Horror (?) Review: Left Behind (dir by Vic Armstrong)

Posted on October 7, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I have always felt that film critics and bloggers should be open and honest about their biases. Most critics, of course, claim that their reviews are solely based on the merits of what they’ve seen and that they leave their personal political or religious beliefs out of it. That, needless to say, is complete bullshit and I’ve never quite understood why some people are so terrified over the prospect of being revealed to be just as biased as everyone else in the world. The fact of the matter is that critics are supposed to be opinionated and readers have a right to know exactly where those opinions are coming from.

With that in mind, allow me to let you know my mindset before I attempt to review Left Behind.

First off, you should know that I come from a Catholic family. On my Dad’s side, I’m Irish. On my mom’s side, I’m Italian and Spanish. Put those three together and basically, you’ve got a big and fiercely Catholic heritage to deal with. Therefore, I have to admit that I really don’t know a whole lot about the whole Evangelical Protestant background from which Left Behind apparently sprung. (In fact, the only thing that I really knew about the Left Behind books is that, apparently, most of the book’s Catholics get left behind.) So, who knows? Maybe some of the issues that I had were just a case of me not being a member of the film’s target audience.

Secondly, you should know that I love being a contrarian. I love any excuse to express an opinion that goes against the majority because, quite frankly, I think that there’s way too much groupthink going on when it comes to film reviewing. Far too often, it seems that critics have already decided which films that they’re going to love and which films that they’re going to hate. I knew that the critics were going to hate Left Behind so I was really hoping that the film would somehow be good. That way, I could write a review defending it and, best of all, I could annoy a lot of people. After all, the only thing worse than organized religion would be organized hipster douchebags.

(I’m looking in your direction, A.V. Club commenters….)

On the other hand, another part of me hoped that the movie would be really, really bad. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a truly bad film and, in another few months, it’s going to be time for me to make out my list of the 16 worst films of 2014. And since I can only list films that I’ve actually seen, I need to step up my game and see more bad movies. I mean, A Million Ways To Die In The West and Transformers 4 are a good start but they can’t make up the entire list…

Fourth, I was really hoping that Nicolas Cage would somehow be responsible for redeeming Left Behind. I hoped that he would either give a brilliant performance or he would give a performance so weird that the film itself would become oddly watchable. A lot of this is because Cage was so good in Joe that it kind of breaks my heart to see him throwing away whatever critical respect he may have regained by appearing in Left Behind…

And finally, I’m on vacation! Why is that important? Because it meant that, when Jeff and I went to Left Behind, we saw it in a theater that we’ll never have to visit again. As such, we didn’t have to worry about running into anyone we knew. Yay! (The theater, incidentally, was nearly empty. Jeff and I were the youngest people there…)

So, with all that in mind, Left Behind was really, really bad.

Nicolas Cage plays Rayford Steele and let’s just start with a bit of praise. Rayford Steele is a great name! Anyway, Rayford Steele is a pilot who, one day, is flying an airplane and thinking about cheating on his wife (Lea Thompson), who just happens to be an Evangelical Christian! (How religious is Mrs. Rayford Steele? So religious that she apparently carries her bible with her everywhere.) Rayford has picked the flight attendant that he’s going to cheat with. He’s even got brand new U2 tickets that he’s going to use for enticement because, apparently, Left Behind takes place in the 20th Century.

And then suddenly — his copilot vanishes! Several passengers on the plane vanish! Children all over the world vanish! It’s the Rapture, a point that becomes clear as soon as Rayford takes a look at a vanished flight attendant’s date book and sees “BIBLE STUDY” written in all caps.

Even worse, apparently every flight controller in the world was a Christian because there’s nobody on the ground to help Rayford land his plane. Uh-oh!

Also on the plane (and unraptured) is a reporter named Buck Williams (Chad Michael Murray) and, let’s just be honest — Buck Williams is not as good a name as Rayford Steele. Shortly before boarding the plane, Buck met Rayford’s daughter, Chloe, (Cassi Thomson) and they bonded over their mutual atheism.

(Chloe might as well have been wearing a Neil deGrasse Tyson t-shirt.)

Of course, post-rapture, Chloe spends most of the day desperately searching for her mother and her younger brother. Riots are breaking out down on the ground. Airplanes are falling from the sky. Will Chloe survive?

(Ha, Chloe! Where’s your Neil deGrasse Tyson now!?)

One thing that I did find interesting is just how quickly society collapsed after the Rapture. It’s almost as if everyone in the world decided, “Now that the children are gone, let’s burn this place down!”

To be honest, it all felt a bit like a SyFy original film. SyFy films are almost always divided in half, with 50% of the film dealing with someone in either a plane or a boat while the other half of the film deals with that person’s son or daughter trying to lead a group of idiots to safety and hopefully avoid the monster. It’s tempting to think of what a SyFy version of Left Behind would look like. It would probably be a lot more fun than this one…

Anyway, the problem with Left Behind is that it’s just so boring. The film takes forever to get going and then, once everyone vanishes, the film tries to generate some suspense as to what happened but we already know it was the Rapture so why drag it out? The dialogue is flat, the performers do just enough to get by, and it’s obvious that the majority of the film’s budget was spent on Nicolas Cage. This, of course, is what I expected but I was hoping that Nicolas Cage would at least go crazy. Well, he doesn’t. In fact, he’s remarkable restrained and this film, if nothing else, proves that Cage can deliver even the worst dialogue with conviction and a straight face.

But we don’t want a restrained Cage in a film like Left Behind! We not only wanted him to go crazy, we needed him to go crazy! And he didn’t and, as a result, the film is even more disappointing than it would be otherwise.

Now, you may have noticed that I referred to Left Behind as being a “horror (?)” film in the title of this review. My argument there is that the film is obviously meant to scare nonbelievers. Indeed, this film was actually advertised with a pull quote from Satan. (“Please don’t take nonbelievers to this film.” — Satan.) Unfortunately, I think that Left Behind missed an opportunity. If the filmmakers had strictly focused on the horrific implications of being left behind — as opposed to trying to be both a sermon and a disaster movie, it probably would have been a lot more effective. Seriously, The Exorcist is probably the most effective religious film ever made.

Now, I do have to take issue with some of Left Behind‘s critics. Quite a few critics have made it a point to say, “Even if you agree with the film’s worldview, you’ll be annoyed by the bad acting and the bad directing…” Uhmmm …. no. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Usually, people will enjoy any film that supports their beliefs, regardless of how terrible it is. That goes for all people regardless of religion or ideology. We all enjoy having our beliefs confirmed.

But, yeah — Left Behind is pretty bad. Is it the worst film of the year?

Well, the year’s not over yet.

Horror Film Review: Nurse 3D (dir by Doug Aarniokoski)

Posted on October 7, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, last night, my boyfriend and I watched Nurse 3D because, based on the trailer that was released way back in January, we thought that it would be a sexy, fun, and enjoyably lurid movie. Do you remember that trailer? In case you need a reminder, here it is:

So, we finally got around to watching the movie and oh my God, you guys — sometimes trailers lie! I know, I know — it’s a shock. I’m still struggling to deal with it myself!

Actually, technically, the trailer for Nurse 3D doesn’t really lie. The trailer tells us that the film is about a nurse who is obsessed with another nurse and who spends the majority of the film wearing only a bra. And that’s true! But, somehow, the trailer also makes the film look like it’s a lot more fun than it actually is. The trailer reveals that Nurse 3D is meant to be something of a satirical tribute to the exploitation films of the past. What it doesn’t reveal is that the film largely does not work.

In Nurse 3D, Paz de la Huerta plays Abby Russell, a nurse who also happens to be a serial killer. When we first meet her, she’s wandering through a club in a black lace, see-through dress. In a narration that de la Huerta delivers in an emotionless drone, Abby explains that men are a disease that has been created in an “alcoholic petri dish” and that is now “infecting innocent vaginas.”

“There is only one cure for the married cock,” Abby tells us, “Only me. I’m the nurse.”

Abby, we discover, specializes in murdering married men who are on the verge of committing adultery. Sounds like a good idea for a movie, right? Well, don’t get too attached to it because, once we get through the opening credits, that entire storyline pretty much disappears.

Instead, Abby becomes obsessed with a new nurse named Danni Rogers (Katrina Bowden). One night, after Danni both has a fight with her boyfriend (Corbin Bleu) and gets yelled at by a jerk of a doctor (played by Judd Nelson), Abby invites Danni out to a club. Abby gets Danni drunk and drugged and soon they’re making out on the dance floor. The next morning, Danni wakes up in Abby’s bed. When Danni refuses to spend the day with Abby and quickly leaves, Abby reacts by trying to destroy Danni’s life…

And that plot line goes on for a while until, eventually, the filmmakers remembered that this was supposed to be a 3D film and, with the exception of one man hurtling towards the camera after being tossed off a rooftop, nothing in the film has really lent itself to whole 3D thing. So, suddenly, Abby goes from being coolly calculating to being batshit insane, essentially so that she’ll have an excuse to toss medical equipment straight at the camera.

(I’m going to guess that this all probably looked really impressive in 3D but since we were watching the film in 2D, who cares?)

And then, eventually, the movie ends.

I like what Nurse 3D was trying to do. The film is obviously meant to pay homage to the classic exploitation films to the past. That was obvious in everything from the overwritten narration to the hilariously fetishized nurses uniforms to the unapologetically sordid nature of the entire plot.

However, the film’s execution left a lot to be desired. For all of it’s attempts to celebrate over-the-top exploitation, the film never quite seems to understand what makes those films so memorable in the first place. Perhaps if Nurse 3D had stuck with being a film about a nurse who kills cheating husbands, the film would have worked. But, instead, it just becomes yet another film about an obsessive friend who turns out to be a psycho and who, fortunately for her, is lucky enough to be surrounded by people too stupid to pick up on the most obvious of clues.

And it doesn’t help that, whatever the joke was that Nurse 3D was trying to tell, it’s obvious that Paz de la Huerta was not in on it. In many ways, her character is meant to be a throwback to the great and deadly femme fatales of yesterday but it takes more than having a good body to be a femme fatale. You have to have style and that’s totally what her performance is missing. Scarlett Johansson could have worked wonders with the role of Abby Russell but Paz de la Huerta just seems to be lost.

That’s actually a pretty good description of Nurse 3D. It started out on the right track but, obviously, it lost its way.

Horror on the Lens: The Pumaman (dir by Albert De Martino)

Posted on October 7, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Okay, so technically, the Italian 1980 film The Pumaman isn’t really a horror film. However, it does fit in with Halloween because it’s about a super hero and who hasn’t dressed up as a super hero for Halloween? (Well, I never have but I’m sure a lot of other people have!)

The Pumaman is actually a paleontologist named Tony (Walter George Alton) who, though he doesn’t realize it, is the last in a long line of Pumamen. Fortunately, an Aztec mystic shows up and lets him know. When Tony expresses some doubt, the mystic responds by tossing him out a window.

And you know what?

It’s a good thing that Tony has learned the truth about his heritage because the evil Dr. Kobras (Donald Pleasence, who reportedly considered this to be the worst film he ever appeared in) has an evil scheme to do something evil. To be honest, I’m not sure what Dr. Kobras is trying to do, though it has something to do with an ancient mask and mind control.

I watched Pumaman a few months ago with my friends from SyFyDesigns.com. I have to admit that I was not a huge fan of the movie but everyone else seemed to enjoy it. The Pumaman himself is kind of a boring hero but Donald Pleasence is a lot of fun as Dr. Kobras. Plus, the haunting Theme From Pumaman will get stuck in your head (don’t say that I didn’t warn you…).

Enjoy!

Duke Tries A Halloween Marathon…Part Two.

Posted on October 6, 2014 by leonth3duke

This is part two of my attempt at partaking in a October horror marathon. The first part of which can be found here.

October 5th (Watched two because I didn’t have time on the 4th): ‘Frankenstein’s Army’ (dir. Richard Raaphorst)

‘Frankenstein’s Army’ is a WWII found footage film with a weirdness and creativity that makes for one fun, goofy and clever experience…if you can get past the headache inducing sound design.

The film is about a small squad of Russian soldiers, behind enemy lines, who stumble upon an eerily abandoned church. What they find inside is a lab of a decedent of Victor Frankenstein, who has been experimenting with the bodies of soldiers (friend and foe) and turning them into mindless monsters mixed with machinery of all sorts.

The film is shot in a found footage style and it actually works. The explanation behind it is essentially they are trying to make a propaganda film. There is the usual question as to why they are still filming during certain scenes, but I actually think the film as a whole would not have worked as well had it been filmed conventionally.

The best thing about the film is easily the production, at least visually. There are some really well done long takes, often with characters in the background doing things that one might miss if they aren’t paying attention. The costume/monster designs are wonderfully weird and creative. They definitely had fun with the concept, and it shows.

The only issue I had was the sound design, which was mindbogglingly annoying. I mean really bad. So screechy, scratchy and just plain irritating. I understand that because of the nature of some of the monsters and their machine parts that it would require these sorts of sounds, but ultimately they add nothing to the experience except a headache. However, this might only be me. Others might not have the same response, so I won’t really hold it against the film – I just probably will never watch it again.

Overall this is a fun, if hollow, film worthy of at least one viewing. The performances aren’t great, and the dialogue is exactly what you’d expect from this sort of film. There is no subtext and no real scares. Still, it is so creative and so bat-shit crazy at times that it would be a shame to pass it up if given the opportunity. Especially when it is a lean 84 minutes.

‘The Midnight Meat Train’ (dir. Ryûhei Kitamura)

‘The Midnight Meat Train’ is a brutal and violent horror film, that is unfortunately dragged down by some scripting and pacing issues.

The film stars Bradley Cooper as a photographer who, after being told to be a bit riskier in his search for great photos, finds himself face to face with Vinnie Jones, a butcher who is brutally murdering people on a train. Cooper begins to follow Jones in an attempt to gather evidence of the murders, all the while the darkness of the situation taking its tool emotionally on him.

The biggest issue I had was the pacing of the story as well as the characters. It is a weird situation in which I simultaneously wished it would slow down in terms of character development, while also picking up the pacing for the horror. There is such a rapid shift in the emotions of the characters that – although valid – happen way to abruptly. What is worse is that it isn’t like they don’t have enough time to draw this out. Because they do…almost too much so, to the point that I was also wishing they’d hurry up with the horror elements.

This wouldn’t have been too big of an issue if not for the fact that it made me lose interest in a lot of what was happening. I wasn’t invested in the characters or the horror because of it, and so any attempts at creating suspense were lost of me – leaving me with only the graphic and brutal kills on the train, which just aren’t my thing. I can handle gore, but find it utterly pointless – and distasteful – when there is little to no meaning behind it.

It wasn’t all bad though, with the stand out being the direction. There is some really great camerawork, especially in a scene set in an apartment. I also liked the visual contrasts between the surface and train scenes; and Vinnie Jones was cool, calm and terrifying. The ending was also great, where there is a reveal of a mythical plot line that is alluded to throughout most of the film. It is a very weird tonal shift, and goes a long way towards adding meaning to a lot of what came before it…sadly it is a case of too little too late.

Overall I didn’t hate it, but an hour in I was just ready for it to finally be over…and imagine my dismay when I realized there was another 40 minutes or so left. It is the sort of horror film in which its failings are harder for me to ignore, as I might in another film, given the content. If you are looking for just a gory horror film in which the shock value is simply the brutal violence, then this might be for you. If you are looking for something with a bit more substance, than you may want to look elsewhere.

October 6th: ‘Black Christmas’ (dir. Bob Clark)

‘Black Christmas’, considered to be one of the first ever slasher films, is an efficient, effective and highly enjoyable horror film – one I will definitely revisit often.

The film is set during Christmas at a sorority, the members of which are being harassed by someone making creepy prank calls. As many of them leave for the holiday break, one goes missing, setting off a search for her and the person calling the house. As the remaining sorority sisters try to deal with this, they begin to be killed off one by one by a killer who may potentially be someone very close to them.

The only issue I had was with a particular mannerism of the killer. The film took on a first person perspective whenever he appeared – which was effectively spooky- but there was quite a lot of moaning and weird grunts coming from him at the same time. They were meant to be eerie, and in the end worked because of the nature of his mania and the calls to the house – but it was ultimately more annoying than unsettling.

But I can easily overlook this minor issue because of just how well made the film is. There is a genuine feeling of suspense here, partly because of the whodunit nature of the murders; and also because of the closeness of the killer throughout the events of the film. You never know who it is, what will set him off, or who will be killed next – but you do know he is there, waiting.

That said, it isn’t necessarily a scary film per se, but an unsettling and bleak one. The sort that gets under your skin and sticks with you. However, with that, it has to be said that through all the bleakness, there is also a great sense of humor to the story. There is also actually a maturity and depth to the script that I wasn’t expecting. This might be set in a sorority, but it isn’t about partying and dim witted topless girls, like so many slashers that came after it. The women here are smart and mature, dealing with important family and relationship issues. This added a lot to my investment in the characters, and so made the fear of their potential demise all the more suspenseful.

The direction is great – Christmas makes for a perfect setting, at least visually. There is solid pacing and an effective slow build throughout. I was surprised how well the mystery it creates in its first few scenes holds up so well even when things slow down a bit halfway through. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that even when it might not be focused on its creepier slasher elements, it instead is focused on those previously mentioned characters – again making the suspense as the killer stalks them all the more effective. There is no real resolution to the story, but the film is less focused on the actual killer and more focused on building an atmosphere and a story that is almost mythical.

Lastly, as someone who isn’t too knowledgeable in regards to the genre, it was easy to initially think that a lot of the tropes in play were cliche…but once I took into consideration the fact that ‘Black Christmas’ came out in 1974, and was really the start of most of these, they actually added a level of admiration to my already high level of enjoyment. It might not be as good as something like ‘Halloween’, which clearly drew some influence from this, but it deserves to be considered just as much of a classic. This is easily the best film I’ve watched so far for this horror series, and one that I’d add to my list of favorite horror films of all time.

*Side note, it is absolutely hilarious that director Bob Clark also directed ‘A Christmas Story’.

Horror on the Lens: Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster (dir by Robert Gaffney)

Posted on October 6, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s selection of horror on the lens, we offer up the odd 1965 horror/sci-fi/beach movie hybrid, Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster. Despite the movie’s title, it’s not about Frankenstein. Instead, it’s about an astronaut named Frank who is actually an android. When his latest mission into space goes wrong, Frank ends up crashing in Puerto Rico. Now malfunctioning, Frank causes some major chaos. Can his creator, Dr. Adam Steele (played by character actor James Karen, who years later would appear in Return of the Living Dead), track Frank down and put an end to his reign of terror?

And what about the Martians? Android Frank isn’t the only threat in Puerto Rico. A group of Martians have landed and are determined to kidnap any girl wearing a bikini so that they can use them to repopulate their race. We’re told that every woman on Mars — with the apparent exception of Princess Marcuzan, played with evil haughtiness by Marilyn Hanold — has been killed as the result of an atomic war. Assisting Princess Marcuzan is Dr. Nadir (Lou Cutell), a short, bald Martian with pointy ears.

One of the oddest things about Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster is that, despite being a standard — if wonderfully nonsensical — low-budget B-movie, it features a great soundtrack!

Enjoy!

Horror On The Lens: The Night Flier (dir by Mark Pavia)

Posted on October 5, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s Horror on the Lens offering, we present you with The Night Flier, a 1997 adaptation of a Stephen King short story. Miguel Ferrer plays a sleazy tabloid reporter, named Richard Dees, who is pursuing a serial killer who could very well be a vampire.

I have to admit that I’m not quite as big a Stephen King fan as some of my fellow writers here at the Shattered Lens. In fact, I’ve been meaning to write a “10 Reasons Stephen King Is Overrated” article for a while. Far too often, it seems like Stephen King adaptations manage to capture all of King’s weaknesses without making use of any of his strengths. However, The Night Flier is one of the more effective King adaptations. It’s no Shining but it’s still better than The Shawshank Redemption. Plus, it features a great lead performance from Miguel Ferrer.

Enjoy!

Horror On The Lens: Hercules In The Haunted World (dir by Mario Bava)

Posted on October 4, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In many ways, 2014 was the year of Hercules. Or, at the very least, it could have been the year of Hercules. Neither one of the two Hercules film released this year exactly managed to set the American box office on fire. Of the two, The Legend of Hercules was memorable largely for being forgettable while the Dwayne Johnson-starring Hercules was far better than any film directed by Brett Ratner has any right to be.

Neither one of them, however, can really hold a candle to the 1961 film, Hercules In The Haunted World. In this Italian film, Hercules (Reg Park) discovers that his lover Princess Deianira has gone insane so he goes to Hades in order to get the Stone of Forgetfulness, so he can use it to cure her. The story’s really not that important. What is important is that this visually stunning film was the first color film to be directed by Mario Bava and that the film’s villain is played by Christopher Lee.

Enjoy!

Horror Film Review: Annabelle (dir by John R. Leonetti)

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Remember Annabelle, the tres creepy doll from The Conjuring?

Well, she’s back and she’s starring in a film of her very own! Annabelle is the first horror film to be given a wide release this October and, judging from the commercials, New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. are really hoping that you’ll remember just how scary and effective The Conjuring was when it comes time to decide whether you want to see Annabelle or Gone Girl this weekend.

Of course, Annabelle actually have very little do with The Conjuring. Though Father Perez, the token concerned priest played by Tony Amendola, mentions Ed and Lorraine Warren, neither one of them actually appears in the film. Neither do any of the other characters or ghosts from The Conjuring. The only link between the two films is that doll.

Taking place in 1969, Annabelle is an origin story of sorts. Doctor John Gordon (Ward Horton) buys a doll for his pregnant wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis). The doll looks evil from the minute that Mia unwraps it but, according to the film, it was actually harmless until a psychotic hippie girl (Tree O’Toole) bled on it. That blood seeped into the doll’s eye and the next thing you know…

No, I’m not going to spoil it for you. In fact, it’s really not necessary for me to spoil it for you because I imagine you can probably guess everything that’s going to happen. If you’ve ever seen a haunted house film, you know exactly what’s going to happen when John goes to work and Mia gets left in the house alone. If you’ve ever seen a demonic possession film, you can guess what’s going to happen when Mia happens to stumble across the occult book store next door. And, if you’ve ever seen any film, you can guess that the book store is managed by a sassy mystic played by Alfre Woodard.

That’s right! There’s nothing surprising about Annabelle!

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Horror films are unique in that they often times actually benefit from being so predictable. You watch in dread because you know that something terrible is going to happen even though the characters in the film do not. You know enough to yell, “Don’t open that door!” but the characters in the film don’t. That’s exactly what makes a film like Annabelle scary.

The Conjuring, I thought, was not only a great horror film but it was also one of the best films of 2013. That’s because, along with being a scary movie, The Conjuring also dealt quite intelligently with very real issues of faith and family. The Conjuring was fun to watch because it was scary but it stayed with you because it was full of subtext. Annabelle, on the other hand, is a film without subtext. Everything important about Annabelle can be found right on the surface.

Annabelle is a film that exists solely to scare you and how much you enjoy it will probably depend on how much you enjoy horror films to begin with. The shock scenes are handled well, with an emphasis on sudden noise on the soundtrack and intimidating shadows appearing in the background. Everything that distinguished The Conjuring — the attention to detail, the lively performances, and the imaginative plotting — has been pushed to the side to make room for the next scare.

As a result, Annabelle is one of those films that makes you jump while you’re watching it but doesn’t stick around in your head afterwards. If you’re a fan of the horror genre and like a good scare, you’ll probably find something to enjoy in Annabelle. (It’s no Devil’s Due but it’s still better than the latest Paranormal Activity film.) If you’re not a horror fan — well, then you probably weren’t planning on seeing Annabelle in the first place.

Duke Tries A Halloween Marathon…Part One.

Posted on October 3, 2014 by leonth3duke

So, I think it may be fair to say that of most of the posters on this great site, I am probably the one who least enjoys the horror genre…or at least is never as excited about it as everyone else. It isn’t that I do not like horror films – there are quite a few I really love – but I just expect a lot from them. Probably – unfairly – more than I expect from other films. Why? Because I honestly think that when done right, horror films can be some of the most emotionally affecting films from any genre. But when done wrong – as I think far too many of them are – it just feels cheap and manipulative – and as someone who loves film, who loves how they can generate empathy and tell interesting stories, it always just feels like a slap to the face.

This love/hate relationship usually makes me hesitant to watch most horror films, which of course is an issue come October. This month is wall to wall horror from 12:01AM on the 1st – to midnight on Halloween. With this comes the pressure to watch a ton of horror films, and although in the past I have watched a few, I’ve never taken part in any sort of marathon that so many bloggers partake in this time of year…until now. This is part one – of what I hope will be a month long series – of quick reviews for horror films I watch this month. I hope to watch at least one a day.

October 1st: ‘Thale’ (dir. Aleksander Nordaas)

A very low budget Norwegian fantasy/horror film, with a lot of interesting ideas, that sadly doesn’t execute on enough of them to reach any level of greatness…which I think was possible.

‘Thale’ is about two friends, working in a crime scene cleaning service, who stumble upon a hidden basement at one of the locations they have been hired to clean. Within they find a lab of sorts, and a beautiful young woman who is unable to speak – and is most certainly more than she appears to be. The result is a rather unique horror film with fantasy elements; one that thrives on atmosphere for the first hour or so, building a genuine level of suspense and mystery. It is an intriguing story, one that is slow to build but never boring. There is certainly a lot under the surface.

The only real issue I had was that there is narration throughout that tries a bit too hard to add depth to the story, both narratively and thematically, without much success. Mainly because the exposition within would benefit more from a ‘show don’t tell’ approach – and also because the actual narrative comes off as so simple that many of the themes expressed through the narration have nothing to do with what we have actually been shown.

This isn’t too big of an issue really, and I can’t fault it for trying to give more meaning to the story, but had it executed on some of the ideas it alludes to under the surface than maybe this wouldn’t have been an issue at all – especially if it had been a half hour longer, and explored the fantasy element in more detail.

Still, the performances are very good and – given its very low budget – so are the effects and overall production. It certainly has its flaws, but it still warrants a recommendation.

Oct. 2nd: ‘Pontypool’ (dir. Bruce McDonald)

‘Pontypool’ is a mostly lean – though often convoluted – and creative horror film that builds slowly and contains just the right dash of humor. It is at times essentially ‘Welcome to Night Vale’ in film form.

It stars Stephen McHattie as an ex-shock jock who has reached a point in his career where he is stuck doing an early morning radio gig in a small Canadian town. He is quick to try to cause a stir, but his producer reminds him that the listeners just want to know the weather. As the morning slowly passes by the station begins to get weird reports of people, herds of people, swarming the streets. Whats seems to them to initially be a joke begins to turn into a life or death emergency situation where a virus is infecting the town, keeping the workers at the studio locked indoors, trying to figure out how it all started.

This isn’t the scariest horror film you will ever see, neither is it the most suspenseful – yet the development of the story, the unraveling mystery and the urgency of the performances make it an absorbing viewing experience. Things do start to get a little convoluted as we begin to better understand how the “virus” infecting people is being spread. The film seems to be making it up as it goes, and ironically it can’t seem to think of the rights words to explain what is actually happening.

But it does managed to create an interesting subtext on how language has been simplified and diminished by gossip, social websites and the media. It would also probably benefit from multiple viewings. But for now, I recommend you at least watch it once.

Oct. 3rd: ‘Pumpkinhead’ (dir. Stan Winston)

‘Pumpkinhead’ is a creepy, cliche and cheesy as hell horror film about revenge, that manages to overcome all its faults with its brilliant creature design, a great central performance, and an emotional core that gives all the supernatural violence some resonance. The result isn’t a masterpiece – by any stretch – but it is a damn near perfect horror film for Halloween/October – especially with its eerie supernatural aesthetics.

The film stars Lance Henriksen as Ed Harley, a single father raising his son on a farm in the south. One day a group of teens (including a few blondes and a douchey “bad boy”) arrive in town. Their destination? A cabin in the woods…of course. On their way they encounter Harley at a local store he owns, which accidentally results in his son being killed by one of the teens in a dirt bike accident. The group heads for the cabin, fearing the repercussions, while Harley tracks down a creepy old lady who, according to local legend, can summon a demon-like creature to avenge the wrong doing done to a man.

From there we get a rather unoriginal creature feature – as the demon, called Pumpkinhead, hunts down the group of teens one by one. What kept this interesting, for me, was the structure of the events of the film and the development of Henriksen’s character. Henriksen is a great actor, and the bond that is built between him and his son, and the emotions he displays as he struggles with his son’s death and the revenge he seeks, manages to ground the film and gives it enough of an emotional relevancy to excuse the cheesiness of the supernatural horror elements – and some truly shitty dialogue.

On top of that are the great spooky horror aesthetics and atmosphere – moody lighting, fog…pumpkins – as well as the awesome design of the Pumpkinhead by special effects legend Stan Winston (‘Aliens’, ‘Terminator’) – who actually directed the film. It all adds up to an above average horror flick that I recommend everyone watch this October.

Horror on the Lens: The Beach Girls and the Monster (dir by Jon Hall)

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s horror on the lens, we offer up 1965’s The Beach Girls and the Monster. In this one, a monster that might be a mutated barracuda is hiding out on the beach and killing teenagers. Can Dr. Otto Lindsay (played by the film’s director, Jon Hall) figure out how to defeat the monster? Will Otto’s son Richard (Arnold Lessing) ever stop surfing long enough to get back to studying science? Will Otto’s much younger wife Vicky (Sue Casey) seduce the troubled and crippled sculptor Mark (Walker Edmiston)? And will it ever occur to anyone to just go to a different beach?

Complete with a ludicrous monster, a great soundtrack, tons of dancing, melodramatic acting, and a twist ending that will surprise no one, The Beach Girls and the Monster is low-budget favorite of mine. It’s also, I think, a perfect movie to watch on the 3rd of October.

Enjoy!