2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 70: Calvaire: The Ordeal

This is one of those movies that everyone recommended to me forever but that I put off forever because I kept forgetting about it or wanting to watch something else more, so I just now got around to watching it. I think at some point someone warned me how brutal this movie was going to be, but I must have forgotten or pushed it to the back of my mind, because I wasn't expecting it to disturb me as much as it did and it was a hard movie to finish.

When I say "brutal" here, I'm not necessarily talking about gore, because there didn't appear to be as much gore here as in other movies I've seen, but I'm talking about the torture the movie's protagonist endures. It's really tough to watch at times. the movie is about a musician traveling in the rain one night whose van breaks down in the middle of the road and he accepts help from an odd man he sees walking around in the rain looking for his "dog." As you can probably guess, this guy is about 12 cans short of a 6 pack, and as soon as our hero follows the weirdo out into the night, he's basically screwed. Things don't just go from bad to worse, though, and that's what makes the movie hard to watch for me. Things go from bad, to a little badder, to a little badder, to a little badder, as the strangeness increases in such small increments that the good guy doesn't realize he's in trouble until it's too late. I could see the spider building its web and I kept yelling at the good guy to escape (why don't they ever listen to me?) but he just sticks around, ignoring his rapidly growing sense of dread, until it's too late.

Like I said, there isn't much gore on display here, but the torture is disturbing enough that it had me flinching and turning away for long periods of time, which was bad enough for me. I won't spoil anything for you, but for the people who are expecting sawed off body parts, you'll be disappointed. this isn't that kind of movie. This is the kind of movie for those who might almost rather have their body parts sawed off than deal with some of what this guy has to deal with in this movie. It's not one I can recommend, as in "hey. get all your friends to sit down and watch this movie!" They might have you committed. But for fans of the kind of films that make our skin crawl and make us very uncomfortable, those of us who should know better but watch this kind of movie anyway, this is worth a look. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 69: Let Me In

And now for something completely different. This movie is a remake of the much-loved (in horror circles anyway) film "Let the Right One In," which is a total revolution of the classic vampire story. Based on the book of the same name, by author John Ajvide Lindqvist, the movie burst onto the scene a few years ago and knocked everyone on their asses for changing a lot of the ways people looked at vampires. It was about a middle school kid who falls for this new girl who lives in his apartment complex, Eli, who keeps telling him she isn't a girl, and he soon discovers this is true in many subversive and shocking ways. Those who hate the movie (they exist, I assure you) bash it for being too slow and having all buildup with no action, but people like me, we were riveted by the story of the corruption of innocence, the complexity of young love, the creepiness mystery of vampirism, and we pretty much loved every minute. the book is more detailed than the movie, but in some ways I think the lack of details in the movie helps the story along. too much exposition kind of bogs things down, and having everything remain a kind of mystery helps keep me intrigued.

So as with all remakes of much-loved foreign films, lots of people wanted to hate this remake. They saw it as dumbing the story down for US audiences, and I would have agreed with them, but Chloe Grace Moretz was cast in the part of the vampire (here renamed Abby) and I knew how great she was in the movie "Kick-Ass," so I was willing to give her a chance, and the movie along with her. This is one of those rare, rare cases where both the book and the adaptation and then the remake of the adaptation are pretty much equally good, at least for me. They each have flaws, but I think they each have things they do better on their own, so I wound up liking them all equally.

First, I don't think this movie is dumbed-down. I think some aspects of the plot were made more explicit to help further the story, but it's not talky and over-explainy and it doesn't sugarcoat anything or tack on a generic "they all lived happily ever after" ending. I think this movie stayed true to the mysteriousness of Abby's condition, kept Abby's past a secret (but not in an annoying "we're editing 100 pages of text into 20 minutes" kind of way that made it seem choppy) and they kept some subversive things I thought they might change just so people didn't run from the theater screaming. Moretz is superb here (I knew she could do it) and her friend-turned-boyfriend Owen is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (what, was there a rule that all young cast members must have three names?) does a great job making us like him and root for him even though his life is rather dark and hopeless even before Abby enters the picture.

The scenes of bullying at Owen's school are more graphic in "Let Me In" than in the original movie, and that made it hard to watch. Additionally, the climax, which takes place at Owen's school at night, is weaker in this remake than it is in the original, but it still works, and the very end, the denoument, is well done in both movies. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this remake and plan to buy it because I think it does most everything right. I suggest that fans of the original movie or of the book at least give this movie a chance. They might be pleasantly surprised.

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 68: Masters of Horror: The V Word

I see the title "The V word" and I immediately think "vagina" (don't pretend you didn't think that, too) but alas, there is no vagina to be found in this movie. there is, however, a VAMPIRE, and it's kind of a cool vampire at that. Two bored teenagers decide to break into a funeral home in this movie (hey, why not, it's that kind of party) and they find that one of the corpses in the funeral home is not exactly dead, but is rather UNdead, and then their worlds are turned upside down (because vampires don't exist, right? I mean, they're not supposed to) and they have to figure out what to do from there (let's start by going back in time and never having the stupid idea to break into the funeral home in the first place, you geniuses). This movie doesn't suck (HAHAHAHA I AM SO FUNNY) but it doesn't have much bite ether (I AM A COMEDIC GENIUS OMG LOL) and there's not much plot to sink your teeth into (LMAO THIS IS COMEDY GOLD RIGHT HERE) so I did enjoy this movie and will probably check it out next year as well, but it wasn't ground breaking or anything and I didn't love it as much as say, "We all Scream for Ice Cream" (OMG stop talking about that, Lillian) so it's recommended, but not like, glowingly so, or anything, you dig? It was good, but I wanted it to be better? I love you, but I'm not in love with you? It's not me, it's you? I hope we can still be friends (don't call me, I'll call you).

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 67: Masters of Horror: Pelts

This is another one of these movies that I didn't want to watch. Really. I mean, I love Dario Argento, and when he's good, he's GREAT, but when he's bad...well, let's say he helps give new meaning to the word "bad," which I guess is a compliment in and of itself, but I had reservations about this movie coming in, and I was mostly proven right. Now honestly, the movie wasn't as bad as I probably thought it was going to be> I don't know if Meat Loaf Aday was cast here as a joke, but I happen to think he's not a bad actor, and he definitely holds his own in this movie, and the movie is subversive, with a lot of mean, nasty people having mean, nasty things done to them, so it's not all out terrible or anything. It's just kind of...flat. It had the feel of one of the old E.C. horror comics Tales from the Crypt stories, where bad things happen to bad people and it's gory and nasty, and I appreciated the effort there, but whereas a movie like "We all Scream for Ice Cream" worked in spite of having everything against it, this movie kind of just hangs there in spite of having a bunch of plusses in its favor, and while it really wasn't BAD, I was annoyed that it wasn't BETTER.

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 66: Masters of Horror: The Washingtonians

I really don't even want to get into this movie. so much so that I had to throw this review together at the last minute, because I had forgotten about this movie. I suppose that was my mind trying to protect itself from having to write this review. If I'm being honest, I'll admit that the movie wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be, as I was certain that it would be the worst movie I'd ever seen, but it wasn't THAT bad, really. I just...ok, this movie is about the hidden secret historical fact that George Washington was a cannibal who loved to eat the flesh of virgins (no, I am NOT making that up, but are you starting to see the problem here?) and there's a secret society of historians who know this fact and want to keep it hidden from public knowledge, and they're known as the "Washingtonians," and they are all cannibals too...yeah, I know, you're thinking whoever made this was probably on drugs, and I'm thinking that being on drugs is probably the best state of mind in which to watch this movie, and I wasn't on drugs when I saw it, so I just kind of stared blankly at it for awhile, and then had the strong urge to go watch paint dry. The movie doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy or a horror movie or a gross-out splattery mix of the two, and so it kind of just hangs out in the middle wasting everyone's time. The premise is so stupid that for it to be at ALL redeemable is an achievement I guess, but it's just kind of dumb, and though it's gory and icky and trying to shock people, it just makes me want to watch something else. Something better.

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 65: Masters of Horror: Valerie on the Stairs

This is one of those movies I'll probably have to give another chance later, because I was really impatient with it when I first watched it, so I probably didn't give it the fair chance I should have, and it kind of pissed me off, to be honest. Here's the thing. It's about a young man who is a struggling writer, and he moves into a halfway house for other struggling writers, with the stipulation that if he ever becomes a published author he has to move out and find somewhere else to live. so he moves in and starts working on his novel, but he starts having visions of a beautiful, naked woman on the stairs outside his room, and as he talks to her more, he finds out she is in danger. all the other residents of the house deny that they've ever seen anything ghostly and they call him crazy, but as time goes on it seems they all might know more about her than they're letting on. The premise is intriguing, and I can't really point to one thing that doesn't work in this movie. I can see a lot of Clive Barker in it, with its sly commentary about writers (we're all crazy, you know) and aside from Tony todd being kind of silly in this movie (I love him, I really do, but I kept wanting to crack up because his character is supposed to be scary but when he's just sitting around trying to look menacing he looks like one of the gargoyles from Disney's animated "Hunchback of Notre Dame" movie and it ruins the effect) but the movie just came off as...kind of silly when it was supposed to be scary. I'll likely give it another chance, but it really rubbed me the wrong way and made me roll my eyes into the next century, so I'd caution people not to expect too much lest they be disappointed.

2011 October Horror Movie Challenge Movie 64: Masters of Horror:

This is a movie that SHOULDN'T work, for all practical rights and purposes. I'm going to describe the plot to you, and then you're going to think "Damn, that sounds stupid" and I agree with you, because that's what I thought, too. In the opening scenes of this movie, a father is pleading with a little boy not to eat some ice cream, and the little boy eats the ice cream anyway, and the father shrieks in terror and suddenly MELTS into a puddle of ice-cream and dead guy goo. I know, ridiculous, right? Except somehow...within the universe of this movie...it works. It turns out a sadistic ghostly ice cream man dressed as a clown is delivering ice cream to kids in a small town, and the ice cream is irresistible to them, but once they eat it, their parents will melt into ice creamy goo. I understand how stupid that sounds, but somehow it just works. The clown helps, I'm sure, because those things are creepy anyway, and particularly this one, long dead and deranged and vengeful. Plus the whole idea id disgusting and creepy. Kids killing their parents? Parents melting into goo? Icky nasty demon ice cream? It's everything that would have been the best movie ever made if I saw it when I were ten years old, but it was still pretty damn good even at thirty. I suggest that you give it a chance (but you might not want to eat ice cream for awhile after seeing it).