#Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rookie-critic · 6 months

Text

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 2 - #6-10

#6: Doctor Sleep: The Director's Cut (2019, dir. Mike Flanagan)

I have, of course, seen Doctor Sleep before, but I am not labeling this as a re-watch because the Director's Cut of this film, while not really that different from a plotting/through line perspective, is a wholly unique experience to the theatrical version of the film from a character perspective. This version of the movie gives you much more context around the its antagonists, The True Knot, and it's secondary protagonist, Abra Stone, that those major story beats existing in both versions hit with much more impact in the director's cut. It bumped this particular work of Flanagan's up in my ranking of his stuff all the way to third behind Hill House and, now, Usher.

Score: 9/10

Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#7: Gemini (1999, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto)

This one surprised me by not being the kind of film I was anticipating it to be (this happened a handful of times this month). Gemini is the story of three characters plagued by their circumstances/upbringings, and a look at classism and people's desire to give and receive love, shot and told in a frenetic, gonzo style that only Japanese cult-director Shinya Tsukamoto can make work. Tear down the walls of your expectations for this one, it's a great watch.

Score: 8/10

Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#8: Nightmare Detective 2 (2008, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto)

The sequel to Tsukamoto's lukewarmly received 2006 film Nightmare Detective (which you will see further down on this list), this one makes the original look like a litmus test for the concept. A much more restrained and patient film compared to just about all of Tsukamoto's prior efforts, Nightmare Detective 2 sits in the corner, quietly analyzing its core cast in a story about misfits and generational trauma. Really, a lot of the themes and ideas presented here would be honed in on and presented again, albeit from a different viewpoint, in Kotoko. This one really feels like a turning point for Tsukamoto in terms of tone and approach. Not to say that his earlier, more frantic films aren't sometimes just as good, it's just the mark of a talent that's willing to evolve.

Score: 8/10

Not currently available on streaming (this film has actually never seen any kind of official release in the States at all, so unless you're willing to do a little swashbuckling, this one's out of your reach).

———————————————–

#9: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970, dir. Dario Argento)

Horror icon Dario Argento's (Suspiria, Deep Red) debut feature is an unrivaled "whodunit" mystery thriller with that hallmark giallo flair that Argento would become known for. There isn't a whole lot to say about this one other than this was one of the most singularly entertaining of my October viewings, and that I highly recommend it for just about anyone.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

———————————————–

#10: Noroi: The Curse (2005, dir. Koji Shiraishi)

This is the best Japanese found footage horror has to offer. Noroi is told in a documentary style, acting as the discovered footage of the final film made by a supernatural investigator that has disappeared without a trace. This was my final watch of the Horror-thon and I couldn't think of a better way to send off the spooky month, because this was one of, if not the scariest watch of the entire month. It had me wanting to turn the lights on and sleep with one eye open, and certain images from the film's final moments will be burned into my retinas until I die. If I had any complaints, it's that I honestly could have used even more, although I guess an argument could be made that that's actually one of the film's good qualities.

Score: 8/10

Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

12 notes · View notes

rookie-critic · 6 months

Text

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 4 - #16-20

#16: Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989, dir. Shinya Tsukamoto) [REWATCH]

A cult classic of Japanese cyberpunk horror and the debut film of one of my favorite Japanese directors, Shinya Tsukamoto (if you couldn't tell). The inspirational reach of this film is palpable if you know what to look for, having been cited by directors like Darren Aronofsky for his film Pi, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, and the Wachowskis for The Matrix. It's hard to argue with results like that. I personally love this movie, I have its scant 67-minute runtime nearly memorized and have seen it more times than I can remember. However, I can certainly acknowledge its shortcomings as something that's not accessible to most audiences. Plot is definitely more of a suggestion than a rule here, and a lot of the film is spent in a state of frantic bewilderment as you try to piece together what exactly is going on through the nearly incomprehensible madness onscreen, but ultimately the "why" of it isn't important. It's rare that I say this, but I almost prefer that the film doesn't really give the audience anything concrete to go off of. It gives enough, and for the purposes of its dissection (apropos word choice there, good job, Rookie) of the relationship between man and metal and the growing industrialization of the 80s, Tsukamoto does exactly what he needs to do, and doesn't overstay his welcome in the slightest. It's one of the bigger reasons why this film works better than either of its sequels/reimaginings, and why it's so well-regarded amongst international film buffs. A short, manic, bizarro-thrill ride, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Score: 8/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

———————————————–

#17: Onibaba (1964, dir. Kaneto Shindo)

This, for a majority of its runtime, doesn't really feel like a horror movie. That being said, there are plenty of pieces of horror in it to where, by the end, I see why it's labeled as such. The suffocation of the grass field that surrounds our main setting from all sides aides the claustrophobic nature of the film, and casts an air of foreboding over every shot. It's an interesting watch that dives into the desperation we feel when we are starved of our base desires and how that can cloud our judgement, especially in times of great hardship (in this instance, war). It's a film that leaves itself wide-open for interpretation, and one I'm still pondering over days later. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Max.

———————————————–

#18: Eyes Without a Face (1960, dir. Georges Franju)

This French horror from the early '60s is another that I've owned for quite some time, and just never taken the time to actually sit down and watch. It's a slow burn (much like a lot of these older, black-and-white films are), and there are moments that feel like they drag on for too long, but the parts of this film that do work, really work. What Franju and his team were able to accomplish with practical effects and makeup in this is exceptional by today's standards, let alone when the film was released in 1960. The acting from Édith Scob as Christiane is similarly excellent considering she acts through the entirety of her screen time with a mask on. To be able to convey emotion without the benefit of facial expressions and have it come through despite that handicap and the language barrier (the film is in French) rightfully earns this film the praise it has received over the decades. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Max.

———————————————–

#19: Ginger Snaps (2000, dir. John Fawcett)

OK, so I've seen Jennifer's Body twice, right? Once back around the time it came out (I hated it then) and then once within the past 5 years because I heard it was underappreciated in its time and is worth re-evalutating (I still don't like it very much). So with the memory of Jennifer's Body still fairly fresh, I'm just gonna say this is so close to being the exact same movie (there's obviously some differences in their story: werewolf not succubus, sisters not best friends), to the point where I out loud in the group I was watching it with said "Jennifer's Body just straight ripped this off, right?" and got a fair amount of agreement. However, this, to me, is a much better film. It has a lot of the Diablo Cody-esque kitschy dialogue without tipping into hard cringe and the practical effects work, while B-movie-ish in nature (we're never, as a society, going to top the transformation sequence from An American Werewolf in London), is really well done. It strikes a good balance between camp and smartly written horror which Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle juggle competently. Isabelle especially steals the show here as the titular Ginger, and provides a good, if not slightly caricatured, depiction of female puberty. Narratively messy, but tonally sound, Ginger Snaps deserves its status as a cult classic. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Peacock.

———————————————–

#20: Opera (1987, dir. Dario Argento)

Opera is largely considered director Dario Argento's last great film before the quality of his output started to drop, and I can see why. It has all of the things that make his movies so good: a compelling main character driven by an even more compelling lead performance, an engaging mystery that unravels itself naturally over the course of the film, and that impeccable giallo style that he is the king of. Cristina Marsillach gives an impassioned performance and easily garners the audience's sympathy. The biggest curiosity of the film is that the murder sequences, which are expertly shot and unique in that the killer always ties up our protagonist and tapes needles underneath her eyes so that she has to watch the horror that ensues, are always cut with this insane, Judas Priest-like heavy metal music playing over them. Let me tell you that the consistency with which that heavy metal music played throughout the film had me confused, and then put off, and then finally fully indoctrinated by the final time it happened at the film's end. So much so that when that final time was about to happen, I was quite literally on the edge of my seat with anticipation, because I could feel it coming, and then when it finally came on I jumped up and cheered. I'm not sure if the desired reaction was achieved, but man was it massively entertaining. It's a little goofy, but I feel like this was about as far as Argento's signature style can be pushed without being a parody of itself, and Opera still largely works in spite of that glaring oddity. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on AMC+/Shudder.

1 note · View note

rookie-critic · 6 months

Text

Rookie-Critic's Halloween Horror-thon: Part 6 - #26-32 [FINALE]

Alright, here's the bottom of the pile, the weakest bunch of the month. Overall, a nice little bunch of movies. I genuinely loved most of them, and at the very least had a good time with most of the others. None of them made me actually regret watching it. Well... except for one...

#26: Cry Baby Lane (2000, dir. Peter Lauer)

This one is a case of the story/history of the thing being vastly more interesting than the thing itself. This was a film produced for Nickelodeon in 2000 to be aired as a part of their Halloween programming for the year. It aired on October 28, 2000, and Nickelodeon received so many complaint letters from parents saying their children were mortified by it that it was promptly pulled from any future programming and never aired again (until 2011 when Teen Nick ran the film one last time as a reaction to an online rallying campaign to dredge the film back up). If that doesn't peak your attention then I don't know what will. The movie itself, unfortunately, is fairly lackluster. I mean, it's decent enough, but it is most definitely not scary (I don't even think by child standards this would really make waves nowadays), and the acting is, well, early 2000's Nickelodeon TV movie acting. Oscar-nominated Frank Langella is in it and even his performance feels very phoned in. I'm glad I watched this for the experience and the history of it alone, but I can't recommend it based on its own merits, it's incredibly forgettable without its historical context. Score: 5/10 You can find this on YouTube in it's original broadcast format, October 2000 commercial breaks included, so if you're interested in that it's a fun little time capsule.

———————————————–

#27: Five Nights at Freddy's (2023, dir. Emma Tammi)

This year's big horror release was the film adaptation of the smash hit video game franchise Five Nights at Freddy's. Now, I am very aware of the FNAF series of games and am aware of its lore from a tertiary perspective. I've always found them to be slightly cringe-inducing and not super fun to play, but I appreciate its tenacity and willpower to keep expanding. That being said, I have always liked the character designs and the general premise of "possessed malicious animatronics." It's rife with possibilites. This particular film, however, doesn't seem to fully capitalize on any of the things that could have made it worthwhile. The animatronics are still creepy and very well constructed (they were made at the Jim Henson creature shop, so that should come as no surprise), but they don't feel fully realized. The moments they get in the movie are good, some might even say they're the best part of the whole thing, but there's just not enough of them. The acting from Josh Hutcherson and Matthew Lillard is good, but they get caught in the crossfire of the tonal game of tug-of-war the film plays. Ultimately the film's biggest issue is that it can't seem to decide if it wants to be scary or campy, and the mix that it compromises with itself on feels like its not enough of either to make any kind of impact. The plot contrivances (of which there are a lot) are ludicrous and eye-roll inducing, but in the film's defense I think the games are exactly the same, so I'm sure if you're into the games this might actually work quite well for you. Although, I have heard that fans are disappointed with the changes made to some of the lore, to which my reaction so far has been "who really cares?" All this to say that I did actually have fun with my time watching FNAF, but I'm sure the further away I get from it, the more forgettable it will become. Score: 5/10 Currently in theaters and streaming on Peacock.

———————————————–

#28: Idle Hands (1999, dir. Rodman Flender)

Good lord, what were they thinking when they made this? A stoner comedy/horror that catches just as many groans as it does laughs, Idle Hands is just stupid enough to tip its scale back towards funny, planting it in the "so bad it's good" camp. Devon Sawa's commitment to the bit is admirable, and the stoner buds played by Seth Green and Elden Henson provide all the witty slapstick comic relief you could want from a film of this caliber. It's a film that understands that its premise is dumb, and I applaud it for that, but it's filled with so many late-90s bad movie trademarks that some of them are pretty hard to overlook. Score: 5/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#29: Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005, dir. Paul Schrader)

The film that Morgan Creek hated so much that they scrapped it and re-filmed it with a mostly new cast, a new director, and a slightly altered story before ultimately releasing both films anyway. A Paul Schrader-directed Exorcist prequel sounds like it would be interesting, at the very least, and to its credit it manages to be the least bad of the four bad films in the franchise. Schrader is a great director and that can be tangentially felt here. It's a weak pulse, but it is there. The other plus I'll throw in Dominion's corner is Stellan Skarsgård, who plays Father Merrin (played by Max von Sydow in the original 1973 film) the best he can given the material. It's a rough go only because it is very middling and forgettable and the narrative is mildly ridiculous every now and then. My score might seem high, but that's most likely because I know what a bad Exorcist film looks like, and it ain't this. Score: 5/10 Currently streaming on Starz and for free on Vudu with ads.

———————————————–

#30: Exorcist: The Beginning (2004, dir. Renny Harlin)

The aforementioned re-filmed version of Paul Schrader's Exorcist prequel is objectively a worse film. It is messy, even more ludicrous than its originator, and the third act is essentially an action movie. While there are a couple of worse films in the franchise (more on those in a second), this one feels like the most of a complete opposite from the original. Taking all of the things that made the original film a masterwork and just going "but what if we did it this other way instead?" Stellan Skarsgård is still here, but he's having to work even harder to maintain any kind of credibility with a script this sub-par. It's hollow and baseless and doesn't really seem to be interested in being anything but a tepid cash grab. Score: 3/10 Currently streaming on Hulu and Peacock.

———————————————–

#31: Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977, dir. John Boorman)

While Exorcist: The Beginning felt like a tepid cash grab, The Heretic feels like a deliberate and reckless one. Coming only four years after the original, the memory of The Exorcist was still fairly fresh in the cultural zeitgeist, which must have made this sting all the more. The sound design is atrocious, with the whole film sounding like it was ADR'd by a toddler, the acting is horrible, especially when you consider the talent this was able to round up (Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, and James Earl Jones are in this!), and I think the worst thing is that it's just really silly. There are multiple sequences where the camera hitches a piggyback ride on the back of the most fake locust you've ever seen. It's laughably bad, and the ending that so badly wants to feel epic, but just comes off as cheap and bewildering, is just the cherry on top. When the industry talks about bad horror sequels, I have to imagine this is the prime example. If you're interested in diving into the Exorcist beyond the first film, just skip straight over this one and go to The Exorcist III. You're not missing anything, trust me. Score: 2/10 Not currently available on streaming.

———————————————–

#32: The Exorcist: Believer (2023, dir. David Gordon Green)

While both The Beginning and The Heretic made me disappointed, Believer just made me unbelievably mad. There's just something about David Gordon Green's recent horror efforts that bring out a rage in me that most things don't. The other Exorcist sequels don't seem interested in what worked about the original, they were just cash grabbing on the notoriety and acclaim of that first film, but Believer seems to have learned all of the wrong lessons from William Friedkin's masterpiece and accented them, all the while genuinely thinking they were doing a good job. The Exorcist isn't the pea soup vomit, it isn't the 360-degree head turn, it's not the heavily makeup-altered little girl. That was its reputation among the masses, sure, but that is such a simplification and a misunderstanding of the film's themes. The Exorcist is Father Karras' crisis of faith. It's him having to come to terms with the crisis in the face of the most powerful evil he could possibly come up against. It's the desperation of Chris MacNeil, a mother at the end of her rope, trying to save her daughter from something the she has no frame of reference for and no power of her own to stop. It's the sacrifice (and not the kind that's made in this trash heap of a movie), it's the compassion. There is no compassion in Believer, there is no crisis, it's all just suffering and cheap attempts at nostalgia and scares that aren't there. There are so many ways to have done this where it worked, but it ended up being so unbearably horrible that even the return of Ellen Burstyn couldn't save this (a lot of my absolute biggest grievances actually came around the time she shows up). There is no regard for the 1973 original in this, there is no attempt at anything other than a repeat of all the gross-out and disturbing things that take place in the original film as well, but as I said in my write-up for that movie, those things work in the original because you actually care about the characters, you actually resonant with what's happening on screen. You're disturbed because the movie has built a relationship between you and Reagan, and it's powerful. I will give The Exorcist: Believer one, and only one, compliment. Leslie Odom Jr., for what it's worth, gives a performance that feels genuine, but it's not enough. It's not nearly enough to forgive this sorry excuse of a movie. Score: 1/10 Currently in theaters.

1 note · View note