Dark Water (2002)

HIDEO NAKATA

DARK WATER

JAPAN, 2002,

7/10

"I'm sorry, honey...that we can't be together."

**There are spoilers in one (small) section of this review, but they are marked as spoilers so you can avoid them**

Yoshimi Matsubara is in the middle of a divorce and custody trial with her husband. She has custody of her daughter for the time being, but the final decision hasn't been made yet, when they go looking for an apartment to live in. They come upon a slightly run down yet livable apartment that is a good size for the two of them and affordable for their lifestyle as well. Goody. Of course, eventually everything slowly starts falling to shit, and that all begins with a water stain appearing on Yoshimi's ceiling. Really, you can't make this shit up.

Despite the semi-laughable premise, Nakata does a pretty good job with the film. There are lots of very beautiful shots (but the yellow tint of the flashback scenes looks pretty cheap and irritating), and while it can be a little slow at times, the pacing is generally pretty good. Like many other J-horror, the villain is a young girl with long, black hair, similar to Nakata's other, and superior, film, RINGU (1998). At the beginning of the film, I found Mitsuko (the young girl) pretty scary, but by the end of the film I was tired of her as every scare felt familiar.

The actors all do a very good job. It's a bit harder for me to judge acting when they aren't speaking English because I have no idea what words are getting inflection, but they all seemed decent enough to me. The actress playing Yoshimi was a bit over the top at times, but it's clear that that's how her character would react in stressful situations.

**SPOILERS START**

I think a problem with this film is that Nakata aimed to make his audience jump more than he wanted to creep them out. The scene where Yoshimi climbs the water tower and hears faint knocking, due to the fact that Mitsuko drowned in there, is incredibly creepy, but the second the knocks grow louder and they dent the water tower, all the tension is lost. Same with the bathtub scene that's going on simultaneously. Ikuko (Yoshimi's daughter) just saw the bathtub fill itself up and inside there is, you guessed it, dark water. She leans over the bathtub and we see air bubbles come up, but instead of doing a magnificent and suspenseful scene like the amazing television scene in RINGU, we get a cheap jump scare of Mitsuko's hands coming out of the water and grabbing Ikuko's head.

**SPOILERS END**

Despite the cheap jump scares, there are a couple of amazing scenes in the film, mainly the last one, which left the viewer with a very haunted feeling and ties everything up quite nicely, but there are just too many mindless, formulaic jump scenes for me to give this film anything above a 7/10. Overall, this is a slightly overrated yet still pretty effective movie. It's not nearly as good as RINGU was, but it's definitely still worth watching.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

HERK HARVEY

CARNIVAL OF SOULS

USA, 1962

8/10

"It's funny... the world is so different in the daylight. In the dark, your fantasies get so out of hand. But in the daylight everything falls back into place again."

The film opens on a sunny day as two cars are side by side, stopped at a light on an otherwise deserted road. The occupants of the car begin a drag race, neither of them seem officially in the lead until the two cars reach the bridge, where one of the cars loses control and flies off the bridge, landing in the water. Three hours later, the car is still being searched for when one woman, Mary Henry, rises from the water. This is how the semi-forgotten cult classic, CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) begins. Many have compared this film's tone to an episode of the Twilight Zone extended to feature film length (well, 84 minutes) and because of this, there are times when the film seems to drag a bit. But this isn't a movie that focuses too much on the plot. More than anything else, it's an atmosphere film. Now, it doesn't have BLACK SUNDAY (1960) (review here) levels of atmosphere, but it still works very well in the film.

In fact, this movie does a pretty good job considering the fact that it had a group of local actors who, on the whole, lacked experience, a budget of only $30,000, was filmed in only three weeks, and a crew of only six people. The acting, while nothing to write home about, is not horrible, but there are moments when it gets a little cheesy. The ghoulish make-up is pretty effective, I found myself creeped out every now and again, especially during the film's climax. The director (who has never made a feature film besides this) actually does a very good job with the film. In the quote above, the protagonist says how the world seems different in the daylight, and the director takes this quote and runs with it. The things that seem innocent in the daylight, such as where Mary stays, or the carnival where she feels drawn, or the church in which she plays the organ, suddenly change in the dark and become threatening. Of course, they physically look the same no matter what the time of day is, but the atmosphere the director builds really does make it seem that these safe and pleasant locations mutate into alarming sights of horror in the dark. Many have commented on how good the soundtrack is, so I will not linger upon it, but it honestly is very good. A lot of it is played on the organ, which makes sense because Mary Henry is an organ player. 

This film was originally ignored by critics and audiences alike, but has gained a cult following throughout the years through late night television screenings and a Criterion release. This film is probably not for everyone. As I mentioned before, the plot is slightly slow moving, yet I was still intrigued and interested for the majority of the film. In fact, there isn't much of a plot at all. It relies almost exclusively on its atmosphere to evoke a feeling of dread and horror. Not to say that there are no jump scares, because there are, but they obviously take the back seat as far as priorities go, and there is no violence, gore, or sex to speak of throughout the film. Instead everything simply feels wrong and uneasy, and throughout the picture we, the audience, get a growing sense that something is wrong, beyond the demon-ghoul thing. The twist ending, while semi-predictable, is still good and allows the viewer to be able to analyze and re-watch the film multiple times. I do recommend that you go into the film without knowing the ending, even if, like me, you guess it about halfway through the movie.

Watching this film, it's pretty easy to see how it may have inspired David Lynch or George Romero, so I definitely recommend that fans of their work check this movie out. All in all, this is a very impressive, yet still modest, piece of low budget horror. Genre fans looking for semi-forgotten treasures (I say "semi-forgotten" because over the years it has gained increasing levels of fame, yet it's still not particularly well known) should definitely check this out. It may not have the best acting, plot, or script, but it does have a great atmosphere and does deliver a couple of rather good scares. It is in the public domain so you can watch it for free online, even though if you're a fan I recommend the Criterion release. Highly recommended.

Black Sunday (1960)

MARIO BAVA

BLACK SUNDAY/THE MASK OF SATAN

ITALY, 1960

8/10

"You will never escape my vengeance, or of Satan's! My revenge will seek you out, and with the blood of your sons, and of their sons, and their sons, I will continue to live forever! They will restore me to life you now rob from me!"

BLACK SUNDAY (1960) opens with the execution of a witch. A mask with nails sticking out of it is placed on the witch's face, and then, using the biggest sledgehammer/mallet/whatever I've ever seen, the mask is struck and the nails are driven into the witch's face. Pretty gruesome stuff for 1960. However, it rains, so the witch cannot be burned, which turns out to be a huge mistake.

  

It stars Barbara Stelle in the role of both the witch Ava and the young heroine, Katia. How she can go from gentle to horrible in just the blink of an eye shows that she is indeed a very talented actress, and proves that she deserved to be among the '60s and '70s horror icons. All of the other actors do a very good job, but no one's performance stood out to me the way Barbara Stelle's did. 

The famous Italian horror director Mario Bava creates a very stunning film that is packed with dark imagery and each shot is full of creepy atmosphere. Even in the beginning scenes, when nothing was really happening yet, I could still feel a huge amount of suspense. There is a gothic feel to the entire feel, which helps it immensely. For Bava's real debut as a director (he did shorts and uncredited directing work before this), BLACK SUNDAY is absolutely amazing. No doubt one of the reasons BLACK SUNDAY is so magnificent (because while the acting and script are very good, they are nothing truly amazing) is because of Bava's skill as both a director and a cinematographer.

The film has many influences from early Universal and Hammer films. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I read that fact that THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), a Universal film, and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) met much success in Italy led to the production of BLACK SUNDAY. Because of this, I feel that this film has the old-fashioned atmosphere of a Universal film, but also features some of the violence of a Hammer film. It is also based on a story by Gogol, which I have not read. The set pieces in this film are absolutely beautiful, especially for a low-budget film. Each shot in the film is beautiful, helped by the Gothic feel and the black and white photography. 

The soundtrack in this film really stood out to me as being quite fantastic. It was creepy, strange, and romantic all at once, and it fit into this movie perfectly. It's very easy for a soundtrack to be intrusive or get in the way of the story (as much as I love SUSPIRIA (1977), the soundtrack is way too attention drawing and distracts from the rest of the move). This film's soundtrack, however, draws just enough attention to itself for the viewer to realize how good it is, but not so much that it stops the viewer from paying attention to the film, and that's really what all soundtracks should do.

All in all, this is a very creepy Italian horror film, and it's pretty short (87 minutes), so you can watch it without it taking too much time. Mario Bava directs the film masterfully, and Barbara Stelle gives an amazing performace. A great watch for fans of Gothic or Italian horror.

The Exorcist III (1990)

WILLIAM PETER BLATTY

THE EXORCIST III

USA, 1990

7.5/10

"Incidentally, did you know that you are talking to an artist? I sometimes do special things to my victims: things that are creative. Of course, it takes knowledge, pride in your work... For example, a decapitated head can continue to see for approximately twenty seconds. So when I have one that's gawking, I always hold it up so that it can see its body. It's a little extra I throw in for no added charge. I must admit it makes me chuckle every time. Life is fun. It's a wonderful life, in fact... for some."

In 1973 we got THE EXORCIST (1973), one of the most commercially successful and famous horror movies of all time. 4 years later, we got THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977), an unbelievably horrible movie (I watched it once years ago and I can't bring myself to watch it again, even though I probably will eventually because it'll be fun to write a review for). Then, 13 years later, we finally get THE EXORCIST III (1990), an actual worthy sequel. 

Now, this film actually could have been a lot better than it actually is. A big reason I'm rating it 7.5 out of 10 is because I'm taking into account the kind of film Blatty wanted to write. He wanted it to be a more faithful adaptation of his book, LEGION, and even wanted the film to be called LEGION, but the studio made his make the story more exorcism-focused, and to put THE EXORCIST name on it to make it easier to market. I mean, the movie would have been loads better if that exorcism wasn't thrown in at the end, and it felt a lot more like an afterthought than a resolution to the story. 

Seeing as I am a huge SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) fan, I loved the interactions between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, as their conversations were slightly similar to those of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter. Blatty writes these scenes exceptionally, which is to be expected seeing as his novels have received much acclaim, and much of THE EXORCIST III's power relies on the words and symbolism. Blatty's direction is also amazing, especially considering that this was only the second film he's ever directed. Although I believe that THE EXORCIST has slightly better cinematography, this film is still amazing. This is one of the only films I can think of where it's directed, written, and adapted from a novel by the same person. 

THE EXORCIST III is completely underrated. I've never met anyone who's even heard of the film, but even on the Internet I see very little appreciation for the film. Considering the fact that it's a third installment in a horror film series, this film is exceptional (I mean, compare this to any other third installment in any other horror series, it's most likely superior). THE EXORCIST III is an incredibly intelligent horror film, but can still be enjoyed without focusing on the more intelligent aspects. If you're looking for a film with great acting, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with some beautiful shots, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with a fantastic plot (except for the dumbed-down crowd pleasing scenes the studio forced Blatty to include), you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with enough symbolism and foreshadowing to keep you engaged in the film to watch it again, you can find that here. If you're looking for, arguably, the most effective jump scare in the entire horror genre, you can most definitely find that here (please refrain from watching said scene before-hand, it works much better in context). 

In conclusion, THE EXORCIST III is an unbelievably underrated horror flick, that, while I still believe the original to be vastly superior, is a wonderfully journey into darkness. It would no doubt be much better if the studio let Blatty have more creative control over the film, but it is still worth a view or two. Highly recommended.

Suspiria (1977)

DARIO ARGENTO

SUSPIRIA

ITALY, 1977

9.5/10

"Who is it? Who's there? Ah, I've been expecting you! The American girl! I knew you'd come. You want to kill me! You want to kill Helena Markos!"

I first watched this film around five years ago, and initially, I was disappointed. Every horror fan has at least heard of SUSPIRIA (1977), and it's often cited as one of the best horror films ever created, or, at least as Italian horror master Dario Argento's masterpiece. And so I watched it with very, very high expectations, and the movie ended with me feeling remarkably underwhelmed (it's worth mentioning that I was watching this in the middle of the day, and PEEPING TOM (1960) is the only horror film that's been able to creep me out while the sun is still in the sky, so that no doubt hindered my enjoyment of the film at first). I thought "This is SUSPIRIA? This is this film I've heard so much about?" And for three years I held a huge prejudice against SUSPIRIA, claiming it was an overrated, over-cited, and over-colored piece of shit. And then, two years ago, I decided to watch it again. And while I still had criticisms, I enjoyed it much, much more. And over the past two years, I have re-watched it many more times, and each time I enjoy it more and more. 

Now, like I said in my review of OPERA (1987), SUSPIRIA has many, many flaws. Even if you think the film is the greatest achievement in horror cinema, you have to admit that. The plot is almost non-existent, some of the dialogue is incredibly childish (though I heard the characters were going to be 12, but the age was changed without changing the dialogue, making it seem childish; whether or not this is true, I don't know), the dubbing is so bad in the scene where Suzy talks to the psychiatrist about witches that it actually distracts from the scene, the blood looks like ketchup, and while the soundtrack is haunting at first, it becomes repetitive, annoying, and intrusive as the film continues. Still, SUSPIRIA is much greater than the sum of its parts. 

As you would expect with an Argento film, the direction of the film is fantastic, and it involves some of the most inventive use of color I have ever seen in my life. The opening scene (see the picture above) is absolutely fantastic, as it manages to effectively scare the audience while having a very nice death sequence, and on top of that, it sets the tone for the entire movie. It's honestly one of the most effective opening scenes in the entire genre. I loved Jessica Harper in PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974), and (pretty unpopular opinion here) I adored her role in the generally disliked movie SHOCK TREATMENT (1981), so naturally I loved her as Suzy Bannion here. The film works very well as a twisted and disturbing adult fairy tale, something that the DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (2010) remake tried and failed to do. The death scenes (while there aren't as many as in, say, an '80s splatter film) are, mostly, incredibly interesting, inventive, and terrifying. The snoring of Helena was very, very creepy, especially the last of the two times we hear it. The tension in this film builds wonderfully, making the murder sequences, complete with pounding music and non-stop scares, even more amazing. Every single shot of this film is a work of art, the colors and angles all used exceptionally.

In conclusion, SUSPIRIA is one of the best horror movies from the 20th century, and is a must-see for fans of the genre. I do recommend multiple viewings if you disliked it, because I only really started to appreciate how this wasn't really a film, more like a nightmarish, violent fairy tale after re-watching. While I love it, I cannot bring myself to give it anything higher than a 9.5 because it does have flaws and I still don't love it as much as some other people do (maybe in a couple of months I'll rewatch it and change the score to a 10), but it is still highly, highly recommended. 

The Shining (1980)

STANLEY KUBRICK

THE SHINING

USA, 1980

10/10

"I can remember when I was a little boy. My grandmother and I could hold conversations entirely without ever opening our mouths. She called it 'shining.' And for a long time, I thought it was just the two of us that had the shine to us. Just like you probably thought you was the only one. But there are other folks, though mostly they don't know it, or don't believe it."

THE SHINING (1980) is my all-time favorite horror film. Everything about the film, from the performances to the colors to the scenery and more is completely flawless. It is one of those films that you need to see in order to call yourself a horror fan. From the opening shot of Jack's car (complete with a famous error in the fact that you can see the shadow of the helicopter that shot was filmed in) and the unnerving soundtrack, you know you are in for a creepy journey.

The film is over 2 hours long, something very rarely heard of in mainstream horror, but the film never bores its viewer, even with the slightly slow pace. Those accustomed to the in-your-face jump scares of the recent horror films may find this movie dull and slow, yet Kubrick is masterfully building tension that pays off in a brilliant finale (the last 30 minutes of the film being incredibly creepy). When I first watched this movie, I wondered why some scenes were in there, because at the time I thought them to be irrelevant. For example, I initially found the interaction between Jack and Lloyd the Bartender to be boring and too drawn out, but now I see how it serves a very specific purpose in the plot of the movie.

There are many infamous scares featured in this film. Almost everyone has heard of the the twin girls in the hallway early on in the film, or the shot of Jack sticking his head through the broken bathroom door and saying "Here's Johnny!", but the entire film packs nonstop scares, thrills, and tension that become more and more unnerving the more times the film is viewed. This film is a perfect example of how to properly execute a non-ironic descent into darkness and insanity. 

Jack Nicholson gives a wonderful performance as the insane Jack Torrence, while some people criticize his performance as being comedic at some point (I've heard people say that they laughed while he describes his dream of killing Wendy and Danny, though I find no such comedy in that scene), or as not portraying Jack the way Stephen King described him in the original novel (Nicholson makes it seem that Jack was always slightly insane, whereas in the novel, is insanity is fully provoked by the hotel). Some critics make fun of Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrence (she even was nominated for a Razzie award, an award for worst actress), but I, as well as many other modern day viewers, absolutely adore her performance. Duvall makes me care more about what happens to Wendy more than what happens to any of the other characters. Danny Lloyd gives a surprisingly good portrayal of Danny Torrence, even though is still very young. All in all, THE SHINING's performances are stellar, some of the best you'll find in horror films.

In conclusion, THE SHINING is a rare gem in the genre. I recommend for fans of the novel to treat THE SHINING as a movie separate from the book, because when viewed as an adaptation it's pretty shitty, and all around nothing like the book, but when viewed as a separate work it's one of the best films ever made. It is a truly horrifying film that will stick itself into your head and never let go.

The Omen (2006)

JOHN MOORE

THE OMEN

USA, 2006

2/10

REMAKE OF THE OMEN (1976)

"When the Jews return to Zion, and a comet fills the sky, and the holy Roman Empire rises, then you and I must die. From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against his brother, until man exists no more."

The year was 2005, and some Hollywood executive somewhere thought "Whoa, it's gonna be 6/6/06 next year, quick, let's just quickly throw together a remake of a wonderful film and turn it into a underwhelming, unoriginal, boring, bastardization of a film to make some quick money!"

I'm pretty sure something that almost every horror fan agrees on is that, most of the time, remakes suck. There are obvious exceptions, two of my favorite films are remakes: THE THING (1982) and THE FLY (1986). But, generally, we can all agree that remakes are, most of the time, just boring horse shit released to make money in a genre that movie producers just don't seem to understand any more. And the remake of the classic 1976 film THE OMEN is no exception.

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about a remake is: why? I thought that when I heard about THE WICKER MAN (2006), or BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006), or HALLOWEEN (2007), or countless others. I mean, all the original films are good enough that they stand on their own, and don't need to be remade. And THE OMEN (1976) is one of those films. But if there's one thing you can count on Hollywood for it's churning out remake after remake just to make money. And I do keep seeing them out of curiosity, so I guess I'm part of the problem here.

The kid who plays Damien here obviously feels he's mastered the "creepy kid stare" because that's what he does the entire film, although he hasn't. A fucking feather is more threatening than Damien in this. And he's nowhere near as creepy as the original Damien was. Liev Schreiber does surprisingly well as Robert Thorn, though not nearly as good as Gregory Peck was in the original.

Something that bothers me much about this remake is that it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. The good remakes I mentioned before, THE THING and THE FLY, are both very different from the original (THE THING is actually a re-adaptation of the story "Who Goes There?" but I'm just calling it a remake for the purposes of this review), and are a re-imagination of the story that is still excellent as its own movie, and still pays homage to the original. If only we still made remakes like this. THE OMEN (2006), however, is different. It's not a shot-for-shot remake (the one thing this movie has going for it) like PSYCHO (1998), but it's pretty close. Many shots are set up in the exact same way as the original, the script brings no new structure, Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber are much too young to play that characters they were cast for, and even talented members of the cast, like Mia Farrow, deliver boring, lifeless performances. THE OMEN is just an all-around horrible film.

While some may believe I am being too harsh on this film, it's honestly just horrid, and nothing new is brought to the table. Even if you're unfamiliar with the story and have never seen the original, it's still remarkably underwhelming and boring. While the film's climax is slightly entertaining, it's nowhere near as wonderful as that in the 1976 one. Stick to the original here. 

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

ROMAN POLANSKI

ROSEMARY'S BABY

USA, 1968

10/10

"You're trying to get me to be his mother." "Aren't you his mother?"

ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968) may be one of the few technically perfect films ever created. Everything, from the screenwriting to the acting to the direction to the pacing, every little detail, of this film is flawless. It is often described as being in a Satanic Trilogy of sorts with THE EXORCIST (1973) and THE OMEN (1976), though ROSEMARY'S BABY is the far superior over the other two films (though, honestly, I find THE EXORCIST scarier, but as far as film making, there's no debate, this film is top-notch).

This film may be the perfect example of subtle suggestion. Upon initial viewing, one may find oneself believing that the film is moving too slow, but in reality, Polanski is merely hinting upon the greater reality at hand. And what a wonderful, twisted, and terrifying reality it is. Sure, because of all the build-up (over two hours worth of it), one may believe that the finale fails to deliver, but I couldn't disagree more. (Very, very small spoilers are ahead) From the second Rosemary walks in to the apartment of the Castevet's, my eyes were glued to the screen, and I sat on the edge of my seat. As Mia Farrow's lullaby begins playing in the background once more, and the screen finally goes to black, I still sat there, transfixed upon the film that I had just watched, or rather, experienced. I stayed there for five minutes before I finally got up, just in awe of the wonderful work of art that had been presented before me.

A huge factor in horror is how the film holds up to rewatch. Out of my top five horror films (in no particular order, THE SHINING (1980), PSYCHO (1960), THE EXORCIST, HALLOWEEN (1978) and ROSEMARY'S BABY), I find myself returning to ROSEMARY'S BABY much more often than any of the others. And the film is so wonderful at foreshadowing and subtle hints that I love finding pieces of information hinting towards the direction in which the film is going.

The acting in the film is wonderful, Mia Farrow being able to completely convince and demonstrate the pains of her pregnancy, those both natural and supernatural. The Castevets are both wonderful, giving off the feeling of being friendly and supportive, though something darker lurking underneath. Ruth Gordon was awarded an Oscar for her role, and she definitely deserves it.

To fans of psychological and supernatural horror, ROSEMARY'S BABY is highly recommended, being not only one of the best horror films of all time, but one of the best films in all of cinematic history.

The Fog (1980)

JOHN CARPENTER

THE FOG

USA, 1980

7.5/10

"I don't know what happened to Antonio Bay tonight. Something came out of the fog and tried to destroy us. In one moment, it vanished. But if this has been anything but a nightmare, and if we don't wake up to find ourselves safe in our beds, it could come again. To the ships at sea who can hear my voice, look across the water, into the darkness. Look for the fog."

This is not John Carpenter's best film in any sense (HALLOWEEN (1978) and THE THING (1982) taking the cake on that title), but THE FOG (1980) is a still a creepy, atmospheric, supernatural horror film that holds up to this day. Carpenter does once again what he was able to do with HALLOWEEN: take a film with a rather small budget (though THE FOG had a larger budget than HALLOWEEN, it was still rather cheap) and give it the appearance of costing a lot more than it did. While the film made 22 million dollars (which is good considering its budget of 1 million), it is not as impressive as the 47 million HALLOWEEN made. Still, I believe THE FOG to be a wonderful film for what it sets out to be: a small, atmospheric film, relying more on the tone of the film than any impressive special effects. This is why Carpenter is my favorite horror director. Sure, his plots are never life changing, and besides THE THING, his films are never filled with spectacular effects, but he manages to create wonderfully atmospheric films and has proved to be the best when it comes to slowly building tension.

And this film is no exception. From the opening scene on the beach to the final shot, this film kept me on the edge of my seat, although I believe the film really takes off when Father Malone reads from the journal he finds. 

We never clearly see the creatures in the fog, which I believe adds to their threat. Their glowing eyes, hooks, and large, threatening bodies help their mystery. The fog they enter through in, though its glow is incredibly unrealistic and fake-looking, it is still quite eerie and allows for a lot of tension. 

Overall, the character development and plot is missing in this film, but it's still creepy, atmospheric, and a personal favorite. If you forgive its mistakes, you will be in for a nice, fun, creepy film.