Review: I Lunghi Capelli Della Morte ("The Long Hair Of Death", 1964)

The year is 1499. When a woman is falsely accused of witchcraft, and burnt at the stake, her two daughters watch in horror. In her last moments, she curses the people and the land, and while her younger daughter is taken into custody of a baron with some outrageous manners, her older daughter vows to restore justice beyond the grave...

Phew. Ok, the opening section of "I Lunghi Capelli Della Morte" is quite intense, but it's still only a fraction of what the movie has to offer.  It's Anthony M. Dawson aka Antonio Margheriti, it's Barbara Steele, it's Italian, it's witches, fire, castle, revenge...!

So this is a gothic horror movie, the very iconic vintage kind, set at the end of the Middle Ages. Traditional religion and folklore serve as a background for a nicely crafted story of injustice and guilt. There's not a huge amount of intellect here, as isn't too much graphic violence, but a heartfelt dark fairy-tale about morale and decency, which ends in tragedy and redemption. The visuals basically match the content: No fancy experiments, just the usual vocabulary of brick walls, spiderwebs, candles, dark hallways, secret passages, a damsel in distress, a gentleman at her side, and so on. It's not groundbreaking, but it looks and feels just perfect, moody, spooky, dark and fateful. 

On top of all of this are some details in "I Lunghi Capelli..." that really raise it above off-the-shelf material. It starts with quite a bang, and from there, it works its way through the storyline, with some very decent acting by Ms. Steele, some exceptionally beautiful black-and-white picture composition (The cross and the ashes... whoa!), some amazingly dynamic camera sweeps and fluent editing, some scares and some suspense, to a bone-chillingly grim conclusion.

Especially the ending section is so dark, and so beautifully directed and filmed, it is the most obvious sign that actual thought and passion went into the production of the movie. Someone really cared for this, and it pays off. "I Lunghi Capelli..." has some lengths here and there, and, obviously, it's not meant to start endless debates about human existence (or... maybe?) (no, probably not), but even in its weakest moments it's still good enough to nicely carry on, and in its best moments it's pretty spectacular and scary.

It's one of those movies that completely delivers on its promise, easily as much as Mario Bava's even more iconic "La Maschera Del Demonio" ("Black Sunday", 1960). You want gothic? Fasten your seatbelt, "I Lunghi Capelli Della Morte" doesn't waste much time - it almost literally throws you directly into the hell of a burning at the stake!

Verdict: Dark and beautiful - as solid as a 500-year-old castle! 6.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058307

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

> Watch the full movie for free in "Streaming Kino"...

Trailer video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5cL2lPbq18

 

* * *

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

 

 

Review: Emanuelle In America (1977)

Investigative reporter Emanuelle is on a mission to uncover the decadent habits of the upper class. This leads her to some first-hand experience, and some highly scandalous insight...

"Emanuelle In America" was produced in 1976, but we stick with IMDB, which lists it as 1977. This is a review of the uncut version with a runtime of 100 minutes.

Sleaze-master Aristide Massaccesi aka Joe D'Amato has created some spectacularly outrageous movies, the best known of which - among horror fans - probably is "Antropophagus" ("The Grim Reaper", 1980). "Emanuelle In America" is one of his numerous erotic (?!) movies featuring Laura Gemser, and it's easily as outrageous, in several ways.

It's a low-cost exploitation-movie that borders on porn, but it has an actual story that serves as a filler and framework for the sleaze. We get to see huge amounts of bare skin and some forms of erotic (?!) interaction. In her first encounter, Emanuelle shows a remarkable degree of control, which is both just staggering and hilarious at the same time. She then goes on to work her way deeper into her subject, meets some people, takes some pictures... There is a potentially decent story about investigative journalism here, but it clearly doesn't matter very much.

So far, so sleazy-good. Slow-paced low-fi erotics with a little bit of spy-style action, or maybe the other way round. Sure, why not, it's not everyone's cup of tea, maybe just base and boring, but some level of interest by a certain audience is guaranteed, the movie delivers, and it looks and feels somewhat nice and accurate for what it is.

Until... until it doesn't. It's the oddest experience ever. One can't deny a certain intention in all of this, and a certain level of success in the execution - but, who on earth was this movie made for? So you thought "The New York Ripper" (1982) is a little weird? In terms of nasty sleaziness and sleazy nastiness it's NOTHING compared to "Emanuelle In America". Congratulations, Signore D'Amato, you win.

What makes "Emanuelle In America" so utterly disturbing is the weird detachment, the somewhat mindless, light-hearted presentation, which is strongly amplified by the prolonged slow, erotic (?!) scenes. The concept of a half-porn and half-horror movie has been explored in "Emanuelle E Gli Ultimi Cannibali", too, but in "...America" it's taken to the extreme. The soft side is predominant, by far - but what the hard side lacks in runtime, it makes up for with amplitude, shock. It's like a slap in the face when you're half asleep - definitely not a pleasant experience. 

It's hard to describe without just naming some scenes, thus spoiling the entire movie, due to the simplistic and one-sided structure of it. But at the same time it's the whole point of this review: "Emanuelle In America" is really weird. It's 99% nothing too special - but the few other things in there, you're really not sure you wanna see. A horse (...) may be considered just waaay too much (...) by and for some, but it's the weird, forced placement among the other, mostly quite tolerable scenes that makes it genuinely disgusting to watch. The same goes for the extreme violence, it's just extreme (!), which alone is easily enough to turn stomachs, but it's the context, the odd placement, the lack of approach, that makes you want to just turn it off.

How do you rate a thing such as this? It's 99% of the time... well, porn, thriller, boring, something, nice, not nice, who cares... but you just can't show the other 1% to anyone. Because of the 1%, and the 99% around it.

"Emanuelle In America" has an undeniable effect, even if you think it's boring pretty much throughout, or maybe precisely because of that. It does some things that haven't been done before or after in exploitation cinema, which gives it some actual value for fans of the genre. Or, who? What genre? What is this? It sure gets a point for exploitation, boldness, and some really shocking imagery, this is not for the faint of heart! But for gorehounds and horse-lovers, that's about it, you can skip pretty much the entire movie. For everyone else, said 1% just hits waaay too hard, killing off any sense of eroticism or adventure or whatever hint of immersion may have been there. If you came for the shocks, you need a lot of patience. If you didn't, you will be seriously appalled. Either way, you kinda lose.

Obviously, "Emanuelle In America" is not to be taken seriously, it's low-budget pulp fiction - but the dynamics are still just too odd. Even if you liked "Cannibal Holocaust" (1980), "Hostel 2" (2007), "Giallo A Venezia" (1979) and all of Jess Franco's movies, chances are you won't like "Emanuelle In America". It's very little, which is fine, but then it's just waaay too much.  

Verdict: It's really a tough watch, for several reasons. 3/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074473

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

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

* * *

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

Review: Il Boia Scarlatto ("The Crimson Executioner", 1965, Massimo Pupillo)

A team of photographers and models moves to an abandoned castle, to do a photo shooting for a horror novel. It turns out the castle is still inhabited, and the owner doesn't like his guests to roam around the catacombs. The long presumed dead Crimson Executioner returns to restore the rules of the house...

This is a review of the original Italian release of the movie with a runtime of ~87 minutes.

"The Crimson Executioner", also known as "Bloody Pit Of Horror" (in its shorter form), is a beautifully cheap and blunt Italian gothic horror movie. If you've ever seen some pages of legendary photonovel "Killing" (aka "Satanik" aka "Sadistik"), which happened to be first published roughly at the same time as "The Crimson Executioner", you have a good idea what to expect from this film.

Only in motion, and in color. In a nice medieval castle setting, with lots of beautiful women, and some pretty good looking men, we get an array of hardly very suspenseful situations, but the striking simplicity of it all is what makes it so enjoyable. There's little nuance in "The Crimson Executioner", everything notable happens center screen, in full lighting, with limited ambience. The visual finesse is roughly that of a porn movie, and it's the complete lack of artistic ambiguity that creates some powerful moments. This is most obvious is the color palette: Red, black, and white are very prominently used, giving the film an eye-popping high-contrast aesthetic that has a certain effect even if you're seeing only a still picture.

Add to that the shiny, artificial quality of 1960s movie make-up and fake blood, a little bit of wooden acting and action, some weirdly erotic (?) music that doesn't scare anyone, and the quite impressive selection of torture devices, and you get a nice, saucy fumetto nero, an Italian horror comic for adults.

It's not really an exciting movie - you probably wanna keep your remote control nearby, and maybe fast-forward a little, here and there. It's not really gory - if you're a gorehound, you will be disappointed. In fact, if you're looking for what is commonly known as a "good movie", then maybe just skip "The Crimson Executioner".

But if you're into 60s grindhouse, have a weak spot for horror comics (photonovels), and just enjoy watching reasonably bizarre movies, then this might be a gem for you - they sure don't make 'em like this anymore!

Verdict: Nice low-budget outrageousness for the connoisseur. 5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058983/

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

Trailer video:

 

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

* * *

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

Review: Blood Sucking Freaks (1976, Joel M. Reed)

Master Sardu runs a very questionable theater, in which acts of torture are re-enacted on stage. Critics doubt his artistic intentions and achievement - and indeed the show isn't quite what it claims to be...

Oh my. We are kidding, aren't we? Well, ultimately, the answer just has to be yes, we are kidding - but first let's get a couple of things straight.

"Blood Sucking Freaks" is a cheap and very nasty little oldskool splatter movie from the 1970s. It's outrageously tasteless, sleazy, and gory. It easily rivals Jess Franco's mediocre (=bad) movies, maybe even his bad (=unwatchable) ones. But with much more gore. It makes no attempts at gritty realism, it's a reasonably proper low-budget movie, but what is visually going on looks more like an amateur school play with cheap prosthetics. There is a bit of a story in it, but about 90% of the screen time are devoted to little, hardly elaborate, build ups to, and depictions of, some sort of physical (gory) torture. When you're done watching the movie, you kind of wonder: Why the effort? Why the violence? What was this?

So, very clearly, "Blood Sucking Freaks" will offend a lot of people, in fact everyone, including horror film geeks. There's less storytelling in it than in a Herschell Gordon Lewis splatter movie, but the level of depravity is easily on par with "Two Thousand Maniacs!" (1964), if not higher. It has no strong character moments, no notable rhythm, neither in dialogue nor in structure, and the gore scenes pretty much neutralize each other, it's a more or less indifferent row of scenes with talking, and cutting limbs. (Yeah, it's gory.)

Having said all of this, one has to admit: It's hilarious. Some people had a lot of fun making this. It's really like children's play, only by and for hardly grown up grown-ups. It's so blunt and crude, and there's even a little hint at some self-aware subtext in there, that one can't deny it says... something. In fact, with some good-will effort, one could say it has moments where it makes a pretty good point about what it actually is, both in form and in content. An idea similar to the background of "Cannibal Holocaust" (1980), or "Natural Born Killers" (1994) - but waaaaaay (!) more simplistic and crude. So, there might be even a certain cathartic quality to "Blood Sucking Freaks", in one way or another, but it's highly questionable if this was the director's intention, and it's certainly anything but nuanced or subtle about it. (Definitely gory.) 

Well. What can you say. Obviously, this movie is not to be taken verbatim. It has a hint of atmosphere, it has a hint of charm, and a hint at a message - but it's nowhere near what is commonly known as a "good movie", regardless of budget. It's blunt, bad, nasty grindhouse(-basement), very-low-budget filmmaking for desensitized oldskool gorehounds. If you like that kind of stuff, you get the full package. The average audience will probably just vomit, not only because of the amount of gore, but also because it feels cheap, base and pointless.

It is up to the viewer to find out if watching "Blood Sucking Freaks" might turn out to be a funny or cathartic experience - but one thing is for sure: by common standards, in every regard, you most likely don't want to.

Verdict: It's sick. Whatever that may mean to you. 4/10  

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077247/

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

Trailer Video:

Sorry, no trailer video. It's a little too much, it might brake blog provider's rules.

But you can find it on the IMDB page, and here:
https://archive.org/details/TRAILERBLOODSUCKINGFREAKS

* * *

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

Review: Demoni 2 ("Demons 2", 1986, Lamberto Bava)

The battle was won. But humankind was never really safe. Someone makes a tiny mistake, and all hell breaks loose - again!

Yes, yes, and yes. We wanted more, and we got more. If you've seen the first "Demoni", then you pretty much know what the second one is all about. Who needs characters, when you can have hordes of scary, raging demons?

Cinema theatre was yesterday, now we have concrete apartment blocks and video tape. "Demoni 2" changes a couple of parameters, but otherwise uses the same recipe as "Demoni": Overdrive! The way it ties in with the original movie is very nicely done, and stylistically there isn't much of a difference. The good thing about "Demoni" and "Demoni 2" is that you get exactly what you paid for. It's wild, unhinged, in your face, loud, heavy metal, gory, slimy, gothic, demonic, hellish. 

"Demoni" wasn't a particularly intellectual experience, and "Demoni 2" is even less thought-provoking. It was never about deep psychology or evoking the viewer's forgotten traumata (or... was it?), but the second coming of the demons feels a little less charming, a little more wilful and off-the-shelf, lacking some of the quirkier quirks of the first one, so it maybe gets a little more lost in just blind activism.

But that doesn't mean it's boring. Oh no, far from it. The gore and nasty demons and everything is awesome as always, there are shiny muscles a-plenty, there's nice heavy metal music that's half adequate, and half irritating, and "Demoni 2" even manages to find a couple of new, inventive variations of the fantastic presentation of the titular monsters, using light and shadow, and a TV screen, to great, sometimes spectacular effect.

If you liked "Demoni", then "Demoni 2" is a no-brainer. If you didn't, you probably won't like "Demoni 2", too. If you've seen neither of the two, it doesn't really matter too much which one you watch first. Both "Demoni" are (almost) equally enjoyable, because the pacing and the visuals speak loudly and clearly for themselves, as does the music, and the first part also works nicely as a flashback-sequel to the second part. Just remember: It's for your guts, not your brain.

Verdict: We're not done yet! 7/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090930/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons_2

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQoXTy83lM

* * *

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

 

 

Review: Jack The Ripper (1988, David Wickes)

"Jack", the notorious, unidentified London ripper of 1888, is committing a series of horrific crimes. For Inspector Abberline and Sergeant Godley, in face of the bizarre atrocities, and the obstacles they have to overcome, the hunt for the killer becomes an increasingly personal experience, that leads them to circles of unexpected significance...

This two-part mini-series was produced for Thames Television and CBS, and broadcast on British television, exactly 100 years after the actual events. This gives us a certain indication of what to expect - some lines won't be crossed, the budget is reasonably big, and there should also be at least a good, if not top-notch, degree of historical accuracy, unless it turns out the movie (series) is some loose interpretation.

It turns out it's not - which is great. Where "Jack The Ripper" takes some liberties, is in the portrayal of the individuals, and it adds a bit of a surreal element to the story, but in every other regard it stays really close to historic fact. (Albeit offering a sort of solution to the case that is neither fully proven, nor generally accepted.) There are countless adaptations of the material, most of them being generous with injecting new ideas and dropping parts of the real story - this "Jack The Ripper" isn't one of them.

The original material certainly is exciting enough, and the movie basically just follows the history book, so it's inherently an interesting watch. The presentation of Jack leaving his ugly marks, the authorities chasing after him, and the public reaction to the events, is very authentic and convincing, it creates a dense, complete picture and atmosphere. The movie retains a moderate tone and pacing throughout, this "Jack The Ripper" doesn't zoom in to, and blow up individual detail, but is more like a protocol of the events.

In parallel with the crime story is a very personal portrayal of Inspector Abberline, who struggles between honest motivation, and throwing in the towel. Michael Cane gives the character some good dynamics, going through the ups and downs of success and failure, becoming the focal point of the story.

The entire movie is in fact very nicely balanced in all regards. It's authentic, with some flashy moments thrown in, and even a hint at the supernatural, which is a nice nod to the superstition of the time. The horror and violence is there, but it's kept at a tasteful minimum, being mildly explicit, but not more than absolutely necessary. We get a little bit of romance, but it's down to earth and unobtrusive. 

All in all, "Jack The Ripper" is super solid, above average TV thriller material. Focusing on the police's work in 1888, it's probably a little too tame and traditional for the hardcore horror geek, but it's a great horror-esque thriller with lots of chills, a shock here and there, perfect Victorian London setting, a great script (mostly) based on actual fact, shaped into a personal story, and a great performance by the pretty much always great Michael Caine.

Verdict: Great TV thriller, and a little history lesson - nice! 7/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095388/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_(miniseries)

> Watch the full movie for free in "Streaming Kino"...

Trailer video:

video source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSpZT8IjE0

 

* * *

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

 

 

 

 

 

Review: Salo, O Le 120 Giornate Di Sodoma (1975, Pier Paolo Pasolini)

In 1944, at the little Italian town of Salo, capital of the fascist, Nazi-puppet Italian Social Republic (1943 - 1945), four civil, powerful men are gathering for an event of unspeakable debauchery. With chilling calmness, they proceed through their decadent celebration - while the brutal humming of bomber planes flying above shakes the rooftops...

"Salo, O Le 120..." is a fictional tale, a loose adaptation of Marquis de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom (1785 / 1904), set in real, historic fascist Italy near the end of World War II. It's also among the most controversial films ever made. 

On the mere surface, not too much seems to be going on in "Salo", except for some sick meeting that plays out in increasingly uncomfortable ways. But stopping there is like judging the iceberg by its tip. 

Technically, it's a flawless production. It's visually elegant, in part due to the beautiful setting in an Italian mansion, and in part due to the analytic, sometimes intrusive camera work, that uses a lot of symmetry and perfect side-shots. The acting is nuanced, precise, and highly intense at times. The dialogue is disturbing, the actions performed are even more disturbing, and the high level of realism is, yes, very disturbing.

Key to unlocking "Salo" is understanding the situation: By the end of 1943, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was already imprisoned, and Allied forces had entered Italian main land. In the movie, a group of rich, powerful people with inherent ties to the fascist republic are celebrating their own downfall. The bomber planes are literally above them, signalling the arrival of necessary, violent change. These people have nowhere to go, they know nothing else. Starting a new life is impossible, and would also mean questioning everything that led up to this point. Unable to let go, and trapped by who they are, there's nothing left but to uphold the facade, and go on and on and on, only to be replaced by their own kind...

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini was born in 1922, lived through World War II, was openly homosexual, marxist, and a couple of other things, and became an important intellectual figure of post-war Europe - he certainly had a word or two to say about Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and "the powers that be".

This movie was clearly born from a strong vision, and it has a message. Nothing in "Salo" is made for the quick effect, everything serves the big, sad, stomach-turning picture. The stunning quality of it, the superbly composed imagery, the cold, detached stylisation, the deliberate, delicate timing, the slow, elaborate, disturbing dialogue, the shocking dehumanisation, perversion and violence - the utter, devastating cynicism of it all just has to be obvious to the viewer, as much as the immediate visceral effect.

This isn't nazisploitation. There's no doubt it's art, and it's on the good side of history. Yes, the cruelty is taken to extreme levels, and it fits the "golden age" time frame of Italian exploitation cinema - but "Salo" really has nothing in common with films like "La Bestia In Calore" (1977) or "L'Ultima Orgia Del III Reich" (1977). Not only is it a far (!) higher quality production, but also at no point does it enjoy or endorse the horrors it portrays. It's not voyeuristic, but painfully voyeuristic. It's not obtrusive, it's consciously indiscreet, invasive. It doesn't focus on the action, but on the motivation behind it, the perpetrators, every sad, sickening moment of their fading, fey existence. "Salo" isn't about individuals or story - it's about the psyche, about tolerance and empathy, or, the lack thereof, and how this translates into a system of dominance.

"Salo" might feel just slow on first contact, but as it progresses, the moderate, sometimes drawn-out pacing takes on a sadistic tone of its own, matching the content of the film. There's no turning away, it's an ugly, painful demise with a lot of collateral damage, all while an invisible, much bigger power is looming in the air...

When "Salo" is through with you, you'll probably want (at least) a minute of silence. It wasn't made with entertainment value in mind - it's a political and humane statement. It has a flow, it is mesmerizing, and it's a real shocker, but this is actual heavy, profound stuff. If you needed a reminder why you want compassion, not dominance, empathy, not fascism, this movie is a very, very convincing one.

Pier Paolo Pasolini was abducted, tortured and killed in 1975, presumably by political far-right sympathizers. Efforts to fully solve the case are going on to the present day.

Verdict: Stunning. Numbing. 8.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

Trailer video:

video source:
https://archive.org/details/salo-or-the-120-days-of-sodom-1975-trailer

 * * *

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

 

Review: Faceless (1988, Jess Franco)

An act of revenge by an unsatisfied patient is the starting point for an ever darker series of events. An all too ambitious, reckless plastic surgeon goes to work, to fix the damage that has been done, and he needs... female skin!

Jess Franco has made a good amount of very-low-budget films - but this isn't one of them, it's among his highest-budget productions. A round of good actors, some of which are well known far beyond exploitation cinema, a couple more different settings than usual in his movies, some actual dialogue, proper editing - yes, this is perfectly watchable if you like a nasty mad-scientist shocker. 

"Faceless" is a french production, but it feels a bit like an Italian movie, an offspring of 70s gialli and fumetti neri. It's a variation of the same idea that Jess Franco had already used in "The Awful Dr. Orloff" (1962). "Faceless" seems to have mostly disappeared from common horror fans' consciousness, despite the fact that it features scream-queen Caroline Munro, veteran actors Helmut Berger and Anton Diffring, and even cult-icon Telly Savalas. Maybe it's because the movie was released in 1988, a couple of years after the heyday of Italian horror cinema, maybe it's because it's a little too polished, a little too much star power for a production that still would typically be watched by a niche, more "grindhouse"-oriented audience - "Faceless" is a bit of an oddity among the horror films of its time. It lacks the elegance of a classic giallo, or a gothic horror film, has some aspirations, but just can't match a big Hollywood production, and also doesn't fully commit to the cold realism as seen in e.g. "Maniac" (1980) or "Last House On The Left" (1972).

What it is, is a nice horror thriller in a metropolitan present-day setting, some good acting, and some not so good acting, beautiful women that show a lot of skin, some sexy sleaze, hints of quirky comedy, homophobia and Nazisploitation, and some strong, well made gore scenes that will make you react, and maybe stick with you for a while. (The eyes!)

It's reasonably exciting and suspenseful, albeit more due to the visible events than subtle writing or delicate timing, as seen in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. The sleaze doesn't max out, and there isn't an excessive amount of groin shots, so in that regard "Faceless" is a little (I said a little!) more accessible than expected. 

Overall, it's clearly a Jess Franco movie, meaning you don't win an Academy Award with this kind of stuff. It's got a respectable, above average production value, compared to similar works, but it's still low-cost exploitation cinema, pulp fiction for adults.

"Faceless" is a bit of a mash-up of different styles, and varying degrees of quality. It's a shocker, it has its moments, but also sometimes it gets a little lost in an uneven tone and hiccups in pacing. One moment it builds atmosphere, the next it's a little underwhelming. If you're looking for edge-of-your-seat levels of suspense, let alone depth or nuance, you probably better look elsewhere. If you like a gory, slightly-above-average horror thriller that doesn't require 100% of your attention, you've come to the right place.

Verdict: Nasty stuff. 6/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095125/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceless_(1988_film)

Trailer video:

video source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njDRl7egw7o

  

* * *

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

 

Review: Demoni ("Demons", 1985, Lamberto Bava)

The lines between cinema and reality blur, when a mask is found that carries evil. A movie theater becomes the battleground for hordes of bloodthirsty demons invading our world!

It's a mess. It's all over the place. A helicopter. (You'll understand.) We love it so much. 

"Demoni" drops all ballast, plays no games, and goes straight for the marbles. Which, in this case, are the games. It's not about uncovering and dissecting your innermost fears - or, only if they are an unhinged, feverish, surreal, and gory nightmare, that comes at you like a train at full steam. Where in other movies the aforementioned "marbles" would correlate to the underlying suspense, the dramatic arc, or whatever emotional effect the director intends to evoke in between the peak moments, in "Demoni" there is no such thing as an "in between". When the spectacle begins, it gets wilder and wilder, and pretty much doesn't stop until the end. 

The film-in-the-film concept mixes with some colorful outside world shots, there's plenty of action and gore, a bit of sleaze and bad lifestyle. And there's a notable lack of meaningful dialogue sequences, exposé, backstory, etc. - in "Demoni" it's all about the sonic and visual impact. The heavy metal music by Saxon, Accept, and others, used in the soundtrack, might seem a little off on first sight, but it's actually somehow accurate to the pacing of the movie, and also the stereotype that heavy metal music is inherently the devil's work. 

All of this hints at a message, a loophole in which "Demoni" is the very evil that it portrays, spilling over into the real world. But that's certainly a massive over-analysis. First and foremost, "Demoni" is a mash-up of countless themes from Italian horror cinema and fumetti (comics). Gothic demons emerging, some zombie-esque action, a helicopter (...), a hero with shiny muscles, ... If you've ever seen a fumetto like "Dylan Dog" or "Brad Barron", you get the idea. It's a lot.

And it works! There is some really awesome looking use of light and shadow, inventive and bizarre imagery, wild, scary make-up, some epic scenes of demonic onslaught, huge amounts of violence and gore, and so on, and it has a fast pace, so you don't spend much time thinking about all the insanity.

"Demoni" is one of the most spectacular productions of 70s and 80s Italian horror cinema. Does it make sense, or even educate you? No! Beware! Does it keep you tied to the screen, asking for more? Oh yeah, big time!

Verdict: All hell breaks loose in "Demoni"! 8/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089013/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demons_(1985_film) 

Trailer video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HkHDrRa8R4

* * *

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

Review: Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)

It's 1943, Germany is a fascist country, World War II is raging, and businessman Oskar Schindler makes good profit of the situation. As the prosecution of Jews reaches his workforce, he begins to realize the humanitarian catastrophe that is going on, and his motivation turns from money to salvation.

Steven Spielberg is Jewish, and one of the best movie directors of our time. With "Schindler's List", he knows what he's talking about, and he has the skills and the means to create a movie that meets the highest standards in every regard. As a result, "Schindler's List" is a technically perfect production, and a deeply moving experience.

In it, we witness some of the numbingly atrocious practices carried out by Nazi officials and sympathisers, and the transformation of a pure businessman into an empathic, unselfish saviour. The depiction of the Nazi regime is scarily realistic, on all levels, with Ralph Fiennes giving a chilling portrayal of SS Commander Amon Göth. It goes hand in hand with the oppositional personal transformation of Oskar Schindler, played by Liam Neeson. The characterization of Schindler, a man between the lines, is handled with great care and precision. The acting in this movie is flawless, down to the last extra that has only seconds of screen time. 

Writing, lighting, set pieces, filming, editing - there's not a single frame in "Schindler's List" that feels wrong or weak. It's a visual feast in black and white, mimicking the style of 1940s cinema, but all elements of the film - successfully - serve one purpose: Tell the story. And it is a profound story that is full of horror, but also full of compassion and hope.

"Schindler's List" is a brilliant, outstanding movie. It has a bit of a flaw, though, the same way "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) has: It can't compete with reality. When millions are dying, there is no cherry picking. A historical background such as this will always be overwhelming, and putting an individual story of heroism at its center has potential to create distortion. In reality, for the vast majority of victims, there was no one there to step in and help. The situation in the movie is very bleak, but in reality, for 99.9% of those affected, it was even bleaker. If a director chooses to direct a movie about a serious, decisive historical event, his work will be, and has to be, judged in comparison to actual historic fact. Artistic freedom, even if used with great virtuosity, can be inherently inadequate.

Given the sensitive subject matter, that is inherently problematic to approach, "Schindler's List" is still, or maybe precisely therefore, an astonishing achievement.  While the movie does focus on individuals, it also manages to tie all the threads together, completing a big picture that is, in an cinematic sense, actually adequate to reality. We must not forget that it's still a dramatization, and there is a little bit of fiction in "Schindler's List" - but the end result is still so accurate, and so coherent, that there's just no point in arguing. 

"Schindler's List" is a massive success, both in terms of art and education.

Verdict: Utterly gut-wrenching, utterly beautiful. 9.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List

Trailer video:

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG22XNhtnoY

* * *

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

 

Review: Theatre of Blood (1973, Douglas Hickox)

Passionate Shakespeare actor Edward Lionheart is driven to suicide by critics panning his skills. But with the help of some local vagrants, he survives, and is back for some literally shakespearean revenge...

Yeah, this is gonna hurt. Very much like Dr. Phibes did just two years earlier, Mr. Lionheart has prepared everything for his sinister goals. Douglas Hickox' grotesque classic "Theatre of Blood" is Shakespeare all over the place, it's British to the utmost, it's got Vincent Price, and the murders are outrageous.

The story and style of the film are as satirical and sarcastic as they are tragic, dark, and bizarre. There is a seriously sinister undertone to it, very much unlike the colorful Hammer Studios productions, or Roger Corman's E. A. Poe adaptations (many of which feature Vincent Price in the lead role), of the 1960s. Set in the modern city of London, with concrete office buildings and dirty backstreets, the character of Edward Lionheart seems like a relic of a forgotten art. "Theatre of Blood" has an strong element of aging, of "zeitgeist" that has just moved on, creating a bleak, sobering underlying mood. 

Vincent Price plays Lionheart with almost touching precision, Diana Riggs' acting is spot on - the entire cast is made of British stage trained actors. Director Douglas Hickox, at the time, had more than 20 years of experience in the industry. "Theater of Blood" really has some substantial quality. But it's not a "big" production, there are no vibrant shots, there's very limited depiction of an outside world, etc. It's more like a supersized intimate play of a dark crime story, with some quite nasty, and quite amusingly bizarre scenes.

"Theatre of Blood" is a rare blend of British black humor, in fact some of the blackest ever, serious B-horror-movie, raw stage performance, and social satire - and it's pretty good at each of its ingredients. The somehow relatable, tragic struggle of Lionheart versus the establishment gives the movie a strong, meaningful backbone, on top of which the dark and grotesque events make sense, and make you choke.

"Not to be" has rarely been that much stomach-turning fun.

Verdict: Very British, very black, very humor. 7.5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070791/

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

Trailer video:

 

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

* * *

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

Review: Amityville II: The Possession (1982, Damiano Damiani)

The Montellis move into an old house that soon shows scary signs of the supernatural. Or is it just the anger and fear of its new inhabitants?

"Amityville II: The Possession", based on the book "Murder in Amityville" (1979) by Hans Holzer, gives us a little bit of insight into the origins of "The Amityville Horror" (1979). Evil spirits have taken hold of the old mansion, but it's a bit of a guessing game where they actually come from. The Montelli family isn't your perfect TV family, esp. the dad is a deeply tormented person. Everything spirals increasingly out of control, and both visually and aurally the movie takes the viewer on quite a journey.

There's a priest and some exorcism, there's gore and a little bit of slime, a gothic basement, some monstrous transformation, a bit of sleaziness... When some green and red lights show up, you can't help but think "Bava! Italy!" - and indeed, director Damiano Damiani is Italian, and has directed a lot of Italian crime movies, meaning gialli, so it's no big surprise that "Amityville II" has a somehow different feel to it than the slightly more ethereal "Amityville Horror". There are similarities to the unhinged "Patrick Still Lives" (1980), but "Amityville II" is less gory, and keeps the sleaze at far less outrageous levels.

Overall, the impression is a little more blunt than "Amityville Horror". Some of the special effects are quite obvious, the characters are a little less detailed, and "Amityville II" chooses some more visceral visuals, where its predecessor would go for more mysticism. 

Is it fun to watch? Yes, it is. Seeing Burt Young in a movie is always enjoyable, the child actors are convincing, and the rest of the cast gives a solid and passionate performance, too. Lalo Schifrin provides a great soundtrack, some scenes are creepy, some are reasonably funny, there's some interesting cinematography here and there, and the pacing of the events easily keeps you occupied. 

The examination of the dysfunctional family falls a bit flat on its face, and there's a plot-hole or two - but if you're looking for some cheap thrills, you get a nice, somehow spooky, not too profound, little haunted house flick.

Verdict: Closer to cinecitta than to Amityville. 5/10

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083550/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amityville_II:_The_Possession

Trailer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwIgPbOXKI0

* * *

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

Review: Friday the 13th (1980, Sean S. Cunningham)

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 a 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 a little, or maybe be totally on the edge, 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 unique, 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.

 

Review: Tusk (2014, Kevin Smith)

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. 

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

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.

 

 

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. 

 

Review: Insidious (2010, James Wan)

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 goings-on 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. It adds up to a nicely paced, thrilling experience, but no new ground has been broken so far.

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 Native American burial ground to a... TV? 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, Larry Cohen)

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 its 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 not all is 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 sooner or later will 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.