October Horror Movie a Day 2012

[ScottotD]

Movie #6: Dead Snow (2009)

Another one I've been meaning to watch for a while.  Kind of disappointing.  When it picks up at the end it got a little better, but most of it didn't hold my interest well. 2.5/5

I agree on this, found the broad humour in the first half pretty hard to get through but loved it once the zombies showed up.

[Zombie Monty]

Albino Farm - 2009

Unlikable college students researching rural America stumble upon a town with a freaky secret.  Notable for an appearance by WWE star Chris Jericho who hams it up in a small role.

Low budget horror is so awesome because even when it is bad, sometimes it is still good.. in a bad way.  This one started slow, but once it got into the meat of the story it wasn't that bad.  The film was a bit too dark at times (meaning not well lit), so it was a bit hard to tell what was going on.

I picked this one pretty much at random off of Showtime On Demand.  Saw the title, Albino Farm, and thought "Hell yeah!  F'n Albino Farm!  That's gotta be awesome!"  It didn't disappoint.  Not very scary, but still freaky enough to be entertaining.

2.5/5

[Compound]

Monster (2008)

No, not the Charlize Theron one. This is The Asylum's version of Cloverfield. It's not one of their better efforts. And remember, this is the Asylum we're talking about here.

Remember the Tokyo Earthquake in January, 2003 that killed 7,000 people? Well, you don't because there wasn't one, but if there had been an earthquake then, it was a cover story. There was actually a giant monster that ravaged Japan. And it's documented by two American filmmakers visiting Tokyo for a "global warming conference." (Srlpnls!)

Oy.  Picture Cloverfield. Make it look cheaper. Not like "Paranormal Activity" cheap. Cheaper. No, not like "Nostalgia Critic" levels of cheapness. Even cheaper.  Then make the characters even less likeable than those in "Cloverfield" or "Paranormal Activity." Yes, less likeable than Mika. Both girls' personalities basically boil down to "Whine", "I want to go home" and "Keep filming." Add in frequent "video effects" that distort the picture and song because it's "found footage."  Add in horrible sound levels for the same reason. After the earthquake, the two girls routine basically boils down to "whine, mumble, go to new location, occasionally fall to the ground because of the 'monster', repeat for 75 minutes." Then add in an almost complete lack of people. Because Tokyo's 8 million citizens seem to have wandered off for the weekend. Although to the Asylum's credit, every extra except one seems to be Japanese. Given that I suspect they were filming in LA's Asian district rather than Tokyo, I'll give them props for managing to do that successfully. (Future Matt here- checking the credits, yep. Filmed on location in Los Angeles.) And the usual ending. The girls vanish during the attack, but someone found the tape to reveal the truth to the world.

A bad film, and not an amusingly bad one. Just boring and a pain to watch.

Continuity problems-
The California residents panicking from an Earthquake. Those never happen in CA, after all.
The Japanese citizen who knows English really well as "she watches a lot of Youtube videos." Cute line, but Youtube didn't exist in 2003.
Japan's National Guard probably wouldn't be deployed to a disaster since, you know, Japan doesn't have the National Guard.

[JimJ]

Did a double feature of direct to video sequels to franchises I like.

Movie #8: Hostel Part 3 (2011)

This was predictably terrible.  I'm probably in the minority here for liking the Eli Roth Hostel films (and Eli Roth in general), but I've always thought they were some of the best in the so-called "torture porn" genre.  This is just lifeless, boring and a pain to sit through.  Most of the kills were tame compared to the first 2 entries, the acting was bad (but not bad enough to be funny, just bad enough to be boring).  The characters were even more unlikable than usual, though I do give the film some props for having the decency to kill of the most irritating character first.  The guy was like a really annoying, unfunny Barney Stinson and I wanted him dead from the moment he opened his mouth. 1.5/5

Movie #9: The Descent Part 2 (2009)

Being a huge fan of The Descent (easily my favorite horror film from the last decade, and one of my favorites of all time), I've avoided this for a while.  I didn't like that it went off of the bullshit American theatrical ending, and that Neil Marshall wasn't involved.  Now that I've finally seen it, I have to say that it's not bad.  I actually quite liked it.  Not nearly as good as the original, but the creature design is still good, as is the gore, and it was pretty good overall.  I'm glad that the main actress from the first one came back and was actually a main character rather than being killed off in the first 5 minutes or something like that.  Her going back into the cave is utterly ridiculous, but they deal with that by having her not remember what happened   Anyway, much better than I expected it to be. 3.5/5

[SJP]

From my latest endeavours (I spelled that the British way because it's more fun):

From Beyond - A long time coming to digital media, Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna are probably the two guys responsible for the most fun to be had from the loosest of adaptations.  I think I first saw this on the Thriller horror afternoon on Flint 20 in the 80s, and oh boy, is there a LOT that had to be cut out from TV.  Using the short story by Lovecraft as the prologue, this goofy gross-out is just tons of fun.  It's certainly not for everyone, but you'd be hard pressed to not say it's memorable, from the constantly melting Dr. Praetorius to the infamous, "They're...*slurp*...delicious" scene.  The DVD has the Director's Cut only, but that's fine...the only differences involve adding some gore and creepiness that was originally thought lost on the cutting room floor forever.  Anyway, if you like Reanimator...well, I actually like this better than Reanimator, so take that as you will.

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra - Almost the polar opposite of From Beyond, this PG (almost practically G) rated parody of sci-fi/horror films of the 50s revels in the poor effects and dialogue from the Ed Wood school of filmmaking, only done intentionally.  The director, Larry Blamire, stars as the scientist seeking the rare element Atmospherium, which he believes has crashed in the woods.  Meanwhile, an evil scientist seeks to resurrect the evil Skeleton of Cadavra (voiced by Blamire) and needs the Atmospherium to do so, as do two friendly aliens who need it to fix their spaceship.  And it only gets sillier from there.  It is a very specific sort of humor, but if you watch Rifftrax, chances are you're good for the sort of jokes involved ("Don't you know what this meteor could mean for science?  It could mean all sorts of advances in the fields of science.").

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein - Never saw this before, though I'm a sucker for their comedy.  Turns out the boxes Abbott & Costello are delivering to the wax museum contain the real Dracula and the Frankenstein monster.  Lon Chaney shows up to help the boys stop the monsters...when the moon isn't full, anyway.  Lots of fun, especially since Lugosi and Chaney reprise their famous roles, and don't miss the uncredited Vincent Price cameo.

[Zombie Monty]

The Four Skulls Of Jonathan Drake - 1959

Decent flick about shrunken heads, witch doctors, cutting heads off of corpses to then shrink, curses and a doughy detective that tries to solve the case.

Good for what it is.  With what I imagine were pretty gruesome effects for a film of that era.

3/5

I Married A Witch - 1942

Cute comedy about a witch (the gorgeous Veronica Lake) who attempts to woo and then spurn the ancestor of the Puritan that caused her to be burned at the stake.  A mixed up spell leads to hi-jinks.  Lake makes this film worth watching with a nice performance.  I enjoyed it.

3/5

[SJP]

The Call of Cthulhu - 2005

Ok, the pros...an interesting little film, based on the Lovecraft short, in which the protagonist relates how he began searching for clues about the Cthulhu cult, and why he really shouldn't have in the first place.  What's so special about it?  Well, while it was made in 2005, it is intentionally filmed as if it were a 1926 film, and only used techniques available at that time.  Which means no CG.  Which is awesome (there is some stop motion, and yes, it looks fake, but at least I can appreciate the effort involved).  In a technical sense, for a movie that looks like it probably cost around $2,000 to make, it is very remarkable.  The makeup looks authentic, the sets are definitely 20s throwbacks, and it has that sort of surreal quality you'd expect from that era.  Oh, and it's silent, too.

Now, the cons...the acting isn't very good.  And yes, in a movie where nobody has speaking lines, this is easier to notice than you might expect.  Secondly, the 1920s experience is a little out of whack when the movie was clearly filmed on a 30 fps camera.  With all the hard work thrown into making the sets and special effects look authentic, you think someone would have figured out the 18fps setting on their Avid machine before releasing this thing.  It cheapens the whole experience, and that one thing is a detriment to the whole project.  Thirdly...and this is a tough one...I almost feel bad including it in the list, since it's a 47-minute film.  It's technically feature length, and I said hour-long TV specials were acceptable, but this thing cut it razor thin.  Granted, I'm glad it was as short as it was...it did not need to be a single frame longer than that...but it still feels like a hollow victory.  But, it's also the first "straight" horror film I've watched so far, so it has that going for it...everything else I've seen has been humorous thanks to riffing or just lighthearted in tone.  Yes, even the werewolf movie.

[JimJ]

Movie #10: Bermuda Triangle (w/Rifftrax) (1978)

Obviously, the movie was terrible.   Hilariously bad dubbing, too long and makes no sense.  The riff made it pretty enjoyable, though. 1/5*

*=Rating is for the film only, not the riff.

Movie #11: Thankskilling (2009)

A movie about a killer turkey. Was hoping this would be funnier, but the humor here didn't really work for me. It was very Troma like, or at least tried to be, but I only chuckled a few times. 2/5

Movie 12: Dream Home (2010)

A pretty gruesome Hong Kong flick about a woman who goes on a murder spree in an apartment building to lower the property values. This was pretty good but it's definitely not for the faint of heart. Lots of good, gory kills and I quite enjoyed it. 3.5/5

[Darth Geek]

The Call of Cthulhu - 2005

Ok, the pros...an interesting little film, based on the Lovecraft short, in which the protagonist relates how he began searching for clues about the Cthulhu cult, and why he really shouldn't have in the first place.  What's so special about it?  Well, while it was made in 2005, it is intentionally filmed as if it were a 1926 film, and only used techniques available at that time.  Which means no CG.  Which is awesome (there is some stop motion, and yes, it looks fake, but at least I can appreciate the effort involved).  In a technical sense, for a movie that looks like it probably cost around $2,000 to make, it is very remarkable.  The makeup looks authentic, the sets are definitely 20s throwbacks, and it has that sort of surreal quality you'd expect from that era.  Oh, and it's silent, too.

Now, the cons...the acting isn't very good.  And yes, in a movie where nobody has speaking lines, this is easier to notice than you might expect.  Secondly, the 1920s experience is a little out of whack when the movie was clearly filmed on a 30 fps camera.  With all the hard work thrown into making the sets and special effects look authentic, you think someone would have figured out the 18fps setting on their Avid machine before releasing this thing.  It cheapens the whole experience, and that one thing is a detriment to the whole project.  Thirdly...and this is a tough one...I almost feel bad including it in the list, since it's a 47-minute film.  It's technically feature length, and I said hour-long TV specials were acceptable, but this thing cut it razor thin.  Granted, I'm glad it was as short as it was...it did not need to be a single frame longer than that...but it still feels like a hollow victory.  But, it's also the first "straight" horror film I've watched so far, so it has that going for it...everything else I've seen has been humorous thanks to riffing or just lighthearted in tone.  Yes, even the werewolf movie.

Have you seen the newest from the same group: The Whisper In Darkness? It's much better (except for the CGI creatures at the end), particularly the cinematography.

[Bob]

Movie #6: Dead Snow (2009)

Another one I've been meaning to watch for a while.  Kind of disappointing.  When it picks up at the end it got a little better, but most of it didn't hold my interest well. 2.5/5

I agree on this, found the broad humour in the first half pretty hard to get through but loved it once the zombies showed up.

I liked this one too

[Starman!]

I've already failed this challenge (I just don't have the time or energy to watch 31 horror movies) but I will watch as many horror movies as I can this month. I'll try to update this post with everything I watch.

Horror movies watched:

October 7: The Cabin in the Woods 5/10
October 13: E.T. The Extra Terrestrial 9/10
October 28: The Blob (1958) 9/10
October 31: House on Haunted Hill (1959) 5/10, Halloween (1978) 10/10

[GordonZola]

The Call of Cthulhu - 2005

Ok, the pros...an interesting little film, based on the Lovecraft short, in which the protagonist relates how he began searching for clues about the Cthulhu cult, and why he really shouldn't have in the first place.  What's so special about it?  Well, while it was made in 2005, it is intentionally filmed as if it were a 1926 film, and only used techniques available at that time.  Which means no CG.  Which is awesome (there is some stop motion, and yes, it looks fake, but at least I can appreciate the effort involved).  In a technical sense, for a movie that looks like it probably cost around $2,000 to make, it is very remarkable.  The makeup looks authentic, the sets are definitely 20s throwbacks, and it has that sort of surreal quality you'd expect from that era.  Oh, and it's silent, too.

Now, the cons...the acting isn't very good.  And yes, in a movie where nobody has speaking lines, this is easier to notice than you might expect.  Secondly, the 1920s experience is a little out of whack when the movie was clearly filmed on a 30 fps camera.  With all the hard work thrown into making the sets and special effects look authentic, you think someone would have figured out the 18fps setting on their Avid machine before releasing this thing.  It cheapens the whole experience, and that one thing is a detriment to the whole project.  Thirdly...and this is a tough one...I almost feel bad including it in the list, since it's a 47-minute film.  It's technically feature length, and I said hour-long TV specials were acceptable, but this thing cut it razor thin.  Granted, I'm glad it was as short as it was...it did not need to be a single frame longer than that...but it still feels like a hollow victory.  But, it's also the first "straight" horror film I've watched so far, so it has that going for it...everything else I've seen has been humorous thanks to riffing or just lighthearted in tone.  Yes, even the werewolf movie.

Have you seen the newest from the same group: The Whisper In Darkness? It's much better (except for the CGI creatures at the end), particularly the cinematography.

Thanks! I quite liked the way they did Call of Cthulhu and will look for Whisper(er).

[Darth Geek]

The Call of Cthulhu - 2005

Ok, the pros...an interesting little film, based on the Lovecraft short, in which the protagonist relates how he began searching for clues about the Cthulhu cult, and why he really shouldn't have in the first place.  What's so special about it?  Well, while it was made in 2005, it is intentionally filmed as if it were a 1926 film, and only used techniques available at that time.  Which means no CG.  Which is awesome (there is some stop motion, and yes, it looks fake, but at least I can appreciate the effort involved).  In a technical sense, for a movie that looks like it probably cost around $2,000 to make, it is very remarkable.  The makeup looks authentic, the sets are definitely 20s throwbacks, and it has that sort of surreal quality you'd expect from that era.  Oh, and it's silent, too.

Now, the cons...the acting isn't very good.  And yes, in a movie where nobody has speaking lines, this is easier to notice than you might expect.  Secondly, the 1920s experience is a little out of whack when the movie was clearly filmed on a 30 fps camera.  With all the hard work thrown into making the sets and special effects look authentic, you think someone would have figured out the 18fps setting on their Avid machine before releasing this thing.  It cheapens the whole experience, and that one thing is a detriment to the whole project.  Thirdly...and this is a tough one...I almost feel bad including it in the list, since it's a 47-minute film.  It's technically feature length, and I said hour-long TV specials were acceptable, but this thing cut it razor thin.  Granted, I'm glad it was as short as it was...it did not need to be a single frame longer than that...but it still feels like a hollow victory.  But, it's also the first "straight" horror film I've watched so far, so it has that going for it...everything else I've seen has been humorous thanks to riffing or just lighthearted in tone.  Yes, even the werewolf movie.

Have you seen the newest from the same group: The Whisper In Darkness? It's much better (except for the CGI creatures at the end), particularly the cinematography.

Thanks! I quite liked the way they did Call of Cthulhu and will look for Whisper(er).

Whisperer isn't silent, or done quite as crudely, since it's emulating 1931 movies, not the 1920s movies that Cthulhu was.

[SJP]

Bloodrayne 3: The Third Reich

Uwe Boll.  Vampires.  Nazis.  Naked women.  Clint Howard trying very hard to sound German and failing.  Yup, it's one of THOSE kinds of films.

To be fair, I would give two things in this movie's favor...one, its plot at least has a linear, followable progression, and two, Uwe Boll is sadly one of the few directors today who is more than happy to use real gore whenever possible.  How is it that Hollywood needs to be taking ANY lessons from this man in the art of filmmaking?

That aside, what plot there is, is barely there, as is any solid attempts to engage in acting.  If they are not delivering lines in the flattest way possible, they're overdoing it.  It's dumb, it's exploitative, and really exists for no other reason than to be fodder for critics.

In other words, it's okay if you like that sort of thing, but I don't really recommend it.  But it is one of Boll's more watchable efforts.  It didn't offend me the way House of the Dead did on a brain-killing level (and yes, I do think House of the Dead was WAY worse than Alone in the Dark.  Far, FAR worse).

[SJP]

Hybrid

According to a review on Netflix, this was a Sci-Fi Channel 'original' (most likely a cheap-o they couldn't get into theaters and ended up settling for TV), so I'm going on that premise.  Of course, it wouldn't take much time to figure it out, because this movie is...well, BAD.  Pretty bad.  Not so much in terms of technical incompetence, but in "Why would anyone make such a pointless, stupid movie?"

A security guard rescues one of his worthless co-workers from a fire, and an explosion ends up blinding him.  This makes him the perfect candidate for a new type of "xenografting" experiment, in which he receives a wolf's eyes to replace his own.  Naturally, eyes contain memories, and his donated organs keep flashing him visions of the life of the now dead donor, which starts making him act all nuts and idiotic.  And somehow, it gets stupider from there, as it starts throwing in new-age Native American bullcrap, some piss-poor acting, and worst of all, no monster.  How do you make a Sci-Fi channel film and not even throw in a cheap rubber monster at the end?

This is one of those films where you can tell the filmmakers were trying to be clever and smarter than they were capable of, and simply failed at every angle.  We have a 'monster' that is just a cheap pair of yellow-tinted contact lenses.  We have philosophical discussions between the main guy and his girlfriend (see?  This sucked so bad I don't even remember the character's names) where they discuss how two halves of a single person need to become one to be set free, and he responds by scratching and biting people.  You know, because that's healthy.  And our movie's villain is asked by a doctor if he's ever heard of lycanthropy, and the guy, with an overly serious expression on his face, says, "No."  This line and its delivery is so utterly stupid it only serves to derail the movie even further.

Not worth watching...it's not even 'fun' stupid.  Skip entirely.  The only thing that's even amusing about it is the faux-"Enigma" soundtrack.  Hell, it's barely even a horror movie.  Netflix needs to remove it from that section completely.