The Hidden is great. The ‘80s Blob is good too, much better than the original.

     Awwright awwright awwrighhht! October, baby!!!! Jack-o-lanterns purdy leaves and brisk breezes, and I see we're already gettin' into the spirit in the proper way!!! I'm taking note of all of the above, and filling the gaps in my "seen" list as fast as my two eyes can carry me. Got me a fresh subscription to Shudder and a 7–day free trial of Full Moon for good measure. My reason for the latter: I learned the hard way that Shudder's print of Stuart Gordon's 1995 Castle Freak is a shitty transfer in claustrophobic 4:3 with bad audio to boot, only to then discover that Full Moon has a nice clean RESTORED version in the proper aspect ratio. So I had to grab that 7–day trial. 

     Speaking of clean prints, that Scanners gif was probably made from the recent Criterion release, I'm guessing. But I'm also digressing...

     I can tell already I won't be keeping the Full Moon subscription, so the next five days I'll have my work cut out for me as I grab what entertainment I can from that channel before the trial expires. I do love me some Full Moon fare; they've given us some gems over the years, and even their lumps of coal have their redeeming qualities. One definitely can't judge these books by their covers; you never know what a Full Moon production is gonna throw at you, and what their flicks often glaringly lack in terms of, well... almost everything (acting, sfx, dialog) is usually made up for in terms of originality and willingness to take things wayyy beyond what is conventionally acceptable, along with a palpable sense of sincere love for the genre, the absence of which is so sickeningly apparent in the mindless paint–by–numbers afterthoughts squirted out by more prestigious and well–funded studio snobs (so cower beneath the mercilessness of my mighty comma splices, which are in no way compensatory)!

     I have to voice my disappointment in finding that even with the relatively pricey subscription to their channel, one still doesn't get access to the entire Full Moon catalog. I'll still have to pay extra if I want to see Lurking Fear or Dark Angel: The Ascent... and I do want to see them, so our friends at Full Moon will probably wind up getting those big dollaz out of me, too. Still, between those two channels I have more than enough to keep my mind occupied, and I AM licking my chops to see Nemesis and Hideous! 

     Browsing these two libraries has reminded me of how some nights I have so much fun watching the trailers, I never get around to actually watching a movie before turning in for the night, and yet I still feel I've been entertained to satisfaction. Has anyone else here experienced that? Just dial up a bunch of trailers and wind up making a night of it? Of course some trailers are the best part about a movie (case in point: Treasure of the Four Crowns, which incidentally wears a crown for me personally as Number One Most Torturously Terrible Movie through Which I Have Ever Suffered). Developing a sense for when this is the case can be a tremendous time–saver! I can enjoy a feature–length movie in just two minutes, and not even feel like I'm missing out. On the contrary, I may have enjoyed the movie even more than if I had actually watched it! 

     I will say that even though Shudder has a restoration of Threads (in case anyone is interested), I think I'm too scared to watch that one. I can't tell if the film would seem dated by today's standards, but I don't think I want to find out. Give me all the gut–pulling, face–eating virgin–molesting mad scientists demons and deformed abominable freaks that my screen can fit in frame, but the subject matter of something like Threads... too real for me, on most days at least. 

My first viewing of Castle Freak! 
     I refuse to leave this Earth without having seen every flick starring Jeffery Combs if I can at all help it, and Barbara Crampton will always be welcome, having earned her lifetime membership to my Beloved club for what she gave the world as Megan Halsey in Re–Animator. The same intensity with which those two enhanced that classic tour de force regrettably boils into a natural disaster of overacting in Castle Freak. Perhaps they were struggling with the unforgivably bad script. I mean that writing is so irredeemably dismal that I have to assume it's because the writer is also one of the producers. That's the only logical explanation. About ten minutes into Castle Freak I was beginning to believe I had made a mistake. Then in came the cavalry. Have no fear, Rampop! Castle Freak to the rescue!!! What gloriously twisted times were had, then! That pervy fucker shuffled right across the line of decency! Didn't pass "Go," didn't collect no two hundred Lire. Who, but who these days has the cojones to release something this crazy? 

     Don't get me wrong, it's still not a good movie, but those freaky freak scenes make it all worthwhile, and I regret nothing. All–in–all it's one of those bad movies with enough promising elements to make one dream of what it could've been, and what a proper remake could be (if anybody had the balls for it). And yes, I am aware of the 2020 remake (or "reboot" if you like), but I did say proper remake, and while I've only seen the trailer for it, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and presume it's one book that can be judged by its cover, which is far from a pretty sight. If anyone cares to step up as a character witness and say the 2020 Castle Freak is actually not bad, I might be willing to let it go to appeals. Until then I'm prepared to throw the case out for lack of merit.

Honorable mention goes to a (sadly uncredited) ginger shorthair's stellar ten–clawed performance, reminiscent of Boris' unforgettable portrayal of the legendary Jonesy.



 

Last edited by Rampop II (10/06/2022 11:47 pm)

Drugs!

Alcohol!

Drurgs!


 

Rampop II wrote:

My first viewing of Castle Freak! 
     I refuse to leave this Earth without having seen every flick starring Jeffery Combs if I can at all help it, and Barbara Crampton will always be welcome, having earned her lifetime membership to my Beloved club for what she gave the world as Megan Halsey in Re–Animator. The same intensity with which those two enhanced that classic tour de force regrettably boils into a natural disaster of overacting in Castle Freak. Perhaps they were struggling with the unforgivably bad script. I mean that writing is so irredeemably dismal that I have to assume it's because the writer is also one of the producers. That's the only logical explanation. About ten minutes into Castle Freak I was beginning to believe I had made a mistake. Then in came the cavalry. Have no fear, Rampop! Castle Freak to the rescue!!! What gloriously twisted times were had, then! That pervy fucker shuffled right across the line of decency! Didn't pass "Go," didn't collect no two hundred Lire. Who, but who these days has the cojones to release something this crazy? 

     Don't get me wrong, it's still not a good movie, but those freaky freak scenes make it all worthwhile, and I regret nothing. All–in–all it's one of those bad movies with enough promising elements to make one dream of what it could've been, and what a proper remake could be (if anybody had the balls for it). And yes, I am aware of the 2020 remake (or "reboot" if you like), but I did say proper remake, and while I've only seen the trailer for it, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and presume it's one book that can be judged by its cover, which is far from a pretty sight. If anyone cares to step up as a character witness and say the 2020 Castle Freak is actually not bad, I might be willing to let it go to appeals. Until then I'm prepared to throw the case out for lack of merit.

Honorable mention goes to a (sadly uncredited) ginger shorthair's stellar ten–clawed performance, reminiscent of Boris' unforgettable portrayal of the legendary Jonesy.



 

I think this one has a following, but I remember being really put off by how low budget it felt. The TV movie vibes defeated whatever Gordon & co were trying to do.

Also, I haven't tried Full Moon's subscription service, but when I ordered some DVDs from them, I got hit by a ridiculous shipping fee.

Rock wrote:

Pearl

I guess I'm going to have to watch this.  Maybe Ti can win me back.

     I think I'll try refraining from ratings altogether for a while. I just can't get comfortable with them. Even aside from the fact that a singular scale of 1–5 or 1–10 or 7–88.1 is inherently oversimplified, like an IQ test score, beyond that I say, my impressions are proving too fluid. How I feel about a movie during the viewing experience, how I feel immediately after the credits roll, and how I feel about it the following day and following weeks, is far from static. I lack any objective set of metrics to arrive at a rigid and definitive conclusion. Sure I can easily delineate distinctions in extreme circumstances, when something is either so awful or so tremendous that my opinions are almost certain to remain unchanged to any significant extent. Outside of that, though, things get too slippery and just refuse to behave. The fact that I can love a particular trash movie and hate a given quality piece of work is only one ladle's worth of the soup. Experiments have shown that parole hearings are less likely to go favorably for the prisoner in question if the hearing is held in late morning/before lunch time, when parole board members are more likely to be low on calories. Any number of factors can influence my reception. And any set of metrics can be defied by my true feelings. Something could be highly unoriginal with bad acting and tired clichés and nevertheless I have a great time, so either the movie must have done some-thing right, or I just have bad taste. 

     I wrote up Emily the Criminal as "otherwise ok" outside of Plaza's million–star performance (she really does kill in that movie no pun intended). But "ok" wasn't my original impression. My first impression was "decent enough." That may sound like splitting hairs, or like a small matter of degrees between the two descriptors, but in my case it was a downgrade from "decent enough" on the night of to "ok" the next morning. How did it happen? Maybe I second–guessed myself, started seeing imperfections, doubting my objectivity, trying to imagine what the movie would have been without Plaza... overthinking it to death. Did I like the fucking movie or not? Did it manipulate me into complicity or did it not? Can I really say the directing, cinematography, supporting cast, and score were inconsequential? Was I invested? Yes! Did I feel the intensity? Fuck yes! So do I care if the story wasn't 1000% original, or if it wouldn't have been as good without its star? Isn't that some bullshit hypothetical? They DID have that star, and crafted the creation accordingly, and maybe they were smart enough to not even consider making the movie at all without her, or would have made a different movie altogether, or would have found some other strength to capitalize on. My true feeling was that Jonothan Avigdori's character was genuinely scary and a highlight. But the next day I somehow convinced myself that, from some objective point–of–view, he was probably too scary, in a one–dimensional stock villain kind of way. What is wrong with me? Why should I fucking care? Am I some pretentious dilettante? A wannabe snob? Did his performance work, or did it not? Yes it fucking worked; so who cares if he's not a billion–sided diamond of human complexity? That wasn't his job!  I feel like I'm just giving myself hairy palms with these futile attempts at dissecting the experience. I'm not knocking the practice of analyzing a film, but I question whether it's working out for me to analyze my way to arriving at a rating. It's great to examine, and to be able to articulate why I do or don't like something, but I've gotta allow myself permission to be ok with it when I don't have an answer. 

     Mark Hamill: "We were doing the scene... it was right after we got out of the trash compactor. We hadn't filmed that scene yet. And I'm looking at the continuity, and I said, 'Well wait a second, this is right after we've gotten out of the trash compactor. Shouldn't my hair be all wet, and matted, with schmutz all through it?' And [Harrison] turns to me and says 'Hey, kid, it ain't that kind of movie. If people are looking at your hair, we're all in big trouble.'" 

     So last night I gave a "five" to Hideous!  And that was probably fair. But I went to bed satisfied. I had planned to make it a double–feature with Netherworld, but by the end of Hideous! I was ready for bed, and I didn't feel like I was missing out. My cinematic appetite was satiated. Tonight I watched Jakob's Wife. I loved certain moments and I cringed at others. I even applauded at one point (yeah, I do that sometimes, even though I live alone and I'm aware the tv can't hear me). I ultimately think it pushed its thematic angle too overtly. That sounds wonky as hell but I do stand by it. Still, by some standards one might easily conclude that Jakob's Wife is the "better" of the two movies. Neither are great nor terrible; we are in the middle ranks here for certain. I could analyze and dissect this and that, but a more accurate measurement might be based on this: when Jakob's Wife was over, even though I enjoyed it, I wasn't ready for bed like I had been the night before. I didn't want to stay up, but I wasn't satisfied. Some cinematic nutrients were still missing and I felt compelled to throw in another movie, in spite of my better judgment that would have me turn in for the night. What did Hideous! have that Jakob's Wife didn't? Instead of stars or thumbs, the metric becomes something like whether or not I wanted to watch another movie afterwards, or whether I was happy to brush my teeth and hit the hay. 

     Good grief, now it's 5am my time. Good thing it's Saturday, but I did agree to meet a friend at Alki Beach at 2pm. I'm my own worst enemy. Hopefully the smoke from the wildfires won't be too bad. That shit gives me rashes and headaches. Goddamn wildfires. ("Ya gotta rake the leaves," right?) 

     Oh, the movie I chased Jakob's Wife with? Society. Finally got around to seeing it. Good times were had. I still didn't go to bed, though. Came to Plato Shrimp instead. Does that mean I liked Hideous! more than Society and Jakob's Wife combined? Or is it just that the Shrimp is so good? Maybe it's the wildfires, maybe it's something I ate, maybe it's just the fact that it's Friday. But I'm old and I don't give a shit what day it is. 

     It's probably the Shrimp. 

Last edited by Rampop II (10/08/2022 7:15 am)

Footprints on the Moon is less giallo and more of a psychological thriller which flirts with some gothic ghost story tropes.  It also tacks on a little conspiracy-paranoia about a botched moon mission that Florinda Bolkan is struggling to fully remember (if they are true memories at all).  Bolkan, of course, is onf the greats of the giallo genre, whose stern, troubled face gives her a haunted, Barbara Steele quality that is advantageous to this kind of material.  Also, Klaus Kinski makes an appearance in a handful of scenes that seem like they were appropriated from a completely different film.

I've only seen one other film from director Luigi Bazzoni, which was the crime thriller The Fifth Cord with Franco Nero.  Both of these films benefited from being lensed by the great Vittorio Storaro (The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris, Apocalypse Now), and the highlight of each film is in the camerawork - rich color, symmetrical composition, clever mise en scene tracking.  In my review of Fifth Cord, I noted the consistent use of shooting through obstructions such as a variety of glass surfaces, screens, blinds to establish its aesthetic.  There's not quite as much as that here, but enough to notice.  How much of this is due to the taste of Bazzoni or Storaro, I'm not sure.  The cinematography also makes wonderful use of its old world Mediterranean setting, with its architecture and stained glass.  Given the film's psychological atmosphere, it strongly resembles De Palma, not due to his influence but because De Palma is well-known to have been heavily inspired by this era of Italian film technique and design.

I'm tempted to push the film up a half-point due to all of the elements that work at its best, but that would also require ignoring the number of the film's not inconsiderable flaws, mostly dealing with it's tortured story and resolution.

7.5/10




Presumably, the "Malatesta" is to distinguish this 1973 film from an earlier 1970 Carnival of Blood.

Extremely amateurish debut (and in fact only) effort from these green filmmakers, the film does, frustratingly, show several glimpses of bold creativity, only to then fall back into lazy utilitarian filmmaking that exposes a tight schedule that requires any and all corner-cutting. Has an early role for Herve Villechez as "Bobo the Dwarf", and character actor Lenny Baker must have seemed like a real 'get' for these guys.  It's not a terribly good movie, and objectively quite trashy, but it also has modest charms and that kind of nightmarish quality that only really poorly-lit surreally inept films can manage to invoke.  In other words, this one may be more up crumbsroom's alley than mine, but I didn't not enjoy much of it (although for some decidedly unintentional reasons).  I wish I had watched what seems to have been the original listed cut, at 74 minutes, which is perfect for this kind of feature.  Unfortunately, the one I saw (which must be the recent Arrow release) clocks in at 106 minutes, and you really feel the stretch of that extra half-hour.

6.5/10




I'll go ahead and tell you.  What happens is a doctor's daughter goes blind and he engages in experiements to transplant new eyes for her to see again.  But of course, he can only use live specimens.  So, basically, it's a mad scientist melodrama, one that formally feels an awful lot like a made-for-TV movie, except with a bit more gore (even of the V8 variety) than would be allowed on television in the 70s.  And like a TV movie, it runs out its welcome around the 48 minute mark, where, with commercials, we would expect it to wrap up.

Since the film itself isn't very interesting, what interests it has is in the confluence of players involved.  Speaking of Full Moon, this is an early Charles Band production.  Director Michael Pataki was a common TV face of the 70s-80s, who happened to also direct the X-rated version of Cinderella (starring Lemora's Cheryl Smith) and voicing the character of 'George Liquor' for Ren & Stimpy.  The doctor is played by Richard Basehart, the dependable character actor most popularly known as the captain of the TV show Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, and co-stars with the similarly "need work for retirement" Gloria Grahame (The Bad & The Beautiful), and features a young Lance Henriksen, in-between roles in Dog Day Afternoon and Close Encounters.

This film is no where as interesting as any of those tidbits.

5/10
 

Jinnistan wrote:

Rampop II wrote:

Threads (in case anyone is interested)

One of Crumbs' faves.

(Eyes of Fire, the one I reviewed on the prior page, is also on Shudder at the moment.)

I noticed Eyes of Fire was on Shudder; I was going to ask you guys' opinion on that one.

So, should I be afraid of Threads? 
I know nobody can answer that question but me, but I still value your opinions. For some perspective, The Killing Fields holds my personal title of "Most Gut–Wrenchingly Terrifying Masterpiece I Have Ever Seen, and Never Wish to See Again." It was hugely beneficial in deepening my historical/geopolitical understanding of the world and of humanity, and if I had to do it again I would still advise myself to watch it. But it's a trauma I wouldn't care to experience a second time. 

Blue Voodoo
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?

crumbsroom wrote:

Malatestas was very much my thing. One of the great joys I came across during the pandemic. It has clunky bits here and there but who cares. It's got a real off balance personality that appeals to me. One of the better film released to shudder under their Regional Horror set (only one of which turned out to be a stinker....I think Fear No Evil)

So did you see the longer version?  I think it would have gone down a lot better at 74 minutes, myself.  And I don't believe I would have missed out on anything essential.