedly "disturbing" mood that has been seen in all trailers from "Jeepers Creepers" to "Insidious" - but overall it keeps things sober and gritty, suggesting a movie experience similar to that of the previous titles in the franchise. The budget of "28 Years Later" is by far the highest of the three films, and with Ralph Fiennes there's a top-class Hollywood actor in it. But with director Danny Boyle, screen writer Alex Garland, and actor/producer Cillian Murphy, "28 Years Later" also has a good amount of DNA from the original "28 Days Later".

Yeah, this could be a great movie!

Watch "28 Years Later" (2025) trailer:

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcvLKldPM08

What do you think? Did you like the trailer?

*

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10548174/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Years_Later

*

*) I know. It's rage, not (un)death.

Review: Tusk (2014)

After an appointment for an interview fails, two online producers try to save their trip by interviewing another person they weren't aware of before. This person, a seaman, has a story to tell about a survival experience involving a walrus - and he's also on a mission...

"Tusk" is a low-budget horror film with a near-cameo appearance by Johnny Depp, and a full appearance by a walrus. It's partly marketed as a comic horror film, but certainly not everyone agrees on the comic aspect. A strong stomach and strong nerves are required to sit it through, this is not "Young Frankenstein" or "Shaun of the Dead". Production quality is good enough, some effort went into the dialogue, etc. pp. - it has a couple of sections that feel uneven, or a bit confusing, but overall it's a watchable movie that moves along nicely. Certainly no Academy Award winning material, but for what it is, it's a job well done.

But as you watch it, you begin to realize the emptiness. According to sources, "Tusk" is the result of some social media idea, and it shows. What is most disturbing about the movie, is that it kinda seems to indifferently endorse what it's doing - which is probably what it is intended to do. (Which, in itself, is a bit... poor.) The body horror is shocking, but we've seen gore on the screen many times before, and much worse. Something else is wrong about this movie, but it's not as blunt as the smile at the ending of the "I Spit On Your Grave" remake. 

It puts up this facade of somehow understanding, it creates some sort of context and justification, for something, but effectively just acknowledges the insane cruelty. Full stop. The message it leaves behind is somehow the same as that of a YouTube prank video, where somebody actually dies, and the prankster keeps repeating: Hey, it was just a prank! 

All the elements are there, only nothing seems to really matter. That's worse than the Serbian Film, or anything from Italian 70s/80s horror cinema, where at least a fundamental consensus of right and wrong is applied, in the sense that one or the other matters. (These films, of course, might still be unwatchable for the sensitive viewer, for different reasons.) 

"Tusk" just says: Ok. Sorry - I guess? Swipe, next.

If this is your kind of humor, then "Tusk" is for you. But it's very unlikely it is. How good is a movie where you don't want to identify with any of the characters, one in which you wish nothing to no one, and the common denominator just is: Uhm, ok - I guess?

Nah. Not ok. "Faces of Death" (1978), which is mostly just a reel of ugly, sad things, has more depth than "Tusk", it says... something. "The Human Centipede" (2009) doesn't offer much, but it still has at least a faint sense of right and wrong, regardless of which of the two one might prefer. "Tusk" has an actual story, but it's as devoid of human soul as an AI video. A human soul isn't necessarily the most comfortable thing to observe, as has been shown in countless works of transgressive art, but just nodding through the events and moving on (where?) is simply too little. 

"Tusk" can be somehow entertaining, albeit in a very dark, if not sickening, way. Technically, some effect is definitely there. Otherwise, it could've been good as a comedy, if there was anything really funny in it. It could've been good as a hardcore horror, if it wasn't so immature. It could've been good as a psycho thriller, or a portrait of an elderly man, or a clash of generations. But none of this evolves and is fully pronounced. It's just a shocker that might also give you a laugh, or more likely not, and that's literally it. Every why and every how of the story has been explained, it just doesn't seem to matter to anyone in the movie, thus it doesn't matter to the viewer. Love, hate, fun, pain - who cares. Swipe, next.

Is "Tusk" the first true Gen-Z movie? Watching it has pretty much the same effect as a self-induced electric shock from an electric cigarette lighter, only the lighter is much quicker. The true horror of "Tusk" is the indifference it puts on display. When it's over, you're left with the uncomfortable feeling of having hurt yourself for no gain. But, if nothing else, of course it still serves as an example: Don't. You don't want to be anyone in this movie. None.

Verdict: Do you like YouTube shorts? 4/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3099498/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusk_(2014_film)

Trailer video:

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trTTjvPCLJQ

  

* * *

Want to read another movie review? Click here to see all. 

Streaming Kino: "The Corpse Can't Play" (1968) - The "lost" episode of "Late Night Horror"

"Late Night Horror" was a short lived British BBC horror TV series, released in 1968. We don't know a lot about it - but it appears to have been just too nasty for public viewing. 

Among the writers for the series are Richard "I Am Legend" Matheson and Roald Dahl, which gives us an indication of the tone, and quality the series had. But reception was mediocre, viewers complained - and in a surprisingly bold move, it seems as if the entire series was simply deleted, gone forever. 

We don't know why precisely this happened, but, thankfully, the tides of time helped give us another clue to what the series was like: In 2016, a black and white copy of one episode was found, namely "The Corpse Can't Play", written by John Burke.

In that sense, "lost" episode is nonsense. In fact it's the exact opposite, with, sadly, all of the other episodes still being lost. Which makes this "found" episode an even rarer, more valuable piece of media. 

So here it is, the only surviving episode of "Late Night Horror". And, well, if this episode is representative for the entire series, then maybe you'll agree: Ohyeah, it is quite nasty indeed. You can't show this to your kids. Or can you? In 1968? Did this create serial killers roaming the streets?

We don't know. But we can assume it didn't. Of course mothers, and probably some fathers, had to intervene: Kids, by no means even think of trying this at home! But English literature always had a good amount of black humor and the macabre. Maybe the series took it a tad too far for a general TV audience, but it's still somehow within British educational shock-therapy culture ("The War Game" (1960), "Threads" (1984), ...).

If you like the stories of Roald Dahl, but always wanted them to be a tad more "horror", then "The Corpse Can't Play" is absolutely for you. For real horror geeks, the found episode is a great piece of film history - and quite an enjoyable one.

Watch "Late Night Horror: The Corpse Can't Play" (1968):

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9kjvtps1Y
Major Dolby's Cat 

*

More information about BBC "Late Night Horror":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Night_Horror

 * * *

Click here for all "Streaming Kino" films/articles.

* * *

Street Trash (2024) trailer released!

A couple of days ago, the trailer for the remake of "Street Trash" (1987) was uploaded to YouTube. 

It looks quite bizarre indeed, and appears to successfully recreate some of the blunt humor of the original movie. What do you think? Is the new one any good?

video source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb4Y452zP0o

 

*

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28419896/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Trash (1987 movie)

Review: Nella terra dei cannibali ("In the Land of the Cannibals", 2004)

A group of soldiers enters the Amazon jungles in search of the lost daughter of a general. As they encounter a cannibalistic tribe, they have to sort out their personal differences. Will they make it out alive?

Let's get the obvious out of the way: "In the Land of the Cannibals" is an Italian cannibal movie, which means it's politically incorrect by definition. It's also a late directing job by the late Bruno Mattei, who is known for his quick, cheap rip-offs of successful films during the 1970s and 1980s. In other words: It's not precisely "Titanic" (1997). Or even "Ultimo Mondo Cannibale" (1977).

"In the Land of the Cannibals" is a massive anachronism. Technically, the digital age has happened, but otherwise it goes back directly to 1980. There are a handful of direct references to "Cannibal Holocaust" (and a good amount to a slightly more recent action movie that features Arnold Schwarzenegger in the jungle), but, most of all, the characters and the storytelling feel very much as if they're straight out of the golden age of Italian horror/action/exploitation cinema industry. Some of the cinematography is reminiscent of fumetti neri comic strip visuals, and if you've heard the soundtracks of e.g. "Tenebrae" (1982) and "Cannibal Holocaust", the music of "In The Land..." will also sound somehow familiar to you. For fans of the style, it's already a success.

This movie came out about 25 years too late - if if were made in the 1980s, using the same film stock and techniques as movies of the time, it would be a classic. As it is, a little more attention to detail would've been a huge improvement. The comic strip feel, the gore, and some surprisingly dynamic action sequences, are great. But flat lighting, digital camera, obvious studio quality voice dubbing, and sometimes sloppy editing, kill a lot of atmosphere. It's probably best watched in VHS tape quality, to give it at least a little bit of analog physicality. Acting, writing, special fx are well known default material that works for what it is.

"In the Land of the Cannibals" is a fun low-budget watch, that does exactly what it's supposed to do: low-budget entertain. If you can get over its flaws, it's a great throwback to the good old days. At its core, it's a wild, naive comic strip, with a hint of nostalgia - Italian oldskool pulp fiction, a la "Mangiati Vivi" or "Cannibal Ferox".

If you've run out of 20th century Italian cannibal movies, and don't feel the need for a change, then this is the one to watch.

Verdict: If you're a believer, it's (almost) great. 5.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420728/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mattei 

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0fgHXMKVA

* * *

Want to read another movie review? Click here to see all.

 

 

Caligula "The Ultimate Cut" (1979/2024) - a good movie, finally?

The old, new "Caligula" is about to be released, containing previously unseen footage. Does the "ultimate cut" turn the infamous trainwreck that is the 1979 version finally into a transgressive masterpiece?

There were several conflicting goals during production of the original version, and it ended up as a mess with some porn scenes. Director Tinto Brass, and part of the cast distanced themselves from the result, and tried to have their names removed from it.

Reconstructed by Thomas Negovan, this new 2024 version of Caligula aims to stay close to the original, unaltered script, written by Gore Vidal. It does not contain scenes that were added after director Tinto Brass had finished his work, and is, according to the trailer, "created entirely from unseen footage".

No director is listed in the credits - Tinto Brass is listed as "principal photography". Feedback from the initial creators of the original version remains limited so far. According to sources, Brass has distanced himself from the new "ultimate cut", which might be unnecessary, but also makes some sense. While Caligula actor Malcom McDowell has shown big appreciation, now that his enthusiastic performance gets considerably more screen time.

It remains to be seen if the new "Caligula" has captured the spirit of the Gore Vidal script, or has a spirit of its own. In any case, the trailer already shows some fantastic new material, making it highly interesting for the connoisseur and the cineaste. And maybe it's even a really good movie. 

It's out pretty much right... now.

Caligula The Ultimate Cut final international preview trailer 2024:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ko5Ihi28Dk

Thomas Negovan

Original 1979 trailer:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WACkBTh0W6w
HD Retro Trailers

*

Additional sources:

Mark Kermode reviews Caligula: The Ultimate Cut - Kermode and Mayo's Take
published Aug 9, 2024

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080491/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula..._The_Untold_Story (Caligula 2)