31 Days of Halloween

Lon Chaney Jr is no Lon Chaney.

Yeah, but the 2nd half has the Shop S-Mart / Hail to the King scene.

You are on a Universal monster roll.

Film Fifteen: Darling (2016)
Darling is a movie that has had a lot of commercial constraints, in no small part because it’s a psychological horror movie called “Darling,” but also because it takes a stylistic approach that is decidedly not designed for the masses. The film is clearly a homage to Roman Polanski’s most paranoid works, particularly Repulsion, but also has shades of Pi and The Innkeepers. The film depicts the mental collapse of a young woman after she’s hired to be the caretaker of an old brownstone in New York. The film employs an unconventional filming style: it’s in black and white and employs a number of quick momentary cuts that reflect her mindset’s deterioration. If I have a problem with the movie it’s that the main character’s decent into madness seems really fast. It feels like she’s a full-fledged loon almost from the minute that she enters into the house and we never really get that arc of her losing her mind over time as either the ghost or her own personal demon takes over. Also I can only support the movie’s crazy cutting to a certain extent, it’s interesting and effective, but at a certain point you do need to admit that some of these edits are basically just jump scares in the grand scheme of things. I don’t think this movie is terribly deep or original in the grand scheme of things, but for the most part it does work and it’s certainly a bold film to make in this particular genre.

***1/2 out of Five

Day Sixteen: Academy Award Nominated Black and White Horror



The Picture of Dorian Gray


Horror films seldom find Oscar success which is part of what drew me to The Picture of Dorian Gray. The film was nominated for three Oscars, including one for Angela Lansbury (then a newcomer) and Harry Stradling Sr. won an Oscar for his cinematography. Both of those elements are clearly the best part about the film, but taken as a whole, The Picture of Dorian Gray falls flat. The central problem is lead actor Hurd Hatfield is really dull and one dimensional as the titular Dorian. He lacks the charisma for the part and he also doesn't represent the arc of the character really at all. The story also relies way too much on narration, which often explains exactly what is going on in a scene. It's doubly frustrating since Stradling's aforementioned cinematography tells the story perfectly well on visual terms.

For all my complaints, the film certainly has its moments. In addition to the film's Oscar nominated elements, the actual portrait in the film is pretty awesome, and there are a few really effective scenes. It doesn't work for me on the whole, but The Picture of Dorian Gray is a decent enough effort.

C+


The Bad Seed


The Bad Seed is interesting in that it's basically just a schlocky horror film but it's made with a certain degree of dignity and Hollywood production value. The story involves a mother (Nancy Kelly) who suspects her precious and perfect eight year old daughter (Patty McCormack) is actually a cold blooded killer. That's pretty silly, but the film takes it seriously and actually hits a pretty solid tone. This is in large part thanks to strong performances from Kelly and McCormack, as well as the rest of the cast. I do think the script introduces some elements which don't work and it also really fumbles the ending. After teasing two interesting endings, one very dark and one dark and cynical, the film ends on the most contrived and bullshit studio mandated moment. The ending doesn't exactly ruin The Bad Seed, but it does reduce a good movie to just an okay one.

C+

I've always felt the Psycho sequels are just a bit better than they have any right to be.

Day Seventeen: The Hunger


This is the debut film of director Tony Scott and it's very different than the action movies he would become defined by. This is actually a very slow paced film with a cold tone about a pair of vampires, a man (David Bowie) who rapidly begins to age, and a woman (Catherine Deneuve) who starts to eye a new companion (Susan Surandon). I love the way the film is shot and while not all of Scott's decisions work I do think he elevates this script a lot. The trio of leads are also quite good and I dare say this is the best Bowie performance I've seen yet. The film's ending is a bit of a mess, thanks in part to studio interference, and I don't think this ever really goes to a level beyond just being a moody little horror movie, but there are certainly worse things to aspire to. In any event I certainly had a good time with it.

B+

Drive is awesome.

Day Eighteen: Halloween II


Set the same night as the original, Halloween II sees Michael Myers continue his path to kill Laurie, who has now been moved to a hospital. This isn't really a bad sequel so much as it is a pointless one. The notion that all of this is happening right after the first film feels tacked in and for most of the running time the film adds nothing new. Loomis and authorities hunt for Michael while he goes for an unsuspecting Laurie. Only now we know who all of these characters are and the setting so there isn't anything new to learn. The only new tidbit occurs in the third act when it's revealed why Michael is so interested in Laurie. And the reveals are really unnecessary. Michael Myers is scary as an embodiment of evil randomly inflicting violence. Giving him more motivation dilutes the character, not enhances it.

John Carpenter is no longer directing, and while Rick Rosenthal does a good job imitating his style (thanks in large part to returning cinematography Dean Cundy, one can tell the directon is less inspired. Still, I don't wanna totally shit all over this thing. Halloween II has a decent atmosphere and some fun scenes. It doesn't really hold up to scrutiny and is all kinds of flawed, but there is some value here.

C

Film Nineteen: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)


Out of all the movies I’m looking at for this series The Texas Chainsaw Massacre probably makes the most sense as a film to make a sequel of given that it was essentially a slasher film (the horror sub-genre most prone to sequels) and also because the original film ended with its iconic killer alive and well and ready to cause more chaos. What’s more this is the one sequel I’m looking at which has the privilege of having been made by the original film’s director: Tobe Hooper. And yet, this still seems like a rather crazy film to be making a good decade after the fact, in part because that original film seemed to almost be a happy accident born of a production so cheap that it almost had to have a certain gonzo realism to it. It’s the kind of thing you just can’t recreate. Tobe Hooper seemed to understand this as well, so in many ways he actually didn’t try to make another film like the original and instead went in something of a different direction. Where the original film was grim the sequel is darkly comedic, where the original was made on a shoestring the sequel is actually a decent sized production (as these things go), and where the original film wasn’t nearly as gory as its title would imply, this sequel is a total gorefest that needed to be released unrated when it came out in 1986.



The film picks up some time after the ending of the original movie with the cannibalistic family from the first movie having escaped police investigation and having relocated elsewhere. The heroine of the first movie is nowhere to be seen and in her place we follow a radio DJ who has gotten involved in one of their murders and become a target of their wrath. One of the major ways in which this sequel differ from the original is that it has a movie star in it in the form of one Dennis Hopper as a former Texas Ranger hunting down the cannibals and he seems even more unhinged than usual. 1986 was a big year for Hopper, it saw him earn an Oscar nomination for Hoosiers and earn a lot of cinematic street cred for his prominent appearance in Blue Velvet, and this performance is somehow even bigger and crazier than his work in that movie. The film also features Bill Mosley playing a character not unlike the hitchhiker from the first movie via a performance that almost certainly inspired the general tone and attitude of Rob Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects, in fact this movie may well have had more of an influence on Zombie than the original. Whether or not you consider this movie to be “good” will probably depend in what you’re looking for in it. If you want a credible horror film likely to actually scare anyone, maybe stick with the original, the sequel by contrast is meant to be this insane romp filled with ridiculous images and ideas and for what it is it’s actually pretty well made. Put it this is a movie that has Dennis Hopper pulling out a chainsaw and using it to fight Leatherface as if the two are swordfighting with chainsaws, then lodges said chainsaw in Leatherface’s stomach and pulls out two smaller chainsaws which he proceeds to dual wield… if that sentence sounds appealing to you give this movie a watch… possibly while a little drunk.
*** out of Five