I'm not a huge fan of folk horror, but this was a good documentary that I think gave me a greater appreciation for it. I was more than a bit annoyed at the overwhelming focus on Anglo-American films, by far my least favorite settings for the subgenre. Overall well done, after 3+ hours I was left wanting more.
There were a lot of vaguely pro-marijuana documentaries made in the late 60s and early 70s. They all loosely follow the same line, but if you're gonna watch any of them this is probably the one to see. Wide reaching and thorough enough to still at least be slightly relevant today.
The two-strip technicolor really works here. Accentuates the Art Deco set design and creates an somewhat unsettling atmosphere. It was a terrible technology, but every once in a while it was used in a film like this to great effect.
A nice surprise, this one. Fun buddy western with John Wayne as a Texas ranger inadvertently teaming up with a New Orleans dandy. It's nothing special, but as far as American westerns go, it's just damn enjoyable.
There may need to be a prohibition on people who would negatively describe a film as "boring" from watching them.
Whoever did the cinematography on this thought they were way smarter than they actually are, breaking the line every 30 seconds and shoving in as many jump cuts as realistically possible. It's ridiculous. I thought this was supposed to be a cop thriller about the rampart scandal but instead it feels like someone trying to imitate Godard. I guess at some point I accepted that it was just a personal drama about a guy named Dave Brown and I started to enjoy it a bit more, but come on man.
A wonderful would-be spiritual sequel to Dracula - up until the real plot begins to reveal itself.
Pretty good making of doc - I probably enjoyed it a bit more than the film itself
Fun movie. Not particularly good or particularly terrible. I'm glad some of these kinds of movies are getting some renewed attention, but it isn't a "lost classic" or anything like that. It's a throwaway horror flick from 1988, probably made with the video market in mind more than anything. It's enjoyable, but not gonna blow you away.
A better movie than it needed to be, but not as good a movie as it could have been. It plods along at times, I think nobody involved was really quite sure what they wanted it to be. Is it a proto-slasher or social commentary? A southern giallo or blaxploitation thriller? It was shot by a drive-in director, but you can just taste the television. I liked it, but as much as I wanted to love it, I simply couldn't.
The climax, really the entire third act, is pretty good. Other than that it's pretty middling. One of the weaker Heisei big G flicks.
Maybe I just don't like contemporary American films. This one did not appeal to me at all. I really wanted to like it, but nothing held my interest. Bad comedy, bad CG, bad Kung Fu. I do not get the hype.
An otherwise mediocre mad scientist film carried entirely by a superb late-career performance on the part of Bela Lugosi.
It has nothing to do with the first CHUD, but if you're familiar with the standard Vestron style of horror-comedy you'll probably get some amusement here.
It's somewhat surprising to me that these films have had the latent cultural influence they've had because they really aren't anything special. CHUD was certainly more unique than this one, with its deliberate pacing and structure, but I don't like it enough to find this one too much of a disappointment.
Much more of an art film than the sci fi/horror fare he would later become famous for, Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda has just one near-fatal flaw - it's actually pretty damn good.
Build the damn tomb, Rowland.
Basically just a softcore porn that despite being a trim 86 minutes feels four fucking hours long. It's films like this that make me really question the cult status Franco has.
Run of the mill mondo mostly notable for being narrated by Boris Karloff.
Can't really say I expected much, but I'm still disappointed. The attempts at social satire all fall flat. Sure, the main character gets taken advantage of, but why wouldn't he? He's just a good for nothing layabout who can't even run a hotdog stand right (yet still makes enough money to rent an apartment in NYC?). There's an attempt to portray the photographer as parasitic, but really he's more generous than he needs to be. He keeps throwing money at this idiot who can't even model correctly, but I'm supposed to hate him because he doesn't want to take him on as an apprentice? A few positives: the cinematography is pretty good. It captures the griminess and grit of NYC pretty well. The second half is a lot better. Most of the pretenses of social commentary are dropped and it turns into an "artist as murderer" slasher (see: Corman's Bucket of Blood, H. G. Lewis' Color me Blood Red) with aspects of forced cannibalism (see: Blood Diner, The Corpse Grinders). I just wish that's what it was from the start.
It tries to be one of those "moral concern" films à la Reefer Madness, Sex Madness, etc. By 1969 this was already a horribly dated style of exploitation film, so it quickly detours into softcore lesbianism and never really resurfaces. Only interesting as a mild curiosity, but of course you already knew that.
I can only really think of one word to describe it: miserable.
It was OK, I guess. Not really a lot of story. Clyde was pretty cool. Wish he was in it a bit more.
Another counterculture-era acid flick. I enjoyed it alot when it Got Weird, but unfortunately, it didn't Get Weird nearly enough.
Lackadaisical documentary featuring a bunch of brits rambling at snails pace about a low-quality VHS label from the early 80s.
I can't honestly say I ever cared about the whole video nasty thing. I'm not British so I really can't relate. When I first heard about the UK banning movies I thought it was ridiculous. That's the kind of thing they do in third world countries. Of course, eventually I realized the UK basically is a third world country. Anyway, It's obvious the brits are still really passionate about the video nasty panic seeing as they never shut the hell up about it. It's been forty years, give it a rest.
That mascot fight was superb. Like something out of a damn video game. You gotta disable the Mascot Boss' padded head and use it against him. The rest of the movie was just fine. Kidnapped daughter, vice president taken hostage. Standard action fare, everyone's seen a million movies like this before. But that mascot fight was really great.
The climax is absolutely superb, but it takes a hell of a long time to get there.
So far I've had pretty mixed feelings on Naschy films overall, but this one was one of the better ones. It checks all the boxes for what you want from this kind of flick, werewolves and vampires, gore and nudity galore. Elizabeth Bathory even features prominently in it. This happens to be an '81 wolf movie, and I will say the traditionalism on display here stands in stark contrast to the modernism of the time. You can tell Naschy was "on his way out", but what a high note to go out on.
Kind of a hard film to rate because technically speaking it's an incompetent mess. One of the worst slashers I've seen. But I also thoroughly enjoyed it. If you're into impressively lousy trash give it a watch.
Man, what a weird movie...
Kind of a mixed bag. Had some good action, but it dragged at points and felt a bit unfocused. I thought the main guy did a really good job. Kinda reminded me of Steve McQueen, which is a massive compliment coming from me. Unfortunately, there's long stretches of the movie that he isn't in.
