Hallo-Re-Re-Re-Re-Watch: Ghostbusters (1984)

Watched:  10/21/2024

Format:  Alamo

Viewing: hahahahahaha

Director:  Ivan Reitman

Si invited me out to a Ghostbusters Party at The Alamo.  It was a good time!  They gave us a marshmallow, a tub of slime, a glow-in-the-dark thing to wave around for proton beams...  

I also realized I've seen Ghostbusters (1984) more than the average bear when I p-shaw-ed the guy who went up to the front as a "super fan" saying he'd seen the movie twenty times.  I also told the host I'd seen the movie opening day at age 9, and that apparently earned me some street cred.

It was a bit of a quote-along, jam-out to the songs thing, and super fun.  

A few years back, Si, Jamie and I did this as a podcast, so rather than me rehashing the movie in text, you can listen to that.

I guess my only real note is that Sigourney Weaver is a stone cold fox in this movie, and I'm not sure we're supposed to talk about that.

Weaver judges me for bringing it up

The PodCast episode:

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!)

HalloDocWatch: Haxan (1922)

surely someone remade this as an album cover in the 80's

Watched:  10/19/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Benjamin Christensen

What an incredible film.  

I mean, obviously.  This is a silent film that has thrived well into the modern era, so I'm no genius for noticing that it's pretty good.

Essentially a documentary/ presentation about the history of what we consider witches and witchcraft, the film feels a wee bit like an early Powerpoint at first, but it has a lot of territory to cover - like explaining how people a few hundred years ago thought the universe was constructed and the way in which that informed their entire worldview. If you literally believe Earth is the center of all things, flat, and God is sitting beyond line of sight directing celestial bodies for fun and profit, and Satan literally sits in a spot in a hole in a firey hole in the Earth, then you're going to be willing to believe he's also in your neighbor's house making it with the old lady who lives there.

The film doesn't just have fascinatingly well-constructed arguments, it's a prime example of the imagination, visual artistry and astounding craft of film by 1922.  If you ever think silent film was primitive - my dudes...  The movie creates scene after scene with unbelievable art and set design, costuming, lighting, optical and practical FX... many positively surreal.  They show the cosmos at work from a Christian cosmology perspective, what people imagined was happening at Black Sabbaths, complete with the devil in many forms and troupes of demons alongside him, recreate scenarios for how a witch hunt could begin...  And they also show very practical demonstrations of torture devices, etc...  

It's hard to explain how incredible these visuals are, so...

The movie is scary, but not in the "ooOOOooo...  witches!" way.  Instead, it's a reminder that humans are terrible, the world is drowning in abuse of power and misogyny, and religion is used as an excuse to do all sorts of things your deity of choice would really frown at, especially done in His/ Her/ Their name.  Basically, the film is about how we decide to abuse power, mostly for no reason, other than that we have a hard time seeing certain kids of people *as* people, and we fucking love to punch down.  

They also discuss how the very world that people lived in, and the rules they believed they lived by - ie: Satan could just pop up, sex you, and now you're evil (I don't know, man) likely had profound psychological impact on people and led to all sorts of weirdness in the Middle Ages (for an example, we can look at Ken Russel's film The Devils, based on a true story).  And led to nonsense like Salem.

Not so curiously, by the film's end, they leap to the modern era (of 1922) and rather than say "but we're so advanced now", they say "look, this is how we do the same shit now, only we dressed it up for polite society" by showing similar treatment of women in the modern era.  Remember - 1922 is also when we'd, like, lock up our wife in an asylum for getting sick of our shit and talking back.  And while there are plenty of 2024 examples, these are the good old days a whole lot of people think they want back because their context of the past are glimpses of old TV shows.*

Anyway, reality is a hellscape of terrors inflicted on each other for reasons that don't seem to make much more sense than believing our  omnipotent friends would have us do that, and/ or we're really sickos who found ourselves in a position where we could abuse the shit out of people and make money doing it.

Never trust anyone who desires power.

Happy Halloween!

*the past mostly sucked, and the desire to go back to any period before a Star Trek future makes absolutely no sense to me.  Unless you get to have a candlelit dinner with Myrna Loy.  Then it makes sense.

HalloWatch: The Vampire Happening (1971)

Watched:  10/16/2024

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Freddie Francis

Imagine a movie written entirely with the same vibe as one panel comics from mid-Century Playboy.  That's the entire vibe of this "movie".  

During the darkest days of COVID lockdown, I would scroll Amazon Prime for movies to Watch Party, and at some point, The Vampire Happening (1971) came up, and I laughed at the title and checked it out, deemed it far too boob-tacular to make it into the queue, and moved on.  But Amazon Prime was not done with me.  And so - for whatever reason only the algorithm knows, this movie always found it's way into my line-up of offerings.

It's a goofy comedy that works by 1970's European erotic movie rules, so you kind of have to just roll with it.  But the basic story is that a Hollywood actress inherits a castle in Transylvania.  She looks just like an ancestor who was some sort of vampire.  Her arrival means her relative rises from the grave again, and while Betty romances a strapping young man, her double is out there making new vampires.

Eventually there's a vampire party, or, as us hep cats said in the late 1960's - a vampire happening - complete with the arrival of Dracula.  

Italian produced, written by Germans and shot in Germany by an English director, and starring a ragtag pile of Euro-talent and staying just on this side of softcore, it's truly an artifact of its time.

Basically, the movie was a weird excuse for the Italian producer to put his wife on film, and have a big party in a castle.  I can only imagine what was going on behind the scenes.  But in watching this movie, there's a distinct feeling you're watching the product of someone's scheme to have a very adult good time on someone else's dollar.  As such, it's not... good.  It's not funny or particularly sexy and feels interminable for the first 2/3rds.  It had one line I found laugh out loud funny right at the end of the movie, and I did like the winky end to the film.  And Dracula is kind of funny.

The star, Pia Dagermark - wife of the producer - had won awards at Cannes in 1967, and I think this movie was what more or less ended the movie business for her.  It happens.  

Just go watch a Hammer vampire movie instead.

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.

HalloWatch: Night of the Demons (1988)

Watched:  10/15/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Kevin Tenney

This is usually the kind of movie I take in after Jamie's gone to bed, but she was, like "whatever you want to watch, man", and... ha ha.  

An intentionally trashy horror flick, I think they spent more time worrying about the opening animation than they did the content of the actual movie.  It's... fine?  It's just very in love with not being good, but isn't quite trashy enough to be as entertaining in that regard as it imagines.  It also becomes critic proof if you keep saying "it's supposed to be bad!  It's supposed to be trashy!"  

And yet.  

No, really, the movie is in on it's own joke of just being what it is.  I'm not sure if that's enough for me in 2024 at age 49, but I also know that was not the intention in 1988 when they were essentially making a party movie for teens and 20-somethings.  I just don't think there's enough here and don't quite get why the movie seems to be a thing (which is why I watched it).  

It had about four good things in a 90 minute movie, and that's not nothing!  But I also couldn't tell if some of the acting was just bad or a brilliant portrayal of bad acting.  That only Linnea Quigley really kept working after this for any length of time may be the tell.  That said - I liked Amelia Kinkade in a horro-movie Patricia Morrison kind of way.*  

It's just a very thin movie, and that's okay, but won't go down as the great discovery of 2024 for me.  This is several years after Evil Dead 1 and 2 at this point, and I think this movie could have been a lot more fun.  And given literally anyone a motivation.

*Kinkade went on to be a sort of animal psychic, and I salute anyone who makes a living chilling with animals, from zooloogist to psychic

Late-80's Hallo-Watch: Pumpkinhead (1988)

Watched:  10/13/2024

Format:  Amazon 

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stan Winston

I wasn't expecting Pumpkinhead (1988) to be good.  

Yet, I'd always meant to watch this movie.  I remember being 13 and the ad came on for "Pumpkinhead" and my brother and I looked at each other and laughed and laughed and laughed.  To this day, it sounds like naming a horror movie "Taters n' Gravy" to me.*

Pumpkinhead  looks good, but for Stan Winston's directorial debut, it's an awkward, tedious slog through flat characters and half-cooked ideas.  It's an 84 minute movie that has you looking at your watch and wondering when all of these people will be dispatched by the creature so you can finish the film.

The basic plot:  Lance Henriksen plays a guy in what I guess is maybe Appalachia? but is clearly the ranches outside of LA.  Some 20-somethings planning a weekend of riding dirtbikes(?) stop off at a fruit stand(?) and then go riding.  There's an accident and Henriksen's kid is killed by one of the bikers who jumps right into him.  

The guy who does the killing makes his group of 6 take-off where they have a sort of confrontation, and Jeff East - the guy who played young Clark Kent in Superman: The Movie! - and he squabble because the guy seems like he's going to kill everyone here to cover up the fact he killed the kid...  So the group more or less splinters.

Henriksen makes contact with a witch-type lady who has him bring forth Pumpkinhead, so he can get revenge.  And revenge it gets, generically picking people off, while the real idea is to slowly reveal more and more of the suit Stan Winston's team made, that is, in fact, pretty good.  By the last 1/5th of the film, we're seeing the suit in full glory, and it looks neat!

By this point, Jeff East and his girlfriend are obviously going to make it, and we've come to understand the cost of raising a Pumpkinhead is that you and it will be sort of symbiotic when it's convenient to the scene.

I don't know.  It's a slog and I didn't care for it.  But it's also not a movie people love - and yet, several sequels happened.  Stan Winston kept making cool effects but went on to direct A Gnome Named Gnorm, making children everywhere understand that sometimes God abandons you, and the evidence is everything about Gnorm the Gnome.  

*But the lasting legacy of the movie's title in my head is that...  my poor dad was in the room for the commercial at some point, and being shitty kids, we said "hey, that's your new name, Dad!  Pumpkinhead!"  And, lo, that lasted about a year before I became aware that deploying the name "Pumpkinhead" one more time guaranteed a foot connecting with my ass.

Hamilton HalloWatch: Children of the Corn (1984)

Watched:  10/13/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Fritz Kiersh

This movie is boring.  

That's my memory of Children of the Corn (1984) from watching it in high school, and it's how I feel now.  And so I watched it again thinking - hey, I barely remember it and it seems like it should be exciting.  People love this movie!  

It's based on a short story by King - that I never read - and I guess they needed a lot of filler.  It's mostly just Peter Horton and Hamilton wandering around so the characters can see what we already know.  Hamilton existing so Horton can explain what is happening.

That's terrible structure.  There's no suspense - we don't piece things together with the characters.  Instead, we're supposed to feel anxiety that they might get killed, which we know they won't until the last minute, if it's that kind of movie that decides we see the protagonists die at the end (it is not.  That's other folk-horror movies like Wicker Man).

The big twist is that there's a Lovecraftian horror living in the fields of corn, and - to be honest - that feels like a let-down rather than just insane Bible-thumping kids, while also feeling like a Disney Halloween movie gone off the rails.

People love this movie, but I think that's Gen-X Space Jam Fallacy.  As a kid - this is a pretty decent "my first Rated-R movie" horror as it's not exactly shocking, particularly bloody or scary.  But it does contain the idea that you, a powerless kid, could get wrapped up in a scary new dynamic under the Isaac's and Malachi's you know are out there.  As an adult, you can only think "these stupid kids would be dead inside a week when they realized they don't know how to eat on their own, what to do when they're sick, or when the snow comes down and there's no fuel.".

Also - surely someone would notice an entire town of people just stopped showing up.

Which is why Children of the Corn probably works as a short story, but not as a movie that gives you time to think about these things.

What it does have is Linda Hamilton.

the very corniness of this movie may be her undoing

Unfortunately, this is pre-James Cameron Linda Hamilton, so she's playing "lady/ girl" in this movie, and just has "victim/ hostage" written all over her as soon as the story really kicks in.  If I praised M3GAN for not shying away from a woman who is a childless robot-lady, then this movie is the opposite.  Hamilton is basically spending the whole movie convincing her already locked-in doctor boyfriend that he should be *more* her boyfriend.  And when she meets kids, you can hear the warming of her ovaries as she leaps into action being there for potentially murderous children.

Still, we're never mad about Linda Hamilton showing up.

The one line that made my ears perk up was Peter Horton rightfully pointing out that religion isn't bunk, but any religion that's devoid of love is a terrible idea.  Like... deep thoughts in the middle of a pretty silly movie.

Whether I like this movie or not, the legacy of this movie is probably pretty deep.  Us city-folk do not like driving through big empty places with the occasional human dotting the landscape, and this movie does not help (nor does getting stink-eye at the gas station in the middle of nowhere).  But it also maybe helped set the table not just for the ten sequels of this movie, but a lot of "city people are terrified of the country" movies that litter our horror movie landscape.

  

HalloWatch: Death Becomes Her (1992)

Watched:  10/12/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing: First

Director:  Robert Zemeckis

Selection:  Jamie

No, I'd never seen Death Becomes Her (1992).  My guess is that I didn't think this would be actually funny, and - as it turns out - I was wrong about that.  This movie is funny as hell.

I guess maybe 1992 me couldn't process that Meryl Streep is funny, too, on top of everything else.  I also used to avoid movies where I thought people were working outside their lane in general, and that's a dumb, dumb thing to do.  But, give me a break, I was 17.  I thought this was going to be one of those movies polite adults in the 1980's and 90's laughed at, but wasn't actually laugh-out-loud good.  But - I admit I laughed a lot finally seeing it.

The movie has a long, but terrific set-up that lets the leads all play it to the hilt - and that's really what's so fun about the movie.  It's a small cast, but getting to see Goldie Hawn at the height of her comedic powers play the many versions of her character, and Meryl Streep playing the hot platinum blonde terrified of aging is a delight.  And while I read Kevin Kline was considered for Bruce Willis' part (and I can imagine him in it, very easily), Willis was good.

The plot is windy, involves actual magic, and Isabella Rossellini as a sort of mystic who can provide people with a potion to make them young and beautiful forever.  Half of the movie is about setting up a scenario in which we understand how and why Streep would do this - a plastic surgery addict terrified of what's happening to her.  And Hawn as a woman bent on romantic revenge for Streep stealing all of her men - leading up to stealing and marrying her fiance, Willis.

The gag, then, is that this potion doesn't just grant eternal youth and beauty, it makes you the undead, essentially.  You can't feel pain.  You can't die, no matter what happens to your body.  

It's a wicked critique of Hollywood/ society's obsession with youthful appearances - especially in women, and the insanity that many people in the public eye will go through in order to delay the time when they can't play the young sex bomb and move into other roles.  But, also, familiar to all of us (I say as I near 50, looking like 10 miles of bad road).  Still - I know the pinch is harder for women, and can't imagine the pressure on women in the spotlight.  

What I thought was going to just be a goofy movie about people physically abusing each other because they can't die becomes something else entirely, about how we're tied together, what it means to age gracefully, and the insanity of trying to remain relevant, and the inevitable self-destruction we do trying to fight nature.  

Would I have gotten the gags at 17?  I mean, on paper... yes.  In reality, it lands a whole lot better now.  It's not an abstraction.  And, the actresses I crushed on as a youth are now in their 60's and 70's and watching that curve is.. curious.  Let alone watching actresses more in line with my own generation occasionally just defy youth, Lisa Kudrow.

At the time the movie came out, the FX were considered mind-boggling, and - you know what?  They hold up really, really well for 1992.  There's bits I really don't know how they did them in the era - and because they were done with such care and to fit in with the look of movies of the time, they hold up just shockingly well, not hidden behind darkness or anything, and with no obvious matte-ing or anything.  Today's FX folks could stand to look at this wonder from the era - including how they use practical make-up for lots of bits.

As a Halloween movie, it works as it does involve the undead and horror of what they've done to themselves, but played for laughs.  It's hard not to look at Streep and Hawn in the last scene and think of some Golden Age actresses and their final years in film - and that they really did depend on each other even as they were ready to start slugging each other.

not for nothing, but I will never get how Isabella Rossellini was not a major sex symbol of the 80's and 90's

Hallo-ReWatch: M3GAN (2022)

Watched:  10/11/2024

Format: Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director: Gerard Johnstone

So, this is my second viewing.  I picked it because I thought K would like it (The Dug's better half), and I believe that was a slam dunk.

It was fun to see with people, especially two folks who work at high-end IT companies losing their minds about the badly portrayed technology development process of the film.  Which, of course, would have ruined the film is anyone did their job correctly, so we can't have that.  Also - I hate to tell people working for real companies how things work everywhere else.*

Anyway, the idea for this viewing was:  a fun horror movie with folks who do not want to watch a current Rated-R horror movie because everyone needs to be able to sleep.  And M3GAN is PG-13 and fun, but I don't think anyone is going to get freaked out - one to watch with your middle-school-aged kids.

I still like Allison Williams in this.  Horror seems to be able to have main characters, or characters in general, that are not all sunshine and roses.  It's a subconscious tell that maybe our lead *could* get killed by movie's end, but, here, I think it gives her a viable arc from workaholic to seeing what she will need to do to be close to Cady (her niece) , but, also...  she's not unlikeable.  Do I find a person who mostly worries about their niche interest and doesn't want kids touching their stuff to be relatable?  MAYBE.  But... She just seems like someone who is way into their work, not a bad person. But...  (goofy voice) a woman? Who likes work over babies????

We wouldn't think twice about a male engineer being solely focused on their technology job in a movie - we'd expect it.  Here, it clashes with expectations of women to automagically be maternal, which is both a movie trope and something society sure thinks is real.  And Williams' character does not naturally have those tendencies, and, boy howdy, is there some low key judging of her by certain characters.  Not that she doesn't suddenly need those tendencies when life throws her a child to raise, but - as a childless cat-lady, I am deeply sympathetic to Williams' desire to outsource the child-rearing to a lifeless droid so I can do my thing.  Also, Williams' character has an objectively cool toy collection.

If you *did* watch this movie with your kids, I think some of this is worth unpacking.  Why is the social-worker in the movie such a B to Williams?  Why is Cady going so nuts at the 2/3rd mark?  Do you need a mishap with a killer android to figure out the power of family?

Maybe! 

But I also really appreciated the stuff in the film, like M3GAN singing to calm Cady, sort of weird, saccharine songs.  The goofy, horrifying fake, annoying-as-hell Furbies, and all the ways kids toys actually do work in someone's household - and the things people seem to want to do with them.  

Toys these days absolutely have the capacity to learn from as well as manipulate our kids.  The tots want screentime more than sugar, to disappear into oddball worlds of skibidi toilets and crafting of mines, and we're shocked they can't sit through a 90 minute movie.

As the toys are getting smarter, whose to say they won't "know" our kids as well or better than ourselves as parents.  When they can freestyle a convincing song about their particular trauma?  While also not understanding how kids grow and change thanks to non-comforting stimuli?

As Ian Malcolm would say:

and this is in real life, not the movie.

Dug rightly pointed out the movie raises a host of questions about AI and then leaves them all on the table.  And, there's a very interesting, grown up version of M3GAN (where James Wan is not allowed anywhere near it) and we get a chance to explore the ideas around AI in our lives, and our lives in AI's lives, and we should have that movie.  

Recently, I've been monkeying with CharacterAI and NotebookLM, and - we aren't ready for what we're making out there.  We're at the "peasants diving under tables because they're watching a film of a train coming" stage with this technology, and it's not just coming - it's here.  Right now humanoid robots are being made, while we're also improving AI on a minute-by-minute basis.  Someone is going to realize they can bluetooth their OmniBot to a thousand turks and we're all going to have a weirdo friend we didn't expect to have.  Let's see that film.

Anyway - M3GAN is not a great movie, but it does have things I like in it, and is a dire warning about ignoring your QA process. 

Sequel comes out next year.  We'll see what we get.

*they mostly get by on a wing and a prayer

Hallo-Watch: The Ghoul (1933)

Watched:  10/10/2024

Format:   Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  T. Hayes Hunter

Well, they can't all be winners.

The movie is probably more interesting for it's goofy history than the movie itself, which is disappointing on almost every level if you're looking for good old-fashioned Halloween fun, but I suppose it's a great movie if you think cousins should hook up by a film's ending.

The story is unnecessarily convoluted, but the spaghetti mess doesn't reveal itself until the very end, and up til that point, it's mostly skulking.  So much skulking.  Sometimes someone skulking after someone who is, in turn, skulking after someone else.  It's crazy.  And a waste.  We have Karloff, who only did the movie because he and Universal were in a spat, and all they gave him to do was wander around dressed like a grandpa after church and wear some iffy make-up. 

The plot is:   there's a supposedly mystic artifact that will allow the Egyptian god Set to take you to Egyptian Heaven?  And Karloff spent his fortune on it just before passing.  Now, everyone wants the amulet, and so a manservant has it for a minute, he gives it to Karloff's estranged niece, who runs into her estranged other cousin, Rafe.  There's Egyptians looking for the thing.  A comedy lady.  A pastor.  And skulking.

And I shouldn't have to say, look, your cousin has great hair, and that's how a wave was supposed to look in 1933, but you still should stop touching her.

The big let down is that it's a movie that has been about mysticism and dark magic, and then at the end, they explain everything away as a series of coincidences, misdiagnosed maladies, scam artists, etc... that all *happened* to line up to make it seem like Karloff came back from the dead and was lumbering around.  Which, I do not need to tell you, absolutely sucks.  Don't do this.

What is good:  

Well, the set and lighting and visuals are all amazing.  No notes.  Loved that.  I liked the funny lady swooning over the Egyptian who is, in turn, absolutely bullshitting her.  And..  yeah.  That's about it.  I liked that it had Ernest Thesiger, because he's one of my favorite parts in one of my favorite films in The Bride of Frankenstein, and I'd never seen him in anything else.  And I don't feel guilty pointing out star Dorothy Hyson is cute since Rodgers and Hart wrote The Most Beautiful Girl in the World about her.  

I don't really know why I've seen this movie cited as "see The Ghoul sometime" but now I wonder if they meant the much later movie called The Ghoul, and I just clicked on the wrong one.

Just watch The Old Dark House.  It's a better movie.

 

Hallo-Watch: Nosferatu - a Symphony of Horror (1922)

Watched:  10/10/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  first straight thru

Director:  FW Murnau

I've seen this film in bits and pieces, but never in one shot.  So, technically, this is either my first view or not, and I'm calling it my first as I spend this Halloween watching films I should have already seen and have not.  

Yes, I've seen Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922) - or most of it - before, here and there.  

Structurally, Nosferatu is more or less a very watered down Dracula - infamously so as the movie was immediately sued into oblivion by Bram Stoker's widow (yes, Dracula came out so recently that Stoker's widow was around in 1922).  

Briefly - A Transylvanian fellow entertains a young solicitor come to sell him property in his hometown.  He sees Count Orlock doing weird things, lusting for blood, etc...  And the Count runs off to his hometown with crates of soil, murdering a transport ship along the way.  But in London Wilborg, instead it focuses on a plague of rats, and our Mina stand in doesn't fall ill, she realizes she must sacrifice herself as a sinless woman to the Count so he'll have overplayed his hand.

Unshockingly, this movie is mostly here for the spooky vibes and to tell everyone else how to do this for the next 100 years.  It's not the first horror movie by a long shot, but it is a highly influential one.  And - in my opinion - is maybe more in the spirit of the novel than all the romantic versions made since Lugosi made women swoon in 1930.  Orlok is a straight up weirdo, and our leads know it.  He's bringing illness and plague with him, he's a soulless killing machine.  

But what folks remember, rightfully, are the visuals of the film.  Flexing some Expressionistic bona fides, Murnau leans into strange and eerie sequences of shadow moving, some in-camera tricks of the day, and long, oddball takes to build tension in a single shot.  Our vampire is a homely bastard - not as described in the novel, but his own, unique look that echoes some of what's there - the grasping, claw-like hands.  But you know all this.  It's a gorgeous film, and worth a look for spooky season, even if you just put it on during your Halloween party.  That's the power of the Nosferatu vibes.

There's little question in my mind that Orlok and Dracula both represent some fear that folks living in times of less exposure to other people held when it came to foreigners or even their own neighbors who were different from them.  Ie: The Other.  Whether that's intentional or the casual racism of Grandpa thinking "that's how things are", I suspect the latter case.

What's odd is the lore around this movie - from the notes in Wikipedia about it being made by German occultists who wanted to, like, employ the dark arts.  To the lawsuits and upsetting Mrs. Dracula, to the film almost being lost, to the 2000 movie Shadow of the Vampire.

But, look... here's what Bacall has to say.

So, be like Lauren Bacall, people.  Refrain from shoe-based violence and check out the OG vamp feature.

I should mention, the Werner Herzog version is really good, and we're looking at a remake coming this Christmas from Robert Eggers, who I think is maybe the right dude to do this justice with modern cameras, etc...  

Hallo-Watch: Christine (1983)

Watched:  10/09/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Third?  Fourth?

Director:  John Carpenter

This spooky season, I'm mostly trying to check off movies I should have already watched - also movies I haven't seen since I was a kid, so I don't remember the films well at all.  This isn't that - but Jamie had not seen Christine (1983), and I kind of consider it worth a viewing.  So it's her version of that, I suppose.

I read the Stephen King novel when I was in 6th grade.  But I didn't see the movie until some time later - maybe when I was fifteen.  I've seen it a couple of times since, including in a hotel room during a  conference over a decade ago.  It's a bizarre movie - how compelling should a movie about a haunted car be?  And yet.

Christine is a John Carpenter movie, and - I think - should be included in consideration of his run of solid work there in the 1980's.  I know Carpenter seems grumpy about all of the movies he did as a work-for-hire director, but the pairing of his sensibilities with King really does work.  I'd love to see someone re-do Christine without having to strip it down for a movie audience and make it as weird as the book, but as a movie - separate from the book but using the core of it - I think this movie works as a kind of horror, just not the horror of "oh no!  A car will get me!" that you might guess on first blush.

To me, the horror of the movie is not so much about a killer, possessed car - which, fair enough (that is a problem!).  Instead, it's about helplessly watching a friend go down due to a change in their life, be it addiction, a toxic partner, or some other obsession.  This is two lifelong pals who went two different directions, and one of them goes off the deep end, and the other has to deal with the fallout as that person hurts other people.  

Hallo-Watch: Phantasm (1979)

Watched:  10/08/2024

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Don Coscarelli

I didn't know anything about Phantasm (1979) coming in, despite the fact it's a horror staple and much beloved.  And that's a bit odd.  Generally you get the idea.  There's a chainsaw massacre in Texas.  A Freddy.  A Jason.  All I knew about this one was "there's a gangly older gentleman and a flying sphere with knives on it".  How those two things were employed, I could not guess.

Perhaps taking a page from the semi-psychedelic horror of the preceding decade and the impact of European horror making its way to the US - think Suspiria - it opened the doors for horror to show that part of horror could be the confusion of the audience - that the audience is also in a place of confusion, just as much as the protagonist, as the movie runs its course.

The approach gives the movie an odd, dreamy feeling - where the edges never quite match-up and attempts to force the narrative into a sensible pattern are a bit useless.  It's sort of about a teen/ tweenage boy who has lost his parents and whose older brother is now saddled with his care, just as the brother is set to go out into the world.  While the brother and his friends seek female companionship and go about the business of young adults, the younger brother, terrified of being alone, follows at a distance.  

It seems the mortuary in town (Dunsmuir House, famous from this, A View to a Kill, Burnt Offerings and other films...) is where a tall man and a bunch of cloaked dwarves live, and are maybe murdering people?  Or weirder?

They involve their friend, Reggie - an ice cream man with a terrible look - and try to unravel the mystery, especially as their parents were sent to the same mortuary, and as they discover what the mortuary is doing with the dead bodies... * they decide to take it all down, as one does.  Because this is a horror movie where the heroes are well armed, including the under-16 kid.

I was surprised how much of the dialog and reactions of the characters in the movie felt... natural.  Like, this isn't canned dialog or reactions to just push the movie along.  People do things that make sense in a movie that is defying sense and logic, and it really helps.  Like - if you're going to break into a place with potentially murderous beings - do bring a gun if you can get it.  Don't just go creeping around hoping for the best.  And, the kid is oddly sensible - they don't make him an idiot just because he's under 20 years old.

That said - I did spend the first hour of the film waiting for the plot to kick in before realizing what kind of movie I was watching,  when my brain said "oh... this is one of those movies".  And while I enjoyed it up to that point, once I realized "yeah, this thing is just not caring if there's any internal logic" it was even better.

I'm too old for this to be my favorite thing, but if I'd seen it as a kid or teen, I think I would have really dug it for going all-out to be a weird movie and not bother with any answers.  Scenes that don't go anywhere, characters who make no sense... it's all good in dream-land.  I don't know if I ever felt anything was scary beyond being frightened I had no idea what was happening, but it still had a nice creep-factor from the very start.

I was a bit surprised they wholesale stole the gom jabbar, and that the end of Nightmare on Elm Street is essentially the same as this movie.  But, whatevs.  

*turning them into slave dwarves?

Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985)

Watched:  10/07/2024

Format:  Midnight Pulp on Amazon

Viewing:  First?

Director:  Stuart Gordon

In my post on From Beyond, I said I'd previously seen Re-Animator (1985), but in watching this - I had not actually seen this movie.  I'm wondering if I inadvertently watched the sequel.  Or not enough of the movie to actually remember it.  We'll find out when I take in the sequel.

This movie is chaotic, gory, fun, and speaks volumes about someone's ability to convince actors to walk around naked.  It's funny, bizarre, and I dug it.

A brilliant young scientist loses his mentor in Switzerland, coming to ye olde Miskatonic Medical School where he moves in with nice-guy med student, Dan, who is sleeping with the dean's daughter (Barbara Crampton, natch).  Herbert, the brilliant fellow, has invented a formula for bringing dead bodies back to life - demonstrating with Dan's pet cat (who, Herbert likely killed himself).  Meanwhile, Dr. Hill (Bob Gale) has made his career by stealing Herbert's mentor's work, and Herbert publicly calls him on it.  

Soon, chaos ensues as they try out Herbert's formula down in the morgue, and then on someone they didn't intend to be a useful body.  

I dunno.  It's like trying to describe a riot in detail.  There's a lot going on.

Everyone gets their assignments.  Jeffrey Combs is great as Herbert, Bob Gale unhinged as Dr. Hill, Robert Sampson all in as Dean Halsey.  Crampton is lively as Megan Halsey.  

This movie is just crazy nonsense for 90 minutes, and I dug it.  I think as a kid this would have spooked the crap out of me.  As a jaded adult, I'm just sorta chuckling to myself about "wow, they're doing this" as Dr. Hill's decapitated body lugs around his head.  

I'm not sure there's a deeper meaning in the film than "whoops... do not reanimate the dead!" which - lesson learned, amigos!  But it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the general tone and can-do-horror spirit of the thing.

The FX aren't as cool as From Beyond, but for something done on a budget, they really knock it out of the park.  Maybe minus the cat puppet, which is just good stuff.

Hallowatch: Ghostwatch (1992)

Watched:  10/04/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing;  Second

Director:  Lesley Manning

I'd already seen this movie back in April of this year, and you can read my thoughts from 5.5 months ago here.

I basically wanted to make Jamie, Dug and K watch it, and I have no idea what anyone thought at the end.  It's also not the "The Dog Who Saved Halloween" suckage we usually put on if we're going to do a watch party.  

Personally, knowing what's coming, I enjoyed seeing all the pieces come together.  If you're going to do this kind of thing - where you try to make something look "real" - filmmakers really need to review Ghostwatch (1992).  Which really does benefit from not trying to be a period piece, but reflect the idea that "it's happening now".

On a second viewing, I liked seeing how they set some things up, leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that does work - but on a first viewing seems like random stuff you're hearing as you go along - which totally makes sense.  Visually - it absolutely works.  It's all practical, so there's no reason to ever get taken out of what you're watching (see: Late Night With The Devil for a counter example) and maybe that's a lesson to horror movie makers?  I know one of the scariest, to me, movies is The Haunting, and there's approximately zero FX of any kind in it.

Anyhoo... a fun Halloween viewing.  Now on Amazon for, like, $2.00.

  

Hallo-Horror Watch: From Beyond (1986)

Watched:  10/05/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First (all the way through)

Director:  Stuart Gordon

Thanks to seeing half of this movie in the mid-1980's, in later years when it came up in classes, I'd already know what the Pineal Gland is.  And, probably, set all sorts of toggles in my head thanks to Barbara Crampton.

There's no era that doesn't have it's own flavors of horror, and 1980's horror is best remembered for Freddy, Jason, etc...  But out there, Stuart Gordon was making stuff like Re-Animator and busily creating wild, weird stuff that was based more on concepts like HP Lovecraft for a modern audience than stalking teenagers.  I wasn't much of a horror kid so much as I was interested in, like, The Wolfman.  And I know I watched this movie for a bit sometime in the 1980's - right up to the hospital sequence, I think - because I don't remember that or the ending.  So I'm calling this my first full viewing.

This is based on Lovecraft's work of the same name, so it's generally about being unsettling, deeply weird and... madness.  Gotta have some madness.

From Beyond (1986) is about a young scientist (Jeffrey Coombs) who is working with a strange but brilliant scientist, Dr. Edward Pretorious (Ted Sorel) - and they manage to basically match the vibrations of our plane with that of one we really shouldn't have ever seen, full of archaic creatures and strange monsters.  Something goes wrong, and the young scientist is accused of murdering Pretorius, but his story of alien creatures killing Pretorius better matches the evidence (a bloodless, decapitated body) than "he got him with an axe".  Psychiatrist Dr. McMichaels (Crampton) is brought in, and wants to see what the guy was up to, so she works with him under police guard (Ken Foree!) to re-do the experiment.

What Gordon thought the effects of the "field" generated by the device were is up to speculation.  For some reason it seems to make the young scientist kind of crazy and his pineal gland grows into a weird, prehensile thing I'm sure is supposed to be phallic.  Crampton's character becomes...  sexy.  And poor Ken Foree just gets bit by a jellyfish.

I shall spoil no further.

The movie is weirdly fun for what it is.  I assume it kind of freaked me out as a kid with its mix of body horror, madness, dash of sex, some S&M for no reason, and no clear heroes in the thing.  But knowing Lovecraft a bit now, this is a reasonable adaptation of his vibe.  The special FX, make-up, etc... are all very good, minus a shot or two.  So if you dig old school practical and optical FX, this is a good one.  And the ideas of the film are appropriately chilling, with an ending that feels right.

Anyway - it was kind of great to see this as an adult and with more of film, literary and life experience under my belt.   

Vincent Price HalloWatch: Tales of Terror (1962)

Watched:  10/04/2024

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  First!

Director:  Roger Corman

This movie was SO GOOD.

I don't know what I was expecting, but I'd just never gotten around to Tales of Terror (1962) - an anthology of three Edgar Allen Poe short story adaptations - and I regret I'd never watched it until now.  But when looking at Vincent Price movies, I often look to see who else is in them, because Price clearly loved goofing with specific pals, and this one has Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone, and the dlightful  Joyce Jameson, who I know from A Comedy of Terrors.

As an anthology, it lets Price play three different characters - showcasing the man's versatility (he could play it all!) while also letting him overplay a bit to suit the needs of each role.  The first segment is "Morella" in which he plays a widower whose daughter returns to him - sent away as a baby after her mother died due to complications from child birth.  In "The Black Cat", we get The Cask of Amontillado with Lorre walling up Price.  In the third - a grisly tale of mesmerism with Basil Rathbone trying to manipulate the will of a dying man and use his horrible power to force Debra Paget into marriage.

Rather than get into three separate stories, what I'd say is - to me, this is when horror is at its best.  The very ideas in the story are chilling.  This is not a surprise as it's Poe, right?  He's sort of the guy for this.  But by keeping it brief, as Poe did, they can stay focused, not worry about filling a movie with movie things.  Love interests, arcs for everyone, etc...  So the actors can really lock in and push toward the themes and ideas, and we know this works - or did - from shows like The Twilight Zone.   

So the ideas - the absolute horror of a mother who *is* furious her baby killed her, the terror of being walled up alive, of being trapped against your will between life and death...  it's good stuff.  

Look, you'll see me bitching about jump scares a lot.  And... they're fine.  They work.  So does walking up behind an old lady at church and blowing an air horn (do not do this).  Of course that stuff works, and sometimes it's fun and I enjoy it.  But it's also not what sticks with me.  Maybe the *vibe* of the movie sticks with me, but give me someone realizing they're all living in a horrendously fucked up situation already, and it's about to come to a head in a weird and horrible way, and I'm in!  And if you can do that without, you know, also making something go "bang!" all of a sudden to I go "tee hee hee", all the better.  

This movie, like some other stuff from Corman's AIP branch, looks pretty good!  The sets are better than necessary, the costumes pretty slick, the color that weird "we won't pay for technicolor" garish, and we have Debra Paget (who is still with us!), so we know to put our money where it counts.

Anyway - people will think you need darkness and limbs twisting and wet hair on females to get terror, but to me - you just need the right concept and the right actors willing to go nuts on screen.  And Corman got that.   I literally applauded after each sequence.  Just perfect chunks of horror to take you into the Halloween season.

Halloween Dark Universe Watch: The Mummy (2017) - the one with Tom Cruise

Watched:  10/02/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Director:  Alex Kurtzman

She had style!

She had flair!

She was there!

That's how she became... the Mummy!

This is an amazingly wrong-headed and bad movie.  I really don't want to write it up, because it's going to take forever.  It's problems are legion, and it's astounding to think Universal went so hard at the "Dark Universe" concept and then this was their maiden flight.  A maiden flight which took off, did a loop-de-loop before crashing back into the airport, and which immediately killed the entire concept.  Thank God.

If you need a refresher:  in the wake of the success of Marvel's Avengers movies making a billion dollars each, Universal looked to see what IP they had laying around to exploit.  And, since the silent era, Universal has had classic horror in their stable.  Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride of, Wolfman, The Mummy, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Invisible Man... all Universal. What Universal decided to do was create a world in which these creatures co-exist and... fight crime?  I don't know.  And this movie didn't say, despite the fact all they do is stand around and explain things to the detriment of plot, character, and enjoyment of the very thing you're watching. 

There was plenty of precedent.  By the 1940's, the sequels had been bubbling up, and we did see Wolfman meet Frankenstein, and all of the monsters show up in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (which was, obvs, a horror-comedy, but featured the characters as audiences knew them in the straight movies).

Around 2015-16,Universal signed with major stars and were going to do this.  Tom Cruise!  Johnny Depp! Angelina Jolie! Russell Crowe!  Utterly missing the fact the stars of the originals were barely the actors - it was the concept.  They did so, so much press about this, and everyone kind of said "...why would you do this press?  Just make the movies."  But, nope, so high on their own supply, they ran into the streets to tell people about it, and then it blew up in their faces immediately, like Wile E. Coyote with dynamite.

The Mummy (2017) is the Tom Cruise-starring action-monster-not-horror vehicle that took the name and a few concepts from the original The Mummy movie and the subsequent Universal sequels, and turns it into a very expensive actioner devoid of plot, characters, charisma or joy.  Or fear.  It's a painful slog through scenes shot without enough light to ever see anything (Dark Universe!  HA!), wherein you can feel Cruise's people touching up a script that's already overstuffed, but with dollar-store baloney.

Hallowatch: The 'Burbs (1989)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube (it's streaming free.  Go figure)

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Joe Dante

Selection:  Jamie

I saw this one in the theater back in the day, and then on VHS and cable after.  But it's been some time since I watched this movie.  And while I liked the movie, boy - does it land now in a different way after living on the same suburban street since 2006.  

My memory was correct that this movie was poorly received upon its release, and it's funny - I think it would do fairly well now with reviewers no longer cloistered in urban centers and insisting on certain lifestyles which would, frankly, make them miss the joke of the movie except as a faint echo of their streets as kids.  Criticism and reviews play an important role, but I think this is just one where the vibe of how the curators of public opinion missed the mark, and it's not a mistake the movie is well-remembered 35 years later.

The film isn't quite a horror film, it is a comedy - and the whole thing feels very Joe Dante.  There's a hyper-realism to the the suburban setting that keeps the movie with one foot firmly planted in realism (the world Carrie Fisher is trying to anchor) while nuttiness abounds.  And Tom Hanks is our POV into what it is to move back and forth between those worlds.