Horror Movies

[returnofjakedog]

YAS GIRL YASSSS!!! lol

Agreed with everything!

The score & cinematography were superb! Being relatively outdoorsy myself, I can eat up all that B-roll without hesitation! I can watch those outdoor drone videos for hours just soakin in the landscapes.

The flower concept was a tad difficult to comprehend. It made more sense when the 1-legged Frenchmen was laying there trying to act dead but the infrared vision still showed some heat signatures makin the Predator 2nd guess him. He wasn't completely blended into the ground/surroundings. And if I'm not mistaken, he had more time to digest the flower medicine... That chick swallowed it like 10s before the predator came strollin into her campfire site. And everyone else got chill tremors but her. Guessing because they were already wounded & in shock?

Animal behavior... Yea it was over the top. They were definitely trying to really emphasize predator behaviors to make it seem like all predators think they're the alpha on the food chain. Like I said, the predator-prey motif was a clear agenda and they wanted it to be very clear who was who. The griz was the only real believable one. They attack without provocation most times, especially if they're starving. If the cougar scene was near a den then I could sorta see it, but not really. They wanted that cougar to behave like Shere Khan or somethin.

Wow! I honestly wasn't sure you'd think it was better than Predators (2017). But I'm glad you rewatched it immediately after Prey (2022) to get a fair shake of it. I thought about doin the same, and probably will this weekend.

Pretty sure I've already said this a few times, but I'll reiterate my stance on P2... It's mainly nostalgia driven for me. I know its a flawed movie but it's so damn memorable for me.. Like the first time I saw the scene where the Predator walked away carrying the voodoo king's screaming head. Something about the pure terror in that scene was straight up engrained in my mind forever lol. And can't forget the meatlocker scene where poor Gary Busey is divided in 2 using the Yautja disk! I just have too good of recall on so many memorable scenes in that movie. And the dude on the tribal drums doing the score was workin double time bruh!

Agree on the franchise ratio being better than most. It was sad to see the direction they took that franchise. Predators (2017) was a lone gem in the past couple decades lol. Now we have at least have a break in the tie between the distinctive tiers in the franchise.

Upper tier: P1, P2, Predators, Prey
Bottom tier: AvP, AvPR, tP

Agreed! A very well executed movie. Still a few minor missteps but nothing that ruined my enjoyment.

I also enjoy Predator 2 quite a lot. It deserves more credit. I think that the perception that Danny Glover wasn't a "strong enough" lead (in the sense of personality) by comparison to the original hurt it at the time but that perspective shouldn't be valid after the rest of the franchise has come out.

 

[DJ Fieri]

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

View attachment 304924

It's just a flesh wound!

 

[DJ Fieri]

It's just a flesh wound!

*Sigh*

Tis just a flesh wound!!!!

 

[returnofjakedog]

Mother of Tears (2007)-

More Italian stuff! This one is the final chapter of Dario Argento's classic Mother's Trilogy following the brilliant original Susperia, and the underrated (imo) Inferno.

So a set of mother and child coffins with chained locks is unearthed at a church. The child size coffin doesn't have a body in it, only artifacts, and is sent to Rome for study. However the archeologist (played by Dario's daughter Asia Argento) is attacked late at night and chased around the huge museum by a group of weirdo "satanists" (motherists?) and an evil baboon(!). Things start going nutty all over Rome as people start acting violent and crazy, and Asia is harassed and attacked by more weirdo witches who are arriving in Rome in large numbers. Through the support of "good witches", Asia discovers that her mother was a powerful good witch, and that she also has latent powers. She then battles with the evils forces to try to stop the fortold apocalypse.

A lot to unpack with this one. As all Argento movies, this one has a lot of weird stuff going on, but it is certainly different than likes of Susperia.

The good:
*A good lore and continuation to the previous 2 Mother films. The story itself is strong, but it is a bit confusing.
*Spectacular over-the-top fxs! You have to wade through a lot of dialogue, but when the gross out stuff hits it can be pretty good.
*Acting from the leads is pretty good. Asia Argento is solid. It is always weird when a father/director shoots nude scenes with his daughter though.
*Soundtrack is very good. Performed by the guy from the legendary horror score band Goblin who.

The bad:
*It drags quite a bit between the violent gorific scenes. Lots of talking, and boring exposition until you get to the fun.
*Campy. This isn't bad unto itself, but if you expect the same tone as Susperia and Inferno then you might be confused. This one gets pretty chessy in some moments.
*The typical Italian/foreign film complaints about dubbing and how it affects the perception of the acting, direction, etc. But it is s bit more limited in use and isn't nearly as distracting here as in some movies.
*While the story itself is good, the explicit details are often quite convoluted.
*It doesn't really have the full on "fever dream" feel of the earlier Argento films.

While it is a direct continuation of the over-arching "Mothers" trilogy lore, the almost 3 decade wait brings different filming equipment and techniques, and gives a very different look. Add to it Argento embracing schlocky gore and weirdness over kinda subtle fever dream terror, and you had many critics who didn't like this one as much. But it is a bit of a split on that. However if you set that aside, it is a fun movie with great fxs shoved inbetween long periods of slightly boring exposition.

7 outta 10 area from me. Could have been higher with some more of the old school Argento crazed use of brilliant color, and less of the slow, talky segments.

Of all of the horror directors I have noted during my deep dive into horror history in the last couple of years Argento is probably my favorite. He just does some awesomely cool and strange stuff. This one isn't his top tier but is still a fine entry into his legacy imo.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Lord of Illusions (1995)-

A Clive Barker written feature, and the last of only 3 that he directed, the other 2 being Hellraiser and Nightbreed. I remember seeing it on release, and enjoying it a bit.

Anyways, I tried to write a synopsis but it got out of control all of the details, so here is a very brief (by comparison) round up:
After an intense fight, a black magic cult leader is binded and buired by some of his former disciples. 15 years or so later P.I. Scott Bakula gets entangled with these former disciples as the cult members attempt to free their leader. This all leads to the "resurrection" of the cult leader and a big showdown.

All in all, a creepy and kinda fun romp into the evil cult magic genre, highlighted with a confusing story and cool fxs. Most of the acting is good, with Bakula and the guy who plays the psychotic Butterfield and his sidekick being particularly memorable. Also the cult members can be creepy as hell. The story itself is full of the weird, gory fun that Barker fans have come to expect, but it is so packed full of stuff to the point where it can be rather confusing.

All in all, maybe a 6.5 to 7 outta 10 area? There is a lot to like but it just seemed like it didn't reach it's potential. It seems like a good candidate for a 6-8 hour miniseries to allow for the story to breath and fill out more.

The cult leader character, Nix, was a bit of a problem for me (through no fault of his own or the movie's) as he played one of George's bosses on Seinfeld, I kept on thinking about him attending the Festivus dinner, leaving on a high note, and Koko the monkey, which would make me crack up a little. It is hard to take the insanely powerful evil cult leader demon guy too seriously when you start laughing about George trying to erase himself from the guy's vacation picture!

 

[DJ Fieri]

 

[DJ Fieri]

 

[DarthVedder]

Since the pandemic, with my wife we started a "routine" of watching a horror movie every friday or sat, accompanied by a nice bottle (or two) of wine and some fancy snacks / finger food. We are always looking for smaller / lesser known movies/series, and we've found several great ones like Saint Maud or The Empty Man. But besides the great ones, we've also found several crappy movies, and this weekend we had such bad luck.

The mark of the devil / La marca del demonio

We watched it in Spanish, so we didn't suffer the terrible dub job it has, but the acting was still bad and the movie is full of cliches and stolen scenes from much better movies. At some points it felt like a parody movie, but the movie itself takes itself way too seriously. There are a couple of good ideas in there, but they are never exploited, and several things happen without explanation or point.

Generic story + wooden acting

3/10

 

[DJ Fieri]

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Things I didn't know I needed #9873497834

 

[returnofjakedog]

A buddy of mine "recommended" Night of Something Strange (2016), which is apparently about a std that zombifies folks.


He said not to tell anyone he recommended it, and his wife piped in with "You mean that movie you guys were watching when I came home? That was disgusting!"

Any movie with the tagline "Remember to bring your condoms.......and your bazookas" is probably worth a look.

Night of Something Strange (2016)-

Well, this one certainly isn't for everyone!

An nasty std turns people into nearly unkillable sex zombies. A group of college kids on vacation find themselves under attack.

That is the most general synopsis. The details are far more bizarrely disturbing.

It starts with a "bang" (literally) and goes over-the-top for the 10-15 minute intro scene, then slows down for 20 minutes or so of character and plot introduction, and then fully returns to the crazed pacing of early on.

We have:
*Morgue attendant necrophilila
*Zombies pissing on folks
*Zombies sucking on tampons
*Giant attack penises
*Full on vagina dentata, as in the movie Teeth, but actually shown here via practical fxs.
*Many gallons of different types of bodily fluids
*Guy stuck in zombie ass (like when dogs get stuck together). (Insanely stupid, but almost kinda works for what they are going for).
*Raging sex zombies looking to screw anything and anyone. This leads to not a small amount of r*pe (implied or otherwise).
Etc etc etc etc - There is just too much to list here.

So they obviously went full on to try to be as offensive as possible and they generally succeeded.

So, is it even worth giving it a shot? Well, if you can handle the "grossness" of it all, it is surprisingly well done for it's themes and budget.
*I was surprised to see some very well done shots. Usually a film of this ilk isn't going to care about cinematography very much!
*The fxs! The real star of the show is the fxs. They are often ridiculous and tasteless but the fx artists really did a helluva a job and they are used a lot.

Some mixed bag and negative stuff:
*Acting- considering what this movie is, and the budget there is some decent acting in it, but also some not so great. Regardless of quality, they sure do give it their all!
*Dialogue- well, they intentionally make it weird and stupid but it is necessary for the type of film they are going for.
*Some bad cgi- to be expected with the budget but still not good.

How do we quantify something like this? Well, maybe Evil Dead meets Zombeavers with a bunch of Street Trash level themes?? Not sure if that is accurate but that is as close as I can get.

Not for 90%+ of the public but the most demented of us out there will "appreciate" it. I'll go 6 to 6.5 outta 10 range for what it is but it will be unwatchable for the general folks out there.

@Sharkonabicycle : since you had me watch Street Trash.......at least this one is way better executed.
@Chef99 : It fits the humor style, but not sure if it would thematically work for ya?
@FaCe-LeE-uS : Don't watch with the wife!!! (or anyone who gets offended).

Everyone else : it can be enjoyable but proceed with extreme caution! The cringiest parts are probably at the beginning (before the tone is clarified) so if you can get through that then the over-the-top schlockiness of it takes over after the character intros.

Good luck!

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Agreed! A very well executed movie. Still a few minor missteps but nothing that ruined my enjoyment.

I also enjoy Predator 2 quite a lot. It deserves more credit. I think that the perception that Danny Glover wasn't a "strong enough" lead (in the sense of personality) by comparison to the original hurt it at the time but that perspective shouldn't be valid after the rest of the franchise has come out.

Still been stewing on that damn campfire scene... With the flower edible.

It keeps rustling my self-proclaimed sciency expert jimmies... That scene is even more bullshit when you consider she is standing next to a fire. So not only would the "flower chill" had to counteract her own heat signature, but also the radiant heat absorption from a campfire. Maybe if she ate enough to overdose it might have been more feasible... but nah

 

[returnofjakedog]

Still been stewing on that damn campfire scene... With the flower edible.

It keeps rustling my self-proclaimed sciency expert jimmies... That scene is even more bullshit when you consider she is standing next to a fire. So not only would the "flower chill" had to counteract her own heat signature, but also the radiant heat absorption from a campfire. Maybe if she ate enough to overdose it might have been more feasible... but nah

They should have done both the flower and covered her in mud. That would have been somewhat believable.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

They should have done both the flower and covered her in mud. That would have been somewhat believable.

 

[BeaReylo]

Night of Something Strange (2016)-

Well, this one certainly isn't for everyone!

An nasty std turns people into nearly unkillable sex zombies. A group of college kids on vacation find themselves under attack.

That is the most general synopsis. The details are far more bizarrely disturbing.

It starts with a "bang" (literally) and goes over-the-top for the 10-15 minute intro scene, then slows down for 20 minutes or so of character and plot introduction, and then fully returns to the crazed pacing of early on.

We have:
*Morgue attendant necrophilila
*Zombies pissing on folks
*Zombies sucking on tampons
*Giant attack penises
*Full on vagina dentata, as in the movie Teeth, but actually shown here via practical fxs.
*Many gallons of different types of bodily fluids
*Guy stuck in zombie ass (like when dogs get stuck together). (Insanely stupid, but almost kinda works for what they are going for).
*Raging sex zombies looking to screw anything and anyone. This leads to not a small amount of r*pe (implied or otherwise).
Etc etc etc etc - There is just too much to list here.

So they obviously went full on to try to be as offensive as possible and they generally succeeded.

So, is it even worth giving it a shot? Well, if you can handle the "grossness" of it all, it is surprisingly well done for it's themes and budget.
*I was surprised to see some very well done shots. Usually a film of this ilk isn't going to care about cinematography very much!
*The fxs! The real star of the show is the fxs. They are often ridiculous and tasteless but the fx artists really did a helluva a job and they are used a lot.

Some mixed bag and negative stuff:
*Acting- considering what this movie is, and the budget there is some decent acting in it, but also some not so great. Regardless of quality, they sure do give it their all!
*Dialogue- well, they intentionally make it weird and stupid but it is necessary for the type of film they are going for.
*Some bad cgi- to be expected with the budget but still not good.

How do we quantify something like this? Well, maybe Evil Dead meets Zombeavers with a bunch of Street Trash level themes?? Not sure if that is accurate but that is as close as I can get.

Not for 90%+ of the public but the most demented of us out there will "appreciate" it. I'll go 6 to 6.5 outta 10 range for what it is but it will be unwatchable for the general folks out there.

@Sharkonabicycle : since you had me watch Street Trash.......at least this one is way better executed.
@Chef99 : It fits the humor style, but not sure if it would thematically work for ya?
@FaCe-LeE-uS : Don't watch with the wife!!! (or anyone who gets offended).

Everyone else : it can be enjoyable but proceed with extreme caution! The cringiest parts are probably at the beginning (before the tone is clarified) so if you can get through that then the over-the-top schlockiness of it takes over after the character intros.

Good luck!

Great bloody movie! One of my all time favorite zombie flicks!

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Still been stewing on that damn campfire scene... With the flower edible.

It keeps rustling my self-proclaimed sciency expert jimmies... That scene is even more bullshit when you consider she is standing next to a fire. So not only would the "flower chill" had to counteract her own heat signature, but also the radiant heat absorption from a campfire. Maybe if she ate enough to overdose it might have been more feasible... but nah

Her bow & arrow was driving me nuts ...it was so weak looking.
You could nail a squirrel with that thing and I'm not sure he would feel it.

I knew this movie was in trouble when her brother shot a Hawk with an arrow.

Are Hawks not hugely important in Native American culture? I don't believe they ever killed them.
That is like showing a cow being killed in India.

You cannot be a "not into the details" guy if you are doing a movie.
.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Great bloody movie! One of my all time favorite zombie flicks!

Lol! Certainly bloody........mostly from exploding genitals!

Which parts did you find to be best? Be descripitive!

I was shocked to see it was made for only $40,000. Some good shots, and also a good score (the sound quality varied, but the score was good). I would have thought at least a couple of million for all of the fxs alone.

 

[BeaReylo]

The guy who kept bragging about being from New York and two fists was the biggest standout. And the ending was hilarious. I'll have to rewatch it

Lol! Certainly bloody........mostly from exploding genitals!

Which parts did you find to be best? Be descripitive!

I was shocked to see it was made for only $40,000. Some good shots, and also a good score (the sound quality varied, but the score was good). I would have thought at least a couple of million for all of the fxs alone.

The guy who kept bragging about being from New York and his two fists was the biggest stand out and the final scene was hilarious. I'll have to rewatch it refresh more details and even then I have to see how much I can post because most of the good parts are very adult.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Her bow & arrow was driving me nuts ...it was so weak looking.
You could nail a squirrel with that thing and I'm not sure he would feel it.

I knew this movie was in trouble when her brother shot a Hawk with an arrow.

Are Hawks not hugely important in Native American culture? I don't believe they ever killed them.
That is like showing a cow being killed in India.

You cannot be a "not into the details" guy if you are doing a movie.
.

A good point that no one brought up yet. Yeah, the shooting of the hawk seems ridiculous considering the culture. Even if a rogue native would do this, the shot was nearly impossible and he would have been shunned for bringing it back to the tribe.
(I specifically looked up the Cherokee tribe's stance on hawks. They are considered sacred and they only collected the feathers that had been shed).

We briefly discussed the cgi animal behavior in general. It was made to show the distinct differences between predator and prey, and highlight the Predator's hunting philosophy, but it was not at all realistic.

*The wolf gets the rabbit, but is hit by an unseen opponent (Predator with light bending tech). Wolf then somehow attacks and wounds Predator. Then they circle each other in a battle confrontation scene.
Now, my one on one interactions with wolves is admittedly limited, but it would seem that the wolf should have taken the opportunity to get the fuck outta there, particularly when you could tell (despite the inviso stuff) the very, very large size.

*The cougar attacks the hunter guy, then the other hunter and the main lady wait in the tree near the lair, also the brother is somewhere near.

First off, cougar attacks on humans is exceedingly rare and they do not consider adults to be prey. Also, with it's senses the cougar would know that 3 persons are in the vicinity.
There is an almost literal zero percent chance that a cougar is going to attack high ground with 2 adult humans in it, and a third nearby. You could argue that the cougar viewed humans as prey after the original hunter was attacked, but it just wounded the guy and then fled. It didn't kill and eat him. So it didn't really view the original hunter as prey, but instead seemingly fought for survival and escaped when it was possible?

I digress, but.......

*The bear. Well, it is a full on grizzly so at least it is an actual human hunter. But it already was in the middle of eating a huge buck. I could see it being pissed and dragging the buck away, but going into raging attack mode seemed a bit strange considering that it already had a huge meal. Now if she had stumbled upon it face to face, then yeah. But being 30 yards away up a cliff........??

From that perspective, the movie threw out realism in favor of trying to make a point. Personally I think they could have done it in a more realistic manner and still had confrontations.
What the movie failed to account for is that animals in the wild generally don't take injury risks. They can't go to a hospital, or get a round of antibiotics to heal up. A small broken bone could become an eminent death sentence if it even slows them down at all. There is a readon why a lion will sometimes let several hyenas steal his kill: because it isn't worth the risk of injury.

So unless the animal is starving or already wounded, it is highly likely that it wouldn't respond with aggressiveness to a possible threat. The other option (that my bro-in-law brought up) is the possibility of erratic behavior from diseases such as rabies.

Anyways, 3 of the weak points of Prey would be the killing of the hawk, animal behavior in general, and the flower that quickly and seemingly magically drops your body temperature to match the surroundings(?). I understand why they did each of these, but I don't agree with how they did it.

I will still say it is the best all-around Predator movie in terms of film making. It is beautiful to watch, the score is very good, the acting is good, the story is great and it progresses nicely. I will reiterate that the original is a better watch but that is largely due to Arnold, Jessie, Carl, Billy Bear, and the other charismatic macho stars.