Vampyr

(1932) ***

Allan Grey, a travelling student of the occult stops in a small town and becomes embroiled in a bizarre episode with one of the local families when he happens to witness the shooting murder of the father. He discovers that the family has already been struggling with the mysterious illness of their elder daughter. But as Grey explores the house and the grounds, he learns it's no simple "illness" the daughter is suffering from.

If anyone's too concerned that we'll be reviewing too many great movies, or too many terrible movies this year, worry not. The middle of the road is closely guarded by the Criterion Collection. Vampyr is another "yes, yes, it's lovely and all", flick that everyone on the internet seems to think is one of the greatest films in the history of the genre. But if you're wondering how you managed never to have seen it, it's because it's more of a film-student's idea of fun than a horror-fan's.

Humbly, I'm saying that, stacked against anything else I've seen from this era, the invention behind the visuals (double exposure, cool camera pans, etc) is about on-par, but it's not as dazzling to look at as Dr. Caligari, which continues to be the star-pupil to which I find myself comparing everything I've seen this year. It was made right at the crossover point between silents and talkies, so while there is audible dialogue, it's rather sparse. The music drives most of the action, such as it is: not a whole lot of running around going on here. That's all deliberate. Director Carl Theodor Dreyer was attempting to make a mood-piece and he hits his mark. Tonewise, it's got a lot in common with Picnic At Hanging Rock: it's slow, dreamy, and somber. It definitely strikes a mood, alas, that mood unlikely to give you much of a horror-boner. JohnnySweatpants basically agrees with me.

The Unknown

(1927) ***

The Unknown is a story about a love triangle between performers in a traveling circus; the beautiful circusmaster's daughter played by a very green Joan Crawford; the guy who has no arms (or does he???*) who can target throw knives and play a guitar with his feet, played by a very seasoned Lon Chaney; the strongman, played by regular Chaney co-star Norman Kerry. Crawford admitted that it wasn't until she worked alongside Chaney in this film that she learned the difference between standing in front of a camera and really acting, crediting his intense concentration with inspiring her to work at her craft. As for Lon himself, wwwwwow.

Lon Chaney's face is the cereal box prize of this whole flick. He scowls and sneers and weeps but manages to force a seething smile through his tears. He'd had 15 years of film acting credits to his name by the time he was cast in The Unknown and it shows. It's not like I'm all, "holy shit, you guys gotta see this," but the margin over which I'd recommend The Unknown to you swings entirely on Lon Chaney's acting. He's brilliant. Total pro.

Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but this is kind of a waste of a good movie title. Why The Unknown? Because the other characters don't know he's got arms? I mean, any movie in which any of the characters don't know something could be called The Unknown for that reason. Like, "oh no! Are Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks gonna bang at the end of this movie? Let's call it The Unknown", or "oh no! Is Robert Redford going to strike out at his last at-bat? Let's call this film The Unknown". There is exactly as much that is unknown in this film as literally any other film in the history of films. Why not something simple like The Man With No Arms? This is all probably just misdirected anger at the movie Trick Or Treat. Whatever. I'm fine.

*-He does. I swear I'm not spoiling anything you don't learn in the first 5 minutes.

Häxan

(1922) ***

I begin with the oldest horror film in the Criterion Collection's streaming service (other than Nosferatu, which I've already reviewed). Häxan is an early silent film from Denmark. More than half of its runtime is devoted to historical commentary on the reaction of the church to witchcraft (confirmed or alleged) in medieval culture, though slightly less than half of the film is devoted to a narrative about one witchcraft Inquisition. So it's a long-short film sandwiched in the middle of a documentary. Totally counts.

Nowadays, we find the Inquisition to be one of the most appalling movements in the history of organized religion, particularly the brutal investigatory and punitive methods of the church at that time. I don't think I appreciated how much our enlightened perspective about how shitty the church used to be (I know, JohnnySweatpants, I know) is not a new philosophical trend. This movie is just shy of 100 years old and Häxan director Benjamin Christensen makes this stance clear throughout: people victimized by the church during times of antiquity were largely just innocent herbalists and hippies, when the accused was even practicing any kind of pagan ritual at all, and not, say, falsely accused of pagan idolatry by their petty next door neighbor.

At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film produced in any Scandinavian country, and it's easy to see where all the money went. Aside from the principals in the narrative, there are hundreds of extras in the cast, the costumes and the settings are ornate and well made, and in their own quaint "yeah, but it's really old; what do you expect" kind of way, the effects are fun and eye catching. It's not as weird as Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari but there's soup made out of people, demonstration of torture devices, and a baby roasted over an open flame, and the last shot is of some people being burned at the stake. So it passes all the necessary Horrorthon tests. It's not riveting -- I stayed attentive mostly because that's what you have to do when you're watching a silent film, but it's not as fun as Nosferatu so I do not award it that coveted extra 1/2 star. I'd say, as Peter Griffin once said, "there: I just saved you two long, boobless hours", but there actually are some boobs in it. So, yay.

Thon's on, sluts

Whhhoooooooooooooooohhh

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Chirp chirp. Chirp. Chirp

Crreeeeaaaak

Jigsaw

(2018) ****

Jigsaw is back! Or is he? Wasn't he dead...?
Movie for-fills the daily bloodlust desire! This movie didn't disappoint at all. BUT- If you've seen the trailers, you have seen most of the movie's best parts, except for the grand finale-which is the best part as usual.

We've got the nasty traps that require self sacrificing body parts/blood shedding to survive the next level. I don't remember Jigsaw(John)'s life career, but boy can he make some serious con-trap-tions!
These victims have effected John's life in one way or another and they must confess their sins. Who will survive? And is Jigsaw really alive?

Anime Review: Blood-C

OVA (12 episodes) - Available on Crunchyroll
***

So...anyone seen any weird stuff about evil things that horribly mutilate school kids and people and evil bunnies that eat people?

NOM NOM NOM

This is that anime.

The bunnies only come in the last episode and it's the third in what is called the Blood series, which as far as I can tell is an excuse to have a hot girl kill things with a sword. Looking up what I can, this is basically a separate series, with only a name, some of the main character's background, and weapon of choice being similar.

I don't really think there's a reason to watch the other parts of the series...there might be, but unless I see the others, I can't say that it's important. The way things are set up, there is an obvious mystery to the series, one that makes things interesting, even with the gore. Much of the fear comes the mystery and the monsters, who indiscriminately kill whatever gets in their way, and the setup, once you realize it, makes the show worth a watch, if only because of the creative ways people get killed.

The series itself feels odd and honestly I like it for the mystery, as well as the twist that we finally get by the end. The horror elements of what's going on, the hints of what is really happening, means that when things take their turn and change, you want nothing more than to find out what happens, and to see the final end. A good series to binge, since it's only 12 episodes, and the monsters themselves have some pretty neat designs.

It Follows

(2014)***1/2

It Follows starts off with a very good plot but becomes confusing a few times, specially at the end? Is it over? No, because there is a sequel..sigh. The main character played by Maika Monroe, looks familiar at times. In one light she looks like Chloe Sevigny, another light she looks like Brittany Murphy.

Jay(Maika Monroe) decides to finally have intercourse with Jeff the boy she is dating. After the dirty deed is done Jeff knocks her out, ties her up, and shows her the curse he passed on to her.

This unexplained curse has no origin, but is passed on between sexual partners. The curse is that she is being followed by dead people that only she and previous cursed can see. Jeff tells her that she can't let it kill her or it would come back to him again-she must pass it on! Sounds like an invitation to go on a boinking spree!
These"ghosts" can be shot and spill blood, but nothing stops them. Maybe the sequel will explain it better?

TV Movie Review: Lizzie Borden Took an Ax

Lifetime TV Movie (available on Netflix)
**1/2

Lizzie Borden took an ax,and gave her mother forty wacks/then gave her father forty-one, and left a tragic puzzle... - Amanda Palmer, Ukelele Anthem

I feel like this should've been a movie before this, or if it was, that maybe it should be better known. While the cast in it seems to be carried mostly by Christina Ricci as Lizzie. While it starts with the murders, and goes back to show the tension in the house before the murders...Buzzfeed Unsolved really ruined it for me.

It's still interesting to see her and the dramatization of her life at this point, showing Lizzie to be opportunistic and deceitful when it comes to her family, and especially with some of the things she wants versus what her family has or what others have in their town. Though it might be seen as someone wanting more, the hints of penny-pinching to an extreme, as well as her father and stepmother's actions, also can be seen in a slightly dark light as well. Still, Ricci does a great job of portraying a woman trapped who has either cracked from the pressure or will crack, and showing the way things played out that lead to the disturbing murders double-homicide in the house, as well as the oddness of the accounts and what could have happened.

While there are some discrepancies to the accounts, (again, see the Buzzfeed Unsolved thing), I always like a good period piece and MURDER story, and the build-up to the actual murders is done very well, as is the aftermath and the bloody images, recreated from the crime-scene photos (go look those up, if you dare). The drama beyond it is well done for a made-for-tv movie and how do I always end up with these? Well, at least it's not Syfy movie.
I mean, it's a Lifetime Movie, those have their own issues...

Either way, an interesting thing to watch if you enjoy murder mysteries or period pieces, but overall you're not missing much by avoiding it.