The Nun (2018)

Back in October, I watched The Conjuring movies for the first time and I loved everything about them which is why, despite James Wan not being the director and the negative reviews I read, I decided to check of the latest spin-off of the series, The Nun.

The story is set in 1952 Romania and follows Father Burke (Demián Bichir), a priest with a haunted past, and Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), a nun in her novitiate, as they investigate the death of a young nun (Charlotte Hope) who took her own life and confront a malevolent force in the form of a demonic nun, Valak (Bonnie Aarons).

Saying that the plot to The Nun is basic would be a tremendous compliment as there barely is a plot and it feels as if the writers just threw stuff together. What could have been an interesting origin story of one of the iconic villains of The Conjuring series ends up being a sloppy, predictable, and boring story that goes absolutely nowhere for most of the film’s running time.

The characters are just as thin. Poor characterization and lack of development result in uninteresting, uncompelling characters you don’t care about. Not to mention that they barely contribute to the plot. It doesn’t matter how hard the cast tries —Vera Farmiga’s sister Taissa does a wonderful job as the novice nun and makes the character way more compelling that it is on paper—, they are bland and forgettable. Even Valak. Especially Valak.

Warner Bros. Pictures

The worst part though is that The Nun is a jump-scare feast. The film is filled with so many (predictable) jump scares that it feels like watching “scary” short horror videos on the internet and, after a while, it gets exhausting. I pretty much shit myself while watching The Conjuring; I died of boredom while watching this.

And it truly is a shame because the setting of the abbey really helps to create the haunting, creepy atmosphere the film needed to succeed. There’s a good use of lights and they really help set the mood. It does manage to build some suspense at the beginning and a few jump scares are effective but eventually the repetition of these scares, along with the pathetic, cringe attempts at humour, completely kills the atmosphere and tension. 

The Thing (1982)

John Carpenter is considered by many the master of horror movies so, although I was not a fan of Christine, his adaptation of Stephen King's novel, I decided to check out The Thing, one of the most popular horror movies out there. 

The film follows a group of scientists and workers of a small research American base in Antarctica. After a group of seemingly mad Norwegians dies in the process of chasing and shooting a dog from a helicopter, the American team finds the Norwegian base only to discover that everyone is dead or missing. They also find the remains of a burned creature and decide to take it to their base and, too late, they realise the Thing is alive and dangerous as it can take over and assimilate into other life forms, including humans.

This story which is based on a 1938 science fiction novella by John W. Campbell Jr. isn't anything out of the ordinary and as such, it takes a predictable path as it essentially focuses on paranoia, which is beautifully constructed by the way, but it's not enough to fix the thin plotting and the slow pacing and because of those, it never really engaged me. At least, there isn't any pointless romantic subplot. 

The characters also are pretty bland, dull and uninteresting as they lack depth, emotions and development and therefore it's really hard to see them as human beings. They are not particularly likeable or believable, nor even Kurt Russell's, so you will never care for any of them, nor have a favourite, the one you hope will make it out alive. Also, there isn't much of a sense of tension between them and that's a bummer considering the story is supposed to rely on it to be effective. The performances, however, aren't as terrible as they usually are in these movies; actually, the actors do a pretty good job and make the characters feel a little bit more human. 

Universal Pictures

Visually though, it's a whole different story. The special effects are absolutely amazing --the gore looks incredibly real and it does not feel like watching a movie from the 1980s-- and they contribute to make the film scary. It's not the effects alone that get the job done. The haunting, at times unbearable atmosphere, the tension and suspense Carpenter delivers pretty evenly throughout the film, and the score by Ennio Morricone, they all play a huge role in scaring the audience. 

Nevertheless, The Thing is a pretty boring movie and Ridley Scott's Alien is much better. 

Chopping Mall (1986)

I stumbled upon Chopping Mall many times over the years but, since I already had my share of cheap 1980s horror movies for that year, I always passed it. This year I focused more on quality horrors and I picked this one to be the crappy one. 

The film takes place in a mall where a new security system has been presented which includes three high-tech robots programmed to disable and apprehend thieves. Four couples of teenagers, Rick (Russell Todd) and Linda (Karrie Emerson), Greg (Nick Segal) and Suzie (Barbara Crampton), Mike (John Terlesky) and Leslie (Suzee Slater), and Ferdy (Tony O'Dell) and Allison (Kelli Maroney), decide to have a late night party in one of the store. They are enjoying themselves, having sex, drinking and all, when a lightning storm strikes, the robots start malfunctioning and go on a killing spree. 

The plot of the film is just as stupid and predictable as it is in any other cheesy horror film. Not only this is annoying but it's also quite infuriating because so much could have been done with the idea but it ends up being the typical, clichéd and boring horror plot where something/someone goes on a killing spree targeting teenagers. 

Same goes for the characters, they couldn't be any more clichéd than this --there's the annoying kind of frat guy, the nerd, the promiscuous girl, the sweet girl. I have to say though, apart from the cocky frat guy who I hated with all of my heart, they are not those characters you can't wait to see die. It's not like you care for them either but you don't have that desire to see them dead as you usually have with these characters. And I guess the credits go to the cast. They don't give great performances or anything but they are kinda likeable.

Concorde Pictures

As for the horror, if you are looking for a scary film, Chopping Mall definitely isn't for you as the film is not scary and there isn't even a decent amount of gore. If you are looking for something so stupid that actually ends up being kind of funny, then it's definitely something you could waste your time with. The special effects are so silly they are laughable --the killer robots look like a retarded version of R2-D2. But I guess they are pretty well done considering the film's budget. At last, the electronic score is corny as hell.

Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015)

Although Insidious: Chapter 2 turned out to be a huge disappointment, I still decided to check out Insidious: Chapter 3, naively thinking that a change of director and cast could bring the franchise back from the dead. I was wrong as it turned out.

The film is set several years before the events of Insidious and follows Quinn Brenner (Stefanie Scott), a teenage girl who, after trying to connect with her dead mother (Ele Keats), asks psychic Elise Reinier (Lin Shaye) to help her. Elise refuses to help her, Quinn tries again to contact her mother alone against Elise's advice and ends up awakening and being haunted by The Man Who Can't Breathe (Michael Reid MacKay).

This is easily the weakest plot in the series so far --I'm sure The Last Key will prove me wrong tomorrow--, as it is simplistic at its best, it makes absolutely no sense, nor it isn't a bit compelling. It is pretty much event-less for most of its running time and when something finally does happen it isn't that great either. Actually, the ending doesn't pay off at all.

The characters are goddman awful too. They are bland and uninteresting as they lack characterization and development. Most of them --Hector (Ashton Moio), a teenage boy neighbour who has a crush on Quinn; Maggie (Hayley Kiyoko), Quinn's best friend; Harry (Jeris Lee Poindexter) and Grace (Phyllis Applegate), an elderly couple living in the same building as Quinn; and probably more I can't think of right now-- have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, they just appear and disappear without any reason.

As for the acting, it is barely decent which definitely is not enough for a horror movie as I believe it's the believable performances that help a movie scare its audience. Lin Shaye, who once again returns as psychic Elise Rainier, is the only one who somehow manages to give a good performance. Although she is a little too overdramatic at times, her sassy, confident Elise kinda holds the film together.

Focus Features

The direction is a mess as well. Busy filming Furious 7, James Wan left the directing chair to Leigh Whennell, the writer of the two previous films, and Whennell, being this his directorial debut, doesn't quite know what to do. The film indeed lacks the eerie atmosphere Wan was able to deliver with the previous entries of the franchise; the camera work is quite disappointing; the music is often overbearing; the scares are just stupid, cheesy jump scares that couldn't even scare a child. At least Whennell's Specs and Angus Sampson's Tucker provide less comic relief this time.

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

I think we can all agree Insidious is no horror masterpiece. Despite this and the fact that sequels are usually disappointing, I was expecting Insidious: Chapter 2 to be a solid horror. You know, it's still directed by James Wan, the same guy, Upgrade's Leigh Whannell, wrote it,  and the cast is pretty much the same. And I couldn't have been more wrong. 

The film picks up where the previous left, with Renai (Rose Byrne) being interrogated by a police detective (Michael Beach) about the death of Elise (Lin Shaye). While the police continue their investigation, the Lamberts move in with Josh's (Patrick Wilson) mother, Lorraine (Barbara Hershey), and try to put everything behind them. However, the spirit world isn't done with them yet. 

And we, the audience, have to sit through an incredibly painful film whose plot is complicated, filled with holes and completely ridiculous. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense (I'm still trying to swallow the whole time-travelling ghosts thing). There are some twists, one of which is quite interesting, but unfortunately, they raise more questions than they answer from the first film.

The characters are pretty much the same of the first film, and they are just as bad. They have no development, they say and do the dumbest things, and those two paranormal specialists, Leigh Whannell's Specs and Angus Sampson's Tucker, couldn't get any more annoying than this as they provide the perfect amount of comic relief to kill the atmosphere in any horror movie. 

Unlike in the first time, when the cast somehow managed to do a good job despite the poor script, here the actors are barely decent. While Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson still do a nice job as Renai and Josh Lambert, especially the latter as he does creepy/psycho very well, the rest of them is meh. 

FilmDistrict

At least the direction from James Wan is still good. Despite the annoying comedy I mentioned above, there's a creepy, eerie atmosphere for a nice amount of the running time and there's a decent amount of tension throughout the film; the camera work has improved; and the scares, although some are so cheesy and over the top, decently work. And the make-up is pretty good. The special effects, on the other hand, are kinda cheap. 

Vincent (1982)

As I've said in the past few weeks, finding horror animated films has been a real struggle; so when I stumbled upon Tim Burton's short stop-motion horror film, Vincent, I watched it right away. 

The film tells the story of Vincent Malloy, a 7-year-old boy who dreams and pretends to be just like actor Vincent Price. He does experiments on his dog Abercrombie to create a Zombie dog; he is obsessed with Edgar Allan Poe's tales and while reading them, he loses touch with reality completely to the point that he believes he's been deprived of the woman he loves and he is afraid of being tortured. He is a very well-mannered boy but his continuous macabre daydreaming really annoys his mother who always finds a way to get in the way and bring him back to his lonely, tedious life. 

It's a very simple and yet compelling story that manages to be humorous and twisted at the same time. It is written in verse and narrated/recited by Vincent Price himself whose delightfully creepy voice fits the tone of the film very well and gives it an Edgar Allan Poe kind of effect that works incredibly well.

It's not the story or the way it's written and told though that makes of Vincent such an interesting and compelling (short) film. It's the fact that this film is actually some sort of love letter from Tim Burton to Vincent Price, his childhood idol, that explores how it feels to be different, and celebrates some of Price's greatest films.

Buena Vista Distribution

Ultimately, Vincent has everything you love about Burton's cinema: the bizarre characters, the macabre and grotesque story, the dark atmosphere and imagery, but most of all, his stunning trademark stop-motion animation. It's still pretty raw --which is totally acceptable considering how low the budget and how small the crew were-- but it's nevertheless brilliant.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

If you have read yesterday's review then you already know that The Conjuring blew me away. I don't remember the last time a movie scared me that much. Actually, I don't believe it ever happened. That, the recurring cast, Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, and the recurring director, James Wan, set my hopes pretty high for The Conjuring 2.

Just like the previous film, this one too is based on true events and follows Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) as they travel to London, England, where a single mother, Peggy Hodgson (Frances O'Connor), and her four children are being haunted by an unknown, evil entity who eventually posses the second oldest daughter, Janet (Madison Wolfe).

And just like in The Conjuring, the plot is a chaotic mess. Once again we have the typical haunted house storyline, and then a subplot involving another demonic presence --the nun tormenting the Warrens as opposed to Annabelle. There's a quite brilliant twist at the end though that connects the various plot elements and makes the plot, specifically the ending, work better than it did in the first time. Unfortunately, unlike the first time, the story wasn't compelling enough to keep me interested, and by the time the twist came, I was bored out of my mind.

The characters are still pretty good though. Just like its predecessor, The Conjuring 2 takes the time needed to build and develop its characters and the result is likeable and believable characters we care about and root for.

And once again the cast does a good job. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are both great as Ed and Lorraine and their great chemistry really makes the film work as the film heavily relies on their characters' relationship. Also, Wilson sings an Elvis song and he is amazing. However, it's Madison Wolfe who stands out with her vulnerable and frightening performance as Janet.

Warner Bros. Pictures

At last, James Wan direction is still pretty good as the camera work is still excellent and the atmosphere and tension he delivers throughout the film is quite impressive, especially considering the not so brilliant story. However, the film isn't as scary as its predecessor was. Maybe it's because instead of amazing makeup and costumes, it heavily relies on non-so good and unrealistic CGI that is rather distracting; or because every time something scary was happening, Wan cut to the next scene before something really scary happened.

The Conjuring (2013)

I'll start this by saying that I'm an atheist, I don't believe in paranormal activities and therefore I don't like to waste my time with paranormal horror movies. But there's someone in the blogosphere *cough*Margaret*cough* who keeps praising James Wan so I decided to watch one of his most loved films, The Conjuring. 

As you probably know the film is based on true events and tells the story of the Perron family who shortly after moving into their "new" dilapidated farmhouse in Rhode Island begins to experience paranormal events. Fearful, they ask for the help of Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga), two paranormal investigators that soon discover there's a witch haunting the house and the area surrounding it.

The plot certainly isn't the film's greatest strength as it lacks originality and it's a little all over the place. The main storyline, the one you just read, is pretty much your typical haunted house story and as such, it's clichéd and predictable. Everything else is quite a mess as there's too much going on --the Annabelle doll, the melodrama between and Ed and Lorraine as they want to stop doing their job but they also want to continue because helping other is their mission from God-- and nothing really gets the conclusion it deserves. And yet there's something about it that was so compelling it kept me interested and invested in The Conjuring for the whole time.

The characters are definitely one of those compelling aspects. Unlike most horrors nowadays, this film takes its time to get the audience know its characters, both the Warrens and the Perrons, which makes them more interesting and relatable than your average horror characters. We get invested in them, we care about them, and we root for them.

It wouldn't be fair to praise only the writers for this as the reason they are so effective is the cast. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are both excellent as the husband and wife --they do a great job at exploring their characters and their chemistry is pretty good. The rest of the cast does a good job too, the stand out being Lili Taylor as Carolyn Perron whose transition from innocent and loving mother to terrifying monster.

Warner Bros. Pictures

At last but not least director James Wan, the man without whom The Conjuring wouldn't be the same --I'm not sure it would even work without him. Wan was able to give the film a 70s look which makes it feel very authentic and real. His stylish camera work which includes tracking shots and very creative angles --I loved when he turned the camera upside down-- gives the film such a creepy, haunting and frightening atmosphere. He builds tension and delivers terror beautifully and, while there still are jump scares, they are effective because they have a reason to be there. Also, there's no sex, no gore and no cursing, isn't that refreshing for a horror?

Ultimately, The Conjuring isn't perfect but it's pretty terrifying. As I said above, I don't believe in these things but I was genuinely scared while watching the film. It sent chills down my spine several times, I'm not kidding.

Hereditary (2018)

I saw the trailer of Hereditary a couple of times in cinemas before the movies started but it didn't impress me so I decided I would pass it. Over the past months though, pretty much everyone in the blogosphere has been speaking so highly of it that I rethought my decision and decided to watch it for my horror challenge.

The film follows a family of four, Annie (Toni Collette), her husband, Steve (Gabriel Byrne), son, Peter (Alex Wolff) and daughter, Charlie (Milly Shapiro), after the death of the family matriarch. While each member is still trying to handle the grief their own way, a tragedy occurs and they learn things aren't as they seem. 

Despite some predictable elements --I knew there was something going on with Joanne as soon as the character was introduced--, the story is quite original and twisted, and, although it unfolds very slowly, it grabs your attention right from the start and keeps you glued to the screen, anxious and frightened, until the very (unfortunately unsatisfying) end. The first part of the film is more of a dark family drama than a horror but the drama there works beautifully and, as someone whose family has been through something like that, the blaming, the guilt, the fighting, it feels so real it's heartbreaking.

And it's thank to that drama that director and writer Ari Aster can properly develop the characters, make them believable and relatable. We find ourselves really invested in them, we care about them and root for them --maybe not all of them, but it's still impressive considering how poorly nowadays horrors do under this aspect-- and when the terrible things happen, it's has a huge impact on us.

Of course, the cast deserves to be praised for it too. First of all, Toni Collette. She gives such an intense, mesmerizing performance as the mother who descends into madness --her presence and vulnerability are outstanding, especially during the confrontation between her character and her son. Alex Wolff stole the scene for me though as he gives an exceptional performance as the son --and frankly, I don't give a damn if he doesn't look anything like the actors playing his parents. Not all kids look like their parents in real life anyway. Milly Shapiro also gives a strong performance, but the hype surrounding her (haunting and creepy) performance was so high that it kind of let me down. It's not as disappointing as Gabriel Byrne's performance as the husband/father though as he pretty much sleepwalks through the movie.

A24

As his directorial debut, Ari Aster did a really good job. Although some scenes drag on a little, he was able to establish such an eerie, creepy, unsettling atmosphere throughout the whole movie, and it's beyond impressive.

Ultimately, Hereditary is more than your typical horror as it deals with themes such as family, loss, grief, specifically dwelling into the relationship between parents and their children. It's not the kind of horror that relies on stupid scare-jumps to scare its audience, it's the kind of film that relies on the atmosphere and the beautiful and terrifying visuals. It's different and it works because of it.

Wicked City (1987)

As soon as I decided I would do the 31 days of horror thing, I realised I didn't know any horror animated movie. Actually, I did, but I already had reviewed those so I started searching and, list after list, I always came across one movie, the anime Wicked City (Japanese: 妖獣都市 Yōjū Toshi). I figured it oughta be good so I picked it.

The film is set in a world where most humans unknownly co-exist with an alternate dimension populated by supernatural demons. There's between peace between the two worlds for centuries and agents from both sides cooperate to keep it that way. However, as the end of the 20th century approaches, a group of demons wants to destroy the human world and it's up to two agents, a human playboy, Taki (voiced by Yūsaku Yara), and a beautiful demon, Makie (voiced by Toshiko Fujita), to protect a 200-year-old man, Giuseppi Mayart (voiced by Ichirō Nagai), the only one who can keep peace between the worlds.

It sounds like an interesting storyline, but unfortunately, the writers didn't put a lot of effort into it so, not only the plot is incredibly simplistic and predictable, but there's barely one as there are more holes than in Swiss cheese. It's not like it would have made much of a difference or any sense for the film to have a plot considering the pointless and useless sex going on most of the time.

The characters are just as bad as they are bland, boring and completely uninteresting. Also, other than any no development whatsoever, they are nothing but clichés --the main character is the typical playboy who eventually falls in love --he is supposed to be the hero but he's not even that likeable--, and there's even the old creep/perverted. Honestly, I felt sorry for the female lead for being in this as she is constantly subjected to the old man's sexual comments and the camera ogling her breasts.

Joy Pack Film

Another major problem with Wicked City is that the city is barely in the film. The majority of the film takes place indoors so instead of seeing the city, we see interiors all the time. We get to see the city, specifically the skyline, a couple of times and it's beautiful but it's not enough for a movie with that title.

But I guess you can't/don't have the time to show the city when your main focus is to deliver sex scenes and female nudity to please those (sick) individuals who get turned on by watching anime porn.

And it's really a shame Wicked City is the disgusting, misogynist film it is because the visuals are pretty impressive --the colours are beautiful, especially the use of red and blue, and the monster designs, which include a woman shooting webs from her toothed vagina after the film's first pointless sex scene, are quite interesting.

Antichrist (2009)

I've been meaning to watch more Lars von Trier films ever since I watched and loved Nymphomaniac. But he is not the easiest director to watch, so I kept putting them off until now, as I decided to watch horror movies for 31 days straight and I picked Antichrist. 

The movie tells the story of a couple who has just lost their child. After the funeral, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls into the depression hole and He (Willem Dafoe), a therapist), tries to help her by figuring out what her fear is.  To do this, they head off to their cabin in the woods. Once there, however, her mental state rapidly deteriorates. 

The story, which is divided into six chapters --a Prologue, Grief, Pain, Despair, The Three Beggars, and an Epilogue--, gets more and more intense and disturbing as it develops to the point of becoming unbearable. 

Antichrist's is a story that explores the human process of coping with trauma and loss; it portrays the human nature and condition, specifically the feminine condition. And this is where I had a huge problem with von Trier's movie. Women are portrayed as evil, the incarnation of the devil. I agree that we often forget that, just like men, women too are capable of doing horrific things --just think of mothers killing their own kids-- but this feels like a movie made by someone and for people who hate and fear women.

At least the characters, which are only two, He and She, are pretty solid. Although they seem unrealistic and little believable and their actions are often bizarre, they are interesting and have such an emotional depth that they effortlessly carry the film. The performances from Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are both very compelling. While Dafoe gives a calm and composed performance, Gainsbourg's is intense, painful, and devastating.

Nordisk Film Distribution

Visually, Antichrist is quite stunning. The opening sequence, the prologue, is nothing short of spectacular with its black and white cinematography, the fantastic camera work, and the slow-motion. The music opera music that accompanies the tragedy, the intensity of it. It's a pure work of art, easily one of the best openings I've ever seen. The rest of the film, well, it's not so beautiful. The camera work is still impressive, and the slow-motion is still wonderfully used, but there are too many disturbing images to consider the rest of the film visually beautiful --there's no beauty in a penis, Dafoe's character but probably, certainly a body double's, ejaculating blood nor in Gainsbourg's character cutting off her clitoris. If anything, they are unforgettable.

I also had another issue with Antichrist. It's hard, if not impossible, to categorize the film. Is it a horror? Or is a psychological drama? I guess a bit of both as von Trier himself said he wanted to make a horror but ended up making something else. Anyway, the sense of dread that builds throughout the film, the brutality, the physical and sexual violence, they sure make for an extremely unsettling film.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

I don't know exactly how I discovered The Rocky Horror Picture Show as cult movies weren't something I'd watch. I just know that, when I first watched it, many years ago (I believe I still was in my teens), I was not ready for it but I loved it nevertheless. Since I'm doing this Horror October thing, I figured it was time to rewatch it. 

The film follows Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon), a newly engaged couple whose car broke down in the middle of nowhere during a rainstorm, and, while seeking a telephone, stumbled upon the castle of Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry), a transvestite from transsexual Transylvania. From then on, a series of weird and bizarre things begins to happen.

The plot is wacky, silly and makes absolutely no sense, but it still has to offer more than most movies nowadays as it is one of the most interesting and original plot you'll ever see, and you'll be drawn so much into it that you won't even care about all the nonsense going on.

The characters are just as weird and absurd as the plot, if not even more. But they also are funny and lovely; you won't judge any of them, no matter how insane or wrong are the things they do, but, on the contrary, you will feel sympathy for each one of them.

Dr. Frank-N-Furter is arguably the most intriguing and insane of the bunch. He is an evil person but you won't be mad at him for his awful actions, you'll feel sorry for him as he is just a lonely, unhappy person/alien seeking love and approval. Tim Curry's performance is nothing short of spectacular. He dominates the film every single time he's on the screen; he is funny, delivers his lines perfectly and his singing is amazing. But most of all, I don't know what it is, he is so sexy in drag, it's confusing (I'm a straight woman, fyi).

20the Century Fox

Although they are not as fabulous as the transvestite from transsexual Transylvania, the supporting characters too are delightful and the rest of the cast does a pretty good job. A young Susan Sarandon is an absolute treat --not only her performance as Janet is great, but her voice is so cute and Disney-like that makes the film even weirder. Barry Bostwick is just lovely as the nerdy Brad. Richard O'Brien --he wrote the stage show-- is terrific as Riff Raff, the handyman. Patricia Quinn and Little Nell too are mesmerizing in their roles of maid Magenta and groupie Columbia respectively.

As for the musical aspect, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is pretty much flawless. The songs not only are catchy and stuck with you long after you finished watching the movie, but they are an integral part of the film as they advance the plot. The musical numbers are inventive, energetic, entertaining and a lot of fun.

And let's not forget about the costumes, makeup and set. They are strange and quirky, they are colourful and transmit happiness. They are hypnotic.

Mandy (2018)

When I first heard people saying how great Nicolas Cage's latest movie, Mandy, was, I thought they were kidding. Then I checked on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, I saw it had a good rating on both sites so I checked it out. 

Set in 1983, Mandy tells the story of a loving couple, Red (Nicolas Cage) and Mandy (Andrea Riseborough), who lives in a cabin in the woods. Red is a lumberjack; Mandy is an artist who works at a nearby gas station. They lead a happy, quiet life until one day the crazy leader (Linus Roache) of a cult lays eyes on Mandy and conjures a group of motorcycle-riding demons to kidnap her, leading to Red spiralling into a madness-fueled revenge. 

Unfortunately, words are not enough to describe how fucked up Mandy's plot is. Frankly, I'm not even sure I understood half of what was going on in the film. I'm not even sure the film has a story, to be honest. But it didn't bother me at all, at least not at first. I indeed found the first half of the film very interesting and absorbing. However, when the revenge kicked in, I gradually began to lose my interest. I just didn't care for the characters' fate.

Which makes total sense considering how I felt or rather nor felt about the characters. Despite the fact that Panos Cosmatos took a good amount of time to introduce the characters --and I loved the introductions--, I just didn't feel empathy or sympathy for the characters. I did feel sorry for Red at some point but it was just for a moment.

The cast, however, really impressed me. Nicolas Cage gives one of the best performances of his career, arguably the best in recent years. He occasionally overacts and says his lines in a very strange way, but his portrayal of Red, a man who descends into madness, is insanely good; Andrea Riseborough is amazing as Mandy --and I loved the Wendy Torrance-look Cosmatos gave her; Linus Roache gives a great performance as the creepy leader of the cult, a very deranged, evil man.

RLJE Films

The most striking aspect of Mandy is the visuals. The film heavily relies on them and it pays off as they are stunning. The flashy, vivid colours, the amazing camera work, the incredible attention to details --whether it's costumes or locations--, the effects, the gore, they all are on point and make of Mandy a feast for the eyes. To enhance the incredibly beautiful visual experience there's a phenomenal, psychedelic score by the late  Jóhann Jóhansson.

Ultimately, Mandy was not as good as I expected, as I found the writing to be quite poor and the second part, the revenge, too dragged, but it still made for quite an unsettling and unique experience. This is definitely a Nicolas Cage movie I do not regret seeing.

Dead of Night (1945)

Although I can't quite put my finger on it, I'm pretty sure Birgit over BB Creations talked about Dead of Night at some point on her blog, probably in one of the Thursday Movie Picks entries, I found it interesting and decided to check it out. [Update: it was not Birgit. Maybe it was Joel]

The film follows an architect, Walter Craig (Mervyn Johns), who is summoned for a job in the countryside by a new client, Eliot Foley (Roland Culver). Upon his arrival, he is introduced to the other guests and Craig reveals that despite never having met any of them, he has seen them all, in that same house, in a recurring nightmare. One of the guests, psychiatrist Dr. Van Straaten (Frederick Valk), doesn't believe in supernatural so, as an attempt to convince him/prove him wrong, each guest recounts their own supernatural tales.

Because of today's horror movies, we already are familiar with the stories told by the characters --premonitions, haunted mirrors, creepy dummies, ghosts, etc.-- and yet they are interesting and engaging. Sure, some stories are more absorbing and effective than others, but they all are worth seeing/being told --while the Haunted Mirror sequence is very spooky, and the Ventriloquist's Dummy is very terrifying, the Golfer's Story brings a humorous twist to the film. The Hearse Driver and the Christmas Party segments are pretty weak though.

When it comes to characters though, the writing isn't that brilliant. The characters are indeed quite thin. However, the cast does a wonderful job and each character ends up being memorable. Mervyn Johns is very convincing as the confused and frighten architect trapped in a dream. Ralph Michael gives a fantastic performance as the man who is tormented by the mirror. Frederick Valk is mesmerizing as the sceptical psychiatrist. It's Michael Redgrave though that absolutely steals the scene. His performance as the ventriloquist with a slip personality is outstanding.

Eagle-Lion Films, Universal Pictures

The most tricking thing about Dead of Night is the atmosphere. The film has a creepy, eerie atmosphere that will keep you on the edge of your seat from start to finish and will give you the chills. The astonishing black and white photography, and the unsettling, nightmarish and occasionally over-the-top music really add to the film.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

I must have read positive reviews about A Cure for Wellness if I decided to add it on my watchlist. I can't remember though as I kept putting it off forever because of its length, two and a half hours. I mean, who's got time and willpower to watch such a long horror? I'm talking to non-horror lovers like myself. Anyway, I finally check it out and damn, it was good. 

The film follows Mr. Lockhart (Dane DeHaan), a young and ambitious financial executive from New York who is sent to a mysterious wellness center in the Swiss Alps to retrieve his company's CEO, Roland Pembroke (Harry Groener), whose signature is necessary to complete a merger. It is supposed to be a very easy task but soon Lockhart begins to question the true nature of the center and finds himself trapped at the wellness center as well. 

In terms of plotting, A Cure for Wellness is by no means perfect. It's not that original --rape and incest are quite common in the gothic horror genre--, there's a lot going on --simply too many storylines--, the pace is slow, it's a little confusing and there are many plot holes. Also, although they did try, there's no real twist here and the ending is a bit of a letdown --they should have left those last 20 minutes in the cutting room. That said, it's captivating, intriguing, so much so that I found myself transported into it, on the edge of my seat and glued to the screen from start to finish. 

There isn't much new with the characters either. The main character, Lockhart, is the morally corrupt financial executive whose family is his job that we have seen many times before. He is an icy, cocky and unlikable protagonist and yet he makes such a compelling protagonist. The credits entirely go to Dane DeHaan for it --and to the people who cast him because clearly, he is the perfect fit to play the character thanks to his constantly exhausted-looking face. Anyway, DeHaan, who has to carry the whole film on his shoulders, gives one of the best, if not the best performance of his career as he credibly expresses all the emotional and physical traumas his character is going and has gone through.

20th Century Fox

The supporting characters are quite interesting and intriguing as they are very odd and creepy and the cast does a good job. Jason Isaacs gives a mesmerizing performance as Dr. Volmer, the reasonable, mad(?) scientist who may or may not be conducting experiments on humans; Mia Goth gives a solid performance as Hannah, the mysterious teen patient who starts as a romantic interest but ends up being very relevant to the story.

The most striking aspect of A Cure for Wellness though is the visuals. The dreamlike cinematography is breathtaking, specifically as we see Manhattan's cityscape and follow Lockhart's through the Swiss Alps, but also while it captures the claustrophobic and dark sanitarium. Also impressive is Verbinski's ability in creating a grim and macabre atmosphere and the tension needed to keep the viewer glued to the screen.

Ultimately, A Cure for Wellness isn't very easy to watch, partially because of the slow pacing and long running time, partially because of the subject it deals with, but it makes for quite an exciting and thrilling experience.

Carrie (1976)

Stephen King's Carrie has been on the shelf, waiting for somebody to read it, for decades (my mother bought it in the 80s and never read it). It was February when I finally decided to read it and, being a King fan, I found it rather disappointing. It wasn't terrible but it sure wasn't great either. I still decided to check out this movie because Brian De Palma directed it and Sissy Spacek plays Carrie, and, like just the book, it was disappointing. 

Brought up by her religious fanatic mother (Piper Laurie) almost in isolation, Carrie White (Sissy Spacek) is a shy 17-year-old whose classmates constantly makes fun of. When she gets her first period, she is teased by the girls more than before and the gym teacher (Betty Buckley) disciplines the girls severely. One of them, Sue Snell (Amy Irving), feels sorry for her so she asks her boyfriend (William Katt) to take Carrie to prom instead of her. Christ Hargenson (Nancy Allen), on the other hand, is determined to have revenge and, with the help of her boyfriend (John Travolta), starts plotting against Carrie. But Carrie has telekinetic powers and messing with her won't be a smart move.

It's not like there's something smart about Carrie though, especially the plot. If there's something the novel and the film have in common is that both have a mediocre to say the least plot, but while the book was beyond boring at the beginning but it got better as I kept reading, the film started well, it was interesting and engaging, but as the plot advanced, it became so tedious.

Also, the film feels more like a teen romantic drama than a horror. I get that the source material wasn't that good, but how did Brian De Palma manage to turn a horror into a barely scary teen movie? And how did he manage to ruin the scene where Carries gets the bucket in the head? You know it's coming, but if there's something King did in the novel is deliver tension and suspense there. De Palma failed and the main reason is that the scene is dragged on for too long and loses its effectiveness. And I was expecting more blood.

United Artists

I wasn't a big fan of the music either. It was effective at times but when that Psycho-like music came on when Carrie was using her powers to do things just didn't do for me. The effects are excellent but only if you keep in mind this is 1976 and they are not that scary.

That being said, there's still something that makes Carrie worth watching, the acting. Though she is too beautiful and skinny to play Carrie, Sissy Spacek gives a hell of a performance, she captures the character so well that you feel empathy for Carrie, just like in the book. Another outstanding performance is delivered by Piper Laurie who plays Carrie's mother with a fantastic manic energy.

It (2017)

I'd be lying if I said It was one of my most anticipated films of the year. It just wasn't. I guess it's because I never saw the 1990s mini-series and I find clowns pretty stupid. Also, I didn't read Stephen King's novel up until recently. Reading that great book, however, made me interested in seeing it, especially when all the people I (virtually) know were saying what a great movie it was. That of course created some expectations Andy Muschietti's film wasn't able to meet, and instead of being happy and frightened, I left the movie theatre pretty unhappy and bored.

What I liked the most about King's novel was the non-linear story. The story, dipping in and out of the past and the present, was a puzzle slowly coming together which made it more interesting. I get that the writers didn't want the audience to know the fate of the kids while they still were kids, and it makes sense, but it took away from the story. 

As you probably know, it revolves around the town of Derry, Maine, where every 27 years bad things happen, from fatal accidents to (and especially) kids disappearing. It's now 1989 and a group of kids decide to face the evil responsible for these tragedies, Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill Skarsgård), while also dealing with some bullied that are making their lives impossible.

It starts off pretty well. The opening scene is spectacular, to be honest. It is dark, tense and the atmosphere set up through photography and score is amazing. After that, I'm still trying to understand what happened. The story doesn't flow smoothly at all; it goes from dick-joke scene to here's-how-this-kid-first-met-Pennywise scene, and before the scene reaches its potential of being scary, the story goes back on the kids having fun.

Which brings me to the next point, the film relies more on comedy than horror, a comedy that didn't really work for me. The atmosphere is pretty much gone 5 minutes in and the film just isn't scary. There are some jump scares here and there but nothing more.

The fate of the characters was even worse. Although each kid of the Losers Club manages to stand out thanks to their distinct personalities (not Mike though, his character is completely missing here and since Ben took his role of history buff, he doesn't have an important role in the story anymore), the development is terrible just like their backstories. Actually, not all the The other characters are equally bad, especially Henry Bowers who wants to kill the losers right from the beginning for no reason whatsoever.  Also, the themes of womanhood and sexuality that Bev's character brought to the book are nowhere to be found in this film.

But let's now look on the bright side because there is one. Part of it is Pennywise's defeat. Instead of doing a ritual and using psych powers to defeat the clown, they rely on physical strength meaning that the final battle is way more action-packed. And it works because of the tedious nature of the film. Also, this way that controversial sex scene was left out. It did have a meaning in the book (it was a connection from childhood to adulthood) but it would have surely got lost in the film.

The other great thing about It is Pennywise. While the character isn't that great, Bill Skarsgård was able to be creepy and disturbing while the film clearly was trying to be humorous. He was by far the best part of the film which kind of made me want to root for him.