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, other 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...

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, and ugly 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. "Diary..." isn't, but sooner or later it'll 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. "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, Romero 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. 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 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. This movie doesn't deserve any money. 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.