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) 

10 years of film blogging!

Wow, it's been ten years since the first half-hearted posts on this blog.

I hope you find something on this blog that you enjoy. It began as "filmtipps" ("movie recommendations"), a loose collection of recommendations, news, and other stuff. I only recently started writing "serious" reviews, but it's something that has been on my mind for a very long time. Similarly, the "Streaming Kino" series is the result of decades of watching films, and finally starting to put them in some sort of order - recommending and sharing the actual movie, if possible.

Thanks everyone, for stopping by and spending some time! :-D

If you have any suggestions, please leave a comment - here, on facebook, or on reddit.

Streaming Kino: Firecracker (2005) - Karen Black, Mike Patton

"Firecracker" is a little gem, directed by Steve Balderson, that is based on some real life murder case from the 1950s, and has a couple of similarities with pre-code shocker "Freaks" (1932). It's also starring horror queen Karen Black, and, in a surprisingly credible role, Faith No More singer Mike Patton. The movie won a good round of prizes at fan festivals, and got rave reviews. But it's still remarkably unknown, which is a shame.

Due to movie piracy, the director decided to put the full movie on his YouTube channel.

It's time this dreamy, moody masterpiece gets some proper recognition. Watch it, head over to the director's channel, like it, share it, subscribe, comment, get him the clicks - "Firecracker" deserves a million views. Thank you, Mr. Balderson, it's an outstanding movie!

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMo9vk4rFtA
https://www.youtube.com/@Balderson

* * *

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

* * *

I do not own this film. This video is not stored on this website, only linked to, see source reference. I don't take responsibility for the contents of external links. If you feel there's a copyright infringment, or any other illegal content, on this page, please let me know. Thanks!

Review: The Haunting (1963, Robert Wise)

A scientist is trying to find proof of the supernatural, inviting a selection of media to an old mansion. It is becoming a long sought after home for a lonely, tormented soul...

It might actually be a bit of a spoiler, but if you like ghost horror films, and haven't seen it before, you've just found the best of 'em all. "The Haunting", directed by Robert Wise, based on the novel "The Haunting of Hill House" by Shirley Jackson, is the pinnacle of the "haunted house" subgenre, and thus one of the spookiest films ever made. It takes a well known idea and turns the scare factor up to eleven. There's a noticeable lack of romance in "The Haunting", and very little comic relief - it's quite serious, even when it's funny, and as you watch it you'll soon realize there's some actual depth to the story. It might not be a scientifically perfect treatment, but the connotations about family are so fundamental and strong that everyone can relate to it on an equal level. Family is the source of absolute love, and absolute tragedy.

"The Haunting" is a masterpiece of both conscious and subconscious psychological horror, interweaving both to great effect. It's a perfect variation of the set up, with an isolated mansion, some sort of madness, and lots of uncanny goings-on. All of which are connected to a sad story of guilt and loneliness, that's featured much more prominently than in most comparable films. An obvious emphasis has been put on the psycho-analysis of the characters, with careful timing and some razor sharp dialogue, and it is what turns "The Haunting" into an intense, timeless experience.

If you look closely, you'll find there's actually not too much happening - but enough to keep you seriously guessing if it's (not) all just in the protagonists' heads... The virtuoso use of camera, light, sound, and editing, the serious approach, and the very close-up, personal portrayal of the movie's main character, all together create some of the most frightening scenes ever put on film. 

"The Haunting" captures, and evokes, actual subconscious memories of being left alone, in fear, when your mind starts wandering... Nobody wants to be left alone.

Verdict: So good, it's scary. No, really! 9.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057129/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Haunting_(1963_film)

Trailer video:

 

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

  

* * *

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

 

Streaming Kino: The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) - Roger Corman, Jonathan Haze

Issue seven of "Streaming Kino": Corman's classic comedy featuring a man-eating plant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Shop_of_Horrors#/media/File:LittleShop.jpg

Roger Corman was very good at making quick money with a nice movie - in case of "The Little Shop of Horrors", he reused some sets of his previous production, A Bucket of Blood, and filmed it in only a couple of days. The result is hard proof that time and budget doesn't necessarily equal quality - creativity, charm, and willingness, on the other hand, does.

Written by Charles B. Griffith, "The Little Shop of Horrors" is a very witty and funny film indeed. Upon release, it didn't have too much of an impact, but over the years grew a cult following - and spawned a stage production, another movie, and even a little animated TV series.

This man-eating plant certainly has left its mark on pop culture. "The Little Shop of Horrors" features Jack Nicholson in an early role. 

video source:

https://archive.org/details/TheLittleShopOfHorrors1960

* * *

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

* * *

I do not own this film. This video is not stored on this website, only linked to, see source reference. I don't take responsibility for the contents of external links. If you feel there's a copyright infringment, or any other illegal content, on this page, please let me know. Thank you!

Review: Insidious (2010)

When a young family moves into a new house, weird things start to happen. While the husband has a hard time believing his own eyes, his wife soon attributes the irritations to the change in accommodation. But as it turns out, it's all about the boy...

"Insidious" is a nice watch. A default-touching story of this young family, scary going-ons in a house, some dudes show up for comic relief, we get the wise old lady, etc. pp. We've seen it all before, many times, and director James Wan throws in a little bit of nu-style fancy editing here and there, it's like one big mash up of horror movie styles from the 1970s to the present day. In fact we get nice elements throughout, there are no obvious flaws, even a couple of easter-eggs for horror geeks. No new ground has been broken so far, but it adds up to a nicely paced, thrilling experience.

The profoundness of this movie is very debatable - for some, it may seem like a good idea to resort to stuff like astral traveling as a vehicle for the psychology of the story, others may find it just stupid. In that sense, "Insidious" is a bit on the "Poltergeist" side of things, that links a TV to a Native American burial ground...? In other words, it feels a bit shallow here and there.

But that's ok. All is forgiven when [SPOILER] pops up. It sits so well among all the other depictions of infernal servants, and it's so well integrated into the movie, that it becomes the driving force - and it just works. Now everything makes sense. Yeah, we are scared!

All in all, the movie lacks the depth of Friedkin's "The Exorcist", or Russell's "Altered States", which both go to great lengths explaining the cultural roots of the scares to come. But it's still a wild roller coaster ride, and a great variation of the creepy visual themes found in the folklore of many countries. "Insidious" is mostly solid, sometimes excellent - well done!

Verdict: Nice. Fiery! 7.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/

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

Trailer video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rpZcMYa0A

* * *

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

Review: The Stuff (1985)

When some white, slimy "stuff" is found, and released to the public as a product, it's a smash hit. People buy "The Stuff", eat it, love it. It's big and easy money for the company, but it turns out there are considerable effects on the consumers...

Larry Cohen's "The Stuff" is to evil trade what "Death Race 2000" (1975) is to evil media. When watching the movie, we learn pretty soon that it's not to be taken too seriously, but it has a reasonably serious story and message - that's a very good starting point for an easily accessible, yet entertaining and interesting movie.

And indeed, "The Stuff" is really everything you'd expect from it, when you've seen the trailer, or make an educated guess from data such as director, genre, year, poster, etc. It doesn't disappoint at all, and even finds it's unique tone, esp. in the brilliant, and very blunt, references to TV advertising, and the product hysteria that is all too present in hardcore-consumerism. In terms of special effects, "The Blob" (1958/1988) immediately comes to mind, and "The Stuff" looks at least as menacing, if not better, in some scenes, as it moves and grows. There are some great visuals - nice compositions, good use of shadow and light, and sometimes ridiculous, sometimes astounding, always CGI-free, special fx. Overall, there's really a unique visual quality to "The Stuff", which alone makes the movie very enjoyable to watch.

It may have some weaknesses when it goes all too deep into comedy, and becomes near-slapstick. Maybe dumb. But there's still plenty of good ideas, cultural references, interesting characters, funny moments, tons of The Stuff, a little bit of splatter, etc. pp., and it has this somehow educational side to it, touching on an actual issue of our lives. Maybe most importantly, all of it is presented with a fast pace, and weird charm, throughout.

"The Stuff" is a very nice watch. Think about it, but don't think too much about it. It has character, message, horror, and fun. That's about it, and we love it. Great... stuff. 

Verdict: Ohyeah, eat "The Stuff"! 7/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090094/

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

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6Z1nBqLwo

 * * *

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

 

Review: The Devils (1971, Ken Russell)

Christianity has a dark past. It's France in the 17th century, witch hunt and exorcism are happening. After a convent allegedly was visited by demons, inquisitions are taking place. Father Urbain Grandier, a man of honesty and true love, gets caught up in the proceedings...

This is a review of the original UK release of "The Devils" with a runtime of ~106 minutes. Other releases are considerably toned down, by cuts, and alternate shots (e.g. US).

Holy Moses. If you're the sensitive kind of person, then this movie is really not for you. Even if you're not the sensitive kind of person, "The Devils" will probably leave you a bit speechless.

That's because not only is "The Devils" grotesquely brutal, and probably quite accurate, in its depiction of medieval conditions, medical practice, and torture, but - in stark contrast to many other transgressive films - is also a multi-layered, razor sharp statement on imposed morale, social dynamics, politics, religion, freedom, and love.

In a sense, it takes the same approach as "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) does: It slaps you in the face so often and so hard that you can't help start thinking about it. "The Devils" can be seen as blasphemy - but only if you forcibly ignore Jesus' words: 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone' (John 8:7) Any even just remotely decent person will obviously not ignore these words, and at least for a second think about how social rules applied to the collective inherently apply to the individual, and as a result to the person itself.

The hard part, of course, is getting through the onslaught. The superficial viewer will probably switch off "The Devils" pretty quickly, and put it aside as some crazy, arty, noisy piece of anti-culture. One might argue that it's unnecessary to go to such drastic lengths, when a more consumer friendly version of the film could've conveyed the same message. But it isn't. Looking at Christian crusades, inquisition, and, more recently, cases of child abuse in clerical circles, it is good practice to every now and then name things precisely for what they are.

Some of the actors in this movie probably went out of their comfort zone during filming. Most notably, the performance of Vanessa Redgrave as the most devout, and most guilty of nuns, is genuinely breathtaking - she goes from frantically insane to fragile in an instant, with all shades in between, giving scary credibility to a character that might turn out laughable in other films. Oliver Reed is perfect for his role, with his powerful physical presence, and nuanced acting skills, ranging from cool self-discipline to extreme outbursts, again creating an actual character. Some of the smaller roles are played by equally acclaimed top actors, there are a couple of scenes which involve a large number of extras, and some scenes are so crowded and wild, it becomes frightening. And so on - "The Devils" plays in a league of its own, everything about it is fine-tuned to perfection, from the wild editing to the sometimes larger-than-life sets, it's on a whole different level than for example "Witchfinder General" (1968) or "Mark of the Devil" (1970).

Tinto Brass'/Bob Guccione's "Caligula" (1979) was ambitious, but with conflicting goals during production became pretty much a train wreck that went nowhere, and is mostly remembered for outrageousness only. That certainly isn't the case with "The Devils". The movie's censorship and release story is a legend in itself. This movie has one goal, one director, and he fought hard to keep his artistic vision intact. 

Ken Russell's "The Devils" is a very hefty one. The production quality of this movie is insane, and its impact is... spectacular. It's The Exorcist, only with The Devils instead, and way bigger. It's psychology, lessons one, two, and three - at least. It's a masterpiece.

Verdict: Extremely well made, shocking, and eye-opening. 9.5/10

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

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066993/

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCF2S3vchE4

* * *

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

 

Review: Survival of the Dead (2009, George A. Romero)

The zombie outbreak has become the new normal, local communities have found ways to handle their situations. But all is not well. The fight for mere survival has turned into selection, and from there into a battle of beliefs. When the dead walk the earth - what's wrong and what's right?

It has taken the world at least 20 years to appreciate George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". Today it's a celebrated milestone of cinema, and part of New York Museum of Modern Art collection. Pretty much the same goes for Romero's "Dawn of the Dead". "Day..." is slowly getting the same level of appreciation. "Land..." was a big budget production, and a box office success. "Diary..." is still mostly being ignored, but will sooner or later be recognized as another milestone. Which brings us to the relevance, or the lack thereof, of "Survival of the Dead". It was a tremendous failure at the box office, and has pretty much completely disappeared from public consciousness, except maybe as an example of a bad zombie comedy.

But is it really that bad? First of all, it's a quality low-budget production. It looks good, the cast is great, there are zombies and some ok special effects (albeit no Tom Savini here, but too much CGI), it has a good story, etc. - so in that regard we can't complain. 

Where it fails, is in its rhythm, and tone. To some degree, a sober, underacting style has always been a part of George A. Romero's directing oevre, as has been comical quirkiness in his zombie movies. But in "Survial of the Dead" it mixes in a comparable unfortunate way, lacking the strong characters and center storyline that push things forward, as are masterfully displayed especially in "Dawn of the Dead". "Survival..." seems to meander from scene to scene, without really creating a steady pace, or a definitive direction. Did Uncle Georgie just get confused while telling stories?

Maybe he did, a little bit. But there's a certain depth to "Survival of the Dead" that must be explored. George A. Romero was 69 years old when the movie got released. It's about tradition vs. enlightenment, belief vs. science, family vs. community, and it's about the older generation. At the time (and even long before), Romero's insight into human existence was miles above that of the average zombie movie viewer. "Survival of the Dead" is different - expectations are everything.

In a sense, it's like trying to impress someone with a Miss Marple movie who's just watched "Se7en". Nope, this is not your spectacular "survival of the living", fight-to-the-death situation. But that doesn't mean that Miss Marple is a bad detective. "Survival of the Dead" certainly isn't the best of Romero's movies, but it's still far more interesting than many other zombie film productions.

Somehow, the questions remains: What is it, that Romero was really after with "Survival of the Dead"? In some interview, he says something along the lines of "...and I wonder how long it'll take them to get it..." about the movie, and its critics. 

It's the new normal - which is the old one. It's the channel you tune in to on TV, it's if you go to Starbucks or prefer Black Bean, it's if you vote red or blue. It's about the old guys in the back, that fight over paper, and send others to war. It's about the "why" of things in our cultural, civil society.

Only two years after the release of "Survival of the Dead", Donald Trump would start eyeing to become president of the USA, and when he finally did, in 2017, he'd put family before qualification, and superstition before science. 

Uncle Georgie told ya. 

Verdict: Really not as bad as they say. 6/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1134854/

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

Trailer video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOj3Wjr5eao

* * *

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

Streaming Kino: Dementia 13 (1963) - Francis Ford Coppola

Issue six of "Streaming Kino": Francis Ford Coppola's early shocker about a heritage, gaslighting, and multiple deaths.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/Dementia.jpg/220px-Dementia.jpg

When Francis Ford Coppola was in Corman-school, roughly ten years before his epic "Godfather" movie, he was ordered to create a low-budget thriller that would be able make some easy money from the success of films like Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and Robert Aldrich's "What ever happened to Baby Jane?". And so he did - putting every stylistic ingredient known from such movies into "Dementia 13", and generously adding some extra flavor here and there. The result is a wild, and very psycho, thriller, that is considerably less polished than "Psycho", but in terms of creativity and anarchism has a lot in common with for example "Evil Dead" or "Braindead". 

For fans of dark, crazy thrillers, "Dementia 13" is a must see and highly enjoyable to watch, and for fans of Francis Ford Coppola it is an important piece of film history, being Copolla's first feature directing work.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056983/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_13

video source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pp1WYmeXbw
https://www.youtube.com/@PizzaFLIX

* * *

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

 

Review: Un Gatto Nel Cervelo ("A Cat In The Brain"/"Nightmare Concert", 1990, Lucio Fulci)

Renowned horror film director Lucio Fulci is haunted by shocking visions of violence. He goes to see his psycho-therapist to help him ease his mind - but the line between reality and fantasy begins to blur even more...

Fulci plays Fulci. In "Un Gatto Nel Cervelo", we get some insight into the crazy mind of a notorious horror film director, and his issues. The uncut version of this concoction has a runtime of 93 minutes. A version currently available on YouTube, which probably is identical to the original German FSK 18 VHS tape release, has a runtime of only 68 minutes. 25 minutes of violence removed - that should give you an idea of the level of depravity this movie has to offer. It's basically a collection of violent scenes, framed by a little giallo story with some comedic elements. In its cut version, it's unwatchable, you literally have no idea what's going on. In its uncut version, a really strong stomach is required to sit it through.

But it's also funny as hell. The giallo element is a farce, the gore is all too blunt and omnipresent, and the scenes of violence are taken from other Fulci movies, which just has to be obvious even for the occasional Fulci viewer. Of course it makes sense given the premise of the story, but the amount of re-used footage is just too substantial. Once you get what's actually going on - or if you don't, then the end of the movie will make it very clear for you - you'll just have to smile from ear to ear. Lucio Fulci is one of the grand-daddies of splatter cinema, a lot of bad things have been, are being, and will be said about horror film makers, and he knows precisely what he's doing. 

Shock scene after shock scene, "Un Gatto Nel Cervelo" is just relentless - thus it has some serious horror value, but it's certainly not a quality thriller. And it isn't meant to be. Yes, there is a psycho thriller story in there, but it's more like the gory equivalent of a "commedia sexy all'italiana". It's cheap, grotesque, a bit naive, and absolutely hilarious given the actual background of Lucio Fulci and his critics. It's a wild ride, and a big, heartfelt middle finger to those who think he's just sick in the brain (lol), as well as a lovely present to his fans. It was never meant to give people real nightmares. Quite the opposite - it's only a movie! It's only Lucio.

Verdict: It doesn't get any more Fulci than this. 6/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099637/

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

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zDaNm0srGE

* * *

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

The new "Nosferatu" (2024) trailer

Classic German expressionism masterpiece "Nosferatu" (1922), which has been remade in 1979 once, gets another remake, for which the trailer has just been released.

After only about 10 hours of being released on distributor "Focus Films" YouTube channel, the trailer already got almost 3 million views - there's certainly an audience for this new "Nosferatu" movie.

On first sight, the trailer looks quite decent. It has hints of Hollywoodism, and making a quick buck from a legendary name - but so far this is just a trailer, and visually it's really quite nice. Featuring Willem Dafoe of "Shadow of the Vampire" fame, the movie gets a little bit of extra "Nosferatu" credibility. Director Robert Eggers obviously has huge shoes to fill, with the previous incarnations of "Nosferatu" being directed by film icons F. W. Murnau and Werner Herzog, and the original movie being one of the most iconic movies ever made, across all genres.

It remains to be seen if the new "Nosferatu" movie can even remotely capture, or recreate, the magic of its predecessors - but judging from the trailer it seems it's (at least) an honest attempt.

Release date for the full movie is set for Dec. 25th 2024.

Watch "Nosferatu" (2024) trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b59rxDB_JRg

https://www.youtube.com/@FocusFeatures

What do you think? Is it any good? Are you going to watch the movie?

Streaming Kino: Night of the Living Dead (1968) - George A. Romero, Duane Jones

The groundbreaking, genre-defining zombie movie that has set the mark for all zombie movies to come.

A study of social psychology, a picture of its time, a pioneer in gore cinema, and an overall exciting and scary movie, "Night of the Living Dead" is still and will probably forever remain in the top five of the genre.

Watch movie:

video source:
https://archive.org/details/NightOfTheLivingDead_201508

* * *

Want to watch another movie? Click here for all "Streaming Kino" films.

 

Review: Signs (2002, M. Night Shyamalan)

A priest who's lost his faith, mourning the death of this wife, watches an alien invasion unfold. Soon, he and his now all male family are facing close encounters with the visitors...

"Signs" undeniably has some good stuff. It's a science-fiction horror movie, and, well, it's got some sort of science (...), obvious fiction, and some horror. It's a quality production featuring Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, so a certain amount of entertainment is guaranteed. Moreover, the story is lightly touching, the suspense grows, and as the signs of alien activity become more visible, the horror emerges quite effectively. It works really well, the first sighting of the visitors sends genuine chills down your spine, there's a cultural reference here and there, performances by the cast are as expected - overall flawless, exciting handicraft.

Until suddenly it becomes base. Gone is the excitement, and you're staring into the bottomless abyss that is the script of "Signs". Who in his right mind had the idea to suggest that the memory of the words "swing away...", whispered out of context by the dying wife of our ex-priest protagonist, would six months later be interpreted by the latter as a justification to bash someone else's head in with a baseball bat? That is so wrong, on so many levels, it puts the entire movie in a different light. Horror cinema isn't the right place if you're looking for political correctness, but still there's a common denominator for what is considered right and wrong, otherwise horror movies just wouldn't be horror. "Signs" chooses to put the laziest, dumbest idea imaginable at its core and resolution: As she was dying, she had visions of... blunt violence! Swing away, baby!

That choice is probably adequate to some sort of audience, but any person with even the slightest idea of ethics will be appalled. Our ex-priest really has made a remarkable u-turn, and you're wondering if the movie is actually endorsing it. Science inherently means to look at and decipher things - not to crush them with brute force.

"Signs" has nothing to do with science-fiction, it's fantasy, and casually creates a dangerous, arbitrary pseudo-justification for violence. Michael Winner's "Death Wish" (1974) openly portrays a person driven by frustration and revenge, and not much else, making it a far more honest movie. "Signs" creates a framework of emotions, visions of the future, failed Christian belief, and UFO mumbo-jumbo, leading to the supposedly enlightening, supposedly cathartic moment of basically an ex-priest, wait for it, here it comes: bashing someone else's head in with a baseball bat. 

That's what the dying lady is supposed to have hinted at? Wow, that's far beyond anything "Death Wish". In "Signs", the violence is not only supposed to be justified, but an obligation, dictated by visions, UFOs, reptiles, whatever superstition you like.

Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers" (1997) is a comparably clear statement, with its obvious satirical elements, Nazi Germany references, and over-the-top violence. With "Signs", you're not so sure. It's a template for the kind of anti-science, violence-happy, non-reasoning culture that puts belief above democracy and law, and unless you can see the entire movie as a joke, there's little satire in it.

Some educational value can be read into it: Don't. By all means, don't. But the far stronger impression, it seems it wants to create, is: Ohyeah, do. Absolutely. She had a vision, you know.

Calling "Signs" a good movie would be a mistake. It's too shallow to qualify as a portrait of a demolished family, and as a tale of overcoming it's just wrong. Watching it is like bloodletting. Paying to see it would be immoral.

Verdict: Really? Nah, comeon. 3/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286106/

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

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUw26F0WfLg

* * *

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