Review: Ernest Scared Stupid (1991)

There was a time, not so long ago, that I would've trashed this movie.  Not in a fun, I-still-love-this way, but in a I Am A Serious Movie Reviewer way.  And, to be sure, there are criticisms I can make about this movie.  But doing so is somewhat missing the forest for the trees, you know?  I shouldn't be treating this as if it wanted to Change Cinema - I should review it on the movie's own terms.  While that won't mean it gets a higher score than it deserves, it does give it a better one for meeting it where it is at.

Ernest Scared Stupid follows Ernest P. Worrell, the Jim Varney character of a many a film in the 90s, as he and the children of Briarville, Missouri fight off the troll Trantor (Erne Fosselius as the voice, Jonas Moscartolo in the costume), who was accidentally reawakened by Ernest.  And let me tell you, somehow it always surprises me that this movie is set in Missouri of all places.  I guess it feels like it should be a state further south, given the Ernest character?  Or maybe in the northeast where there is more of a history of this sort of thing?  It doesn't really affect the story, but it still seems so weird for it to be there.

Anyway, the only person who appears to know anything about how to defeat the troll is Old Lady Hackmore - such a perfectly Halloween-themed name - played by Eartha Kitt, who is the only performer on the same wavelength as Varney, and is thus the best performance in the movie by a country mile.

The movie is a surprisingly fleet 89 minutes, with credits, and because of this it does not putter around, plotwise.  The troll is freed fairly early, almost immediately gets one of what we think are the main kids, and starts wrecking havoc with no one believing Ernest regarding the cause.  The movie does give time to the children (somewhat to its detriment, as the acting from them and the parents is dodgy from scene to scene), but spends more time with Varney as Ernest, doing many of the riffs the character was famous for.  Much like the lazier Robin Williams movies, how well you can tolerate this movie depends on how tired of these familiar beats you get.

I don't get tired of them, and the best scenes of the movie involve the use of them, so I tolerate it pretty well.  Varney gives the performance so much energy that it is hard for me not to vibe with what the character is doing, even if it is ridiculous.  Highlights include a completely cuttable scene involving a bear trap that would've been devastating to lose and a battle with the troll on a moving vehicle being driven by Ernest's dog Rimshot (played by Barkley, a Jack Russell terrier).  The scenes work because of the mugging, not in spite of it.

Watching this has become a Halloween tradition, and I'm glad I didn't let potential snobbery prevent me from loving it, despite all of its flaws.

6 out of 10, but a fun 6 out of 10

Review: Wildwood (2026)

Are you familiar with the concept of patronage as concerned with the arts?  It was a model where wealthy individuals, or institutions like the church or government, would provide financial support, housing, and commissions to artists, musicians, etc.  While their generally was a request regarding quality of materials or dimensions or subject matter, there was no expectation that the patron would obtain money from the artist's work.  Instead, the reward was prestige: art was used to display wealth, influence, or even piety for the patron and the artist had their status elevated over time and were eventually considered respected intellectuals.

While patronage has changed over the years - nowadays it is primarily the government or corporations that do the patronage - the value of it is incalculable, as many great works are the result of it, and we have a modern masterpiece from Laika in the form of Wildwood, their newest movie.  Laika is the passion project of Travis Knight, son of Nike cofounder Phil Knight, and this combination of nepotism and patronage has already given us multiple stop-motion animated classics, with Travis Knight directing this $100 million dollar movie that will likely never make that money back, but will hopefully be remembered as one of the best movies of 2026, if not the best movie of 2026.

And my God, do you see every single dollar of that 100 million on the screen.  This movie is beautiful in a way that harkens back to the best of hand-drawn Disney animation  From the mysterious opening in the home of the Dowager Governess Alexandra (Carey Mulligan, almost giving the movie its best vocal performance, coming in second amongst a plethora of excellent voice acting), to the titular Wildwood our main characters find themselves in, to the modern streets of Portland, Oregon, the amount of detail that went into every single scene more than justifies the price tag.

The movie is epic in the traditional sense.  We go on a hero's journey with Prue (Peyton Elizabeth Lee, giving the best vocal performance of this talented group) as she seeks to save her brother Mac (Arthur Knight) after a murder of crows absconds with him into the Wildwood.  With her is Curtis (Jacob Tremblay), a not-quite-friend who inadvertently ends up on his own journey within the wood after going with Prue into the forest.

I won't talk about the plot beyond that - this film is far more rewarding going into it blind - except to say that while this is an animated movie, it earns that PG-13 rating.  There is violence, and several scenes that likely would terrify the younger crowd (a brave parent brought a child that looked to be 5 or 6 and there were several parts where the child climbed practically on top of him due to fright).  It explores mature themes in the same way that the best Pixar movies do: confronting adulthood in all of its confusing contradictions with tenderness, without condescending to the younger audience.  It trusts them to get through the darker parts with a better understanding of the world.

I've mentioned previously that the voice acting in this movie is topnotch: all of the mentioned actors are wonderful, as are Mahershala Ali, Richard E. Grant, Angela Basset, Blythe Danner, and Awkwafina (finding a better use for her talents than the misguided Raya and the Last Dragon).  There's not a single one that feels out of place, and even the more joke-prone characters are only there to add a touch of brightness as we navigate this grand adventure - and it is grand, with the movie running over two hours.  Rest assured, every minute is worth it.

I don't have criticisms for this film.  The best I could muster is maybe a 'I might've done [ABC] instead of [XYZ] in this part' and that might is load-bearing.  This movie doesn't make any missteps while still exploring the tropes common to this genre while adding subversions along the way.  Everyone should see this movie.

10 out of 10

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. 

Review: Lake Placid (1999)

A few days ago, while reviewing Piranha 3D, I mentioned that it was a trashy film.  While implied, I'll go ahead and directly state that it was well-directed trashy film.  It knew what it was, and played to that expectation and did it very well.  It might be odd to start a review for one movie by talking about another, but I feel the need to contrast the two movies because Lake Placid is also playing to the cheap seats, and is somewhat competently directed, but isn't nearly as effective.

The biggest sin of this movie is the script.  Written by David E. Kelley, it lacks all of the trademarks of his more successful TV works, and I find it unsurprising that he didn't write another movie screenplay after this one.  It's meant to be comedic and is filled with 'funny' lines, but precious few of them are, and any gold spun from this straw script comes from the efforts of the actors.  Really, the fact that the movie is watchable at all is due to their combined labor.

To give a summary, the film follows a group of people as they investigate what could have possibly killed a Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife officer in the waters of Black Lake, Maine.  This is treated as a mystery far longer than it should've been, but they eventually realize it is a crocodile, at which point they work to find it, with the group divided on whether to capture or kill the beast.

(It feels relevant to point out that the fictional lake this takes place in is not named Lake Placid, which is one of those details I wish were better explained than a throwaway line.  The lake is fictional!  You can name it whatever you want!)

Despite the terrible script, I actually do enjoy this movie quite a bit.  It has the same type of charm to it that other creature features have won me over with.  Brendan Gleeson and Betty White are the standout performances, and the practical crocodile by Stan Winston Studios is a marvel - please don't judge the CGI effects too harshly, they were fairly adequate for the time period.

The mayhem is judiciously spread out, even if the movie could stand to have a bit more of it.  For a killer animal feature, the body count is criminally low.  The dialogue is terrible, but thankfully the plot does move along fairly well, outside of the mentioned issue with the investigation.  The worst thing that could happen with a movie like this is for it to feel long, especially with a time of 82 minutes, but it avoids that trap.

I can't really recommend this movie to anyone other than those that love cheesy creature features, or those that love to see old ladies swear like sailors.  My own enjoyment of it probably has a healthy amount of nostalgia attached, even if I can be fair with its score.

5 out of 10

Review: Carnival of Souls (1962)

"As you say, Doctor, I'm a person of strong will.  And the time to go out there is now.  And if I have to, I can go alone."

So states our main character in Carnival of Souls, Mary, while discussing herself and her desire to go to an old pavilion that seems to call to her.  Mary has been out of sorts since inexplicably surviving a car crash - one where she was underwater for three hours - trying to move on by relocating to another city.  However, she still feels disconnected, while also constantly haunted by a strange man who seems to be stalking her since her accident.

Carnival of Souls is very much a film about mood, with a pervasive eeriness that only fades for the briefest of moments.  From the very beginning, where we get credits that are slanted and off-center, there is a feeling that something is amiss: what we see shouldn't be happening, but not in a way that can easily be pointed out or articulated.  Coupled with a disorienting score, it's hard to imagine anyone watching this film and not being affected.

Our main character is played by Candace Hilligoss - who criminally did not have much of a career outside of this and one other movie - and I cannot express enough how perfect a match of performance and direction Hilligoss gives us.  Nothing about this movie would work if she made even a few missteps, but it is a damn near perfect performance.  Hilligoss not only manages the feat of feeling genuinely disconnected from the rest of the world she inhabits, but also plays the contradicting emotions of being coldly distant while desperately trying to reach out.  It's a complicated, sometimes unlikable performance that is about half of what has helped this movie last.

The other half comes from director Herk Harvey (who doubles as The Man in the film itself), who has no other directing credits outside of this one.  Able to tease tension out of the most mundane of shots, he also somehow makes everyday life at times seem hallucinatory.  This ability to spin uncanniness out of something as simple as a shopping excursion adds to the overall otherworldliness of the movie.  Harvey, along with editors Dan Palmquist and Sidney Berger, also has some interesting transitions between scenes.  It further puts off the audience, without alienating them.

I would definitely recommend this movie.  It does have a certain arthouse feel to it, and I could understand it leaving some people cold, but this is a gem of a film.

8.5 out of 10

Review: Piranha 3D (2010)

Given my distaste for High Tension, another movie directed by Alexander Aja, it might come as a surprise that this is another personal favorite of mine.  But I not only eagerly saw it in theaters back when it first came out (and loved it) but it has been regularly watched in the intervening years.  It's exploitative, trashy, lowest-common-denominator filmmaking and I love every minute of it.

The film takes place in Lake Victoria, Arizona (not a real city, but I appreciate the somewhat surprising decision to put it in Arizona of all places) and primarily follows Sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue, giving just the perfect amount of character to this part) and her son Jake (Steven R. McQueen in one of the only two movies he has been in) as they deal with spring breakers partying alongside the emergence of prehistoric piranha released by an earthquake.

This movie is filled with other character actors - all of them having a blast - filling out roles both big and small.  Ving Rhames, Adam Scott, Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd, Dina Meyer, Jerry O'Connell, Kelly Brook - all of them are playing to the cheap seats, which is exactly what this movie needs.

I've talked previously about movies where it is obvious that the gore are effects are done with a gleeful 'look what we can do!' attitude and Piranha 3D is at the forefront of my mind every time I mention it.  This gore is fantastic and plentiful, and if High Tension had to exist for this movie to be made, than it is absolved of at least a few of its sins.  In addition to the bites and tears from the piranhas, we have head smashes, decapitations, and  - in the movie's very best effects shot - a scalping via boat motor.  This movie is not for the squeamish.

It is also not for those uncomfortable with nudity: this movie displays mammaries like it wanted to see if it could set a record.  It's almost inspirational, the ways Aja finds to get women out of their clothes.  However, if you are a fan of the male body, prepare to only see guys in swim trunks, for this film is aping a particular type of exploitation flick, and it isn't one that is equal opportunity in that regard.

I mention the performances playing to the cheap seats, and the best in that regard is Jerry O'Connell.  Playing a character somewhat inspired by Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild infamy, he is relishing being as scuzzy as possible while also being hilarious.  It perfectly matches the tone the film is going for and is a highlight of every scene he is in.

Now, this movie is obviously not for everyone - the gore and nudity more than earn the R rating, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was on the cusp of an NC-17 - but for fans of the genre who appreciate effects work, this is a must see.  Fans of horror in general should enjoy it, even if it also has a healthy dose of comedy.

8 out of 10

Review: Alligator (1980)

One thing I have pushed for this year and last with my horror-movie-a-day tradition in October is to primarily watch movies I hadn't seen before and write reviews on them - a goal I have been fairly successful with.  But in doing so, I started missing out on several of my favorites and, more importantly, I didn't get the chance to recommend those beloved horror movies to the (beloved) people that read them.  So tonight's movie was an opportunity to address that.

For 1980's Alligator is amongst my favorite horror movies.  It's a real gem of a film, giving character actors like Robert Forster and Robin Riker the opportunity to play the lead while lampshading several famous critiques of this brand of creature feature.  It even goes out of its way to add extra plot points that one would think would've come up already in this particular genre.

This is a smart film.  People act like human beings (never a given in horror movies where we often get, at best, a singular trait for each of the characters), most of the decisions are fairly rational outside of the villains, and the story progresses in a fairly believable way.  Having this level of competence after watching movies like Tentacles or The Food of the Gods - even if I did enjoy the latter of those - is a balm of the soul.

Do we really need a plot summary?  If so: Building on the urban legend of giant alligators in the sewers after being flushed down the drain, Alligator follows Detective David Madison (Forster) as he deals with two investigations.  The first involves people's pets disappearing and, if they are found, the pets having grown much larger than they should have in a normal time.  The second involves people disappearing in the sewer systems under Chicago, with their remains eventually coming out from the same sewer exit as the oversized animals.  Seems our alligator has been feeding on test experiments dumped into the sewer and has somewhat mutated itself.

Now, to go into the genius of the script: it allows the audience to figure out the connection well before our characters do.  Madison starts to piece it together after meeting with herpetologist Dr. Marisa Kendall (Riker), and the movie doesn't waste time revealing who is responsible for both the pet kidnappings and the giant alligator (tying those two plot threads together nicely).  At that point it is off to the races as they try to stop the alligator from its killing spree.

Riker and Forster play off each very well throughout the movie, and while the early scenes aren't bad, the movie takes off once the two start working together.  There's also some dry humor throughout - including a particularly well done running gag.

The effects for this movie are also fairly strong.  While some of it has aged poorly - what wouldn't after 45 years? - the practical work rings truer than the CGI of many later films. The centerpiece 'animal runs amok' scene still works all these years later because of the effort put into the practical effects.

If I were to critique it, I would say the direction - outside of one particular scene that scared me something good as a child - is pretty pedestrian.  Nothing mindbogglingly bad, but nothing of note outside that one scene.  There's also a character (Thomas Kemp, played by Bart Braverman) that seems to be missing a scene or two.  He very much comes across as having an agenda against Madison, but it feels underexplored.

All that said, I recommend this movie to everyone.  It has just the right level of everything - humor, gore, story, scariness - without going overboard.

8 out of 10

Review: High Tension (2003)

High Tension (or Haute Tension, if we are using the French title) follows best friends Marie (Cecile de France) and Alex (Maïwenn) as they go to the latter's parent's house for the weekend.  While there, a man appears and attacks the family, with Marie spending the greater part of the movie trying to either get help or defeat The Killer (Philippe Nahon) and save Alex.

This movie was at the forefront of the New French Extremity movement: French films that had excessive violence and explicit sexual imagery.  Filled with all sorts of gore, and occasionally extreme sexual violence (which this film thankfully did not have), it was part of a movement of filmmakers that pushed the limits of what film allowed at the time, and there are still films today that are considered influenced by, if not a continuation of, this movement.

Now there is something to be said for the critic's view of violence in cinema.  Is the filmmaker trying to say something?  Is it necessary to the plot?  Is there some sort of metaphor that the director/screenwriter is trying to use?  In the case of this film, I think the answer is: Let's show some violence and it doesn't go any deeper than that.

I did not like this movie.  Not because of the violence - I have seen worse, and there is something to be said for how well done the effects are for this film in that particular department - but because it doesn't make sense.  There is a late twist - which the movie became famous for, though thankfully I had forgotten the spoiler before watching it - that doesn't make any sense.  I don't mean they didn't set it up properly (there is actually a decent bit of foreshadowing for it), I mean that there are several scenes that absolutely do not work once you factor in that twist.

So much of the film just falls apart if you bother to look back on it.  It's frankly astounding that it happens because this is a movie with so much thought put into it that for this twist - which creates so many different plot holes - to be used requires a complete divorcing of critical thinking.  Even if we try to work with what is presented to us, maybe think of the film as having an unreliable narrator, it still doesn't cover up what we are shown - there are too many characters present for it to work.

The movie isn't completely without merit - our main actress is quite good, and the movie does have a few scenes with well-built tension, but that damn twist just undoes all of the work put into the rest of the film.  And given the lack of scares in this film - it really does count on the gore to do most of its work - you have time to think about what doesn't work.

Maybe if they had wrapped up the movie about 10 minutes earlier?  Or cut out a section of the post-reveal?  I don't know, the movie is already a fairly short 95 minutes - a relentlessly paced 95 at that - but something needed to be changed.

It really is disappointing, as I have heard good things from multiple people about this one.  I definitely would not recommend it - except maybe as a hate-watch, but there are better movies to do that with than this - and it took all of my energy to not reveal the twist because this movie doesn't deserve to be unspoiled.  I don't even want to bump up its score for the craft and acting, because I worry that it might encourage someone to watch it despite that.

2.5 out of 10

Review: Vermines (2023)

It's always interesting to watch a horror film with Themes.  Vermines, released as Infested in the US, is a movie practically dripping with them.  Racism, classism, police brutality, friendship, honor: all have a part to play in this, much deeper than something described to me as 'French Arachnophobia.'  It was a woefully inadequate description of what I ended up watching.

Thankfully, the movie still works well even if you don't engage with the themes - though it is nothing if richer an experience to do so - telling a creepy story of spiders rapidly reproducing and taking over a Banlieue in Paris.  A group of friends works to save themselves from these highly aggressive spiders, with the predictable, and a few unpredictable, challenges in the way.

Our main character is Kaleb (Theo Christine), collector of exotic animals, who buys the first of the spiders to invade the building.  He and his sister Manon (Lisa Nyarko) are arguing over selling or keeping their home, with Manon doing quite a bit of renovating in hopes of moving away.  They are helped by Mathys (Jerome Niel), a friend of both, and Kaleb's estranged friend Jordy (Finnegan Oldfield) and Jordy's girlfriend Lila (Sofia Lesaffre).

The dynamics of this friend group is an essential part of the story, with buried resentments amongst them, particularly after the death of Kaleb and Manon's mother, adding extra stress once the bodies start piling up.  This feels like a believable group of people, and their reactions to one another and the situation drives the story moreso than the attacking spiders.

The first 75% of the movie works amazingly well.  There are interesting shots, music choices, along with some decent character building of not only the group of friends, but of other residents within the building.  Every attempt to control or evade the spiders is staged well, and the film never gets less-interesting when the spiders are not on screen.

That last 25% though...

It is not uncommon for creature features to lose a bit of steam towards the end as they work to either escape or defeat whatever monster they are up against.  Vermines does a better job than most at overcoming this, but it still starts to turn me away with some choices made regarding the spiders.

I won't spoil said choices, but it involves an escalation that I don't think was necessarily needed, plus a slight tonal shift that is part of the transition to the climax that forces the movie to basically rebuild the energy.  It overplays certain emotional payoffs also, which is more minor sin of the ending, but another glance at that final section of the script might've been warranted.

It doesn't remove the movie, thankfully, but it does let the air out a bit as you get to the end.  I'd still readily recommend this movie though.

7 out of 10

Review: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

I did not vibe with this movie.  It is perfectly adequate as far as films go, though not without critique.  It just didn't really work for me.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a tale of revenge: Dr. Phibes (Vincent Price) is hideously scarred and believed dead after an accident.  Said accident was caused by him rushing to the hospital where his wife had died during surgery.  Blaming the doctors and nurse that performed the operation for her death and his own disfigurement, he sets about killing them using the plagues of Egypt as his inspiration.

This is a weird movie.  Tonally all over the place, it vacillates between comedy, horror, procedural, and mystery while never really doing any of them well.  Price is excellent in his role, but otherwise the film feels like it isn't quite sure what it wants to be.  The ending is played as if it were a tragedy, but I don't think the audience is really meant to be on Phibes's side, which would be necessary for it to work.

The comedy is mostly on the side of the police, and while a few scenes are rather successful, humor-wise, it is at odds with the fact that all of these people are getting killed, some of them quite brutally.  If this tone had permeated the entire movie, it could have worked, but since so much of it is played straight, it feels especially incongruous.

There is a certain amount of camp to the movie that is what ultimately saves it.  It doesn't quite make it a great movie - although there are some that disagree with that statement and consider this amongst the best work Price has done - but it does make it fascinating to watch.  Price, saddled with a character who cannot move any part of his body above the neck - no, really - sells the hell out of it, delivering monologues with such verve that one wonders what the performance would have looked like with facial movements.

More camp comes from the various manners in which Phibes kills the doctors (and single nurse, which seems weird to foist part of the blame on), which in many cases only use the plagues of Egypt in the broadest interpretation of them.  Many of them lack all reason (the nurse, who gets possibly the most brutal of the kills, requires a person to not only believe that a person would sleep so soundly that they wouldn't feel a large amount of a syrupy substance dumped on their face, but also so soundly that they could be eaten alive without being disturbed in the slightest).  It only works if you just give up on applying anything resembling logic and just roll with what is happening.

It's a bit of a mess, plotwise, which makes sense as the writers had no other major credits before or after this film.  It hobbles along, carried in some parts by Price, in others by camp, and in a few by both, but it doesn't ascend to a climax so much as stumble into a finale that I'm still not sure was adequate for the proceeding film.

Would I recommend it?  Probably?  Vincent Price is a treasure, and there is merit in his performance here, but I might have to watch this movie again before I can decide where I would settle on its rating.

For now, we'll say 6.5 out of 10, but who knows what I'll feel in the future.

Review: Resident Evil (2002)

A caveat:  I watched this on a Blu-ray released many, many years ago (Resident Evil: Extinction is one of the previews on my copy) and it was not a very good transfer.  Several scenes have a weird fuzziness to them that I am fairly certain weren't supposed to be there, so I will be refraining from discussing technical aspects of this film - not that those are ever large parts of my review, but this one will feature less than normal.

So, Resident Evil, directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (he of Mortal Kombat and Event Horizon fame) and starring Milla Jovovich, Eric Mabius, and Michelle Rodriguez.  Savaged by critics when it came out, but more recently reappraised with a more positive response.  I remember seeing this one in theaters and fondly remember the viewing experience.  And rewatching it,  I am glad people have come around on it.

Now, this is a cheesy movie, make no mistake.  This was a film made about a video game in the early aughts, the fact it is any sort of good is a minor miracle.  But Anderson gave the movie the right amount of seriousness to go with the cheesy, plus a decent amount of homages to the game it was based off of, which helped win the audience over.  Most of the performances are also pitched perfectly for what the movie is (though I don't think Rodriguez is very good in this one).

The plot moves along fairly quickly, the exposition delivery is somewhat clunky but overall justified, the action is top notch.  Really, the biggest issue for this movie is the computer effects, particularly that of the Licker, aging fairly poorly.  There are a couple of scenes where a practical one is used and it is so much better looking that I wished it had been feasible for it to have been used more.

I think the only other criticism I would have would be the death of a character towards the end.  They are kept around pretty much only to serve as a deus ex machina, the abruptly killed off during the climax.  I really feel like the character should've been a survivor, or at the very least not killed off so thoughtlessly.

I know the more recent one was much more well received, but to me, this is still the best of the many movies in this franchise.  It might just be nostalgia, but it is probably more that these characters are at least somewhat competent once they realize the situation they are in.  Either way, this is a film I am generally happy to rewatch, and one I'd readily recommend.

7 out of 10

Review: The Boogeyman (2023)

This movie needed to be rated R.

Almost every critique I have of this movie comes back to the PG-13 limitation placed on this (on a Stephen King adaptation!  After IT had already come out!).  It works within that limitation well, but it is fighting a losing battle against that PG-13 rating.

To give a clear example of how that rating cut this movie off at the knees: Only 3 people die in the entire film (not necessarily a bad thing), and 2 of those are within the first 15 minutes of this roughly 100 minute movie and both are offscreen.  You cannot have a child-murdering monster movie where nothing happens for a large chunk of the movie.

Even calling the titular Boogeyman a child-murdering monster is a bit of a stretch.  Unlike the aforementioned IT adaptation, this movie pulls its punches to a severe degree when it comes to actually endangering the children.  It's almost as if the Boogeyman is going out of its way to not kill the child and teenager it is terrorizing.  It doesn't matter how many scenes you have of the creature slowly menacing Sadie and Sawyer (Sophie Thatcher and Vivien Lyra Blair) - even if they are well-done escalations of the creature's threat - if ultimately the creature doesn't do anything other than scare them, it loses quite a bit of its mystique.

And it's frustrating because the movie is actually good despite this.  Both Thatcher and Blair give  strong performances, as does Chris Messina as their father and Madison Hu as Sadie's friend Bethany.  Hu might just be the best performance in the film even if it feels like a decent chunk of her character was cut.  David Dastmalchian also makes a cameo appearance as a previous victim of the monster and spins quite a bit of gold within his shortened screentime.

As mentioned above, director Rob Savage does effectively build tension throughout the film, with a major assist from cinematographer Eli Born.  Lighting is especially important for this movie, and genuine effort was put into making the scenes dark while still allowing the audience to see just enough of the monster to let the imagination run wild.  The final full reveal of the Boogeyman is a bit disappointing, but they do build up to that reveal masterfully.

So yeah, this is a pretty decent movie that just needed the handcuffs taken off of it to be great.  Ah well, I think I'd still recommend it, but never as a first choice.

6.5 out of 10

Review: Bulbbul (2020)

There's always a danger when watching a foreign film that something will go over your head that is obvious to the intended audience.  Having said that, I will attempt to review this movie on the merits,  even if I am fairly certain I have missed some sort of commentary or trope that would be obvious to the Indian audience this was made for.  Apologies in advance!

Bulbbul, set in the 1800s, follows the titular Bulbbul (Trupti Dimri, Ruchi Mahajan as a child), flashing back between her childhood marriage to Indranil (Rahul Bose) along with her childhood friendship with Indranil's brother Satya (Avinash Tiwary, Varun Buddhadev as a child) who is much closer to her in age; and 20 years later, as Bulbbul has taken over the duties of her husband's estate due to his long absence.

It is in the latter scenes where we learn that a 'chudail' or witch, has been terrorizing the area, killing multiple men.  Satya, returning home after being away for five years, sets about trying to find the murderer while also trying to figure out what has caused Bulbul's personality to have changed so dramatically in the interim.

This is a movie where the colors on the screen reflect the mood of the same.  A bright violent red, or a cold blue saturation instantly prepares the viewer for what is to come, setting them on edge with nothing but a color swap.  It's an effective tactic, and it adds the the hyper-realism that permeates the movie.

The performances are topnotch, with Dimri giving the film its best performance, followed closely by Paoli Dam as Binodini, the scheming wife of Indranil's twin brother Mahendra (also played by Bose).  Dam gives an outright poisonous portrayal in the flashbacks, coupled with a frightened paranoid performance after the time jump.

This film has mood for days, and while it has elements of horror, it is much more of a tragedy once the story finishes.  I don't think the plot would be terribly surprising for anyone - the film goes to the places you expect it to - but it tells its story well, and I am glad to have watched it.

Would I recommend it to others?  Well, the film is in Hindi, so unless you already speak that you would need to be prepared for subtitles, but it is engaging enough in its visuals that I think most would enjoy it even if that is a drawback to them.  I would warn that there is sexual violence for those that would be triggered by such a thing.

7 out of 10

Review: Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight (1995)

I don't think we give Billy Zane enough credit as an actor.  He might not go down as one of the legends of cinema, but he does solid work and is very good at modulating his performance to the film he is in.  It's an undervalued skill, particularly in genre movies where Zane has made quite a career for himself.  I'm sure he has had bigger showcases than Demon Knight, but this might be his best performance.

Some might read that as shady, but I am sincere in this comment.  He distills his interpretation of The Collector, a demon trying to get an artifact to end the world, into an impossibly charismatic monster and takes what might have been a watchable but forgettable movie into a gem of a film.  It's frankly magnetic, and while I have commented in other reviews about actors or actresses giving their movies more effort than called for, Zane manages to give the exact perfect amount of energy that this role needs to work.

Which isn't to say that the other actors are slouching - Dick Miller, another stalwart of genre films, matches Zane's energy without really sharing any scenes with him.  Thomas Haden Church is also amazingly scummy as Roach, the primary antagonist amongst the humans trying to survive The Collector.  CCH Pounder and Jada Pinkett aren't quite as strong, but they do a good enough job that I don't feel the need to nitpick.  For a movie based off of the a TV series, even one from HBO, the cast is more than game for the challenge.

The setting - a church converted into a boarding house for a majority of the movie - works pretty well, and director Ernest Dickerson gives the audience a good feel for the space and uses the building to create some interesting shots.  The effects are also fairly well done, with the makeup of the various demons suitably grotesque and the special effects used judiciously.

I'll also give some credit to the script, written by Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris, and Mark Bishop.  So many random asides, or seemingly unnecessary plot points end up not only being referenced later on, but tie into the main plot in unexpected ways.  The character of Wally (Charles Fleischer) mentions being fired from his job fairly early in the movie, and you will be surprised at how relevant that is during the run towards the climax.

Would I recommend this film?  Yes.  It's a fairly 'popcorn' version of horror that most would enjoy, and the extra effort put into making it an actually good movie pays dividends.  I doubt it will make too many people's Top Tens, but I would expect most to enjoy it.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Event Horizon (1997)

It is of no surprise to me that the director of Event Horizon is also the director of 1995's Mortal Kombat and several of the Milla Jovovich-starring Resident Evil movies.  Which isn't to say that it is the same as those movies, but that it has the same energy as them.  Whether or not you can vibe with that energy will probably determine whether or not you enjoy this film, and as a fan of some of his other work, I think it is safe to say I do vibe with director Paul Anderson's dynamism.

While watching this with my brother, we both made comparisons: he mentioned similarities to the Warhammer 40K novels and how space travel works within them, and I said this was a more thoughtful Doom - and let me tell you, I never would have imagined saying Anderson would direct the more thoughtful version of anything.  Not in a negative way, mind you, it's just that his forte tends to be on the popcorn side of the moviemaking experience.

To give a brief summary: Event Horizon takes place in 2047 (oh, the optimism of where science would go during the 90s) and follows a rescue crew sent out to Neptune to save the crew of a previous mission (onboard a ship called Event Horizon, thus giving us the title) that disappeared 7 years prior.  Captaining the ship is Miller (Laurence Fishburne), with Dr. Weir (Sam Neill), who designed the missing ship, traveling with them.  They find the ship, the remains of the crew, and quickly realize that something is wrong.

One of the things that really worked well for me was how well this movie subverted my expectations.  A character that I had pegged as one to make it to the finale ended up being the first to die, and another character that I was sure was going to die first ended up surviving!  Other subversions occurred, but these were the most notable to me given my penchant for correctly calling out who would live vs who would die in genre films.

Another high point is the design, both of the titular spaceship and the rescue ship.  They are distinct from one another while still feeling as if they came from the same original source.  Even better, the directing gives the audience a fairly good idea of the layouts of both ships, which allows for the more horror-focused scenes to disorient the audience as well as the characters.

My one big criticism of the film would be that it really wants a more violent version of itself.  Apparently it did at one point, but executives forced Anderson and editor Martin Hunter to cut the film down from a 130 minute version to a more reasonable 96 minutes, with the gore effects the biggest victim.  Now, I don't think this movie needed a two hour version, but 3 to 7 more minutes of gore would have gone a long way towards increasing the impact of the story.

However, the 96 minute version that we do have is very much something special, and I can see why this film not only developed a cult following, but is now considered amongst the best horror films ever made.  It is definitely impactful.

Would I recommend this film?  Not to everyone: I think this is more of a horror movie fan's horror movie than anything.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Pulse (2001)

You know, writing these reviews every day in the month of October, I sometimes forget that these movies are meant to be scary.  I might wax poetic about childhood nostalgia, or brutally mock the decision-making of a film, or even talk about my love of the more terrible attempts at making a horror movie, but I seldom talk about movies that are scary.  Looking back at last year's list of movies, I can only count Shelby Oaks, Dark Night of the Scarecrow, The Taking of Deborah Logan, and maybe Wolf Man as movies that were actually frightening - even the more respectable classics I watched were viewed more with a sense of detachment given how well versed I was in their histories.  So it was quite nice to go into this movie blind and be genuinely unnerved by it at various points.  It makes sense that this movie is credited with starting the J-horror movement alongside Ringu.

Pulse is a 2001 Japanese techno-horror movie with dual storylines:  One following Michi (Kumiko Asō), a plant shop worker whose coworkers start disappearing; the other following Ryosuke, a college student who sets up his Internet and immediately starts having weird things happen on his computer.  The characters go through similar experiences as strange things start happening to them and the other citizens of Tokyo.

The first 45 minutes of this movie are damn near perfect: the first scare is set up so perfectly that when the shock comes - not as a jump scare, but as a horrified reaction - you are left questioning what has happened just as much as the character.  It's filmed with a hazy, dream-like quality that makes every movement or dialogue feel like it can go in unexpected directions.

The movie goes further by setting up what seem like traditional scares, then somewhat letting the air out of them (both the audience and the characters relax, if only briefly) before hitting us when something truly horrific.  The movie doesn't use jump scares for any of this, but keeps the tone, the color, the mood of the film in an ever-foreboding state so that when we reach these moments relaxation, we cling to them that much harder for relief.  It's astoundingly effective even now, 25 years later, even though this movie is very much about 2001.

With every potential relief ripped away from the audience, they begin to feel the same exhaustion and lethargy that begin to affect our protagonists.  When we finally get a moment where a character screams, it feels as if she is screaming for all of us - a primeval wail that is one of the rare moments where the audience gets a brief release.

Everything about this feels deliberate:  Writer-director Kiyoshi Kurosawa makes every moment of this movie count in ways both big and small.  The terror can be present in front of us, or just out of sight: around the corner or on the other side of the door.  He is guiding us through this story he wants to tell without it feeling manipulative, but making sure we feel what he wants us to throughout.

I will recommend this movie to everyone.  It is in Japanese, so make your peace with subtitles, but this is what great horror is meant to be.

9 out of 10.