Directed by Dario Argento [Other horror films: L’uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970), Il gatto a nove code (1971), 4 mosche di velluto grigio (1971), Suspiria (1977), Inferno (1980), Tenebre (1982), Phenomena (1985), Opera (1987), Due occhi diabolici (1990, segment ‘The Black Cat’), Trauma (1993), La sindrome di Stendhal (1996), Il fantasma dell’opera (1998), Non ho sonno (2001), Il cartaio (2003), Ti piace Hitchcock? (2005), La terza madre (2007), Giallo (2009), Dracula 3D (2012), Occhiali neri (2022)]
I saw this some years back; I couldn’t have been any older than 14 or 15. And I liked it – I hadn’t had much experience with either giallos or Argento’s work, but I liked it. Seeing Deep Red for the second time, it not only lived up to my recollection, but far surpassed them.
There’s nothing I don’t like about this movie, and if I had to nitpick, I guess I’d say that they should have made the blood look a bit more realistic than it did. But even so, at two hours and seven minutes, never once did I lose focus in the movie or interest in finding out who the killer was (like I said, I’d seen this before, but it’s been so long that I forgot who was behind the brutal murders).
The kills are actually a little weak at times, but there were also some classics here, such as the graphic finale (absolutely loved it), along with the death of another character toward the end. Even the first current-day death was decent, what with being hacked to death by a cleaver. I just wish there had been a few more deaths, but that’s not so much a complaint as wishful hoping.
Italian band Goblin composed the score to the film (they also did Suspiria‘s a few years later), and it was magnificent. Some fun electronic progressive Italian-synth tunes can’t go wrong. The movie already had an artistic feel to it, due to masterful cinematography, but the music helped elevate to even higher heights. And that haunting children’s song? That won’t soon be out of my head.
I won’t get deep into the actors as I sometimes (perhaps too often) do – the fact of the matter is that there’s not one performance that I would have preferred removed. There was a little overacting at times, but given how well everything else worked, it wasn’t much noticeable. David Hemmings was amazing as the main character, and while aspects of his character were troubling (his antiquated sexism, for instance), he was very compelling in his role. So too was Daria Nicolodi – while she wasn’t as important to the story as I thought she might be, her presence helped a great deal (the car scenes added some light humor to the film, which was somewhat welcomed).
Most of this film is the main character trying to remember an important thing he witnessed at a scene of a murder. He slowly pieces together clues, we get a few red herrings, along with a few fun flashbacks, and eventually, after a lot of investigation, we finally have our answer. I loved that – the scenes at the old house were all fun and suspenseful despite mostly being safe, and the discoveries made, along with how he went clue to clue, were all so fun also.
I have no complaints about this film. It helped that I was able to find a beautiful copy online, in original Italian with English subs. Call me a snob if you want, but if I had watched this dubbed, I don’t think it would have made the same impact. As it is, this is a fantastic movie, and easily a favorite of mine now. Dario Argento didn’t disappoint with this one.
Directed by Alan Beattie [Other horror films: N/A]
This flick feels so much more a product of the 1970’s than it does the 1980’s, and that, in part, drives the enjoyment that can be derived from the movie.
While sometimes lacking the style of other slasher whodunit’s, Delusion still has a fun story that both maintains mystery and suspense. The kill scenes are a bit weak, I admit, and calling this a slasher is a wee bit of a stretch, but it certainly possesses many of the elements you might expect. As I said, it feels more like a 70’s film, and that’s due to the dryer nature of the content, the whole feel of the film, and the first-person narration.
First-person narration is something I’ve mostly seen from the 1970’s, be it Let’s Scare Jessica to Death or Death Bed: The Bed That Eats. It’s sort of cheesy, of course, but at the same time, I think there’s charm in that approach to storytelling. It helps that I watched a VHS rip that was a bit scratchy and blurry – I could easily believe this to be from a decade earlier.
Patricia Pearcy does pretty good in this one. Though she appeared previously in 1976’s Squirm, she hasn’t really been in that much, which is a shame, as I think she does well in this film, particularly near the conclusion. Leon Charles (who died the shortly after this film came out) did really good as a sort of fatherly figure butler here, and ended up perhaps my favorite character. Luckily, being one of Joseph Cotton’s final movies, it does well for him, and he character got some work in at the end. Lastly, both David Hayward and John Dukakis made favorable impressions also.
Reviewing this film wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the ending. I will fully admit to having been deeply surprised during the conclusion, and I loved the film all the more for it. I didn’t see it coming, and it left me more than a little pleased once the credits started rolling.
This doesn’t seem to be a widely-spoken about film, either under the name Delusion or The House Where Death Lives (which even I will admit is a more eye-catching title). It’s a shame, because while I wouldn’t call this film a classic, and I know some of the cheesy aspects might turn some off, I had a really fun time with this.
Directed by Anne Goursaud [Other horror films: N/A]
Some years ago, I saw a film called Embrace the Darkness, from 1999. It was a slow-moving, softcore erotic vampire seduction flick. If I had to guess, I would say that it ripped off this movie, which has most of the same elements, to my lamentation.
A vampire must seduce an innocent and virginal girl in three days or his long lifespan will finally be at an end. Personally, I can’t imagine this plot being done in an engaging way. The nudity throughout the film, from a party orgy to a lesbian seduction scene (complete with some 90’s R&B tunes), doesn’t make up for the fact that the movie is so damn sluggish. The few kills we do get aren’t overly impressive, and really, aside from the nudity, I can’t imagine why anyone would go out of their way to see this.
Admittedly, it does has Jennifer Tilly, who is appropriately attractive here. And while I don’t know either of them, the main character, played by Alyssa Milano, and Charlotte Lewis, were both pretty cute, and their nude scenes didn’t go amiss. But long-winded sensual seduction sequences don’t make for that enthralling a film, so the performance of Martin Kemp doesn’t do much for me (especially his over-dramatic dialogue).
The one plus this has over Embrace the Darkness is the fact that this is just about an hour and a half, instead of an hour and forty-five minutes. But it still drags, and while the story might be competently done, and the nudity itself was welcomed, I just couldn’t get into it at all, and wouldn’t much recommend it.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan [Other horror films: Signs (2002), The Village (2004), The Happening (2008), The Visit (2015), Old (2021), Knock at the Cabin (2023)]
I didn’t really know what to expect going into this one, but I am happy to say that this movie did not disappoint at all.
The story is pretty simple, and the cast small (in a manner of speaking), but it was told in a very tense and heart-racing way. The three kidnapped girls (Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson, and Jessica Sula) all did pretty well, and worked hard to get out of the situation they were in. Taylor-Joy’s character, though, was tragic, in that even if she happened to get away, her nightmare was far from over. And while I can’t begin to praise James McAvoy’s performance here enough, suffice it to say that it’s perhaps some of the best and most diverse acting I’ve ever seen.
My one issue with the movie is that the whole beast personality comes off as a bit ridiculous. Sure, some of the things that he can do are pretty creepy (that wall thing, for instance), but it really felt a bit much, especially toward the end. I also sort of wish we got looks into a few other personalities, though the few we did get nuggets of (such as the historian) were pretty interesting.
Split’s a movie done well. Taylor-Joy (who I’ve seen previously in The VVitch) did amazing with her role, and I think she has a lot to offer the genre. M. Night Shyamalan obviously has a sketchy history, though I will fully admit to enjoying both The Visit and The Village. He did an amazing job here, and really, this is a moderately easy contender for top horror film of the last five years. If only that last personality wasn’t as unrealistic as I felt it was. On a final note, while this is related to the 2000 film Unbreakable, but you definitely don’t need to see that film to enjoy this (as I certainly haven’t).
I have to admit, while this British film is far from perfect (and perhaps a few steps away from being good), I enjoyed it more this time around than when I first saw it.
A lot of this comes from the sort of low-key feel the film takes – no dramatic music, no surprising twists, nothing that modern horror films sometimes have an overreliance on. It felt almost like a documentary at times, and I think that heightened the sense of realism. It helps that this is based off an actual event (the 2006 human trial of Theralizumab), so when the credits at the end say “no one from the company was charged with a crime,” and “none of the fatalities during trial were legally said to be caused by the drugs”, I can give it leeway (as I generally hate that type of thing).
There were quite a few decent performances here, but the ones that stood out most were Alex Reid (known due her appearance in The Descent), Nia Roberts, Steve Evets, and Aneurin Barnard. None of these individuals blew me away or anything, but they all gave perfectly acceptable performances.
The film does get a bit tiring near the end, especially after a plethora of utterly idiotic decisions made by the characters. It’s a shame, because for the most part, the first half is pretty good. I particularly appreciate the character building by means of showing each of them getting their shot (some of which are placebos) to officially start off the trial. Also, the fact that the film is mildly bleak in it’s conclusion (the corporation, of course, faces no legal ramifications for their actions) made the realism even more apparent.
Like I said, I did enjoy this British flick more than when I last saw it, and while I don’t love it, I could see myself giving it even another viewing in the future.
Directed by Andy Muschietti [Other horror films: Mama (2013), It (2017)]
Being an almost three-hour movie, and with a lot of new additions compared to both the source novel and 1990 mini-series, there’s a lot in It Chapter Two to try and digest even now.
I think that one of the highlights of the film is during the flashbacks to when they were kids, especially the clubhouse scene. It’s just nice seeing the young cast coming back and giving more solid performances. Related, I appreciated how they led to these flashbacks, pointing out that the first movie didn’t cover everything the Losers went through, and revealing new information to the audience via these new flashbacks, which was a fun technique.
That leads into a journey to collect tokens (not too different from the Walking Tours in the book, mostly), which was okay. I didn’t love it, nor understand the importance of some of the tokens, but it made sense in the context of preparing for some Native American ritual in order to defeat Pennywise (which itself is something a bit new and somewhat unnecessary in my view).
As far as performances go here, the clear standout is Bill Hader as Richie. He gives a fantastic performance throughout, often bring levity to dark situations, as he did as a kid. A great scene was his joke in the clubhouse, which was entirely tasteless and entirely Richie. Also, toward the end, he has a breakdown of sorts, and the emotions coming from him are almost overwhelming in their sincerity. Just utterly fantastic.
Related, I thought that Eddie’s actor, James Ransone (most well-known for Sinister), was also pretty spectacular. He really did feel like a grown-up Jack Dylan Grazer, and his character was a lot of fun, especially his conversational repertoire with Hader. The third best adult performance was probably Mike’s Isaiah Mustafa, who gave a solid, somewhat manic at times, performance, and didn’t really feel too far removed from Tim Reid’s in 1990. Andy Bean as an adult Stanley Uris was great too, though I wish he appeared more.
As for Jay Ryan, Jessica Chastain, and James McAvoy, there were decent, but weren’t really that amazing. I did like McAvoy’s performance at times, especially regarding the Georgie surrogate, and he really comes across as unhinged at times (understandably so, if truth be told), but he didn’t blow me away, nor did Ryan or Chastain. For the life of me, I couldn’t see Ryan as an adult Jeremy Ray Taylor, which hurt his character a bit for me, and Chastain, while appearing reasonably similar to her childhood version of Lillis, just didn’t bring enough to wow me.
Seeing Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Wyatt Oleff (who played one of my favorite characters in the first chapter) again was great. I wish we had more flashbacks of the times they spent together that were missed from the first film, but what we got worked out just fine.
Some scenes I like include, but at not limited to, the opening sequence (which was in the books, and I was nice to finally see that put onto film), Pennywise’s encounter with a little girl during a football game, young Ben’s encounter with Beverly at summer school, and finally seeing Paul Bunyan attack Richie (as he did in the book, but wasn’t included in the 1990 mini-series). Admittedly, Pennywise’s singing in that last scene took me aback, but it made sense in context.
Also, kudos to Stephen King’s appearance in the film, along with the snatch of Bill’s writing we saw toward the end of the film, which was almost taken word-for-word from the original novel, page 769 in my paperback copy. Just a small thing, but that paragraph was almost one of my favorite’s from the novel, so it was nice to see the nod to it. And King’s joke about how his stories end? Fun times.
So what doesn’t work? Well, they add something new to Richie’s character that I don’t think was necessary, though I don’t hate it as I suspect some viewers will. The heavy use of CGI was a bit daunting at times, especially toward Beverly’s encounter with It as an adult and the whole of the finale. The vision cave sequence didn’t do a lot for me, and the final recitation of Ben’s haiku just felt so Hollywood.
Another thing – Henry Bowers coming back didn’t really change anything about the events of the movie – sure, both Eddie and Mike got hurt, but unlike the book and the 1990 version, Mike is still able to accompany them down into the sewers, so what did Bowers accomplish? Lastly, the way that they defeat Pennywise in the end just felt ridiculous to me, and if I could have one thing in this movie changed, it would be that, because it definitely was done better in the book and, dare I say, the 1990 mini-series.
A few scenes felt something out there, such as Eddie’s encounter in the basement of the pharmacy, or portions of the final encounter (the final form was okay, in a CGI-riddled way, but the 1990 version did a better job following the source novel), but over time, I’m guessing that these scenes will do more for me.
There are a few things I wish the movie had added from the book, including the downfall of Derry during an epic storm as the group confronts Pennywise. In the book, that was such a great sequence, seeing outside characters who we’ve heard and seen throughout the book dying, or nearly escaping death, and seeing just how screwed up Derry is like to be following Pennywise’s demise.
Also, writing out the important parts that Audra and Tom play in the book is an interesting choice. Obviously, Tom wasn’t any more important in the 1990 version than he was here, but Audra was reduced too, which I’m personally okay with (her love story with Bill in the novel is perhaps the least engaging part of the book for me, though she does has a really creepy interaction with Pennywise). That said, leaving these two out but bringing in Henry Bowers just felt off to me, especially since, as aforementioned, Bowers didn’t really accomplish anything.
Like I said at the beginning, there’s a lot to digest in this movie, especially as a fan of the source novel and the 1990 mini-series, not to mention the first chapter. As it stands, I can say that the first chapter probably felt more ordered, because at times, Chapter Two can come across as a bit messy (perhaps by design). Having Pennywise go after the Losers in somewhat psychological ways (which was played up more here than in the novel) brought a little something new, as did other factors, that I’m not exactly sure yet how I feel about.
My theater performance was pretty stellar, though, so that’s good.
I can’t say many things for certain right now, but I can say that I think the first movie was better. I’ll need to see this a few more times before I come to a final conclusion, but as it stands now, divorcing myself from the rare experience of seeing a movie in theaters, I’ll give this one an average rating.
7/10
This movie was covered on the Fight Evil podcast, episode #14, so if you want to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and myself discuss this, check it out.
Directed by Ben Samuels [Other horror films: 6:15 (2015)]
Despite quite an interesting premise, a strong performance by Robert Englund, and pretty solid atmosphere, ultimately, Kantemir isn’t able to fully reach for the heights it aimed for.
The setting is good, an old fashioned mansion, which assists with the dreary atmosphere. Because the movie battles with ideas such as what reality really is, it adds sort of a creepy layer to the film.
In New Nightmare, toward the end, Heather Langenkamp (playing herself, of course), goes back to her house, only to run into John Saxon, who calls her ‘Nancy.’ That scene was always damn creepy to me, and that’s the type of thing that happens a lot in this movie, as these actors go in and out of character, losing their grip on reality. It’s done well, but it’s not enough to fully hold my interest.
As I said, Englund has a strong performance here (and to be honest, without his presence, not only would this not be even a decent movie, I probably wouldn’t have bothered watching it). He does a good job as the lead character (and I can’t say I’ve seen many films with him as the star), and toward the end, when everything’s unraveling, he really shows off his abilities. Daniel Gadi was almost hilariously serious and contemplative in his role, and didn’t really come off feeling like a real person. Diane Cary and Justine Griffiths add to the film also, though I don’t really think either is particularly noteworthy.
The idea behind the film, like I alluded to, was interesting. But also like I said, it wasn’t enough to fully captivate me. After forty minutes in, it’s not that hard to guess where the movie’s going, and it pretty much travels the expected path (including the entirely obvious conclusion).
Were it not for a somewhat stylish feel, solid atmosphere, and Englund’s presence, Kantemir probably wouldn’t be worth much. As it is, it’s not an amazing movie, or even that good. However, I think it’s palatable, at least for a single viewing, and if you’re an Englund fan, and don’t mind movies that are a bit more meta (Resolution, or Berberian Sound Studio), you might get more out of this than I did.
Generally speaking, this movie is okay. It’s certainly nothing special, and doesn’t really add much that the first Candyman didn’t bring forth, but you could do much worse than this.
Moving away from Cabrini-Green to New Orleans was a perfectly acceptable choice, though again, it doesn’t really do that much aside from give a new setting to the story. Otherwise, this movie is pretty similar to the first one, only dealing with Candyman on a slightly more personal level.
While there are some worthwhile sequences (I enjoyed the full flashback of Candyman’s origin, especially with the hand being sawed off), there lacks much of the almost-dreamy feel of the first film. Luckily, it does keep that catchy musical theme, but that’s not enough to make up for what feels to be an uninspired sequel.
Kelly Rowan did fine as the main character, though didn’t possess the same strength I got out of Madsen. It was nice to see Michael Culkin come back, and at least connecting the first two movies, though he didn’t really have a chance to do much. William O’Leary was probably the weakest performance here – he just didn’t jibe well with me. Voicing the Kingfish, Russell Buchanan was pretty fun throughout, and of course, Tony Todd had a strong presence here, and pretty much blows everyone else out of the water, though he was more threatening in the first film.
There were some pretty questionable special effects near the end, but overall, this movie does a decent job at avoiding too many special effects failures. It doesn’t do much to make the movie better, but at the very least, it’s a point in the positives for the film.
Personally, I think the first Candyman is a classic of 90’s horror, which is one of the weakest decades for the genre since the 1940’s. This sequel, while not atrocious by any means, seems wholly unnecessary. I’ve seen it perhaps three times now, and I’ve thought the same thing each time I finished it. Not bad, but not that good, and it’s nothing compared to the first film.
Directed by Terence Fisher [Other horror films: Three’s Company (1953, episodes ‘The Surgeon’ & ‘ Take a Number’), The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958), The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), The Man Who Could Cheat Death (1959), The Mummy (1959), The Stranglers of Bombay (1959), The Brides of Dracula (1960), The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), The Phantom of the Opera (1962), The Gorgon (1964), The Earth Dies Screaming (1964), Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), Island of Terror (1966), Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), Night of the Big Heat (1967), The Devil Rides Out (1968), Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969), Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)]
Starring Pat Boone (who provides the one jazzy musical number of the film, a song sharing the title of the film), this horror comedy ended up being a lot more fun than I anticipated going in.
At times, this flick felt a bit goofy, as though I were watching an episode of the Addams Family, but actually, for the most part, the humor was both still amusing and rather snappy at times. It felt like a more well-rounded version of The Old Dark House remake from 1963, I feel. Snappy story, fun sequences, a catchy song, and even a moment of both dread and suspense.
Pat Boone does perfectly fine as the lead character, and like I said, his one song lends the movie a bit more enjoyment. Erica Rogers and Andree Melly had solid presences also. Everyone else was just sort of there (Valentine Dyall has sort of a Vincent Price thing going on there in a few scenes), but no one did poorly, which it really all that matters.
Directed by the talented Terence Fisher (for a list of his contributions to the genre, just scroll up), The Horror of It All isn’t necessarily a classic, but I had a lot of fun with it, especially with the song and the ending.
Directed by Douglas Hickox [Other horror films: Theater of Blood (1973), The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983), Blackout (1985)]
What an oddball film. Based on a play of the same name, I’d probably call this mostly a dark comedy with a splash of horror elements near the end. Being a British movie, the humor is oftentimes dry, but it generally worked. It’s such a strange plot, though, and the characters (there are only four of note) aren’t relatable whatsoever, making is a somewhat difficult film to truly get into.
The four cast members all do reasonably well. Beryl Reid and Harry Andrews were certainly the more interesting siblings I’ve seen. Alan Webb overacted more than a bit, but given he played an old man close to dementia, I think that’s moderately forgivable. Mr. Sloane, played by Peter McEnery, was an oddity of a character, and I’d certainly have liked more background into him. His interactions with Andrews (who played a closeted gay man attracted to Sloane) were pretty golden, and overall, I’d say McEnery was the best of the bunch.
Given the horror elements are both sparse and don’t show up until an hour and ten minutes in, this film relies on it’s humor and witty dialogue. If you’re not into British comedy, this would definitely be a hard one to get through. Luckily, like I said, the humor worked for me, and the catchy tune ‘Entertaining Mr. Sloane‘ will be stuck in my head for the next few days, but even so, it’s not really a film I entirely enjoyed, given the lack of horror elements until the end (and even those were rather light).
Honestly, this is a film the likes of which I’ve never really seen before, and while I was enjoying much of the humor and just general nuttiness of the movie, from a horror standpoint, it left a lot to be desired. If you’re into 70’s British comedies, I’d give this one a go, but if you’re looking for some classic British horror (the same director of this later made Theatre of Blood, which would certainly count), you won’t be finding it here.
Jiggy's Horror Corner 