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 Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

JAMES WHALE

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

USA, 1935

10/10

"You think I'm mad. Perhaps I am. But listen, Henry Frankenstein. While you were digging in your graves, piecing together dead tissues, I, my dear pupil, went for my material to the source of life. I grew my creatures, like cultures, grew them as nature does, from seed."

After the success of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), James Whale agreed to do a sequel as long as he had complete creative control. What resulted was THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), one of the best horror films and one of the best sequels of all time. While the original was more of a straight-out horror film, BRIDE adds some self-parody comic relief into the mix, which, while it would seem out of place in the dark tone of the original, works wonderfully here.

The film opens with Mary Shelley, author of the original novel, telling that the story is not over, as she begins to tell the tale of the bride. While this story-telling device is very over-used nowadays, I do think it works very well here, especially since the same actress who plays Mary Shelley comes back into the movie at the end, this time in the role of the Bride. Also, Mary's storytelling never gets in the way of the story. It is introduced in the opening scene, and then pushed aside to make room for the fantastic film that follows, unlike how many films today that use that device constantly remind the audience of the fact that it's all a story.

The character of the Monster sees much character development in this film. Whereas in the original, he was a grunting, powerful figure, leaving a trail of destruction behind in his wake, in this film, he attempts to find a place where he belongs. We see him bond with a blind hermit who plays the violin and teaches him some words ("Bread. Good. Fire not good. Fire bad."). While Boris Karloff was against the idea of making the Monster talk (even though he does in the original novel), it does make the character seem largely sympathetic, and isn't that one of the points of the Frankenstein stories?

Lots of people say that BRIDE is better than the original FRANKENSTEIN, and I honestly would have to agree. A sequel is hard to do, especially when it isn't a planned sequel, or when the original is as amazing as FRANKENSTEIN was, but Whale proves that it is possible to make a sequel that's even better than the original. The set pieces in this film, largely influenced by German expressionism, are amazing, and the Creation scene off the Bride manages to be even more spectacular than the amazing Creation scene of the Monster in FRANKENSTEIN. BRIDE seems much more epic to me, whereas FRANKENSTEIN was very much a more tightly plotted film. Both methods work very, very well for each film, I just personally prefer BRIDE. 

A problem with this film is that all of the characters have become so iconic and familiar, and every shot has become so deep rooted in our popular culture that, by the time we see both films, many things are familiar. Even though the Bride is only unveiled towards the end of the film, we have all seen her and we all know what she looks like and how she reacts upon seeing the Monster. We've all see it before, we've all heard it before. But that still doesn't mean that this film isn't intriguing and interesting, because it is. 

As I said before, this film is injected with comedy, something that fans of the dark and grim original may find alienating, but I promise that if you sit back without any ideas about what you want the film to be and you let it present itself to you for what it is, you will discover that it is a very good, very enjoyable film, and an absolutely must-see for classic horror fans and, quite honestly, should be viewed by everyone at some point in their lives.

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

GEORGE MIHALKA

MY BLOODY VALENTINE

CANADA, 1981

7.5/10

"From the heart comes a warning, filled with bloody good cheer, remember what happened as the 14th draws near!"

The 1980s, what a time for horror the 1980s were. Following the huge success of HALLOWEEN (1978) and FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980), many slashers based on certain days were created. We got NEW YEAR'S EVIL (1980), PROM NIGHT (1980), SLIENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984), and many others. And probably one of the best of those films, and, in my opinion, one of the best non-franchise horror films of the '80s was MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981).

The plot is pretty simple. Two security guards at the mine hurry away to get to a Valentine's day party in time, forgetting to check the methane levels. There's an explosion, and the miners are stuck in the cave, only one surviving: Harry Warden, who had to eat the flesh of the other miners to survive. After a year at a mental hospital, he breaks free and kills the two security guards responsible, and warns the town never to celebrate Valentine's Day again. 20 years later, the town decides to hold another Valentine's dance, and sure enough, the killing starts again.

This film is famous because the MPAA forced it to cut out a lot of its gore (and the gore in this is very impressive for a kinda low-budget flick), but nowadays it can be viewed in all of its gory glory on the uncut DVD. True, the added footage is a little grainy, but seeing as it has been on the side for 30-ish years, it's rather good. Many kills are interesting and creative, with many rather effective jump scares.

There are a lot of characters, some of them are not memorable and are paper-thin. There are a lot of cliches, like the jokester, and an older bartender who warns the young characters (not teenagers, just young) is very similar to Ralp from FRIDAY THE 13TH. The four or five more main characters are a bit more complex and interesting. They are still not great characters, but they are believable and real enough that I care what happens to them. Since there are a lot of characters, there are also a lot of actors, and a lot of the acting is nothing remarkable. However, a lot of the lead roles do very well, and we don't watch slashers to see Oscar-worthy acting, we watching slashers to see a bunch of people get cut up creatively.

The director does a very good job creating the atmosphere. The opening scene is very surreal and dreamlike, yet a horrific act still occurs, which perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie. In the beginning, we see Valentine Bluffs, a town covered in pink and red hearts and banners declaring the upcoming Valentine's dance, yet we still feel a sense of foreboding. Later in the movie, the scene involving the descending suits is very suspenseful. When some of the characters descend into the mine for the climax of the movie (filmed in an actual Nova Scotian mine), it is very claustrophobic and creepy. I think it compares best to the recent british horror, THE DESCENT (2005). The scene where four of the characters climb the ladder was very tense and created a very large sense of anxiety. The shot of the killer knocking out the lights in the mine with his pickaxe is very creepy.

Everything about the killer is scary, really. I mean, I find gas masks pretty fucking creepy, and they make the whole "heavy breathing" cliche even more distinct and creepy. The costume really hides the killer's identity, whether it's Harry Warden or any of the other characters killing people is pretty hard to tell. I don't really like the twist at the end just because it wasn't executed very well, but the last line of the film is still really, really creepy.

In conclusion, this is one of, in my opinion, the better 1980s slasher films. Though the plot is lackluster and the actors/characters leave much to be desired, it's still a very effective, atmospheric horror flick. Try to watch the gorier uncut version, but the original cut is still pretty effective.

Inside (2007)

ALEXANDRE BUSTILLO, JULIEN MAURY

INSIDE

FRANCE, 2007

6.5/10

"There's a strange woman by my door. Please hurry up. I don't know what she wants. She knows my name... she knows everything about me..."

Since I reviewed MARTYRS (2008) yesterday, I thought it might be fun if I reviewed another French film viewed as highly disturbing, INSIDE (2007).

This review is covered with various spoilers, some small, others larger, continue reading at your own discretion. 

When the film came out, I heard it praised by various genre fans as one of the scariest, brutal, most disturbing films in recent years, and so naturally, I had to check it out. The fact that I had nightmares as a child both about someone stabbing people with a pair of scissors and another about someone cutting an unborn fetus out of another person's uterus made me think that this film was perfect for me (the shot above of a pair of scissors stabbed through the protagonist's hand was literally a recurring nightmare I had as a kid). And so I went into this film with huge, huge expectations.

Despite a very weak opening scene (the CGI baby? really?), although I loved the windshield wiper still running against the broken window, the first 30 to 40 minutes were probably my favorite part of the film. The scene with La Femme at Sarah's door, asking her to let her in literally had me cowering in my seat more than any of the brutal violence that followed. The quick shot of her lighting her cigarette made me think for a second that Le Femme was in fact the nurse who smoked and talked to Sarah at the beginning of the film, an absolutely excellent red herring. I do believe that once La Femme was in the house and we got a good look at her, a lot of the tension was lost, but before we see her face, the shots of her just standing in the darkness are incredibly creepy. 

And then, after 30 minutes of exposition, we get what we paid for: to be grossed out and see just how much blood La Femme can manage to shed. Because of this, I'd like to propose a couple of alternate titles for INSIDE. Perhaps, PARTY AT SARAH'S? Or maybe 101 INVENTIVE USES FOR HOUSEHOLD SCISSORS. And there are quite a few uses of these scissors, my favorite obviously being the stabbed-hand shot (it also didn't help that I have an almost identical pair of scissors with are sitting on the table directly adjacent to me as I type this). The bathroom is probably my favorite set in the entire film, as red blood looks amazing against the clean white background of the room. The entire film is incredibly brutal and gory, which is really the only reason you watch this film: to see the gore.

The film is not without fault, though. It features some of the most idiotic policemen captured on film, it's repetitive, and even though it's pretty short, during the last 10 minutes, I was simply waiting for it to end. The zombie policeman (if you've seen the film you know exactly what I'm talking about) was useless, boring, and just downright not scary. The CGI shots (the aforementioned fetus shots, the scene were Sarah burns La Femme's face off) look horrible and inspire eye rolls instead of screams. The twist ending involving La Femme's identity is horrible (like, yeah, Sarah was told that everyone died in the crash, but surely she would have seen photos of the woman who died in the car they crashed into? Surely, Sarah would recognize her instantly?), and Sarah is somewhat unrelatable, as she is written as being detached from her friends and family, but the only thing this succeeds in doing is making Sarah detached from the audience as well. Honestly, the film is very, very good until La Femme cuts the lights, then it just goes downhill. 

I mainly watched this film just because I wanted to see if La Femme ever cut Sarah's stomach open and pulled the baby out. As I mentioned earlier, I had a nightmare about that as a kid, and the thing that made me want to watch this the most was the fact that that might be in there. I'm not going to say whether or not that happens, I just wanted to include that's mainly why I watched the film, because at the end of the day, people watch this film to see some disgusting pieces of blood and gore. And this film delivers on that. There are many, many, many faults in the film, but the gore makes up for it, and isn't that what we're watching for, anyways?

Martyrs (2008)

PASCAL LAUGIER

MARTYRS

FRANCE, 2008

9/10

"Lucie was only a victim. Like all the others. It's so easy to create a victim, young lady, so easy. You lock someone in a dark room. They begin to suffer. You feed that suffering. Methodically, systematically and coldly. And make it last. Your subject goes through a number of states. After a while, their trauma; that small, easily opened crack, makes them see things that don't exist."

Grisly, graphic, and brutal, MARTYRS (2008) has gained quite a lot of publicity as being an incredibly disturbing horror film. This is another film that I watched for the first time last night, even though I've been meaning to watch it for a very, very long time.

Going into MARTYRS, I had quite a few ideas of what I expected this movie to be. I thought that what would make the movie disturbing would be HOSTEL or SAW levels of gore, I thought it would be a mindless flick that shed more blood than needed. I thought it would be various situations created for the use of gore for gore's sake, that there would be no higher purpose to the film. And boy, was I wrong. MARTYRS does have gore, true, but it is not overplayed, and honestly there are films which are much, much gorier. Not to say that it isn't gory, it is, just not as much as you may expect. MARTYRS instead disturbs you by the way it handles the gore, the way it shows the tortures for what they, not glorifying them in any way.

This is why I don't like why I have seen some people on the Internet refer to this as "torture porn". I'm already not a big fan of the term, but MARTYRS is not torture porn. Unlike HOSTEL, it does not glorify the violence, not does it attempt to entertain (more on that later) using the violence. MARTYRS exists to make you feel uncomfortable, to disturb you. Sure, there may be a few people who enjoy the gore in this, but on the whole it exists for upset the viewer more than anything.

As I mentioned earlier, MARTYRS is not meant to entertain. That may sound weird, seeing as don't all movies exist to entertain? This film, however, does not. It exists to make you incredibly uncomfortable and shocked, and it certainly does that. Everything else about this film is top-class. The cinematography and gore effects are both amazing, the soundtrack (though there is very little of it) is incredibly effective and adds to the experience of this film. The acting is fantastic, and the characters are interesting, complex, and believable  As much as I love popcorn films and mindless slashers, this film is on a tier above the rest. It is dark, shocking, and atmospheric. Though it is an incredibly uncomfortable experience, I recommend that everyone watched this film. There is not much that one can say about this film, so I recommend that you watch it for yourself.

Braindead/Dead Alive (1992)

PETER JACKSON

BRAINDEAD/DEAD ALIVE

NEW ZEALAND, 1992

8/10

"Stand back, boy! This calls for divine intervention! I kick ass for the Lord!"

Last night, for the first time, I watched BRAINDEAD (1992), it's been on my watch list for over a year, and I decided to finally view it and then review it for this blog.

Smart, funny, and downright disgusting, Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD is a masterpiece in the horror-comedy genre (you read that right, the LORD OF THE RINGS director made one of the goriest zombie films of all time). Now, I'm not usually a fan of slapstick comedy, and as much as I love EVIL DEAD (1981) and its sequels, I never found them funny (I know that the original EVIL DEAD was just a plain horror, but the others were slapstick comedies), and so I had pretty low expectations for this film. However, I actually found this film very funny (still not hilarious, which it why it's not a 10/10 or even a 9/10, but I did chuckle at some points). People who watch this film no doubt remember many lines, such as the aforementioned "I kick ass for the Lord!", or "Your mother ate my dog!" "Not all of it", or even "We don't sell sedatives! Tranquilizers, I do have." It is the combination of not only slapstick humor but also generally witty and amusing dialogue that places this movie as my favorite slapstick comedy. 

The film also has one of the best taglines ever: "Some things won't stay down...even after they're dead." It truly lets you know you are in for a gory ride. There are some wonderful events in the film, from a rat monkey to humping zombies to a zombie baby to a priest using the martial arts to a Jack-o-Lantern type of lit up zombie. What more could you ask for in a slapstick film?

The film takes a while to get in to the huge amounts of blood and gore that it is famous for. It introduces its characters, Lionel and Paquita, develops their relationship, and while the zombies begin very quickly, this film isn't a bloodbath until the last 35 minutes. The plot is very minimal and has been used time and time again, but this film isn't supposed to have a killer plot. It sets out to make you laugh and do exceed your wildest expectations with, literally, gallons and gallons and gallons of blood (five gallons per second in the lawnmower scene). I was told the amount of blood in this would exceed my expectations, so I expected blood on the level of EVIL DEAD, but I ended up getting way more than that.

So if you're looking for a fun popcorn movie to watch with your friends that aren't squeamish, this is it. You'll laugh, smile, be a little disgusted, but ultimately come back for more. Highly recommended. 

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.