Chabert Horror Watch! The Ghost of Goodnight Lane (2014)

Watched:  04/27/2025

Format:  Tubi

Viewing:  First

Director:  Alin Bijan

Goodnight Lane is a very real street in northwest Dallas, where the Ghost of Goodnight Lane (2014) takes place, and was filmed, at least in part.  And if there's one spooky thing in this world, it is Dallas sprawl and suburbs.

The best thing about this movie is that Billy Zane is having a good time.  He knows what this movie is, and he's just happy to be there and dick around.  And, really, this movie is just an excuse for the filmmakers to have a good time and make a low-stakes horror-comedy.  It is silly.  It knows it's silly.  It is critic and taste proof.  If you don't like it, that's kind of on you, audience.  And the fact this exists in this form is proof I don't know how movie-making works.

The Ghost of Goodnight Lane is weirdly full of B to Z list working actors out of LA.  I say this, because this movie has the vibe that it doesn't feel like it should have anyone in it but local talent from the DFW area.  But it has Billy Zane and Lacey Chabert.  And still manages to look like a movie shot by people playing with equipment more than a movie that came out in 2014.  Like, it's weird to see real actors in set-ups and with lighting I associate with movies made by folks usually casting their pals, just something fun to enter into horror film festivals.  

It's maybe not Ouija Shark bad, but... 

So I wonder about the proposition for getting the financing - provided our writer/ director didn't finance himself. Did they blow it all on getting who they got?  The FX?  Which are brief but pretty okay for what this is?

Coogler Watch: Sinners (2025)

Watched:  04/26/2025

Format:  Drafthouse

Viewing:  First

Director:  Ryan Coogler

I guess Marshall is my "there's a vampire movie out, we're going" buddy.  And, really, Marshall was the ideal movie buddy for this one.  He's an avid music fan, a musician, and his rock sensibilities - when I met him in the early 1990's - were blues-based.  He's also a fan of vampire flicks, although I don't think I've convinced him to watch the Hammer vampire flicks yet. 

In addition, Marshall is well-read, and with an academic background in creative fiction, his critical analysis is always impressive.  But he refused to send me a blog post for this movie so that I didn't have to write one.  He is refusing me this one simple request, and so I am hoping if I butter him up enough with this high praise, next time, he'll do it.

Anyway - count me in with the people who loved Sinners (2025), and am excited about seeing it again.

SPOILERS

Horror Watch: I Walked With a Zombie (1943)

Watched:  04/21/2025

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jacques Tourneur

I Walked With a Zombie (1943) is @#$%ing *great*.  Holy cats.  I'm mad at myself I took so long to see it.

Fun fact:  apparently I finished watching this movie on the 82nd anniversary of the film's release.  How about that?

More than a decade after White Zombie - an okay movie that I think drags - RKO put this one out.  It's considered part of a retrospective high point for RKO as Val Lewton was producing cheap and effective thrillers.  

Apparently the title is lifted from an article by journalist Inez Wallace who spent time in Haiti and met people who were basically without will thanks to drugs.  It also borrows a bit from Jane Eyre, one of my favorite reads from college days.

The movie is a Gothic mystery set on the fictional Caribbean island of Saint Sebastian.  The beautiful wife of a sugar plantation owner has fallen into an odd stupor, able to be given commands, but she's otherwise lifeless, emotionless... mostly still unless directed to move around.  Frances Dee plays a nurse brought from Canada to care for her - and expects she's being asked to live in paradise, but like a character from Bronte, Byron or Poe - the husband of the "zombie" sees only death on the island. 

There's a riddle for what really happened.  Two brothers at war.  A mother who is remote from them.  

The location of the plantation leans into the history of the cruelty of slavery and the family's part in what happened, keeping the haunting figurehead from one of their slaveships on the premises, a tortured man impaled with arrows - a reminder of what they did.  Pretty wild as elected leaders are, in 2025, trying to erase slavery of all things from our history books.  The family has tried to make amends now in the mid-20th Century, seeing themselves as stewards of the history and the people here, not interfering, but making sure people are healthy and the plantation provides an economy.

Chabert Horror Watch! Scarecrow (2013)

Chabert completes negotiations for her Hallmark contract

Watched:  04/19/2025

Format:  Tubi

Viewing:  First

Director:  Sheldon Wilson

A movie with a pretty good idea behind it, this movie has an okay first half hour or so and then throws away all of that goodwill in the bin by becoming a movie where things keep happening, but nothing really resolves itself.  And I can't tell if that's intentional - like a joke on the part of the writers - or laziness or sheer incompetence.

It's not even clear, based on what we saw before, that ten seconds after the credits role, that our Final Girl isn't going to get killed.

What's most weird is that the description of the film on IMDB - from the producers, I'd guess - is not what actually happens in the movie.  There's elements of that, but that's not really what happens.  I almost feel like this was a description of the script at some point but then they made a different movie through rewrites.  

A group of high schoolers is going to spend their day of Saturday Detention (ala The Breakfast Club) on a farm "disassembling" the famed scarecrow from the old Miller farm that's part of the town's annual Scarecrow Festival.  But the movie opens on two horny teens sneaking onto the farm first, planning to spook their pals when they arrive, and getting killed by our monster.  

The town has an annual Scarecrow Festival during which they have some game where they ritualistically "bury" the Scarecrow.  But it's essentially a small-town fall fest, I guess.  We never see it.

Chabert Watch! The Lost Tree (2016)

Watched:  04/13/2025

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Brian A. Metcalf

Woof.

The Lost Tree (2016)?  More like "lost me 30 seconds in".  Amirite?  Where are my Lost Tree bros?

To me, the thing that is most interesting about this very not-good movie is less the movie than digging in a bit to how Hollywood works/ worked.  It's famously a town of hustlers, and for a brief while in the late 90's and through the 00's, thanks to the power of indie film, some of that got celebrated as we had breakout films like Swingers.  But since Ed Wood got his hands on a fog machine, genre has also been a part of indie film made for no money, but hoping an idea and a performance will carry the day.

That does not happen here.

This movie is a mess from the start.  The camera-work is maybe not the best, and shot on consumer video as near as I can tell.  The audio in mostly fine, I guess, but the soundtrack/ score is doing some Olympic-class lifting, desperately trying to convince the viewer something is happening, and we're not just watching a dude wander around by himself in an empty cabin or an open field for insanely long stretches.

I will be honest and say:  I watched this movie and I can describe what happens in it, but if there's a story here with a point or an ironic twist, I am at a loss.  

Horror Watch: The Body Snatcher (1945)

Watched:  04/12/2025

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Wise

So.  I love Universal Horror.  This is where we get Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, et al.  But, gosh darn it - those RKO horror films are good.  I was basking in how well done I found The Body Snatcher (1945) when I realized it was directed by Robert Wise, who I consider one of the best directors ever produced in the US, but who doesn't ever seem to get named among the greats.  But this is my blog, and here - Robert Wise reigns supreme.*

RKO's horror flicks are more "creepy tales" than relying on monsters and Jack Pierce make-up.   There's nothing supernatural here, no super science bringing beings to life.  It's more about the darkness in people, and that's where I think this movie works astoundingly well.

Anyway - I also learned some interesting history!  So, for twenty years or so, I've been aware that back in the day, it was hard to come by cadavers for medical schools, and so they'd, uhm....  pay dudes to steal bodies.  If you were near a medical school, there was an absolute chance that you were going to be dug up and dissected.  What I found out thanks to this movie is that ground zero for this practice getting particularly grim was in Edinburgh, Scotland.  Look up the Burke and Hare murders.  This shit is wild, yo.

But it turns out that if your business is selling bodies for fun and profit, it's easy to turn living people into bodies.

Anyhoo...  our movie finds a promising young medical student about to drop out of school as he can't afford it anymore  At the same time, a(n attractive) woman and her daughter come to see the school's headmaster to see if he'll perform surgery to help the daughter walk again.  The cab that is taking them there is driven by our man, Boris Karloff, who also happens to go dig up corpses by night and sell them to the school's headmaster.

What spins out is not a monster movie, but more the horror of the young doctor-to-be realizing what is going on, and his own complicity in the practice, while Boris Karloff and the head doctor reveal how they've been entwined for decades in this foul business of grave robbing, and what sort of man is happy to make money doing it, and why doctors are desperate for it.

The movie also co-stars Bela Lugosi as a servant who wants to get cut in on the body business.  

There are some truly great scenes and ideas in this movie - some from the source material, a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson, and others made up for the film.  It's wonderfully shot by Robert De Grasse - and one of those things RKO always seemed to know to invest in to make their movies look phenomenal.  RKO was no poverty row studio, but they knew where to spend money (until Hughes took over).

All of the stuff with the singing girl is great horror movie work.  Hats off to Wise.

Karloff and Lugosi are rock solid in the movie, but I also really liked Edith Atwater as Meg - the head doctor's maid and mistress.  A complicated role that has to emote and thread the story together, she nails it.  She looked super familiar and I figured out that 24 years later, she was the inn-keeper in True Grit.  

Anyway - I really don't care to spoil the movie, just add it to the list.  There's also some more Val Lewton produced movies from this era I need to get into. Karloff followed these with Isle of the Dead and Bedlam, both of which are held in high esteem, but I've not yet seen.

*Dude never made a bad movie.  Maybe instead of watching every Chabert movie, I could have made a point by watching every Wise movie, but here we are.

Horror Watch: The Substance (2024)

Watched:  02/19/2025

Format:  4K disc (SimonUK's disc)

Viewing:  First

Director/ Writer:  Coralie Fargeat

Worst.  Shazam movie.  Ever.

Let me start by saying, I quite liked The Substance (2024).  I'm not sure what's going on at the Academy that this got a best picture nom, my confusion mostly stemming from the fact this is a satirical body horror movie and that sort of thing doesn't usually get nominated over Very Serious Pictures(tm) - but I am thrilled for everyone involved and for this movie getting the nod.  

I was unimpressed with the original trailer for the movie, and then after the movie came out, Simon told me he'd already seen it a few times,* and then later said he'd seen it four - and I was supposed to see it with him on his 5th viewing. However, I went to the wrong theater.  SO.  Tonight he brought over his new disc and we watched it.

On paper, this movie is what I figured from the trailers - to a point.  And it is all along the way more entertaining, bizarre, fascinating and generally better than I expected.

The only prior Coralie Fargeat movie I'd previously seen was Revenge, which I don't remember well, just that it lost me at some point and didn't win me back.  But re-reading my own review to refresh my memory - I can see a loose breadcrumb trail that led to The Substance, and what Fargeat was doing with Revenge that maybe didn't work for me but landed well with me in this instance.  

90's Watch: Se7en (1995)

Watched:  02/05/2025

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  3rd or 4th

Director:  David Fincher

I hadn't seen this movie since VHS, I don't think.  It kind of fell into the category of "a very well-crafted movie I never need see again".  But, it had been a while since I had a hang with Simon, and this was where we wound up.

Se7en (1995) is fascinating as a movie that happened at a very specific time, with stars on the rise, stars at the height of their power, during a particular wave of movies passing through the world.  And, certainly, a look brought to film that was different from everything else on the screen at that moment thanks to director David Fincher.

Pitt had been skyrocketing since 1991's Thelma & Louise, and co-starred with Tom Cruise the year prior in Interview With a Vampire.  He was on the forefront of the new Hollywood of the era.  I'd seen Paltrow in Hook and Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, but didn't know who she was until this movie.  Kevin Spacey, who had been around for a minute, had just exploded with The Usual Suspects, and was about to take off on a huge career.  And Morgan Freeman, a veteran of the screen, finally blew up in 1989's Lean on Me, and seemed like the established star of the cast to my young eyes.  

Accidental Watch: The Chopping Mall (2025)

Watched:  01/26/2025

Format:  Shout! on YouTube

Viewing:  Not sure

Director:  Jim Wynorski

I saw this was streaming on YouTube - in real time - and turned it on, by chance, right at the beginning, and decided to stick with it just to watch the opening sequence.  And next thing I knew, credits were rolling on this cinema classic.

On it's face, The Chopping Mall (1986) is a simple story about why it's a bad idea to deploy robots armed with futuristic and lethal weaponry as mall security.  I mean, the room for lawsuits is breathtaking.

On another level, The Chopping Mall would make a fantastic pairing with Dawn of the Dead for a killer double-bill as it also uses horror to satirize the consumer experience.  This one also leans into horror films, Corman films (while being a Corman film), techno-shock media, and more.  And it has the best possible signal as to what we're in for at the beginning by starting the film with the characters, The Blands, from Eating Raoul watching a demo for the Killbots.

Here in 2025 - almost forty years later - it's an amazing time capsule of the 1980's in cinema and pop culture.  The film revels in B-movie violence, nudity and young people being dumb-as-@#$%.  It's also a reminder that Barbara Crampton does not age on the same timeline as the rest of us.  It's weird to say a movie in which heads explode on screen and 20-somethings are dispatched by rejected EPCOT trashcans is "joyful", but fun was had in the making of the movie.  After all, this is a movie that features a mall petshop called "Roger's Little Shop of Pets" (referring, of course, to executive producer Roger Corman's Little Shop of Horrors).    And, of course, gets a day or two out of Dick Miller to play his character from A Bucket of Blood.  

It's a movie where the sporting goods store in the mall carries M-16's, and elevators are controlled by computers.  And, is essentially about an orgy in a mall furniture store going sideways when lightning causes a power surge that sets off the Killbots.

Sadly - I can't find evidence that the robots from the movie survived after production.  It would be nice to know they're out there or could wind up in a movie museum.

Sure, 1986 put out intentionally meaningful films and crowd pleasers.  And this cost less than a million to produce (and takes place in the same mall used for 1985's Commando!), but in it's own way - I think is key to unlocking so much of what was happening in pop culture and media at the time.

Vamp Watch: Nosferatu (2024) - second viewing

Watched:  01/19/2025

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Robert Eggers

Originally, I'd planned to see Nosferatu (2024) upon its Christmas-time release with MRSHL, a man who knows and loves vampire fiction.  And, he's an Eggers fan.  However, the stars failed to align and we didn't make it work.  But!  We finally got around to it here in mid-January.

I already spent a lot of time writing up this movie in recent history, so I'm not about to do that again right now.  

I do think I was better able to blow through some of my preconceptions and better get at the Ellen/ Orlok relationship, and it better confirmed some of what I thought was going on regarding Ellen's nature and Orlok's drive.  

Anyway, I dug it.  Glad I saw it again.

Vampire Watch: Nosferatu (2024)

Watched:  12/29/2024

Format:  Cinepolis Theater

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Eggers

I am looking forward to seeing this movie again soon, which I believe I am planning to do with PalMrshl.

SPOILERS BELOW

As advertised, Nosferatu (2024) is a gloriously detailed, stylized retelling of the 1922 classic horror film.  That original film, in turn, was a copyright-infringing German production that liberally stole from the novel Dracula, changed some names, set the story in Northern Germany, and had a production company with weird, cultish origins.  

In general, I was looking forward to my third Robert Eggers film, having previously seen The VVitch and The Northman.  A big, studio remake of Nosferatu is something I think could go a lot of ways, but if anyone working now was going to do it, Eggers was one of the strongest choices.  I'd only seen two of his three prior films, but I think - and argue with me here - Eggers isn't so much concerned with telling wildly original stories, but telling almost primordial stories and relaying them in ways that show why those stories work, and that it's in the teller and telling that we get at what the stories are about in ways that declutter them from romanticism and remove some of the guard rails.  

Example:  The VVitch is the earliest Anglo North American arcana - it captures the old world fears we brought to the New World as we faced it's sprawling wilderness we couldn't quite tame. Against that backdrop, our concerns about the unknown were turned inward and metastasized.  Those concerns continue to manifest and mutate in paranoid American fantasies that go well beyond the scope of this post.  The Northman is a sort of proto-Hamlet, digging into Nordic tradition and beliefs, and bringing the brutality of the stories in the Eddas to life, exploring revenge in a world that relishes might making right.  With some promise of glory for the fallen warrior along the way.

For veterans of prior incarnations of Nosferatu, whether we're talking the 1922 film or the 1979 version by Werner Herzog, there's a mix of old and new in Eggers' vision.  It's certainly, at it's core, not too different from the original 1922 version, but expanded and...  really well considered.  

Holiday Horror Watch: Black Christmas (2006)

Watched:  12/20/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Glen Morgan

I watched this movie because last weekend, Brandon Z told me that he'd watched all three version of Black Christmas (I did not know there were three) and that the 2006 edition featured Mary Elizabeth Winstead (always great) and our Christmas Queen, Lacey Chabert.  He did not endorse this version - just let me know: it exists.

Well, this is the opposite of a Hallmark movie, but if it has Chabert, and it's Christmas, who am I to not watch this movie?

A few years ago I watched the 1974 original version of Black Christmas (2006) and it scared the bejeezus out of me.  THAT is a horror film.  It leaves us with unknowns, an uncaught murderer who we never fully see, no motivation...  it's just... people getting popped off one-by-one and because of how college worked in a pre-internet/ pre-cell-phone era, when people weren't around, you just assumed they were okay until you heard otherwise.

This movie is bad.  It feels like it has no idea what worked in the original film, and made it smaller and less believable and went for gore over the terror of a guy slowly picking off unsuspecting sorority girls.  It changes it into a Halloween movie, but if Michael Meyers' thing was being mistaken for a banana.*  It even ends like Halloween 2 instead of leaving us with the absolute spine chiller of the original's conclusion.

Full stop - I am well known for face blindness with young Hollywood talent, male and female.  There was a hot minute where I thought Eva Green and Emily Blunt were the same person circa 2006.  So throw a sorority house full of girls at me who have no discernible personalities, different wardrobes or even really have blemishes, and my only hope for knowing who they are is "that one wears glasses" and that one is "MEW".  But I literally couldn't tell you how many girls were in the house, who they were, what their stories were, etc...  But, yes, I did look at IMDB and vaguely remember Michelle Trachtenberg.  But if they're all the same person, plus Andrea Martin, it makes it hard to care about anyone but Andrea Martin.  

And... look, MEW wasn't quite a thing yet in 2006, but Chabert kind of was.  So it's weird she has like 10 lines and is shoved in the background.  She's kind of funny in this.

As mentioned - awesomely, this movie *does* have Andrea Martin in it as a new character - the house mother.  And we love Andrea Martin.  Glad to see her.  And - because it's the writer/ director's wife, we also have Kristen Cloake, who is not a bad actor, btw, but it seems like she's hung up her acting guns.

This movie isn't scary.  1974's Black Christmas is so spooky, it's going to take some effort for me to watch it again.  This one is what you always see me complain about - jump scares in place of scares.  There's no real mood.  The backstory is just dumb and in no way an improvement - especially the post-Scream two-killer reveal (whoops, spoilers).  And the last act in the hospital just sucks.

I don't know why this exists.  And I don't blame the talent.  The people I do know in this are fine actors, so it's not them.  A quick look at wikipedia shows the problem was likely The Weinsteins.  So.  There you go.  Something else they made horrible.

I do not think I will watch the 2019 version unless there's a very pressing reason to do so.

*there's some liver problem we're told he has, and that it makes him yellow.  It looks *ridiculous*

Annual HalloWatch: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Watched:  10/31/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

For evidence of our ongoing Frankenstein discussion, click here.

If you've followed this site, it is likely you know The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is easily one of my favorite films.  It takes everything I like in the first film (which is also a favorite) and turns it up to 11.  

I'm pretty sure star Colin Clive was not actually okay while filming this movie.  He was dead by 1937, and his drinking problem was likely in full-effect while making this movie.  But he's @#$%ing great as the manic Henry Frankenstein - obsessed with what he *almost* did in the last film, and not all that interested in his lovely fiancee (Valerie Hobson) in comparison to animating life with cosmic rays.  Which is a shame - Elizabeth seems nice, and psychic.

If the sets and lighting in Frankenstein filtered German Expressionism through an Anglo/ American lens, then this movie cranks it all up - with gigantic sets (what were those walls Minnie runs through returning to Castle Frankenstein?  The huge space of the entry hall!  The tower laboratory!)  and fascinating lighting and camera work - just watch the sparks and shadows in the birth sequence.

At this point, I'm not even really sure Bride of Frankenstein is a horror movie.  It certainly *looks* like one, and I'm sure the 1935 audience was primed for scares.  But, like its predecessor, it just isn't about scares.  Whale and Co. are clearly having a ball (see:  Ernest Thesiger, Una O'Connor and EE Clive playing it as high camp).  It's also got the pathos of the cabin sequence, Franky being harassed by the villagers, and the tears of rejection at the film's end.  At no point is the Monster really out to get anyone - even less so than in the first film.  If you're scared of him, you're part of the problem, amirite?

I try not to let it get to me that so much 21st Century Bride of Frankenstein imagery and merch and whatnot puts the Bride and Franky together as a couple.  To be blunt - it's demonstrating you've never actually seen the movie, and if you *have* seen the movie, you completely missed the point of it.  A point which is pretty difficult to miss here in 2024 - that all of your dumb plans to just make a "mate" for someone neglects the fact women have their own mind and are going to hiss at you like a goose if you think they just *have* to think you're a charmer.

My least favorite part of the film is not even in this movie.  It's not that we get so little of The Bride (she's in maybe five or six minutes of the movie), it's that she never shows up again.*  I mean, I'm aware they were not assuming, in 1935, there would be many more Universal Frankenstein movies - blowing folks up 60% of your main cast seems like a definitive ending.  And it's true James Whale did not return for a 3rd film.  I just would have liked to have seen her pop up again in one of the many, many, many... sequels.  

Not really sure what you can chalk it up to that we didn't see her again, but it's not a mistake modern filmmakers are champing at the bit to claim her story, and we have a Maggie Gyllenhaal directed Bride movie coming.  I believe there's others in the works, and I'm still cheesed we didn't get the Angelina Jolie/ Bill Condon directed version because The Mummy (2017) sucked.

*I'm not one of those folks who thinks "now I get to make up my own story and that's legit!  Head canon!" kind of people, so I take it she didn't make it out of the explosion or is lying undead under a pile of rubble somewhere.  

Annual HalloWatch: Frankenstein (1931)

Watched:  10/30/2024

Format:  BluRay

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

For evidence of our ongoing Frankenstein discussion, click here.

Every year for Halloween, I try to watch Frankenstein (1931).  I like all of the Universal Monsters main films, but Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are the ones that resonate most with me.  Dracula feels like it's still trying to sort out how to make a talkie, even when it has moments of great beauty and imagination.  But something about the staging of Frankenstein in the bizarre, clearly artificial sets with skies painted on backdrops (where you can see folds and bunching) and sound that does sound as if it was recorded from a room mic sometimes...  Pair that with Clive's unhinged performance as the doctor, Karloff's iconic monster, and Dwight Frye's super weirdo, Fritz...  and it's a dream captured on film. 

Go look at the sets - the tower laboratory is a thing of beauty.  Castle Frankenstein's interiors.  The costuming.  A whole German village (you will see the same set 10,000x in Universal movies for years to come).  

I remember speaking with a high school English teacher years ago at a party, and she was bummed because she had to teach the novel of Frankenstein, finding it odd and unrelatable.  And I just laughed.  "What teenager doesn't feel like they've been forced into existence, and isn't mad at their parents for not understanding them?"  or, in the case of both book and movie - outright rejecting them?

For a film running a scant 70 minutes, the film contains comedy, pathos, existential dread, horror, and everything you could want in a film.  Father/son tension, contempt for local politicians, condemnation of stodgy institutions, bioelectric galvanism...

And, yes... the amazing make-up of Jack Pierce.  Who knew that almost 100 years later we'd still have a singular image in mind when someone says the word "Frankenstein".  

I've seen the movie far too many times to find it chilling - but there was a time early on seeing it that the strange atmosphere, the silence punctuated with shouting, electrical jolts,  and strange voices hit me.  And, of course, Karloff's uncanny portrayal against Clive's mania had it's own effect.  I get how people in 1931 might have seen this otherworldly presentation and lost their minds.

To me, in many ways, this is Halloween.  The weird, funny, dark, bizarre story is a match for how I feel about the holiday.

Anyway, a re-watch of ol' Frankie always pays off.  And - remarkably, the next two films starring Karloff as the monsters are classics as well.  Recommended.

Here's a podcast about some Frankenstein films from a few years back.

HalloWatch: Carnival of Souls (1962)

Watched:  10/29/2024
Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Herk Harvey

I don't know what I was expecting from Carnival of Souls (1962) but a sort of low-budget art-horror film wasn't really it.  Further, The Sixth Sense's twist ending doesn't seem like that big of a deal now.  

Probably famous because someone forgot to put a copyright notice on the film - and therefore it was copyright free and fair pickings for rebroadcast and re-showing on creature features - Carnival of Souls is now part of the horror canon.  It's a low-budget affair that easily could have delved into Ed Wood territory, but instead uses what it has - which is photography and lighting, great locations, pipe organs, a protagonist with a great profile who does a "haunted" look like no one's business...  add in a lot of dark clothes and pancake make-up, and we've put together a tight, spooky flick.

In Kansas, a group of young women cruising on a sunny afternoon race a bit with some young men, but accidentally drive off a bridge into a deep river.  The car is submerged and can't be found.  But three hours later, one of the women emerges from the water, confused and with no idea what just happened.

Whoops Hallo-Watch: Legend of the Wolf Woman (1976)

this poster way oversells the movie

Watched:  10/25/2024

Format:  Full Moon on Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Rino Di Silvestro

Well, I accidentally watched an Italian sexploitation movie thinking I was watching a werewolf movie.

This is what Amazon pitched to me/ possibly rolled over into after Castle Freak, and I was like "sure, why not?  I haven't watched much straight-trash yet this year for Halloween.  Let's watch a 1976 Italian werewolf film."

To my credit - it IS called "Legend of the Wolf Woman" (1976) and the first scene had a werewolf in it.

After that, it's about a lady (the lovely Annik Borel) with some serious issues who goes on a killing spree, *thinking* she's a werewolf, getting naked occasionally, and sometimes having sex.  

Major content warning:  It also has a really grim sexual assault scene I wasn't expecting and was super unpleasant and unnecessary.

Is the movie good?  No.  Did I keep thinking maybe she'd turn into a werewolf and redeem my use of time?  Yes.  Was I wrong and zero werewolves appeared after the first scene?  Also: yes. 

The poster says it's based on a true story, and the movie suggests so at the end, but... who knows?

Anyway, I'm calling this one a mulligan.

If anyone knows of anything with Annik Borel that isn't... bad.  Let me know.

Crampton Hallo-Watch: Castle Freak (1995)

One poster shows the villain, which is a spoiler, and one is a teenager in a bra, so you get Crampton

Watched:  10/24/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stuart Gordon

I am not always in-line with all of the thinking that goes into being a hard-core horror film fan, but I love how much they celebrate the work of their favorite actors - and keep them employed for decades.  One such fave I've been aware of for some time has been Barbara Crampton, and I'm on board.  Sign me up for the Crampton fan club.  

So, we'll be digging a bit more into the Crampton-filmography over time.

When I saw that Castle Freak (1995) re-teamed director Stuart Gordon with actor Jeffrey Combs and Crampton, and I saw some notes about "this is a horror movie with a kind of grown-up storyline" I was curious.  I like a good "whoops, the robots have flipped out at the shopping mall" movie as much as the next guy, but I wanted to know what this team looked like doing a bit more drama and little less in the way of re-animated corpses running about.  

Combs and Crampton play a couple on the rocks following the blinding of their daughter (Jessica Dollarhide) and death of their young son after Combs drove them off the road, drunk.  Clearly Crampton can't forgive and forget, and Combs is maybe too much of an egoist to really accept what he did.  But a mysterious relative has just passed, and when that occurs, Combs learns that he's inherited a castle in Italy.  Apparently he was Italian nobility.

Well, wouldn't you know it - there's a freak living chained up in the basement of the castle.  And by freak, we mean a hideously deformed, savage human, that for some reason, someone decided it was best they keep in a cage in the basement.  

The arrival of the fractured family leads to the "freak" flipping out and escaping, where he hides in the many hidey-holes of the castle and occasionally popping out to harass and then murder.  There is a housekeeper, who is aware of the freak (who is named Giorgio, so I can stop calling a fictional disabled person a "freak") but has been complicit in Giorgio's horrible life.

The family fractures all the more, and Combs goes out where he picks up a bottle again and accidentally picks up a hooker.  Things go sideways as the hooker leaves - and it brings things to a head, as police want to look into the castle.

As a stand-alone story about a family trying to move past trauma, you do get the idea that Combs and Crampton would have been interesting in a straight drama about loss.  The Crossing Guard, which is @#$%ing great but depressing, comes to mind.  We're nowhere near that - after all, we have a dude running around murdering people with his bare hands to contend with - but we do get to use that as a sort of investigation of the secrets families keep, our own weaknesses and what we can do to make amends.  

There's a 2020 version of this film for reasons I cannot fathom, which sounds like it's much more Lovecraftian in nature and changes all the major details that make this one different and/ or interesting.  What it does do is say "maybe we shouldn't make a wretched human an actual monster" which plays very oddly now, as I know it probably did in 1995 - but which arrived in a period full of serial killer movies, so who knows?

I find it interesting that this was poster-girl Jessica Dollarhide's last movie.  Maybe she went to college and was done.  I can't say.  She's certainly not bad in the movie.

Anyway, I don't want to oversell it, but it *is* different.  The same sort of lived-in, real-world problems, like, say, in The Shining, are an interesting refraction against the part that makes the film "horror".  

1930's HalloWatch: Vampyr (1932)

Watched:  10/23/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Carl Theodor Dreyer

Apparently when this movie came out, people were just *mad* at it.  Like when you read that people freaked out about Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and rioted*, when Vampyr (1932) was shown, it seems the good people of Vienna wanted their money back and subsequently rioted. Berlin just boo'd the picture.  And it kind of went from city to city, earning a terrible reputation.

But imagine just dumping David Lynch or Tarkovsky on people who think they came to see Universal's very palatable Dracula.  

That said, this movie is *great*.  And that's with the viewing I did which was of a stitched together restoration of a film no one really wanted to see again after 1932 and was more or less lost.  

In theory, based on the work of Sheridan le Fanu, it's really it's own thing, nodding to bits of his collection of works entitled In a Glass Darkly, which contains the novella Carmilla - upon which my fave rave, The Vampire Lovers, takes inspiration.

The film is creepy enough, just based on the concepts.  A young man comes to a small French town and is visited by an older gentleman in the middle of the night (in the film's first real tell about how weird it will be), who leaves him with a package marked "open in the case of my death".  Soon, he's seeing disembodied shadows running around, a mysterious doctor, a mysterious older woman... and then witnesses the murder of the older gentleman through his window.  And then it gets weird.

Hallo-Universal-Watch: The Invisible Man (1933)

Watched:  10/18/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

We watched this one with some folks.  

I always enjoy that this movie is essentially about a guy who injects himself with a serum that, yes, makes him invisible - but it also makes him an incredible a-hole.  It's a real take.

But Jamie and I discussed this in what turned out to be the penultimate episode of The Signal Watch PodCast.

Anyway, you can listen to our thoughts on it!

How can you not like a movie where the main character declares the moon is afraid of him (and means it!)

HalloWatch: Puppet Master (1989)

Watched:  10/15/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Director:  David Schmoeller

It's important to note the budget for some of these movies.  

Puppet Master (1989) has a reported budget of $400,000.  That's about $1.12 million in 2024 dollars for a whole movie - or, roughly, the cost of bagels on an Avengers movie.  And, people still watch this thing.  So hopefully residuals are still making their way to folks who worked for cheap.

This movie is like someone took a bunch of ideas, threw them in a hat and then pulled them out whilst blind-folded.  And that isn't necessarily a complaint.  It's weird to see so many ideas in one movie, but they do work together.

The rough idea - for some reason a Puppet Master (William Hickey!) is tracked down at a hotel in the 1930's by Nazis?  He kills himself rather than give them the secret of how to imbue puppets with life.  

In the late 1980's, four psychics are summoned to the fancy hotel by a former colleague, Gallagher.  To be honest, I do not know why he summoned them as he then kills himself before they arrive.  One is sort of an everyman psychic, one is a fortune teller who gets glimpses of the future, and two seem to channel sex into their research, which is at least kind of novel.  Meanwhile, Gallagher's widow is hanging about.

There are spirit visions and glimpses of people's deaths yet to come.  A lot of rolling around on a bed.  And nobody seems to have liked Gallagher.  

Soon, the puppets who once were Hickey's pals are running around picking off the psychics.  And each puppet kind of has their thing.

It's probably telling that the stars of this movie mostly don't have many credits.  Hickey is a cameo and our star is really Paul Le Mat, who you'll keep squinting at, trying to remember what you know him from.  I put the movie on because it said it had Barbara Crampton, but she's in it for 30 seconds as a favor to someone, and it managed to sucker me into watching it, so... well done, film producers from 1988 or so.

The puppets are kind of neat.  It's all just... puppetry, but to its credit, it works.  The Pinhead fellow with human hands, Leach Girl, Blade...  just good ideas.  

But there's oddly almost no... feel to the movie.  They have this stunning location of the hotel, but seems like they had a few rooms somewhere, and decided to just light everything like a late 1980's TV show - ie: there are no shadows.  It's sort of weird, visually, in 2024 to see something speaking in TV-language of the era.  

The movie is just weird enough, by virtue of throwing ideas at you left and right, that it's not boring or repetitive.  But it can feel like someone was just writing things down with no clear goal where it was going.  And that's okay.  I just don't think there's anything remotely scary about this movie.  It's more... kind of interesting.  Some really oddball stuff out there winds up drumming up multiple sequels and a fanbase.

I do wonder if this was made because someone say 1987's Dolls, a movie by Stuart Gordon of Re-Animator fame.  Dolls worked for me when I saw it on HBO or something in probably 1989.*  But Dolls was pretty creepy, if memory serves.  

Anyway - it was fine.  One more to check off the list.

*I wound up watching this with a good friend's mom.  I was at his house spending the night, and she'd wandered into the room as the movie started, and my pal fell asleep, and so I wound up watching this goofy movie in a super awkward context, as she was clearly watching it and I didn't know if I could just go to sleep or turn off the TV or what.  She also would go to movies with us and sit by herself so she could see, like, Dirty Harry: The Dead Pool.