Review: Fright Night (1985)

Man, what a fun movie.

That's really all there is to say about this film, when you get down to it.  This tale of teenager Charley (William Ragsdale), who happens to find out that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Chris Sarandon) is a vampire, is an amusing romp with some genuinely thrilling sequences and some top-notch performances.  It is, in my opinion, the better of the two teen-oriented vampire movies of the 80s (though The Lost Boys is still fun), and the only thing keeping it from being the best of the decade is the decidedly different approach of Near Dark.

Even parts of the movie that people generally dislike about this film I have a fondness for: 'Evil' Ed might drive the audience crazy, but that's only because actor Stephen Geoffreys absolutely nails the character.  Sometimes teenagers are annoying, and Geoffreys conveys that so well people end up hating the character far more than he deserves.

The only thing I fault this movie for is one that the pacing between Charley's discovery of his neighbor's vampiric nature and his finally going to TV host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) feels off.  It's the only part of the movie I find draggy, even if there are a few amusing bits during it.  Perhaps a tightening of the scene with the police, or a shorter interlude between Charley's mother Judy (Dorothy Fielding) Peter and the latter's late-night visit might have helped.  It's doesn't derail the movie, but the tempo takes a moment to correct itself.

However, once Peter is introduced into the film, it is smooth sailing from then on.  The shared scene between him, Ed, and Charley's girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) is a great mix of personality types and understated comedic interplay, and once all of our main characters are together, the movie is basically firing on all cylinders and it is just enjoying the ride until the film ends.

A great deal of credit goes to director Tom Holland, who mixes the comedy, suspense, and horror like a master.  There is a genuine love not just for the genre, but for this particular type of movie that bleeds into every reel and elevates what would normally be standard schlock and turns it into something special.

So yeah, I recommend this to anyone that enjoys horror and even some of those that don't.  And a double feature with this and The Lost Boys is always a good idea.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Company of Wolves (1984)

The following is a (slightly) dramatized transcription of the conversation between my self and BroVamp while watching this movie, similar to with Ginger Snaps:

Me: Tonight's movie is going to be The Company of Wolves.

BV: What's it about?

Me: I know it is a werewolf movie and it has Angela Lansbury in it.

BV: Do pets die in this one?  I don't want to see that tonight.

Me: (checks the Internet) Are we concerned about pets, or all animals?

BV: Cats and dogs.

Me: We should be good.

(We watch the first part of the movie)

BV: What just happened?

Me: I think the we went from the girl sleeping to her dream.

BV: Did she die?

Me: I think it was her sister?

BV: So if you die in the dream, you die in real life?  Like Nightmare on Elm Street?

Me: No, her sister in the dream died, not her sister in the real world.

BV: Okay

(More of the movie passes)

BV: Angela Lansbury is a great actress.

Me: Remember when I made you watch The Manchurian Candidate?

BV: The remake was better.

Me: *world-weary sigh*

(More of the movie passes)

BV: Are we in a new story?

Me: No, this is Granny (Lansbury) telling Rosalee (Sarah Patterson) a story.  A story within the dream, like an 80s Gothic horror version of Inception.

BV: Okay

(Violence happens within the story)

Me: That is a pretty good transformation scene.

BV: Yeah.

(The werewolf gets decapitated)

BV: That was pretty easy.

Me: Guess it doesn't have to be silver in this one.

(The movie continues)

Me: Would you rather be a werewolf or a vampire?

BV: A vampire

Me: Really?  Why?

BV: More in control, werewolves always end up accidentally killing people they care about.

Me: So, you'd prefer to be a vampire and purposely kill people you don't?

BV: I'm sure I could work something out with the blood bank.

Me: I think most people would go to a butcher...

BV: I imagine I would need A Positive cuz of how smart I am.

(The movie continues)

Me: This movie is a fever dream.

BV: It's good, but it really is.

(The movie continues)

BV: Wait, is the father the scientist from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze?

Me: Yeah, David Warner.  I was wondering if you recognized him.

(The movie ends and the credits roll)

Me: How would you feel if you were credited in a movie as Amorous Boy?

BV: Man, didn't even get a name.

Me: No one did except Rosalee.  Also, I did not know this movie was going to be as weird as it was.

BV: No, it was good.  Sometimes weird is alright.

Me: That is true.

7 out of 10

Review: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

So, a few short days ago I watched the 'classic' The Shining and knew pretty quickly that I was going to be ripping into a movie that many consider amongst the best horror movies ever made.  Today's review is another classic, also from a greatly respected filmmaker - director Werner Herzog - and with bated breath we wonder: will the same thing happen?  Will Poli hate this movie as much as the other?  The answer is no, because this is a much better movie from a much better director.

Now, this is a more artsy version of the Dracula story (the movie does away with the pretense of giving the vampire a different name, unlike the 1922 Nosferatu) and I think whether or not any enjoyment comes from this movie depends on how well the viewer can vibe with what Herzog is going for.  I could, though I will admit the opening parts of the movie somewhat dragged for me.

This movie lives and dies by a twin pair of performances: Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula and Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker.  Though they have little screentime together, but it is very much a duo of performances, both reacting to events happening across the world from each other.  If either of them hadn't sold their half, the movie would start to fall apart.  Which isn't to say the other performers are bad, just that Kinski and Adjani are on a completely different level.

Herzog fills the frames with stunning visuals, paying homage to the German expressionism of the original.  He might linger on a few shots longer than necessary, but with such rich visuals for the eyes to feast on, it is mostly forgiveable.

The movie is slow though, and those who prefer more blood and guts will be greatly disappointed with this moodier, cerebral version of the story.  For as many people that die in this film - and rest assured, it does have a high body count - most of the death is prevented in an almost offhand way.  The story cares more about the character drama, and any deaths that do occur are more to push the characters onward than something to be lingered on.

This is also a movie with Themes, meditating on the loneliness of eternity: this Dracula doesn't view his immortality as any sort of gift, and approaches day-to-day life with a weariness that Kinski sells almost entirely with his eyes.  It's a thoughtful approach to the material, though one that has been explored and mimicked in the many adaptations of the novel, but perhaps not as well as in this one.

Would I recommend this movie to others?  Yes, though not everyone.  I think quite a few people would lose interest in the first 30 minutes as the movie isn't in any rush to get the action started, and while there is an English dub available, the original German lends itself to a better experience, which would put off some.  Still, those that can get themselves invested in the movies atmosphere and tone will have a good time.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Under Paris (2024)

This could be subtitled 'Lesbians destroy the world' and I am not going to elaborate beyond that statement, because if I had to watch the movie for context, so do you.

Under Paris follows traumatized marine biologist Sophia (Berenice Bejo) who, three years after her research team is killed by a shark named Lilith, finds herself once again dealing with the bloodthirsty fish, this time in the Seine River instead of the Pacific Ocean.  Jaws references abound, up to and including the Mayor of Paris (Anne Marivin) refusing to cancel the scheduled triathlon despite warnings from Sophia and police sergeant Adil (Nassim Lyes).  Will our heroes stop the shark before disaster strikes?  No, and is that even really a spoiler?

This movie is so, so dumb.  I hate to break it down to such a base level, but there really isn't much more to say other than that.  People make the dumbest possible decisions throughout (our two main characters avoid such a fate, but only barely), the plot continues for the dumbest possible reasons, and the ending is so, so, so very dumb.  The only smart part of this screenplay is the decision to make the shark a mako instead of a great white, but even then, the other notable existing shark movie (1999's Deep Blue Sea, up there with the 1997 Anaconda as among the best of the late 90s so-bad-they're-good creature features) already did it.

You know, that's not fair, the movie also makes one other smart choice by naming the shark Lilith.  Going into the why of it would be a spoiler, but I'll just say that it is the cleverest thing the screenplay does by a wide margin, and that is fairly damning of the overall quality of the screenplay.

The performers take this movie seriously - too seriously, to be honest - but do a decent enough job with the material.  Bejo, an Oscar nominee for The Artist, is very much slumming it here, giving the character way more emotional depth than this screenplay warranted.  No other performance is of particular note, as the plot doesn't really give any other character, save Adil, more than basic characterization.

I will admit, with this type of movie, it becomes a game of guessing the kill order, maybe deciding one of the doomed side characters is my boyfriend for this film (sometimes I get lucky and they live, though that was not then case with this one), and hoping that it at least veers into camp territory to at least make things fun.  Is a character insufferable?  I expect them to last longer than others because these movies love to keep that sort of annoying character around.  This movie slightly subverts that.

I almost with this movie was truly atrocious, so at least I could mock it better, but there's so much competence outside of the screenplay that it just ends up being a minor failure as opposed to a delicious trainwreck.  I can't even recommend it for a hate watch!  Which is truly the greatest crime this film commits.

4 out of 10

Review: Lee Cronin's The Mummy (2026)

If you were to dissect this movie, you would find all of the necessary parts to have a legitimately good film.  A creepy 'possessed' performance from Natalie Grace as Katie; Egyptian lore adding some credibility to go with the otherworldly elements (whether or not this lore is real - probably not - is inconsequential); solid performances from Jack Raynor as Katie's dad and May Calamawy as the detective assigned to Katie's disappearance; there are even a few sequences that build tension in interesting ways.  However, as this movie is currently assembled, it just doesn't quite work despite having all of the parts necessary to succeed.

The movie follows the Cannon family: parents Charlie and Larissa (Reynor and Laia Costa) and children Katie, Seb, and Maudie (Grace, Shylo Molina, and Billie Roy, with younger versions of Katie and Seb played by Emily Mitchell and Dean Williams).  Before Maudie is born, Katie disappears while the family is living in Egypt.  Eight years later, the Cannons are contacted after Katie is found inside an ancient sarcophagus, and they bring her home (now in Albuquerque) to help her recover - in possibly the most 'this would only happen in a movie' scene.  Things quickly get weird.

One thing about this movie is that it is in no rush at any point during its 132 minute runtime.  In the early going, it is forgivable since it allows the viewer to get to know the family pre and post-abduction, but once Katie is brought back into the story it definitely should've gotten to the meat much faster than it does.  I know I sound like a broken record on this point, but this movie probably could've cut a good 30 minutes out of it and not lost anything of note, which would've only helped with the pacing.

This movie is also incredibly gross.  Director Lee Cronin is very obviously a fan of movies like Braindead or Drag Me to Hell and he leans into it in such a way that I, a veteran of gross-out horror movies, found myself turning away from the screen.  Whereas there is a tongue-in-cheek giddiness to the mentioned movies, Cronin chose to play it much straighter in this one and it suffers for that decision.  It doesn't matter how good the effects are if the audience is turning away in disgust.

What does work in the movie is the little subversions to the standard tropes: having the dad be the one to realize things are going sideways first is a nice change of pace (and I'm sure Reynor would like to be remembered for roles other than the one in Midsommar), and the cop side of the plot takes a few turns that I won't spoil, but felt like a welcome reprieve from other, dumber movies.

It would be hard for me to recommend this movie to other people.  Whatever good parts it has - and there are several good parts, including a scene with Katie's grandmother that might be the most effective of the movie - the pacing issues and vulgarity would outweigh them for most people.

A frustrating, though competent movie.

5 out of 10

Review: Pumpkinhead (1988)

I'll admit to going into this movie with a certain preconceived notion of what to expect, both plotwise and qualitywise.  Not the best way to go into any movie, but especially one such as this: this isn't some low budget, substandard piece of horror media, it's the directorial debut of the legendary Stan Winston!  This movie comes with pedigree, and it clearly shows some thought and effort put into it.

To summarize, the movie follows Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen), who goes to a witch (Florence Schauffler) to get revenge on the teenagers who accidentally killed his son Billy (Matthew Hurley).  This summons the titular Pumpkinhead, who then goes after the teenagers.  There's more to the plot than that, but that summary is spoilery enough, so I will leave it there.

Now, I won't say this is a perfect first effort from Winston (he would only direct one other film after this, mostly focusing on the special effects work that made him famous) but I will give credit where credit is due: He does a fine job.  There are some interesting shot compositions, the film moves along at a good pace, and the creature design is top notch.

Which, this movie was always going to live and die off of the creature design, especially with a title such as Pumpkinhead.  It certainly is evocative of a pumpkin, while still being different enough to not be corny.  I'd probably have removed the tail, but otherwise Winston uses his trademark skills to craft a thoroughly unique monster.  I don't know that I'd list it among the greatest movie monsters ever created, but I wouldn't argue against someone including it in theirs.

The bulk of the acting falls on Henriksen, who has made a career out of these sort of heightened genre roles, and he brings his usual workmanlike charisma to the performance.  It's a much deeper performance than you'd expect in this sort of movie, but a good one.  The various teenagers have occasional interesting shading (Steve, played by Joel Hoffman, is probably the richest role, though the actor does struggle slightly with the hard shifts that the character has to make) but mostly exist to be menaced by Pumpkinhead.

The set design for this movie is adequate, though it felt to me like they leaned a little too much into making Appalachian housing look like something out of the 1800s, but maybe it was accurate (I have doubts to that).  The score works well enough, though there are a few parts where I found it somewhat distracting, mostly in the early scenes.

I think the overall problem with this film is that it is just okay.  Nothing is particularly terrible, but it also lacks anything truly spectacular.  It's just a solidly done genre film that is probably underappreciated, but not criminally so.

Would I recommend this?  I would, it's a good 'starter' horror movie: enough scares and kills without being overly violent or gory.  I probably wouldn't suggest it to anyone who prefers more hardcore horror though.

6.5 out of 10

Review: The Shining (1980)

Sometimes, you know a review is going to have strong disagreements with it before you even begin to write it.  I knew this would be the case for my review of The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick, before I gave it my third, and likely final, watch.  For I have believed for years that if this movie did not have Kubrick's name attached, it would be held in the same esteem as Needful Things or The Langoliers.  And I'm not one of those 'this is a good movie but a bad adaptation' cowards: this is a poorly directed, poorly acted mess of a movie that, at this point, I think people are afraid to call out for being as bad as it is.

I'm sure I have lost quite a few people just with that opening paragraph, but I stand by it.  This movie does not work: it sits in one emotional register the entire time, gets boring because of that, and rests on approximately two and a half good scenes to carry it through its two and a half hour runtime.

I realize Kubrick has his cult that is more than happy to explain every last unnecessary detail, but no amount of interpretive chicanery will convince me that everything Kubrick did here was on purpose.  '[X] didn't exist when the movie was set, so that means Kubrick was making a commentary about [Y]' - no he didn't.  He just made a mistake, like any other filmmaker, stop tripping over yourself trying to explain it.  Just because he took a 5 second shot and stretched it out to 15 doesn't mean anything significant was included, it means Kubrick and editor Ray Lovejoy are bad at pacing their movie.

'Nicholson was amazing!'  Sorry, but no he wasn't.  He played a single note the entire film, and half the time he whiffed it.  And I say that as someone who is generally a fan!  He's not the worst performance in the film by any stretch, but he has so many other better performances that it almost feels obscene to call this one of his best.  The only truly good performance in this movie (in a sizable part, I should note - some of the extras do a good job and I don't want to denigrate them) comes from Shelley Duvall, and I feel half bad giving that compliment since she was basically tortured by the director during the filming of it.

Giving the film what little credit it deserves, I will mention the two effective scenes: Danny (Danny Lloyd) coming across the two girl ghosts and seeing flashes of their murder, and then Wendy's (Duvall) panicked flailing in the restroom as Jack uses an axe to break through the door.  I only give half credit to the scene where Jack goes into room 237, but only half because I am not sure if it is genuinely unsettling people, or if they (like the filmmaker) are just doing an 'old people are gross' sleight of hand.

Outside of that, nothing else is of note.  Literally, those scenes are what permeated the cultural zeitgeist and its because they are literally the only good scenes the movie has to offer.  'But the typewriting scene!' - Sorry, that wasn't scary, it was just the first interesting thing to happen after 20 minutes of nothingness, plus the score gets annoyingly loud.  Also, The Simpsons parody of it goes 10 times harder while also being funny.  'What about the picture at then end?'  I'm sorry, Kubrick's lame feint towards ambiguousness is just further proof that he didn't know what he was doing with this movie.  'What about the murder of Dick?'  How dare you, I am gay!  Wait, you mean Dick Hallorann... Again, you only find it interesting because the lead up to it was so boring that the sudden movement and increase in scoring confused you into thinking something worthwhile happened on screen.

This movie is one long exercise in straining your patience, then giving you the most pedestrian of action, and expecting you to feel rewarded because something finally happened.  And because people think Kubrick is a genius (I am not so convinced) they use cognitive dissonance to convince themselves there is meaning in the mess.  There isn't.  The movie is bad, and I would encourage you to spend your time watching better ones.

I don't recommend this movie to people, because I generally like the people I recommend movies to.  However, I know other people speak highly of this movie and I guess I am happy that other people can enjoy it, even if I am greatly confused by it.

 

3 out of 10, and Shelley Duvall is carrying the bulk of that score.