Favorite and Not Favorite Horror Films for 2021
Images from
the Internet
As
always, I will first republish the rules I have about such lists as
these:
I have an issue with “Best of” and “Worst of” year-end lists for the following reasons: most are chosen from either those that play in theaters. For me, I like to watch the DIY ones, for these tend to have more heart. My list consists of films that I saw and reviewed in 2021, not necessarily ones that were originally n that year.
As
for Best and Worst, I never liked those terms; art is just way too subjective,
which is why I called them Favorites and Not Favorites. That being said, even
the “Not” ones have redeeming qualities, and the fact that I felt they had
issues means nothing. I have hated films that have won tons of awards, and
liked some that other find abhorrent, so don’t take anything I say, good or
bad, as the definitive. It’s just opinion, and I welcome you to agree or
disagree. It’s all good.
These
two lists are alphabetical, rather than ranked (another thing I don’t believe
in).
These are condensed reviews. The link to the full, original review is at the bottom of each listing.
Favorites:
Dante’s Shadow of Sin
Directed by Dakota Ray
I ask you: in the time
of Covid, what’s a man supposed to do? Easy, just down a glass or two of
absinthe, get a new and sharper lens for your camera, and direct your eighth
film of nihilistic behavior, as has done Denver-based
director/writer/cinematographer/editor Dakota Ray. Ray’s characteristic use of
monochrome-colored filters, in this case one that is a rich, dark blue hue, the
new lens really is incredible at showing details. As is his wont and right, the
title character is played by the director and his insanely deep voice, who in
the first line, explains the nihilism that clouds his very soul: “My name is
Dante, and I serve no man but myself.” He is remorseless, unhinged from
reality, and a complete narcissist. There is a lot of fine editing by Ray,
which improves with every film, between characters, objects, Satanic symbols,
and insects in various states of health. These, their use as subliminal
commentary on the action, all become characters in their own right in a way,
rather than just be filler. Two years after committing a horrific murder, Dante
is contacted by an acquaintance, Mahoganny who has inherited the Boleskin House
(referencing the Boleskine House in Scotland, owned by renowned Satanist
Aleister Crowley and guitarist Jimmy Page). Mahoganny suggests they get
together and go to the house. The name Mahoganny is more symbolic for the
hardness and darkness of his heart rather than skin color. Throughout the film,
we hear the thoughts of the two central characters more than words are spoken,
which makes sense since so much of the planning of these two are secretive, so
we become cognizant of just what the hell is going on. We also hear the
drug-induced disembodied voices of objects such as dolls, a white rabbit and a
goat head who represent the Satanic elements. Dante, though not redeemable,
kills for a purpose, even if it is self-gratification. With Mahoganny, however,
slow and painful control and sadism is more his speed. These two both know that
the time in the vacation house will not end well, and each has a motive to be
the only one out, but the build-up to the confrontation is a large part of what
is going on through the story. With hexes, drugs, alcohol and just sheer
deviance of a multitude of natures, these guys have a deep hatred that Ray
manages to convey quite strongly. It a steadily intensifying to-the-death duel,
both mentally and physically. The lightening in the sky is a foretelling of the
bad actions to come. The film is broken into a number of chapters via long
title cards. This is also common among Ray’s films. However, story-wise, this
is the most cohesive of the eight, being rather threadbare in its plot. Rather
than mixing a number of different stories into one, here he focuses on the two main
characters, and yes, you could say that it still two tales into one, but its
focus is more exact, with less opaque moments. As much as I have enjoyed all of
Ray’s releases, I think this one could be a turning point as far as a pathway.
As much as I like the past ones, I look forward to the swing in this direction.
Full review and trailer HERE
The Forever
Room
Directed by Kevin Hicks
This psychological thriller starts off with Claire, a young woman who is
chained by her ankle in a basement somewhere that has basic necessities, and a
bucket for, well, you know. However, there is naught but herself to spend the
time. She is way angrier than she is scared of her captor, an older woman named
Helen. The latter accuses Claire of committing a heinous crime and states, “You
have a lot of skeletons in your closet, dear,” which Claire vehemently denies.
That’s just the opening. As the film progresses, things are not always what
they seem at first, and much of the story is the basis of the relationship
between these two women. Claire is confused and angry, and Helen is (mostly)
calm and calculating, many of their exchanges being when it is feeding time.
Each conversation builds on the previous one, with bits of information to the
audience to fill them in. Despite the claustrophobia of the small room in which
Claire forcibly occupies, the story is interesting, and the viewer wants to
know more and more of what put these two people in this dire situation. Claire
doesn’t remember anything before being chained up, but parts of her past are
telegraphed by both events that happen to Claire in the room, and the things
she hears. Meanwhile, people keep appearing when Claire is alone, such as a
middle aged man, Ethan, Rebecca, who is closer to her age, and a boy named
Michael who seems to be playing a game of hide and seek with Claire. Rebecca
explains how she is a figment of Claire’s imagination (“Haven’t you ever had an
imaginary friend?”), but something dark brings out these three…and a couple of
sock puppets. No, I’m not kidding. Possibly it is a bit like Gerald’s Game (2017)
in that the imagination runs havoc, perhaps it is dreams, or is it something
more sinister or supernatural than that? Over time, the frequency of the
pop-ins increases and become more intense. Sometimes it is incredibly creepy,
especially with Ethan and Michael. Rebecca is sort of a Greek Chorus in that
she helps with some self-questioning and pieces of exposition for the viewer.
Or perhaps it is Claire’s own brain eating itself because she refuses to eat
for days on end. Despite the small, narrow space, the filming work is well
staged, almost like a three-camera television shoot, keep the elbow room still
tight, but not too claustrophobic. The two female leads prove themselves to be
naturalistic actors who makes it look easy, making them both empathetic and
unhinged in fearless performances. The lighting is phenomenal, with shades of
primary colors, but not to the Creepshow (1982) level, but more of a realistic
tone, and with the editing gives some expansion to the space. Speaking of the
basement, this could actually be a one-set play, using shadows and dark spots
for characters to “pop” in and out quite easily. It almost seems like it was
written that way. For a troupe of five (not counting the two puppets), the
story stays engaging for the full run time, and even though the space is small,
as is the cast, it remains compelling. The final act is full of unexpected
moments and answers quite a few questions. A good watch.
Full review and trailer HERE
A Ghost Waits
Directed by Adam Stovall
Most of us have seen
hauntings films, where the spirits are present in the home and they are going
to probably scare the inhabitants away. This is the job of a particular ghost,
Muriel, and she is a champ at it. No one will stay at the Cincinnati house,
which is – in the alive world – possessed by a management company that
just wants the problem of constantly rotating lease-breaking tenants solved. To
get the house ready for the next renters, handyman employee Jack clean sup and
takes care of any issues. It becomes pretty obvious early on that what is there
walks alone, and steals his pizza. Jack is a bit of a ne’er-do-well though good
at his job, and is just floating through life in a job that doesn’t really mean
much to him. It is pretty obvious that Muriel and Jack are going to connect on
some level. It takes a while, but these two lost souls are looking for
something and someone. Muriel has her own issues with her by-the-book spook
supervisor, Ms. Henry and a fellow up-and-coming “spectral agent” Rosie. This
film definitely has a comic vibe to it, though it is more of a “dramedy.” It is
well written, especially the way it uses the soundtrack as another major
character. It is also interesting to see the differences between the two main
haunting ghosts. Rosie is newer, and more up-to-date in her language as a
teenager, while Muriel talks with no contractions, as in “I do not,” as opposed
to the more modern “I don’t”. I thought this was a really smart, deliberate,
and subtle choice. Another one of the understated points of the film, though
written by men, is that the strongest characters here are the women. Jack is
kind of weak and generally unmotivated in life, but Muriel likes what
she does and is, to say the least, fierce. And yet she has a lot to learn in
the experience which makes her more independent and a leader (such as over
Rosie), taking control of her own life – er – death to make choices. This
pro-women aspect is one of the finer themes of the film for me. Because, in
part, due to the use of sharp shadows, especially on Muriel’s face as she is
consistently lit from below (as are all the spectral agents), the film works so
much better in Black and White and, again, it was a wise choice. It’s just the
right amount of grainy, which gives the look a sense of texture. There are also
many very long shots, some static and others following the characters, rather
than a jumble of quick edits. It works for the pace of the story. While I
thought the ending was predictable, it was really the right way to end this, so
I did not let that get in the way of the story. Overall, it was the right
length to keep the interest up, and had some really fine moments. The acting is
top notch and helps make the film even more enjoyable. This is fun, and may
play well as a date night film without being too Hallmarky over-schmaltz.
For a director’s first film, this is quite compelling and a positive release.
Full review and trailer HERE
Lake Michigan
Monster
Directed by Ryland
Brickson Cole Tews
Almost like a Terry Gilliam fever dream, we are introduced to Capt.
Seafield (director Ryland Brickson Cole Tews) who explains that his dear ole
dad was killed by the titular creature, and gathers a crew together to find and
slay it. There is snarky weapons expert Sean Shaughnessy (Erick West), Sonar
“individual” Nedge Pepsi (Beulah Peters), and former Naval Officer Dick Flynn
(Daniel Long), or as Seafield calls them, “The Team of the Century.” There is
more to the cast, such as the director’s father playing his pirate-clad brother
Ashcroft (Wayne Tewsd), and his 87-year-old grandmother playing his wife,
Martha (Lucille Tews). The cool-yet-chincey-in-a-good-way looking sea hag
monster is played by the director, Ryland, that looks a bit like the titular The
She-Creature (1956). Of course, things don’t go as planned, as if there
were a real plan, though that not-real plan gets played out more than once,
leading to a mutiny of sorts. I will not give away much of the story, such as
it is, and will instead revel in its insanity. Through what looks like it may
be Paper Mache masks, scenery and monsters, along with the graphics, Tews’
vision is brought to life, in its own twisted world within our world. There are
some amazing set pieces, mostly either on or under the water, in Milwaukee
(beer plays a key role in this, as should be, as beer could be what made
Milwaukee famous), the North Point Light Station (lighthouse), or on the Lake
X-press ferry. The whole third act’s setting is ridiculous at best, which is
part of what makes its charm. The film is shot in contrasty and grainy black
and white with “film scratches” added in to “age” it. Even so, there is a lot
of animation work going on; when it was filmed it was with a green screen to
add texture and said computer graphics. There are three ways to watch this
film. The first is get shitfaced and to just mock it like you’re on “Mystery
Science Theater 3000”; have a blast! The second is to see it straight, pay
attention to the humor and catch the lines the stoners are bound to miss, and
feel righteously smug (my category). Third is to just think it’s a stupid mess
and turn it off after five minutes as you would with the likes of Monty Python
and complain that “SNL” hasn’t been funny since John Belushi left. For me, I
found it quite amusing, knowing I would be watching it again to dig for the
jokes I missed, and I’m guessing there are a few. There are some influences
here and there, such as Guy Maddin, and there is a bit of the good Capt.
playing checkers with a ghost a la Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal (1957).
It took me three happy days to watch the film and all the extras.
Full review and trailer HERE
Making
Monsters
Directed by Justin Harding and Rob Brunner
The story
centers around a couple: Christian runs his prank site, and then there is the
focus of his vicious pranking, his fiancé Allison. Merry prankster, indeed,
making money off people that he terrorizes. Allison is stressed out and done,
and asks him to cut it the fuck out, so they decide to take some time and visit
friends out in the country. In genre films, is it ever good to go out to
a house – actually, a deconsecrated church – in the middle of nowheresville (a
fancier cabin-eth in the woods)? This one is owned by Chris’s long-lost
school friend Jesse and his fiancé, the very odd and off David, who is an uber
fan of the prank videos. In the words of that other great thinker, Astro, “Ruh-row.”
After a night of some sex and drugs, this leads to something unworldly. Up to
now, it’s been in our realm, but post-hallucinogenic, the audience is not sure
what we are seeing is supernatural or part of a mind-bender, leading to some
nice and creepy shit, and some decent jump scares. The question is what happens
when a prankster meets the dark Web real deal? A taste of his own medicine? You
see some of this coming early on in the second Act, but certain elements keep
the tensions taut, I am happy to say. This is definitely a watch between the
fingers kind of film, and not just because of the violence, but the expectation
of it. That’s what makes this enjoyable. This could have been really corny, but
the acting, especially by the two leads, and the way it was shot and stylishly
put together by the directors (who have worked extensively in television, such
as “Top Chef Canada” and “Canada’s Worst Drivers”), make this a pretty solid
scarefest. By the end, the tension really ramps up and becomes quite a frenetic
film as our killer, in a mask that I suppose is meant to reflect Chris’s look
with long hair and a somewhat beard, makes his way through the small cast with
quite gruesome and beautifully done SFX. As I have indicated earlier, there is
a supernatural element to the film in the form of a ghost, which was fine for
some jump scares, but honestly, there really did not need to be anything like
that needed, as the spookie really does not advance the story at all (though it
looks cool), and the human part of it is certainly terrifying enough. That
being said, this is one of the better slasher films I have seen in a while,
being innovative while not going too far off the mark for some effective genre
tropes. Yeah, I enjoyed this one a lot.
Full review and trailer HERE
Winifred Meeks
Directed by Jason Figgis
Asthmatic Anna
James (Lara Belmont) is a popular author of youth mysteries on a deadline, who
has hit a dry patch. What better way to rekindle a writing block than to rent a
stunning house in the middle of nowhere? This particular trope is well; perhaps
the underlying connection is that the creative mind is more open to
spirituality. Anyway, the
Seaview House in Suffolk, England, is beautiful, but imbued with a darkness
(filters help) that could have come right out of Shirley Jackson’s iconic
opening paragraph of her novel The Haunting of Hill House (1959). At
once both modern (such as a flat-screen TV) and rustic (lead pane windows and a
dial phone), it is a perfect place for a spookie to be hanging around, doncha
think? I really enjoyed how he would situate the camera in a different room,
and you would watch the character of focus through the doorway. The
first act is mostly atmospheric, as Anna settles in for the night, with a
beautiful score and long and luxurious shots at the start, other than a quick
jump scare. We get familiar with the sadness of Anna, reflecting these moody
views of her temporary life at the house. It definitely starts
as a slow burn, with one subtle indication that there is something not right,
shown almost as a throwaway line (okay image), and another warning of what’s to
come. Ever slowly, but increasingly so, the presence of a previous owner, the titular
Winifred makes herself known. She vacillates between sadness and anger, both
reflecting the mood of Anna, but bringing her own story with it, which is the
mystery behind the film of which Anna seeks to learn in the second act. While
this is a contemporary story – albeit with an older ghost from a hundred years
ago – I would definitely define this as gothic, with its turn-of-the-century
(at least) house and what inhabits within its walls (and beyond). I believed I figured out the ending
pretty early on, but I’m happy to say I was wrong, Figgis did not take the easy
and obvious route, which is refreshing. With only two living on-screen
characters and one un-, the rest of the cast is either on the phone or mostly
the radio. Perhaps the disembodied voices are to reflect the spirits of the
world, or specifically Winifred. It is a solid choice. The photography and
drone work are excellent, over the beautiful West Coast of England. There is no blood, no violence, no
nudity (other than an upper back), and no contact, and yet this still manages
to be extremely creepy, which is a credit to Figgis. My appreciation of his
work just keeps growing.
Full review and trailer HERE
Witness Infection
Directed by Andy
Palmer
We are introduced to two rival mob families from Jersey, who went into
the witness protection program, and by an FBI mistake, both get sent to the
same small city of Temecula, California. Needless to say, there are a lot of
bowling shirts and jumpsuits. Rather than go to war and kill each other, they
pull a Dark Ages type deal between them, where Carlo – who runs a pet grooming
shop – and rival gang daughter Patricia have one week to get married, and then
produce a kid. Neither is happy about this arrangement, especially Carlo’s
co-groomer, Gina, who loves him. If you have already figured out where this
goes, it will not matter in the long run. Along for the ride is Carlo’s older letch
and cinephile cousin and (further) comic relief Vince, who has the best line in
the film. Anyways, there’s a popular street meat food truck selling sausage sangwiches
that is having a disastrous effect on people, turning them into zombies, but while
stumbling around can also be fast, and definitely with a George A. Romero-style
hunger. Oh, and their skin starts to boil and melt.While the humor is mostly
verbal and pretty consistent, it is worth paying attention because there are a lot
of throw-away lines that are easy to miss, and are too good to ignore (even
the groaners). Part of the fun is the many other film references, from the
verbal mentioning of a few films to the more subtle ones like two hit men who
seem to be right out of Pulp Fiction (1994), and then there’s Rose,
presenting a fine Pam Grier/Coffy-like (1973) pose; her meta-commentary
on blacks in genre films is a hoot.The first two acts, which are totally worth
watching, is mostly comedy, but then the bloodbath starts in earnest in the
third act. There is a huge body count, and copious amounts of blood, guns, gore,
and guts, and looks spectacular.Usually in a film like this, the tendency is to
play the characters broadly – usually too much so – but director Andy Palmer
manages to squeeze out some really nice performances, even though a bit over
the top in stereotypes. This is a good thing. It is not surprising to me,
though, because the cast is well-seasons with large amounts of credits on IMDB.
This is one of the better zombie films I have seen in a while, especially in
the comic vein (pun not intended).
Full review and trailer HERE
Bigfoot’s Bride
Directed by Erick Wofford
Bigfoot ain’t the only thing retro going on here. W set foot in the woods with
an old-film-into-VHS-style filter that occasionally adds scratches and
“rolling” distortion to the images, and an oversaturation of color. There is
also an ‘80s-style synth soundtrack (not counting the excellent Americana music
over the credits). The film appears to be shot on a single-camera in Georgia,
including the beautiful Chattahoochee National Forest, about two hours
northeast of Atlanta. And because it’s a throwback, it should come as no
surprise that there are Bigfoot POV shots using what I believe is an infra-red,
fisheye lens. It definitely is not taking itself too seriously and is a very
dry comedy, and I like that. However, it is more humorous than funny, making
the occasional bits stand out all the more. The titular bride is Heather. She’s
pitched her tent in the woods on her own (who does that?), with you-know-who
watching her every move, including some cringy bathroom moments. It’s love at
first sight for Biggie, as he follows her around like a schoolboy, trying to
get up the courage to approach her (you heard me). Meanwhile there is
fish to try and catch, and RVs to rummage, and other campers/body count upon
which to chomp. It’s all a matter of survival for our Bigfoot, which seems to
not be too easy. The creature’s head and the film’s make-up look pretty good,
even at its cheesiest. He does look more like Toxie or a later version of Jason
Vorhees than Bigfoot – plus he wears overalls with a nametag and his upper hair
is an obvious jacket – but in the words of Liam Lynch, whatever.
There is a lot of practical effects, even a touch of cartoonish gore, but the
occasional time there is blood spray, it is hysterically cartoonish CGI,
reminding me of the “Pow” balloons in the old “Batman” television show from 1965.
I have no doubt this was done purposefully, and it made me laugh out loud. One
of the interesting aspects of this film is that even when Biggie interacts with
others, it’s rare to see him and the other person in the same shot, but rather
goes back and forth like they weren’t filmed at the same time. Perhaps this was
filmed in the height of Covid, and that was their workaround? From a technical
perspective, this intrigued me. I had an issue with the use of the Bigfoot
name, as it is incredibly inaccurate. There is no explanation as to why this
deformed guy with Bigfoot feet and talons is given that name; that being said,
in the middle of the end credits, its origin and nods at a possible sequel are
hinted. Those fans of the hairy Sasquatch may be turned off by that
association. While the director shows quite a bit of heart and some beginning
filmmaking skills, there were definitely some issues with the film. For
example, the first two acts are merely set pieces strung together with little
connection other than his lust for Heather. It isn’t until the third act that
the story begins to find some cohesion into an actual storyline. For me, the
biggest problem was in Wofford’s editing, as in not enough. This would
have been a more solid hour film: it could use some serious and judicious
snipping, especially early on, such as the way-too-long scene at the river
where we see someone fishing and Bigfoot finding a clown mask in the water. The
film loses momentum in these moments. Also, I could have done without the
lingering shots of fish being gutted and cleaned. This is the director, Erick
Wofford’s first full feature film, but this is certainly a family affair as a
number of the cast and crew is actually members of his clan, and I’m sure many
others are friends. That’s a smart financial move and I respect that a lot. I
look forward to seeing his skills grow.
Full review and trailer HERE
Demented (aka The Demented)
Directed by Nigel
Hartwell
This Canadian film
falls well into the category of torture porn, with a supernatural touch. And in
an extremely micro-budget way. Lovebirds Senica and Amanda go up to Senica’s
cottage on the lake. After dropping a ring on her, they spend the night. When Senica
awakes, Amanda is gone. According to a police detective (the ever-fun Felissa
Rose), so are her parents. Meanwhile, somewhere there is a room where women are
systematically tortured and snuffed for the Dark Web by a burly guy dressed in
black, including a bullet-proof vest, and a leather hood. His voice is
digitally manipulated, and honestly, I can only make out about half of what he
says. We watch as he’s a-rapin’ (with his pants all the way on and her
underwear intact) and a-chokin’ and a-tauntin’ his chained-to-a-bed victims.
There is also some playing with time, with numerous flashbacks to various
periods and present day, making the narrative timeline a bit confusing for a
while. In one of these vignettes (past? present? future?), Amanda is a chainee,
abused by the dark and mysterious man. Between the patterns of abuse, Amanda is
visited by knowing spirits, who are helpless to aid her, but communicate quite
easily. Don’t get me wrong, this supernatural element is actually what made the
film for me. The violence compared to most torture porn is relatively mild and
mostly threats (and yes, full-dressed rape). But the rules of the film change
with Amanda. Her accomplishments are the closest this comes to empowering
women. They are generally are seen as torture victims and strippers, not
counting that the main authority figure is the police detective. Misogyny?
Maybe, but it felt good to have these women get some of their umph back,
a lot of good it will do them in the long run. There is nothing real to talk
about in the blood department. There are some cheesy CGI effects at a point,
but I believe it was meant to be that way. The film is overlong at 96 minutes,
but there is easily quite a bit that could be excised and not lose any of the
story. For example, the “torment” scenes on for what feels like a really long
time of just the killer yakking away. Too many of the scenes and shots –
especially the punishment ones – also just seem too “samey.” The acting is okay,
though as always, Rose easily holds her own; the two main leads often don’t
look like they are trying too hard. There are some really well-done shots,
including some drone work, which was refreshing after some obvious green screen
parts. The production pattern is a bit different. Many times, especially in the
police station scenes with Rose, it is pretty obvious that – despite some
similar motifs on the walls that I am pretty sure are green-screened – the
detective and two of the people she is interviewing are single shots and not in
the same room. It seems like those interviewed, including a porn/snuff
provider, Brad (Canadian wrestling champion Bret Hart), doesn’t know which
direction to look, often off to the wrong side of where the Detective would be
standing. There is an almost amusing moment when we hear a character’s thinking
processes, and it was obviously recorded later in a studio by how well it
sounds, but also that there is a comment when the actor obviously accidentally
falls during the filming, and the narration goes, “Oh, that hurt.” I am so glad
they put that in. If I had my druthers, I would like to see them take this
film, re-edit it or have someone other than the director do it, and see where
it goes. It has some nice potential, and I would like to see that fulfilled.
Full review and trailer HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment