***Official 22nd Annual HTF October Scary Movie Challenge 2021*** (1 Viewer)

[dpippel]

OCTOBER 16:

30) Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) (4K UHD Disc) 4/5 stars - Thanks mostly to an absolutely superb performance by Gary Oldman as Vlad the Impaler/Dracula, this film has always been a favorite of mine in the pantheon of vampire movies. Stylishly directed by Francis Ford Coppola, he spins the familiar tale as a tragic love story that spans centuries, and it works marvelously. Some may be a little put off by Coppola's regular use of composite imagery in the film, but for me the main drawback here is Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, with his laughable British accent. He struggles, and I think a more experienced actor would have served the production better for this important part. Despite Mr. Reeves, Oldman mesmerizes, Winona Ryder is a delight, the production beautifully done, and the score is wonderful.

31) Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) (Blu-ray Disc) 3/5 stars - I find this to be one of the lesser efforts by Hammer Studios. The film opens directly where Dracula Has Risen From the Grave ended. A man witnesses Dracula "dying" after being impaled with a cross. He gathers up the Count's cape, ring, clasp, and some of his dried blood. Later in the film, three bored aristocrats meet up with Dracula's servant, who involves them in a ritual to resurrect the Count. They do so, but the three men kill his servant and Dracula spends the rest of the movie offing the three gentlemen, one by one, in retribution. Christopher Lee doesn't get a whole lot of screen time and seems to be phoning it in a bit. Still, it's sumptuously shot in typical Hammer fashion and looks superb.

 

[Malcolm R]

I also love Bram Stoker's Dracula (I need to watch it again, it's been a few years) and agree that Reeves is the weakest link. I've never understood how he got chosen for the role, or why any director would think that casting decision was a good idea. This is some of what Coppola has said about it:

Christian Slater was offered the role of Jonathan Harker, but he turned it down (a decision he later regretted). As for casting Keanu Reeves in the role Coppola said of his casting choice: "We tried to get some kind of matinée idol for the part of Jonathan, because it isn't such a great part. If we all were to go to the airport... Keanu is the one that the girls would just besiege." Coppola has stated that Reeves worked harder on his accent than most people realized: "He tried so hard. That was the problem, actually — he wanted to do it perfectly and in trying to do it perfectly it came off as stilted. I tried to get him to just relax with it and not do it so fastidiously. So maybe I wasn’t as critical of him, but that’s because I like him personally so much. To this day he’s a prince in my eyes."

 

[Michael Elliott]

The Keeper (1976) *

Christopher Lee runs an asylum for the rich and soon his patients are being killed. A detective goes undercover to find out why. This is one of those films that was made with Canadian tax money and it really makes you want to go protest Canada. I saw this film way back in the VHS era and I remember it being pretty damn bad and my memory wasn't wrong. This film is just so slow, so boring and so stupid that it's hard to really care about any of it. It's poorly made and one has to wonder why Lee would say yes to a film like this and then turn down HALLOWEEN.

The Lighthouse (2019) ***

Well, this was interesting. I'm going to start by saying I found it to be all style and no substance. I really didn't care for the story and really couldn't connect to it either. With that being said, the visual style of the film was terrific and I loved the two performances. I really thought this was one of the best looking films in recent memory and I might go even further and say that the director's eye is the best since Kubrick. It certainly wasn't an easy film to watch but the visuals and performances were just amazing.

The Fourth Victim (1971) **

Carroll Baker plays a woman who gets involved with a man whose three previous wives all died under mysterious circumstances. I really enjoyed the Lenzi/Baker set but this so-called giallo from Eugenio Martin is pretty damn disappointing. The story is boring. The characters really aren't that interesting. The mystery itself is just one that doesn't hold much interest. This is in no way, shape or form a giallo but it seems every movie from this era that has a murderer has to be called one.

Beauty and the Beast (1962) **

Edward L. Cahn directs this low-budget version of the classic tale. Yes, yes, yes. The film isn't awful but nothing in it is good either. Why am I including it here? To be honest, I had never heard of the film until I watched the director's CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN earlier in this challenge. After I view a movie I also go through the director's credits to try and find new things to seek out. I discovered this film AND learned that the one and only Jack Pierce did the make-up effects. Why is this important?

We all know he was fired from Universal because he never evolved with technology and his battles with Chaney during the werewolf make-up is a major reason why he was fired. What's fascinating is that the same werewolf make-up is used here. You can see the Beast's "mask" and notice it seems to be the same nose and teeth from THE WOLF MAN. The story itself also has the Beast only "changing" at night so this here is basically a werewolf film. Pretty interesting to see Pierce doing this at such a late stage of his life and it's even more shocking this film isn't better known because of this.

 

[dpippel]

I also love Bram Stoker's Dracula (I need to watch it again, it's been a few years) and agree that Reeves is the weakest link. I've never understood how he got chosen for the role, or why any director would think that casting decision was a good idea. This is some of what Coppola has said about it:

Interesting. I think Slater would have worked out better. Too bad he turned it down.

 

[JohnRice]

A coworker who likes Rob Zombie's movies said I "needed to watch his remake" (she likes both the original and Zombie's film) so I did in spite of having an intense dislike for everything he's done (she'd talked me into watching his House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects which formed my opinion of his work) . Nope... didn't like it one bit.

I can understand that. While I do appreciate what he did with the first two Firefly movies (I couldn't even finish the third one) they're not exactly something I "enjoy". I suggest you give Lords of Salem a try. It's not very highly regarded, but I think it's pretty good. Kind of a surrealistic spin on Rosemary's Baby as it might be envisioned by Jodorowski.

 

[TravisR]

I avoided watching Halloween (1978) for decades because it appeared to be a slasher movie - a sub genre I just absolutely do not like. So... a few years before K-Mart went under I found it in their Halloween DVD display for $5 and thought "Why not?" I was quite surprised to find it's mostly psychological horror with none of the in-your-face slasher "horror" I do not like. While it's not a favorite it *is* a movie I now enjoy and rewatch every couple of years. A coworker who likes Rob Zombie's movies said I "needed to watch his remake" (she likes both the original and Zombie's film) so I did in spite of having an intense dislike for everything he's done (she'd talked me into watching his House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects which formed my opinion of his work) . Nope... didn't like it one bit.

If you had been avoiding Halloween because you didn't like the usual slasher movie, I have no problem believing that you didn't like the Rob Zombie one.

For what it's worth, I like his Halloween well enough, love The Devil's Rejects, and The Lords Of Salem is so close to being great but it just doesn't come together for me (some people love it though), and the rest range from OK to bad. I am looking forward to seeing what he does with The Munsters since he's a big fan of the series and this seems like a good way for him to make something more fun than his normal movie.

 

[BobO'Link]

Yesterday was, mostly, Stephen King miniseries day - watching the miniseries I've purchased that are based on his work. I'll state up front that I'm not a fan of his writing *or* the majority of films based on his writing. The *one* film based on his writing I *do* like is Kubrick's The Shining - but based on what I've read it's a huge departure from the book.

October 16th
70. Rose Red - Pt1 (2002) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
71. Rose Red - Pt2 (2002) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
72. Rose Red - Pt3 (2002) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
This is, for all intents and purposes, a just average crib/reworking of The Haunting (1963) and The Legend of Hell House, both based on the book "The Haunting of Hell House" (1959) by Shirley Jackson.

Parapsychologist Joyce Reardon is determined to mount an expedition to explore the phenomena at Seattle’s notoriously haunted Rimbauer house, which has been nicknamed Rose Red. She gathers a group of psychics, including the powerful but autistic psychokinetic Annie Wheaton to examine and explore the house.

It's overly long and excessively padded. We get back story for *everyone,* via flashbacks, with lengthy explanations, often via flashback, for almost everything that happens. There are some very good vfx and interesting sets that come too few and far between. There's an incredibly too long, cheesy, and cringe worthy "cameo" by King as a pizza delivery guy.

This could have been a fairly interesting 2-3 hour project in spite of being a mostly formulaic haunted house story. At almost 4.5 hours it becomes a slog.

73. Salem's Lot - Pt1 (2004) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
74. Salem's Lot - Pt2 (2004) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
I'd always thought this was about a coven of witches, all based on the title. Well... it's not. It's a vampire story. Once again, an overly long and padded affair. It's a remake of an earlier miniseries - one I've not seen so have no basis for comparison.

Writer Ben Mears (Rob Lowe) returns to his childhood home of Jerusalem's Lot and discovers that it is being terrorized by vampires.

Rob Lowe is generally OK and Donald Sutherland is "meh" in this rather generic and cliche' vampire story. It uses lots (and lots) of narration to let us know what's happened or happening, often over rather generic scenes of the town. I found the main story (not the bookend bits to set up and "conclude" things) ending to be rather funny, something I'm sure was unintentional.

75. The Shining (1997) - Pt1 ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
76. The Shining (1997) - Pt2 ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
77. The Shining (1997) - Pt3 ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲☼
As I mentioned earlier, I like Kubrick's version of this story and had read it was significantly different than the book. King was so unhappy that he penned this sequel himself. It stars Steven Webber (the TV series Wings) and Rebecca De Mornay as Jack and Wendy Torrence.

A recovering alcoholic must wrestle with demons within and without when he and his family move into a haunted hotel as caretakers.

The story builds slowly, as with Kubrick's version, and offers all those bits fans and King complained were missing - mostly a focus on Jack's alcoholism, what it's done to him and his family, and son Danny's (Courtland Mead) "gift" - "The Shining" - and the integration of several scenes that add/enhance suspense. The story benefits greatly by those additions as they help explain just *why* things are happening. It becomes less of a "haunted house" story and more of a personal haunting.

Surprisingly, Webber is a very good "Jack Torrence" playing the growing mental decay quite well. De Mornay is also quite good as Wendy and not the somewhat hesterical wallflower as in Kubrick's version. The true star is Courtland Mead with his excellent portrayal of a complex child role. Melvin Van Peebles is a very good "Dick Halloran."

Clocking in at just over 4 1/2 hours, it doesn't feel nearly as padded as those other 2 mini-series I watched earlier in the day. Only the 2nd part drug in places, and is why it got a lower star rating. The first part set up everything very well, showing needed back story, and got things moving along with the third part getting to the real meat of the story with the house and its attempt to take over Danny. Visual effects were mostly very good with the weakest being the CGI hedge animal sculptures. The only real negative for me was the "10 years later" ending showing Danny graduating from HS. It was somewhat overly sentimental, especially with a particular bit (not saying in case you've not seen this).

So... Just *which* is better? That's hard to say. I still like Kubrick's version but this one is a worthy version *if* you have the time. The additions and changes truly make it a different film with a similar story - and it *does* end differently as far as the hotel is concerned.

78. Creatures the World Forgot (1971) ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
The 4th, and final, "caveman" movie from Hammer, again, has no dialog. It also doesn't have Raquel Welch as an attraction though it does have a bevy of semi-nude and clothed women on hand just in case. It's also not that different a story from the one told in One Million Years B.C. though it's missing the stop-motion dinosaurs, or *any* dinosaurs for that matter, of that superior film.

In prehistoric times, two brothers fight each other for the leadership of their tribe.

Like with "mummy" films, I have an affinity towards these pre-historic and/or dinosaur films in spite of their rather generic and often boring stories.

**EDIT**
So I kind of slammed King at the top but failed to say just *why* I own these miniseries when I don't particularly care for his work. Rose Red was purchased several *years* back at Big Lots (~$3 IIRC) "just because" it was cheap and I thought "Why not?" Since I had several I decided to watch them all in a single day and started with Rose Red simply because I've been putting off watching it for *years*. ALL the others came in a set I purchased solely to get a copy of The Shining that also contains the miniseries Salem's Lot, and IT. The set was *less* expensive than purchasing The Shining on its own. The only reason IT wasn't viewed that day is because my 10yo granddaughter wants to see the movie and I told her she should watch the miniseries first so it was saved to watch with her. And I watch everything I purchase.

 

[John Stell]

Rating - Out of a possible 4

057) 10/16/2021 Dracula (1931)

1/2

Despite the stakes tossed at this film, I still think very highly of it for its atmosphere and memorable characters. I also love the fact it doesn't have a music score. Lugosi is so impressive in the role that even when he's not on screen one can still feel his presence. Granted some of it is stagey but there's always something just around the corner that's memorable.

058) 10/16/2021 Dracula's Daughter (1936)

Good sequel with title character (Gloria Holden) hoping that, with Dad out of the picture, she can lead a normal life. Fat chance. The locations and settings are bit too modern for my taste but the story is solid. Irving Pichel as Holden's morose servant steals the show.

059) 10/16/2021 Son of Dracula (1943)

This might be the first horror-noir. Lon Chaney, Jr.'s Dracula is the figurative and literal sucker to Louise Allbritton's femme fatale, Kay Caldwell. Dracula shows up at Dark Oaks estate to get hitched to Caldwell. Her boyfriend doesn't like that and everything goes wrong. Or does it? Chaney is just OK as Dracula but the plot is so good as is the direction that the film works very well. And, oh, those familiar Universal music cues...

060) 10/17/2021 Night of the Living Dead (1968)

George A. Romero and his team redefined the zombie for this classic and the horror genre has never been the same since. Shot in black and white, documentary style, this is a chillingly believable story of disparate group of people trapped in Pennsylvania farmhouse surround by the hungry living dead. Retains its power to frighten despite the numerous sequels and rip-offs. The ending is still a kicker.

 

[BobO'Link]

057) 10/16/2021 Dracula (1931)

1/2

Despite the stakes tossed at this film, I still think very highly of it for its atmosphere and memorable characters. I also love the fact it doesn't have a music score. Lugosi is so impressive in the role that even when he's not on screen one can still feel his presence. Granted some of it is stagey but there's always something just around the corner that's memorable.

I've noticed that the vast majority of films made in the past decade, or longer back, now have practically continuous musical scores, often using the music to push emotion/dread/excitement/suspense when there's little on display in the movie itself and often detracts from what's on the screen. I immediately notice this and it almost always turns me off of the film because there's no place where the dialog is allowed to stand on its own. The practice makes me feel like I'm being manipulated into a feeling that doesn't exist. Basically, it insults my intelligence.

 

[Malcolm R]

Slumber Party Massacre (2021) 1/2

SyFy's remake of the 80's slasher is a horror comedy that turns some of the tropes of the traditional slasher film on its head to reflect the times we live in. Two groups of young people are partying on opposite sides of the lake, both end up being terrorized by Russ Thorne, the "Driller Killer", who has been long thought dead after his original spree ended 30 years before. In this version, it's the men who are portrayed as oblivious and largely ineffective eye-candy himbos, who blunder around while having shirtless slo-mo pillow fights. The women are smart, strong and brave, and fight back against the killer while trying rescue the guys.

This was a pretty fun watch, to see the traditional slasher gender roles upended, and with some great writing from Suzanne Keilly (Ash vs. Evil Dead) and direction by Danishka Esterhazy (The Banana Splits Movie). I found the on-going dialogue and confusion over the two guys named "Guy" funny, but maybe that's just me.

 

[dpippel]

OCTOBER 17:

32) The Mummy (1959) (Blu-ray Disc) 3.5/5 stars - Hammer's take on this tale is entertaining, but falls short of being really good. Lee and Cushing are awesome, as usual, but it drags a bit and to be honest, looks kind of cheap (which it was). But, it gets an extra half a star just because it's a Hammer Production.

33) Ringu* (1998) (iTunes HD Streaming) 3/5 stars - A female reporter and her ex husband investigate a series of strange deaths tied to a "cursed" videotape. Anyone who watches it mysteriously dies exactly 7 days later. While this film received a lot of acclaim and spawned a series of sequels, remakes, and rip-offs, I found it to be pretty pedestrian. It certainly wasn't very frightening. The actors playing the leads, Nanako Matsushima and Hiroyuki Sanada, do a great job and are a pleasure to watch, but it comes off as more of a procedural crime drama than a horror film.

 

[Bryan^H]

Little House on the Prairie 'The Monster of Walnut Grove' season 3 (1978)
A nice Halloween episode from one of my favorite TV shows.
Laura Ingalls witnesses what she believes to be Nels Olsen decapitate Mrs. Olsen with a a sword (a dummy). She tells her best friend who at first he doesn't believe her. Things work in Lara's favor for the suspicion , and soon the facts start to lend credence to her beliefs.
Wonderful episode that had me on the edge of my seat. Not so much for the fact that none of it happeend, but Nels being a bit too out of character to thinking he could actually lose his cool on Harriet, and turn into a homicidal maniac.

At the end of the episodeThe headless horseman appears for no reason

and that to me is really cool. Walnut Grove is most certainly haunted!!!
Grade - A

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

October 17: Halloween (2018) – 3.5 out of 5

It's been decades since Michael Myers terrorized Haddonfield, Illinois with his murderous rampage on Halloween night, 1978. While Myers has been incarcerated, Laurie Strode, a survivor of his attack, has suffered through failed marriages and seclusion, becoming a hermit survivalist and preparing for the day when Michael crosses her path again. That time has come as Myers has escaped and begins a rampage anew and Laurie might be the only one that can stop him.

The convoluted mythology of Michael Myers that zig-zagged through a collection of weaker and weaker sequels was discarded for this follow up, which only recognizes the events of the first film. That was a smart move. There may be moments and ideas that we'll miss as a result, but it was the right thing to do in the end.

The quality of this sequel, the respect it has for the original film and characters, immediately makes this the best sequel in this franchise, and the visual aesthetic is very Carpenter-esque, which, when combined with the score original composer and director John Carpenter provides (along with his son, Cody) delivers a film that feels like a true and authentic continuation of the 1978 classic. The violence is brutal and the shape stalking his victims terrifying.

Where this direct follow up falters a little is in the mix of characters that we don't really get to spend enough time with before they find themselves in the thick of things. We initially follow two documentary podcasters, then the reclusive Laurie, then her family, then Laurie's granddaughter and her friends, but it’s not enough to build the same effective terror the 1978 film managed. I did like that there were some surprises in where the story went, and there's some playful dialogue, too.

I saw this for the first time last year and was impressed enough to want to watch it again ahead of the release of the direct follow up, Halloween Kills, which I plan on watching tomorrow. For some reason, this film had me frightened more than ever. I scare quite easily in these movies (I still don’t know why I love them so much), but this viewing had me turning down the volume a number of times to lessen the tension. Don’t worry, I’ll be okay

Enjoyed this film more this go around and looking forward to the sequel tomorrow!

 

[sleroi]

21. Ravenous (1999) - - A stranger stumbles into a remote military fort in the Sierra Nevadas around the time of the Mexican American war. He says he has survived for 3 months by reluctantly resorting to cannibalism. A Native American scout at the fort tries to warn the others that this stranger is a Wendigo, a vampiric demon who grows stronger by consuming human flesh.

The isolated location and the introduction of the few characters at the fort seemed to be setting up a slasher type film, but it goes in a different direction that I cant really summarize without giving anything away.

The film works for me as a bloody good dark comedy, pun intended. Robert Carlysle is excellent as the stranger. And it was nice to see Jeffrey Jones in something other than an 80s comedy. And also, I really liked the score. It is mostly odd and quirky, but can be quite suspenseful when the scenes call for it.

22. Rabid (1977) - - After surviving a motorcycle accident, Marilyn Chambers undergoes an experimental skin graft procedure and begins hugging people to near death. Her victims then appear to have and begin spreading a new strain of rabies throughout Montreal.

Turns out the skin graft caused a weird stinger thing to form inside Chambers armpit that craves human blood.

The plot is ridiculous. The actors are so serious it borders on bad melodrama. It takes too long to figure out whats going on with Chambers, so the attacks initially dont make any sense. And there are too many failed attempts at jump scares. Like a drunk farmer enters a barn, and the audio cue that accompanies him would make you think a giant monster just appeared from nowhere.

This was kind of a slog to get through, but I did kind of like the ending, in wich Chambers, in denial that she is the source of the new rabies, comes up with a way to test herself. But it wasnt enough to make up for the rest of the film.

 

[TravisR]

Little House on the Prairie 'The Monster of Walnut Grove' season 3 (1978)

I know that TV has changed greatly over the last few decades but I do miss the Halloween/horror episode of a series where that kind of story doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine how many 1980's sitcoms I only saw one episode of because the commercial made it look like it was scary.

 

[JohnRice]

21. Ravenous (1999) - - A stranger stumbles into a remote military fort in the Sierra Nevadas around the time of the Mexican American war. He says he has survived for 3 months by reluctantly resorting to cannibalism. A Native American scout at the fort tries to warn the others that this stranger is a Wendigo, a vampiric demon who grows stronger by consuming human flesh.

The isolated location and the introduction of the few characters at the fort seemed to be setting up a slasher type film, but it goes in a different direction that I cant really summarize without giving anything away.

The film works for me as a bloody good dark comedy, pun intended. Robert Carlysle is excellent as the stranger. And it was nice to see Jeffrey Jones in something other than an 80s comedy. And also, I really liked the score. It is mostly odd and quirky, but can be quite suspenseful when the scenes call for it.

22. Rabid (1977) - - After surviving a motorcycle accident, Marilyn Chambers undergoes an experimental skin graft procedure and begins hugging people to near death. Her victims then appear to have and begin spreading a new strain of rabies throughout Montreal.

Turns out the skin graft caused a weird stinger thing to form inside Chambers armpit that craves human blood.

The plot is ridiculous. The actors are so serious it borders on bad melodrama. It takes too long to figure out whats going on with Chambers, so the attacks initially dont make any sense. And there are too many failed attempts at jump scares. Like a drunk farmer enters a barn, and the audio cue that accompanies him would make you think a giant monster just appeared from nowhere.

This was kind of a slog to get through, but I did kind of like the ending, in wich Chambers, in denial that she is the source of the new rabies, comes up with a way to test herself. But it wasnt enough to make up for the rest of the film.

Ravenous is such a weird stinking movie. Every year I intend to watch my blu-ray of it, and never seem to do it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Blue - Physical Media
Orange - Streaming
Black - Theatrical
Green - Cable/Broadcast Television

Bold - Denotes first ever viewing

Points as of 10/18/2021: 13.66

21) 10/18/2021 Freaks (2018)

(1 point)

Seven-year-old Chloe has spent her entire life inside the walls of a dilapidated house, its windows all blocked to the outside world. She was raised by her father, who is mostly warm and kind but can also be severely paranoid. Despite her father's efforts and precautions, she begins to figure out what the world is like. Soon, nothing will be the same.

This one of the those movies that works best if you know next to nothing going into it, so I'm going to put the rest of my thoughts within spoiler tags:

Spoiler

The movie is set on an alternate Earth very similar to the post-apocalyptic futures from the X-Men comics. Superpowered beings, known as abnormals or "freaks" are relentlessly hunted by the government. Children with one abnormal parent will likely be abnormal too. But children with two abnormal parents will be even more powerful. Once the government realized that the abnormals were becoming more powerful with each generation, it embarked on an extermination campaign.

Chloe is the daughter of Henry and Mary Lewis. Henry can create time bubbles. Inside the bubbles, the world outside seems to be nearly frozen. Outside the bubbles, anybody inside seems to have super speed. Mary is basically this universe's Superman: she can fly at supersonic speeds and manipulate gravity in ways that are extremely lethal.

Chloe herself is like the children from the Village of the Damned, with extremely powerful mental abilities that allow her to communicate across vast distances and force people to obey her will. To protect Chloe from the world, and perhaps to protect the world from Chloe, he has raised her inside a time bubble so that she has aged seven years while only a few months have passed for the rest of the world.

The movie is told from the freaks' point of view, and there is inherent sympathy for them. But what they can do is also quite terrifying. Chloe kills many, many people before the movie is over, with no apparent remorse. When we learn that the government has declared the freaks living weapons of mass destruction, we can see why.

Chloe is also only seven, so even though the audience is learning about this world right along with her, we understand things that a child would not. As the backstory of this child is gradually revealed, it all feels like an organic extension of what we'd learned previously.

Lexy Kolker is tremendous as Chloe, who has to be sweet and innocent at certain times and creepy and terrifying at other times. Bruce Dern is terrific as Chloe's grandfather, whose intentions and motivations take a while to become clear. Grace Park is also really good as the government agent who is seen as a pro-abnormal moderate but really sees powerful abnormals as useful weapons in an emerging arms race. And Amanda Crew does a lot with relatively little screen time as Mary, who is incredibly powerful but also wonderfully maternal when she needs to be.

15. Bedazzled (1967) NEW – This “deal with the devil” comedy is a lot of fun, but I should have seen it in my late teens when I was more obsessed with British comedy. Dudley Moore plays a shy short-order cook secretly in love with a waitress. Peter Cook appears as the devil to offer him seven wishes in exchange for his soul. Of course, each wish comes with a catch. Much of it remains very funny but there are a few bits that show their age. Directed by Stanley Donen. We watched the Twilight Time release.

My favorite part about that movie is that every time Dudley Moore's character seeks the devil out, he always catches him in the middle of some extremely dickish act of petty evil.

 

[Jeff Flugel]

11. Tarantula (1955)
This is one of my earliest movie memories. When I was about 4 or 5, I watched this movie on TV and cried when they napalmed the giant spider (yeah, I was a weird kid). I know I must have seen it at least once more in my later childhood/teenage years, but this is the first time I've seen this film in probably 40 years. I didn't remember that, for the first half or so of the running time, this is essentially a "mad scientist" or "science run amok" flick. The giant spider attack action doesn't really kick in till the last third or so.

Luckily, director Jack Arnold is an old pro at drumming up some spooky, desert-bound atmosphere in his '50s Universal monster mashes. I'd say this one sits in the middle of the pack among his genre work. It's not up there with The Incredible Shrinking Man or Creature from the Black Lagoon, but it's plenty entertaining. It's got a solid cast, too: Leo G. Carroll plays the scientist working on a mysterious nutritional formula which results in amazing growth in animals and rapid acrogemaly in humans; John Agar is the stalwart country doctor who gets involved in the scenario, mostly thanks to the arrival of a foxy lady scientist (Mara Corday); and Nestor Paiva (without an accent this time) plays the skeptical local sheriff. The special effects are rudimentary (consisting mostly of a real tarantula superimposed over footage of desert landscapes) but work pretty well, and I especially appreciated the occasional close-up we get of the tarantula's gigantic eyes and mandibles. Overall, a lot of fun. Look for a young Clint Eastwood, who gets a few lines at the climax as one of the Air Force jet pilots raining fiery hell down upon the rampaging arachnid.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Special Effects (1984) ***

A down on his luck movie director kills a wannabe actress and her boyfriend is the main suspect. He also filmed the crime and decides to do a movie about the murder and use the real footage inside the film. I'm often very hit and miss on films directed by Larry Cohen because there's often just too much going on. This film has a lot going on with its plot but I thought it worked perfectly and in fact this is probably the best film from the director. Zoe Lund and Eric Bognosian are both great in their roles. It's a shame this film isn't better known than it is.

Curse of the Full Moon (1971) *

A woman brings her new fiancé home and learns that her family are a bunch of werewolves. This is Andy Milligan's original film that was never released but instead rat footage was eventually added to make THE RATS ARE COMING! THE WEREWOLVES ARE HERE!. I will say that this version is much, much better but sadly it's still a very bad and very boring picture. Basically 73-minutes of people doing nothing but talking and talking and then talking some more. For the life of me I can't understand who Milligan thought would want to watch this thing back in the day. It's easy to see why the producer said no and had new footage added but....

The Rats are Coming! The Werewolves Are Here! (1972) BOMB

Everything that was awful about CURSE OF THE FULL MOON is on display here but the added 20-minutes of footage makes this film even more unbearable. All of the rat footage was suggested to try and cash in on WILLARD and it's just downright stupid. It also doesn't seem that Milligan was interested in shooting it as it all looks rather ugly and silly. The title itself is one of the greatest in the history of film so it's easy to see why people would see it and then want to check out the movie only to find something completely worthless.

 

[Bryan^H]

Lady Frankenstein (1971)
Although it is not a Hammer film if feels very much like one, of the same time frame at that. Lush, gothic surroundings, typical story matching the title, and decent acting.. with a bit of nudity. A nice revision of the Frankenstein tale with a very attractive leading lady. The monster isn't especially great in the makeup department, but comparing it to the Hammer films are any of the 60's 70's monsters really good?

Grade -B

It's Alive (1969)
A hermit like mountain man discovers a prehistoric creature deep within the mountain caverns while prospecting for gold. So he captures people passing by to sacrifice/terrorize.
The biggest problem with this film is the two dangers involved. Is it the crazy hermit to be feared, or the prehistoric beast? Exploitation, or horror?
Who knows, but it sure doesn't make for a satisfying film.

Grade - D+