Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) - 5/10

A group of resistance fighters must battle their way through hordes of monsters to escape the Umbrella Corporation.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who has been captured by the diabolical Umbrella Corporation. She is being pursued by former ally Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), who is under the corporation's mind control. Alice makes a pair of unlikely allies in former Umbrella employees Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) and Ada Wong (Li Bingbing) as she tries to escape...

Resident Evil: Retribution was once again written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. Like predecessor Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), this entry draws from video games Resident Evil 4 (2005) and Resident Evil 5 (2009). Anderson also reported being influenced by films like Inception (2010) and the Alien series. How does it fare?

It's a weird love letter to fans of the series. Resident Evil: Retribution has a lot of call backs to earlier movies in the franchise. There are entire scenes which are recreated, as well are numerous characters we haven't seen for several films, including Carlos (Oded Fehr), One (Colin Salmon), and Rain (Michelle Rodriguez). Principally, Jill Valentine - who aside from a post-credit scene has been missing since Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) for reasons unknown - returns as this film's "big bad" that Alice must overcome.

This onslaught of call backs make the movie highly entertaining. I purposely watered down the synopsis to avoid spoilers because there are a few moments where you'll find yourself asking "what the heck is happening"? In addition to a more arresting plot, the action and special effects are a step up from Resident Evil: Afterlife. There are still a few cheesy moments, but overall the CGI is solid for the time. That's important because Resident Evil: Retribution is all about the action, with horror in the background moreso than any other film in the series.

Even though Resident Evil: Retribution takes off the gloves and embraces the over-the-top action and legacy characters its known for, it still can't seem the break away from the video games. In addition to cramming in Ada Wong, the film also introduces Barry Burton (Kevin Durand) and Leon S. Kennedy (Johann Urb). These characters are extremely shallow, and only recognizable from their attire. Fans of only the film series would have no clue who these characters are, nor would they be inclined to care given how underdeveloped they are. And frankly, I'm not sure how many fans of the games were still watching the films by this point. This series has always been maligned by gamers, and in 2012 the games themselves were coming out at a much lower rate - and to much lower fan reception - than earlier entries.

Cramming in more video game elements continues this weird juxtaposition where Resident Evil: Retribution, and the series as a whole, still doesn't know what it wants to be. These films have created a halfway decent universe of its own with original characters, yet still can't escape the video game series that it historically has had very little to do with. Even the Umbrella Corporation is a much more pronounced antagonist in the films than they are in the video games.

Adding to that, despite having the same writer for every entry, the Resident Evil series likes to scrap significant chunks of previous movies and start over. It's been a full blown zombie apocalypse since the third film (2007's Resident Evil: Extinction), but suddenly the super evil Albert Wesker is working towards avoiding the extinction of the human race? What happened to Claire (Ali Larter) and Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller)? Why is Umbrella still hunting Alice? These continuity questions and others hurt the overall product, but if you can push them to the back of your mind, you can have a good time with this film.

Overall, Resident Evil: Retribution sticks out like a sore thumb in the series - for reasons both good and bad. Personally, it was one of the more entertaining sequels, but I could see it being the most frustrating if you try to make too much sense of the plot. Five movies in, the series was still doing well at the box office, as Resident Evil: Retribution earned $240M against its $65M budget.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) - 5/10

A group of resistance fighters must battle their way through hordes of monsters to escape the Umbrella Corporation.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who has been captured by the diabolical Umbrella Corporation. She is being pursued by former ally Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), who is under the corporation's mind control. Alice makes a pair of unlikely allies in former Umbrella employees Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) and Ada Wong (Li Bingbing) as she tries to escape...

Resident Evil: Retribution was once again written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. Like predecessor Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), this entry draws from video games Resident Evil 4 (2005) and Resident Evil 5 (2009). Anderson also reported being influenced by films like Inception (2010) and the Alien series. How does it fare?

It's a weird love letter to fans of the series. Resident Evil: Retribution has a lot of call backs to earlier movies in the franchise. There are entire scenes which are recreated, as well are numerous characters we haven't seen for several films, including Carlos (Oded Fehr), One (Colin Salmon), and Rain (Michelle Rodriguez). Principally, Jill Valentine - who aside from a post-credit scene has been missing since Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) for reasons unknown - returns as this film's "big bad" that Alice must overcome.

This onslaught of call backs make the movie highly entertaining. I purposely watered down the synopsis to avoid spoilers because there are a few moments where you'll find yourself asking "what the heck is happening"? In addition to a more arresting plot, the action and special effects are a step up from Resident Evil: Afterlife. There are still a few cheesy moments, but overall the CGI is solid for the time. That's important because Resident Evil: Retribution is all about the action, with horror in the background moreso than any other film in the series.

Even though Resident Evil: Retribution takes off the gloves and embraces the over-the-top action and legacy characters its known for, it still can't seem the break away from the video games. In addition to cramming in Ada Wong, the film also introduces Barry Burton (Kevin Durand) and Leon S. Kennedy (Johann Urb). These characters are extremely shallow, and only recognizable from their attire. Fans of only the film series would have no clue who these characters are, nor would they be inclined to care given how underdeveloped they are. And frankly, I'm not sure how many fans of the games were still watching the films by this point. This series has always been maligned by gamers, and in 2012 the games themselves were coming out at a much lower rate - and to much lower fan reception - than earlier entries.

Cramming in more video game elements continues this weird juxtaposition where Resident Evil: Retribution, and the series as a whole, still doesn't know what it wants to be. These films have created a halfway decent universe of its own with original characters, yet still can't escape the video game series that it historically has had very little to do with. Even the Umbrella Corporation is a much more pronounced antagonist in the films than they are in the video games.

Adding to that, despite having the same writer for every entry, the Resident Evil series likes to scrap significant chunks of previous movies and start over. It's been a full blown zombie apocalypse since the third film (2007's Resident Evil: Extinction), but suddenly the super evil Albert Wesker is working towards avoiding the extinction of the human race? What happened to Claire (Ali Larter) and Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller)? Why is Umbrella still hunting Alice? These continuity questions and others hurt the overall product, but if you can push them to the back of your mind, you can have a good time with this film.

Overall, Resident Evil: Retribution sticks out like a sore thumb in the series - for reasons both good and bad. Personally, it was one of the more entertaining sequels, but I could see it being the most frustrating if you try to make too much sense of the plot. Five movies in, the series was still doing well at the box office, as Resident Evil: Retribution earned $240M against its $65M budget.

What I can appreciate about the Resident Evil series is they dont pretend to not be what they are. They know its a video game based movie and they lean into it. And as you mentioned the consistency in the script writer and lead actress goes a long way to them feeling like episodes of a show instead of a jumbled mess that other franchises devolve into.

The bar isnt exactly high, but I'd comfortably call them the best video game movie(s)

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016) - 4/10

The remaining survivors of a zombie apocalypse must take down the company responsible once-and-for-all, the Umbrella Corporation.

Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, who receives information that the evil Umbrella Corporation has an airborne anti-virus that can take out all of the zombies on earth, but they're waiting to use it until all of the remaining survivors are dead. With the human race on the verge of extinction in the next 48 hours, Alice must race against the clock to retrieve the anti-virus from the place where it all started, The Hive. However, the evil Dr. Isaacs (Iain Glen) is hot on her tail, pursuing her and the rest of the survivors - including Claire Redfield (Ali Larter) - in an armored tank that is luring thousands of zombies towards their location...

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter was written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. It's the sixth and final film in the Anderson/Jovovich Resident Evil series. How does Alice's final conflict with the Umbrella Corporation fare?

It's a horror movie... not a very good one. After five films that became progressively less about horror and more about action, the series confusingly decides to swing the pendulum back in the other direction. Resident Evil: The Final Chapter is quite clearly influenced by The Walking Dead TV series, with grittier visuals and a more somber mood. In my opinion, this is a poor creative decision that flies in the face of what this series is known for, which is made worse by the fact that this film is the franchise's swan song. The events of the previous film - the campy and fun Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) - are completely thrown in the trash, and its sequel-bait cliffhanger ending is resolved offscreen.

Poor optics aside, the movie just doesn't work. It's been a full blown zombie apocalypse since Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), but this film presents things as though the gravity of the situation is just now sinking in with Alice. One thing the film does that I like is it actually takes time to breathe and build up tension, which is rare for this series. Unfortunately, the aforementioned tension is lost when the zombies attack, because the film shifts to the worst edited action scenes we've seen since Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004). I cannot understate how terrible these frantically edited sequences are, and how out of place they feel when juxtaposed against the horror elements of the rest of the movie.

Speaking of horror elements, the movie is maybe a little gorier than the rest of the series. There were a couple moments that looked like they were about to get really gnarly, only for the camera to cut away. You don't really see a lot of tissue being torn like in most zombie films, but I would still say the horror is well done in a few sequences. Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but the somewhat needless focus on the heavily armored vehicle felt like a homage to Land of the Dead (2005).

Story wise, the movie is a letdown. The narrative retcons the living hell out of the rest of the series, dating all the way back to the origin of the T-Virus prior to the first film. Established characters change motivations dramatically, and the quest for the anti-virus feels tired considering it has existed since the original 2002 movie. It is also extremely vague about what will happen if Alice doesn't complete her mission in 48 hours. I originally thought it had to do with Umbrella launching simultaneous assaults on the remaining pockets of survivors worldwide, but that doesn't make sense if releasing the anti-virus could stop it. I now think it is just a computer estimation of when the remaining humans will be overwhelmed, but that also doesn't make sense considering the 48 hours deadline is a hard deadline; i.e. if the antigen is released one second too late, humanity is doomed.

You might think going back to The Hive would carry a nostalgic punch, but the only room the audiences sees is the laser hallway. Yes, this is clearly the most memorable location of the entire series. But the films have already called back to it multiple times, including in the previous movie and dating all the way back to Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), which had scenes set in a replica of The Hive. Adding insult to injury, halfway through the movie a subplot is crammed in that there is a mole amongst the survivors. I wonder who it could be: Alice, Claire, or the miscellaneous other living character who was just introduced in this movie?

Overall, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter sticks out like a sore thumb in the series it's supposed to wrap up. As a horror movie, it's mediocre; as a wrap up to a decade long series, it's flat out disappointing. However, in spite of my criticisms, the film was a big hit and the most successful of the entire franchise, earning $312M against its $40M budget.

 

[Osprey]

I'm not a fan of the franchise--I tried the first game and movie, but didn't like or finish either, so never continued--but I still appreciate the time put into these reviews and the reading material... and the photos of Milla Jovovich.

 

[shadow1]

I'm not a fan of the franchise--I tried the first game and movie, but didn't like or finish either, so never continued--but I still appreciate the time put into these reviews and the reading material... and the photos of Milla Jovovich.

Thank you!

One more movie left to go... and some wrap up thoughts on the series as a whole. Over the weekend, I did a late night impromptu rewatch of one of the Jovovich films that I literally just reviewed, and in hindsight my review wasn't favorable enough.

 

[BostonBob]

One more movie left to go... and some wrap up thoughts on the series as a whole.

How can there be one more movie to go - the last one clearly said " Final Chapter " ????

 

[Osprey]

How can there be one more movie to go - the last one clearly said " Final Chapter " ????

No kidding. I showed my appreciation because I thought that he was done and there were no more reviews in the series to come. Now I look stupid(er than usual). Oh well. At least it means more Jovovich.

 

[BostonBob]

No kidding. I showed my appreciation because I thought that he was done and there were no more reviews in the series to come. Now I look stupid(er than usual). Oh well. At least it means more Jovovich.

You should be able to stay happy as long as he doesn't post " the final picture of Mila Jovovich ".

 

[shadow1]

How can there be one more movie to go - the last one clearly said " Final Chapter " ????

No kidding. I showed my appreciation because I thought that he was done and there were no more reviews in the series to come. Now I look stupid(er than usual). Oh well. At least it means more Jovovich.

Sorry - I should have clarified. The Jovovich series did indeed end with The Final Chapter.

But a different live action Resident Evil movie came out in 2021 which I haven't seen yet. As you can tell from the score, my expectations are tempered.

 

[BostonBob]

Sorry - I should have clarified. The Jovovich series did indeed end with The Final Chapter.

Hell - I was just kidding anyway. Don't a lot of horror movie franchises give us a " Final " film and then put out a few more afterwards. I seem to remember both Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street doing this.

 

[Osprey]

Sorry - I should have clarified. The Jovovich series did indeed end with The Final Chapter.

But a different live action Resident Evil movie came out in 2021 which I haven't seen yet. As you can tell from the score, my expectations are tempered.

They made a Resident Evil movie without Milla Jovovich? Can they even do that?

I'm bummed at the thought of no more Jovovich, but it has Kaya Scodelario, so not all is lost.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

They made a Resident Evil movie without Milla Jovovich? Can they even do that?

Yes, and it's terrible. They also made a TV Series, which isn't good, but probably the best thing out of this whole mess since the first film (which wasn't good to begin with, but still had some je-ne-sais-quoi).

 

[PK Cronin]

Yes, and it's terrible. They also made a TV Series, which isn't good, but probably the best thing out of this whole mess since the first film (which wasn't good to begin with, but still had some je-ne-sais-quoi).

There was an animated movie years and years ago that was actually the best Resident Evil movie I'd ever seen, can't remember the name of it though.

 

[shadow1]

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) - 5/10

A struggling town is overwhelmed by a sudden zombie outbreak.

Kaya Scodelario stars as a Claire Redfield, a conspiracy theorist who travels back to her childhood hometown of Raccoon City to warn her estranged police officer brother Chris (Robbie Amell) about experiments being conducted by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella. Chris doesn't believe her, and along with Jill Valentine (Hannah John-Kamen) is ordered to investigate the disappearance of two police officers near a mansion in the outskirts of Raccoon City. While Chris is gone, Claire is attacked by the living dead and flees to the Raccoon City Police Department, where she and rookie officer Leon S. Kennedy (Evan Jogia) barricade themselves in as the city is overwhelmed...

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City was written and directed Johannes Roberts. The film is based on video games Resident Evil (1996) and Resident Evil 2 (1998), and was inspired by siege films, specifically John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) and The Fog (1980). This is also the first live action Resident Evil film to not star Milla Jovovich. An attempt at a faithful video game adaptation, how does the movie fare?

It's serviceable...until it isn't. Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City has a pretty good start, building atmosphere and inserting a lot of game accurate lore and easter eggs. One divergence from the games is that this version of Raccoon City is a struggling town where many residents have fled (clearly for budgeting reasons - more on that later), but the film does a decent job of establishing the setting.

Once the horror kicks off, there are some good moments. The film has A and B plots happening simultaneously, and the "B" plot with Chris, Jill, and others exploring the Spencer Mansion has an extended zombie attack sequence, which was the highlight of the film for me. Unlike the Paul W.S. Anderson films, Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City has serviceable gore and a focus on tension. This film's heart was in the right place.

The problem is the movie comes off like the Wish.com version of Resident Evil. You can tell the filmmakers put effort into making the Raccoon City Police Department and Spencer Mansion look game accurate, but both locations appear like they're 75% scale. They just look off. In my opinion, the costume design also looks cheap, as do the CGI effects when they're used. The scenes at the mansion do work because you have a small group of people in an isolated location. On the contrary, the parts at the police station do not and reveal the film's budget. I know it's established right away that Raccoon City is a near ghost town, but it can't be Resident Evil without the Residents. It never feels like there's a full blown zombie outbreak, but instead that a small pocket of ~10 zombies are trying to break into the police station.

Budget is far from this film's biggest weakness; that dubious honor goes to the writing. Claire is the main character of this film, and as such has the most background story...too much background story. The entire world revolves around her in unbelievable ways. Being a spoiler free as possible: Claire grows up in an Umbrella owned orphanage, operated by the inventor of the T-Virus and where she befriends Lisa Trevor from Resident Evil Remake (2002). Years later she is a conspiracy theorist who travels into Raccoon City with the semi trucker from Resident Evil 2 (1998), is friends with the journalist from Resident Evil 2, and just so happens to arrive moments before a zombie outbreak. This is just the set up we learn in the first 20 minutes, but the point is that Claire seems to have a personal connection with everyone and everything in this movie. What ever happened to being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The rest of the characters have the opposite problem. Leon is a comic relief character whose backstory is he accidentally shot someone in the butt (what?). Chris doesn't have much going either, other than being a former orphan like Claire. Jill gets it the worst by far, with her only character trait being that she's madly attracted to another police officer; she could be removed from the film with no significant impact to the plot. Add in some cringy dialogue that isn't nearly as witty as the film thinks it is, and you have a collection of characters you're not invested in. The combination of these underdeveloped characters and the overdeveloped Claire is symptom of this film trying to do too much within its means. It doesn't have enough time to focus on everyone, so it focuses completely on Claire in the most extreme way possible.

The overall plot has the same problem. On one hand, Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City meanders through minutiae filled scenes, going to great lengths to show how one minor character became infected, or showing us the S.T.A.R.S. police members lounging around when they receive the order to find their missing comrades. On the flip side, the film provides very little detail about how the virus was spread (or why). It's never addressed or acknowledged by the characters that they can become infected from being bitten. There are also issues with the character motivations, aside from the obvious motivation of survival. The "B" plot at the Spencer Mansion, where the police members are looking for their missing associates, makes sense. The "A" plot at the police station, on the other hand, just has our characters killing screen time. They discuss ways to get out of the city, but most of the actual events don't further the plot, or are there just for comic relief.

Overall, Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City is the "wine taste, beer budget" entry of the Resident Evil movies. The filmmakers tried to cram in too many characters, too many settings, and too much story into this movie. Based on what little we saw at the Spencer Mansion, I think this film could've been much better had it gone smaller scale and focused on only the original Resident Evil (1996) game. Despite years of clamoring for a game-accurate big screen adaptation of Resident Evil, fans did not come out to see this movie, as it earned a modest $42M against its $25M budget. (Please note, this movie came out when theaters were struggling as a result of the COVID-19 impact).

 

[Satans Hockey]

Yes, and it's terrible. They also made a TV Series, which isn't good, but probably the best thing out of this whole mess since the first film (which wasn't good to begin with, but still had some je-ne-sais-quoi).

I have a hard time believing any of these other movies could be as bad as that TV series. It was absolutely unwatchable and the cgi was even worse.

This thread has made me wanna go back and watch them all though, I think I've only seen 2 lol

 

[shadow1]

Just some wrap up thoughts on the Resident Evil series:

This series was really fun to watch, but it wouldn't have been without the foresight of what I was getting into. It's one thing to binge these movies 10+ years later, but it would've been another to watch them as they came out.

Which I know from experience. I saw the first two when they were new, and I vividly remember walking out of the theater after seeing Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) and someone I saw it with saying "well, that wasn't good."

My experience may have been the exception though, because parts 4-6 of this series were by far the most financially successful. What I do know is now having watched the balance of the series all these years later, I'm aghast at the poor continuity. I can't imagine being invested in these movies as they came out, waiting years for the next sequel, and then watching as the new film throws the events of the previous film in the trash. This series has multiple cliffhangers, and all films were written (and usually directed) by Paul W.S. Anderson, so it's inexcusable.

For Milla Jovovich's part, Alice is a generic character whose personality is erratic between films. She's invincible and can always find a way out of any situation, which really limits the series in terms of tension. This obviously isn't unique to this series (i.e. James Bond), but significant depth could've been added if Alice had more nuance. As it stands, I still think it's cool this series produced a legitimate female action hero.

As for the individual films themselves, as I was watching most of them I usually thought to myself "this is a 4", only to soften up a bit by the end and think "well, it wasn't that bad". In hindsight, I think I was too soft on Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010); that one probably is a 4.

But I also wasn't complimentary enough in my review of the original Resident Evil (2002). As I went through the sequels, I kept thinking to myself how I wish I was watching that movie instead. Eventually I did, doing an impromptu late night rewatch over the weekend. I cannot stress enough how much better this movie is than the rest, in almost every way possible. When I first reviewed it a couple weeks ago, I hadn't seen the movie in 20 years, but I remembered almost every sequence and a shocking amount of the side characters, even though (aside from Michelle Rodriguez) I've never seen any of the cast in anything else.

Obviously Resident Evil (2002) has some flaws, which I previously discussed in my review. But in general it's a rock solid movie. Compared to the rest of the series, it's Night of the Living Dead. Just like I probably should've given Afterlife (2010) a "4", the OG movie probably should've earned a light "7". But I'll reconsider once I have some space away from this series.

The bottom line after watching these seven movies? The first one is deserving of a rewatch every-so-often; the rest are just as ridiculous as their reputation suggests. My ranking:

1. Resident Evil (2002) - A good movie
2. Resident Evil: Retribution (2012) - A fanfic that somehow got made into a movie
3. Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) - Good intentioned but flawed execution
4. Resident Evil: Extinction (2007) - Mindless action with decent execution
5. Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) - A decent premise ruined by horrible direction/editing
6. Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) - Top tier cringe
7. Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016) - The WalkingWannabe Dead

Thanks for reading my crazy long reviews, and this needless series debriefing. I didn't intend to write a memoir about my experience watching the Resident Evil franchise, but I found it difficult to be brief when discussing these cheesy movies.

 

[shadow1]

Chopping Mall (1986) - 5/10

A robot security team at a shopping mall malfunctions and goes on a killing spree.

This ensemble cast includes Barbara Crampton, Kelli Maroney, Tony O'Dell, and Russell Todd as a group of teenagers who hold an overnight party at a shopping mall they work in, Park Plaza Mall. This mall features state-of-the-art security, which includes metal shutters and three hi-tech robots. Unfortunately, a lightning storm causes the robots to malfunction, turning homicidal and trapping the group inside...

Chopping Mall was written by Steve Mitchell and Jim Wynorski, and directed by Wynorski. The film was the first production by Roger Corman's distribution company New Concorde, and was produced by Julie Corman. How does it fare?

It's cheesy 80's b-movie goodness! At only 73 minutes long - when the Platoon (1986)-style credits kick in - there's not a ton I have to say about it. The description is the movie; it's just a matter of waiting around to see who gets killed and how fun said kill is. I've read online that this film has themes of consumerism similar to Dawn of the Dead (1978), but I would call that a huge stretch.

It's shlock, through and though. But it's fun shlock. I wouldn't say the movie was consistently entertaining (as evidenced by my middle-of-the-road score), but most of the kills were fun. Also, if you're a die hard Robert Corman fan, there are easter eggs for A Bucket of Blood (1959), including Dick Miller reprising his role from that film.

Overall, Chopping Mall is a simple movie for fans of cheese. Made for $800K, the film had a limited theatrical release, but has maintained a strong cult following to this day.

 

[Osprey]

I watched Chopping Mall for the first time a year and a half ago and enjoyed it. Plot-wise, it's not good, but it's so 80s and the mall setting is nostalgic, so I had fun and would watch it again. I also remember reading that it contains themes of consumerism, which amused me. Being set in a shopping mall doesn't imply themes of consumerism. It's a "slasher" movie (which were popular at the time) about robots (also popular) killing kids in a shopping mall (also popular). Don't read into it, especially when it's associated with Roger Corman.

Edit: I found my review... and the next few posts reminded me of something amusing about the director:
https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/horror-movie-discussion.1738061/post-186612104

 

[shadow1]

Strait-Jacket (1964) - 7/10

After spending 20 years in an asylum for killing her husband, a woman struggles to readapt to society.

Joan Crawford stars as Lucy, who has recently been released from a mental institution for killing her husband and his adulterous lover with an axe 20 years earlier. Lucy goes to live on a farm with her brother, sister-in-law, and daughter Carol (Diane Baker), who was very young at the time of the murders. Lucy and Carol bond and try to make up for lost time, but Lucy struggles to readjust to society. After a tumultuous meeting with Carol's wealthy fiancé Michael (John Anthony Hayes), and an impromptu visit from Lucy's doctor (Mitchell Cox), the killings start again....

Strait-Jacket was written by Robert Bloch and directed by William Castle. The film was made following the success of 1962's What Ever Happened to Baby Jane (also starring Crawford), which led to a trend in the 1960's of older prominent actresses appearing in horror films, in a subgenre dubbed "Hagsploitation". How does Strait-Jacket fare?

Very well. It's a B-movie with sleazy kills, but it comes off feeling classy because of the great performance by Joan Crawford as Lucy. You really feel sorry for her character, and can't help but root for her recovery. However, because of how unstable she is, most of the movie plays out like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. You're watching in discomfort as seemingly normal social interactions go awry due to Lucy acting inappropriately relative to the situation.

Once the killings start, Strait-Jacket turns into a slasher, and tries to distort the viewers sense of reality as Lucy struggles with hers. Without spoiling it and being as vague as possible, I was pretty sure how the movie was going to end, but the entire time I was questioning if I was right or not. The ending turned out to be more complicated and interesting than what my smooth brain could come up with, even though the movie lays all of its cards on the table for the viewer.

Overall, Strait-Jacket is a rock solid movie, carried by a tour-de-force performance by Joan Crawford. The film received mixed reviews at the time, most of which taking offense to the violence. However, audiences spoke with their wallets, as the film earned $7M against its $550K budget.

 

[shadow1]

It Comes at Night (2017) - 5/10

During a pandemic, a small family must decide whether to allow refuge to a fellow survivor.

Kelvin Harrison Jr. stars as Travis, who along with parents Paul (Joel Edgerton) and Sarah (Carmen Ejogo) are surviving off the grid during a viral outbreak of unknown origin. One night, a man named Will (Christopher Abbott) breaks into their house, claiming to be in search of supplies for his wife and son. The family must decide whether to believe Will's story or kill him...

It Comes at Night was written and directed by Trey Edward Shults. An A24 production, Shults wrote the film as a way of dealing with grief following the passing of his father, and was inspired by films like Night of the Living Dead (1968). How does it fare?

...I should really stop asking that question if I'm going to put the score at the top of my review. It Comes at Night is a well shot movie and has good, grounded performances. The film starts off very slow (and pretty much stays that way), but after its sluggish first 20 minutes I found myself starting to get invested in the universe and characters it was trying to establish...but never quite getting fully invested.

I was purposefully light in my synopsis of the movie, because had I added any further description, I wouldn't be leaving much surprise to any potential viewers. And that's my problem with this movie: it doesn't know how to balance message and story. I love low budget horror; I love how a movie like Insidious (2008) can creep me out while being shot entirely in a house. A24 tries that same formula (as they also had in 2015's The Witch - a better film), but it just didn't work for me here.

The themes of family, paranoia, and trust are ones any viewer can relate to. But the film still needs to have a plot, and It Comes at Night didn't have enough of one. There is a lot of filler, including multiple dream sequences that are up front about being dream sequences once they start. I realize these sequences are supposed to work as a form of foreshadowing, but that goes back to my point that this film is all about message.

The plot that is there is similar to the aforementioned Night of the Living Dead, except for there's no looming threat driving the events. There's a disease of unknown origin, which (I believe) spreads through touch, and causes the infected to die with plague-like symptoms. It is hinted the infected may turn violent after a point, but it's never shown. The film doesn't care about establishing the disease any further than I just explained because - again - story details are secondary to message.

As a result of this creative decision, we get a movie in which the characters spend their time doing mundane daily chores, but are eventually disrupted by events that are difficult to explain or contain flat out plot holes. It almost feels like the movie is daring you to question some of the events, but the only answer that it can come up with would be "you're missing the point, it's not about the details". It Comes at Night has a definitive ending, but it doesn't feel satisfying. It seems like the movie is asking us to reflect on how events occurred and if certain things could've been changed had this film's themes not clouded judgement decisions. Frankly, I feel that doing so would be an exercise in futility based on how little plot there is.

Overall, It Comes at Night is a movie that frustrated me. It's a well made film with relatable themes, but comes off feeling too on-the-nose due to its shallow plot. I feel like this movie would've worked better as a 45 minute short as opposed to a 90 minute feature. Please note, IMDB (6.2) and Letterboxd (6.4 equivalent) are higher than my review, and two other users on this site gave the movie a 7+ score, so take my review with a grain of salt. It Comes at Night earned $20M against its $5M budget.

 

[CDJ]

Late Night with the Devil is a genius movie. Never seen anything quite like it. In particular Ingrid Torelli did a phenomenal job in her role- she’s 17 and has a bright future. David Dastmalchian was great as the lead.

Definitely a horror movie but it didn’t really have a horror ambiance/vibe to it. Been seeing that a lot in recent years with movies like Midsommar. This film also had some comedy moments. I personally got this in my top 5 favorite horror movies ever and honestly it might be in my top 10/15 movies ever regardless of genre. Shoutout to the Cairnes Brothers who wrote + directed. They’ll be getting some money thrown at them to develop more stuff after this.

General premise is that it’s found footage of a Halloween episode of a 1977 late night tv talk show trying to compete with Carson for ratings. Biggest theme imo is that greed kills lol



9.2/10

 

[BostonBob]

" Late Night with the Devil " is scheduled to start streaming on SHUDDER in April.

 

[shadow1]

The Babadook (2014) - 7/10

A widow and her troubled son are haunted by a character from a pop-up book called The Babadook.

Essie Davis stars as Amelia, who lives alone with her 6-year-old son Samuel (Noah Wiseman) following the tragic death of her husband six years earlier. Amelia has not properly dealt with her husband's passing, and Samuel is a troubled child who causes problems at school and socially. One night, Amelia reads to Samuel from a pop-up book called "The Babadook", and Samuel begins believing the character is real. As her personal and professional life continue to crumble, Amelia tries desperately to get Samuel professional help, until she too starts to believe the Babadook is real...

The Babadook was written and directed by Jennifer Kent. The film was based on Kent's 2005 short film "Monster", and was produced thanks to a combination of Australian government film grants and crowdfunding. How does it fare?

It's good! The Babadook is drama first, horror second; it's a film about grief, plain and simple. The film meticulously establishes the nuanced characters and the world they live in for a solid 40+ minutes before even hinting that we're watching a horror movie. The Babadook has strong performances, particularly from Essie Davis as the sympathetic mother whose life is in tatters. The character of Samuel can be very annoying early in the movie, constantly crying and screaming. But that is intentional to emphasize what a tough day-to-day Amelia has to deal with.

The horror eventually does kick into gear, but I actually preferred the non-supernatural portion of the film better. The horror elements didn't impact me (read:scare me) as much as similar films I've seen from this era, but your milage may vary. However, I won't hold that against the film because I think the horror was effective in conveying the message and themes the filmmakers were going for.

Overall, The Babadook is a strong indie horror film. Made on a budget of only $2M, the film was shown at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival and went on to earn $10M worldwide.

 

[BostonBob]

The Babadook (2014) - 7/10

The character of Samuel can be very annoying early in the movie, constantly crying and screaming. But that is intentional to emphasize what a tough day-to-day Amelia has to deal with.

No kidding - at some point I started rooting for The Babadook to take care of that little bugger.

 

[93gilmour93]

" Late Night with the Devil " is scheduled to start streaming on SHUDDER in April.

Awesome movie.....