NVR - Horror movie a day
Here's the skinny:
Every year, I try and watch a horror movie a day in October. I never make it the whole way through. I try and document the process though, and post thoughts on each film. So if no one minds, I'd like to post my thoughts here. Cool?
The rules: The "horror movie" must be 45+ minutes in length. Multiple television episodes can count as long as the entire disc is watched. Related genres can count (i.e. exploitation, thrillers, etc.) but they must contain either copious gore, ultra-violence some supernatural elemnet, or any combination of the above. If a movie is watched past midnight, it can still count, as long as it's before bed time.
The kick off was September 30th, so here we go!
Movie #1 - 'Frankenstein' (1931)
What can I say about this movie that hasn't all ready been said? It sets the standard for all horror movies since. A touch of blasphemy, a touch of reality and plenty of genuine human emotions. Just watching the first 15-minutes gives you all the aesthetic trappings of stereotypical horror. Gloomy grave yards, Gothic mansions (the interior of some of these are actually mat paintings - nice!) and plenty of mad sciency stuff.
I guess I'll talk about the two iconic scenes in this movie, since there are literally volumes out there about this movie.
The "It's Alive!" scene... What makes this work and so memorable, is the emotional swing that takes place. It starts with trepidation as Henry is greeted by 3 unwanted guests. The guests are also apprehensive as they find Henry's goals not just mad - but impossible. Upon the voicing of this last doubt, the scene swings. Henry becomes determined, committed and finally ecstatic as he proves them wrong... the overcome by horror and doubt at what he has done. Yes, the clip of "It's Alive!" is great, but the entire scene and sequence has a surprising modern resonance when viewed in full. Still we debate today about where the line is of what science can and should do.
The "Little Girl" scene. It's just a heartbreaker. The didn't know any better tragedy. The kind that scare us all. Especially from a parenting perspective. We bring children into the world, and some unthinking well meaning oaf can harm them... or worse. Scarier still, we may be that unthinking, unknowing oaf. I speak not just of physical, but emotional harm. Every parent has the fear that there will be "one thing" that screws their kid up... and they pray it's not them. But the wonderful portrayal of The Monster by Boris Karloff brings an amazing amount of humanity to this scene.
If you've never watched this classic, remedy that fact, ASAP.
Movie for 10/1/07 - "Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter" (1966)
P.S. - My wife is joining in this year. If any one wants her thoughts, let me know and I'll arrange to post her comments.
Thanks for the indulgence, folks!
- If anyone has seen any of the mentioned flicks, please chime in. I lovelovelove seeing opinions on horror flicks. :)
I don't know how you and (more impressively) your wife do it, and_it_spoke. I think I can handle about 1 horror movie a YEAR, and this year's movie was Grindhouse: Death Proof (2007), which we rented this weekend. Highly entertaining, excellent cast, and I only had to cover my face twice. It actually kinda felt like a really cool chick flick at times. That Quentin Tarantino is a freak, though. Gotta love him.
OMG! I just got Grindhouse: Deathproof out of my mailbox today! Quentin is such a hottie. (Well for a guy with hair and all...)
Okay, VeganChristine, I'm not sur where you had to cover your eyes ;) ;) ;) (it wasn't as gory as most of his movies), but you're right. Super cool!
I love the use of music!
Ahem... I thought I made it clear from my post ("1 horror movie a YEAR") that I am a total horror movie WIMP!!! The only reason I liked this one so much is because I had plenty of warning each time something gross was about to happen (which I of course totally missed, except for the LEG I accidentally saw bouncing onto the road when I made the mistake of peaking.. UGH).
Glad you liked it!! :)
Movie #18 - "Dead Birds" (2005)
War is hell. Take a look at any conflict, the dead, the wounded, even the physically unharmed survivors and the horror soon becomes vividly, heart breakingly evident. One war has always struck me as particularly gruesome and horrific, though. The American Civil War. It wasn't just the body count and the fractured social politics going on, not just the struggle for human rights, but the sheer brutality of it all. Even the medicine designed to help soldiers on the battlefield was horrifying, painful and gruesome. So it does strike me as odd that there aren't more horror stories or movies set during the Civil War. The times lend themselves to horror, and at a time when it really does feel like there two Americas, the potential for apt, stirring commentary almost brimming over.
When I heard the pitch of "Dead Birds" as a Civil War horror film, I was eager to give it a shot. There is some bad news: While the story is set during the time of the Civil War, there is not a lot of Civil War action. The time period is merely a backdrop and the war itself doesn't figure much into the story. However, that is where the bad news ends.
What we have here is a genuine, effective, creepier-than-you've-ever-seen haunted house flick! And, boy do I looooves me some haunted house flick!
Our plot centers on a band of six bandits, who are fresh off of robbing the the small town from "Big Fish" (gotta get the most out of those sets!). They decide to lay low in an abandoned farmhouse. With their stash of gold, and their individual baggage things are all ready tense. When you throw into the mix an unworldly, evil presence... well, there are worse things than hardtack, it would seem.
I'm finding it tough to talk about this movie because I don't want to give too much away... and also because there is so little to give away. The filmmakers do the smart thing here, and do not over-explain the situation. They let the story unfold, filling you in when it becomes important and never quite answering all the questions. What exactly is the presence? What does it want? How long has it been there? Were the bandits indeed being set up to go there?
Those and other questions are left to the imagination, while others are answered in bloody, screaming detail. Best of all, it is a horror film that manages to stick to it's own internal logic. I've seen many a film ("Darkness Falls", is one that immediately springs to mind) that sets up rules for their world, and then flagrantly break or just ignore them. However, in "Dead Birds", while some rules are never spelled out, the story stays within the parameters it sets up. The movie's inner logic is consistent and easy to go with.
It almost breaks my heart to have read recently that they are planning a sequel of sorts to "Dead Birds", as I really don't want any more of the mystery revealed. It is fascinating as it is. However, if the filmmakers can be trusted to make a Civil War haunted house movie that avoids so many pitfalls, maybe they are up for a sequel.
Movie for 10/18/07 - "MoH: Pick Me Up" (2005)
Movie #19 - "MoH: Pick Me Up"
Serial killer freak me out. I am well aware that being freaked should be the appropriate feeling toward a killing machine, but when it comes to horror, serial killers tend to get me a bit more than other parts of the genre. I'm fairly certain that the reason is that we know just how horrible people can be to each other... and sometime serial killers as portrayed on screen don't even come close. But it's still eerie to be reminded of it.
Now I'm not saying that every serial killer film freaks me out. Quite the opposite: Most are laughable. But when one is done right (Wolf Creek, Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer), they are a bit more unnerving than most films to me. However, most of the time serial killers are done so horribly... stupid, that's hard to do anything but laugh. I mean really, why is every serial killer in movies and TV nowadays a super-genius with unlimited funds and horribly convoluted MO's? Ridiculous... and somewhere in the middle, are the guys from Larry Cohen's Masters Of Horror episode, "Pick Me Up".
While the killers in this film are of the believable sort, the set up keeps it's tongue firmly planted in it's cheek. So what would happen if two serial killers got into a turf war? A simple premise that is played for for suspense, thrills, a bit of gore and - being Larry Cohen - laughs.
Larry Cohen is one of those guys who seems like he's always been around. If you grew up around video stores in the mid to late 1980s, you are assuredly familiar with some of his titles. "Q: The Winged Serpent", "The Stuff" and more were staple of most horror sections. Cohen always managed to give you your money's worth, and still play it with a wink and a nod.
And there's no better way to play this story of two serial killers and one poor lass stuck in the middle.
Short review, yeah. I'm tired and it was only an hour, though.
Movie for 10/19/07 - "The Mummy" (1932)
The tripper
The tripper
Heheh... I will try and squeeze some David Arquette horror in.
I will be doing a series of updates soon. Sleep issues with my almost 2 year-old and a busy weekend have kept me from being on the computer.
So both "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Mummy's Curse" are on the way.
Movie #20 - "The Mummy" (1932)
I stated in earlier thoughts on "The Mummy's Ghost", that the Mummy was an oddball - at least early in his series - among the big guns of old school horror. From that entry:
"Advertisements for the original Mummy movie, starring Boris Karloff, proclaimed it, "The Strangest Tale Ever Told". In many ways, they were right. The film wasn't traditional horror. There were certainly supernatural and menacing elements, but it focused on reincarnation, ancient gods still holding power, and a doomed love affair that tried to defy time. Certainly this last element would seem to be more of an influence on modern tales of Dracula, especially Francins Ford Coppola's remake which took it's reincarnation angle neither from the 1931 original 'Dracula' nor Bram Stoker's book."
Upon watching this movie again, it really, really is an odd one. Another one of those movies where everthing happened at the right time. Karl Freund was fresh off the success of 'Dracula', Boris Karloff was still huge after 'Frankenstein' and Egyptology was a literal rage at the time. The temptation to do an easy rehash of those movies would have been an easy one to give into. 'The Mummy' could have been horrible, and still made a fortune.
Instead, they recruited top talent and made another classic. One that works in equal parts as a love story and as a horror tale. While many have tried to duplicate this success, none have matched it. Again, this goes to the synergy of certain elements in the right amounts. While you are sympathetic to Karloff's character, it never spoils the fright as he is consistently played as a sinister, murderous defiler of the natural order of things, not a lovesick brat (a.k.a. The Most Vampire Films Approach). They balance enough factual Egyptian mythology and history with enough conjecture and out and out fabrication.
Elements of costume drama, detective adventure, and spirituality ideas are in balance with the horror and romance. And none of these elements really suffer due to the presense of the other. 'The Mummy' lives up to it's "strange" billing, not just becuase of all the story elements, but because they all work so well.
Movie for 10/20/07 - "The Mummy's Curse" (1944)
Movie #21 - "The Mummy's Curse" (1944)
With the "The Mummy's Ghost", the Mummy series hit it's formulaic stride. Not much differentiated it from the previous entry in the series, "The Mummy's Tomb", certain character continuities aside. Tana leaves make The Mummy go, Mummy wants the princess Ananka, priest of a secretive Egyptian order gets greedy and blows the whole deal. It's repetitive, but at least you know what you're getting into.
Plotwise, there's nothing new to add about "The Mummy's Curse". It picks up where the "The Mummy's Ghost" Left off, and regurgitates the plot. Sure, there are minor differences: The Mummy and Ananka have magically (The Magic of EGYPT!) moved from a swamp in New England to the bayous of Louisiana, our hero has a love interest that is not Ananka reincarnate and there is no unfortunately named dog. Otherwise, it's business as usual.
To it's credit, "The Mummy's Curse" manages to feel relatively fresh and not just like a cranked out franchise sequel. That's mostly do to a few visually stunning scenes and an opening musical number that leaves you scratching your head and smiling. To be honest, both my wife and I were in awe of Ananka's (played here by Virginia Christine) emerging from the swamp scene. Not only was it well shot and paced, but beautifully acted and with top notch make up effects. It seriously feels like a scene from a different (far better) movie. The Mummy (still played by Lon Chaney, Jr.) is more menacing in this one, thanks to more great cinematography, effective use of shadow and playing up the idea of the Mummy's innate, unnatural strength. Not just of will, but of body.
It would be nice if those could lift this movie further above mediocrity... but alas. Not so.The dialog is atrocious, as everyone has the annoying ability to recap the plot nonstop. Even if the event just happened. The plot comes off as ridiculous far too often. It must be interesting to live in a a world where "Mummy" is a legitimate cause of death. Eveyone is so casual about there being a Mummy running around that when someone says, "What nonsense!", he seems like the odd one out.
In the end, this one is a better than average way to end "The Mummy" series, but it still remains lost to what made the original so spectacular.
Movie for 10/21/07 - "House Of Frankenstein" (1944)
Movie #22 - "House Of Frankenstein" (1944)
Late era Universal horror movies. So much to love... so much that is not good. The bad part is that none of these movies were anywhere as good as the originals. Just look at my thoughts on The Mummy sequels as evidence of that. They were often shot on low budgets, with rushed, studio tinkered scripts. They were concerned less with continuity and quality than with quantity of monsters. They knew that more monsters = more curiosity = bigger box office. But as corny, hokey and downright silly as these late era films are, man are they still fun.
The "known quantity" factor is a big part of it. You know what each monster is, and the interest lies in seeing how they will interact with each other. You know they're going to kill/scare/otherwise menace regular folks. The real question is, "How would Dracula and The Wolf Man get on together?"
Honestly, watching "House Of Frankenstein" at times felt like you were watching an odd sort of monster Justice League. You knew the players and their powers. Hunchback! With his mighty "help" and "choke" powers! The Wolf Man! He can be both savage and self-pitying! Mad Scientist! With 50% more science-y stuff! Dracula! Now with action Top Hat! The Monster! He'll do something eventually!
The movie would have been fun on that alone, but add into the mix that "House Of Frankenstein" features Boris Karloff (As the doctor, not the monster, this time around), festivities get even more entertaining! You see, I've noticed that Boris Karloff has an amazing ability to bring a certain level of believability to a film. Whether playing a Monster a Mummy a grave robber or a Greek general, you are willing to believe him and willing to go with his story. It's an amazing ability for any actor. When you consider some of the off the wall movies Karloff carried with his natural on-screen charisma, it becomes downright miraculous.
Yes, this one is silly, but it has some class. The ending feels rushed, and it feels like they jammed two movies into one... but that's part of this one's charm. It's an awesome Monster Mash that never takes itself too seriously, but never insults the viewer.
Movie for 10/22/07 - "House Of Dracula" (1945)
This one may change, though. Coming soon - hopefully before October is out - The Stuff (1985), Vampyr (1932), Black Candles (1982), Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Movie #23 - "House Of Dracula" (1945)
So what was that I was saying about late era Universal monster movies? Oh yeah... Less continuity, more monsters. In general, you really can't go too wrong with that formula. The monster is the real star of any horror movie, and if it works in Oceans (insert number here), why not monster movies?
With Universal's second mega-monster combo, we get some of the things that made it's predecessor, "House Of Frankenstein" fun - the monster Justice League feel, amusing interaction, each doing his or her thing - but we also get more of what was bad about it. Weak story, weaker script and just general silliness that detracts from any gravity the story might have. Lacking the presence of Boris Karloff doesn't help, either. Killing off your titular character halfway through the film doesn't help things, either.
Really, this one, while still campy fun, suffers from "..and then" syndrome. You see, the script feels like it was written by two 10-year-old boys, who've been fed a week long diet of Pixie Stix and Jolt Cola, while given nothing but issues of 'Famous Monsters of Filmland' to read.
Boy 1: "Hey! Hey! Hey! What.. what if we had a scientist! And then Dracula stopped by!"
Boy 2: "Yeah! And Dracula lived in his BASEMENT!" And then, his hunchback assistant shows up!"
Boy 1: "Cool! But... but the hunchback is a girl! Wow! And then, the Wolf Man shows Up!
Boy 2: "Awesome!!! AND THEN THEY FIND FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER!!!"
Boy 1:"...."
Boy 2: "Well? Waddaya think?"
Boy 1: "YOU BLEW MY MIND!"
It just goes on and on like that, with one thing stacking on top of the other. Until the good Dr. Edelman goes mad, and the house comes down in another rushed ending. Graceful? No. But it really is difficult to not enjoy the schmaltz that almost falls off of this one.
Movie for 10/23/07 - "The Stuff" (1985)
Hey, you're almost through the month! Didn't you say you never made it through the whole month?
Hey, you're almost through the month! Didn't you say you never made it through the whole month?
This is true. Life seems to be conspiring pretty hard against me, though. Hopefully this weekend/last few days will get easier. :)
Have you seen Slither yet?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0439815/awards
We just watched it last night and OMG, it's AWFUL! ;D ;D
I loved it actually. ;D
Movie #24 - "The Stuff" (1985)
Nowadays, it's seems as though one can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Hollywood remake of a horror movie. Some have been surprisingly worthwhile (The Ring, House On Haunted Hill), others have been atrocious (The Haunting, The Wicker Man) and others have left you scratching your head as to why they even bothered (Halloween, The Grudge). People are rightly divided about whether or not remakes are worthwhile. Some see it as unecessary and diminishing the glory of the original material. Other see these re-imaginings as necessary to keeping the spirit of the originals up-to-date with modern audiences.
Personally, I think we could avoid the arguement all together if Hollywood would stop remaking the all ready good films, and remake one of the acres of bad films out there. I have a perfect first nominee, too: Larry Cohen's could-have-been-a-satire, "The Stuff".
Really, is anything more topical and timeless than killer desserts?
Let me try that again. You see, "The Stuff" gives us a tone of good, still relevant topics to - wait for it... wait for it... - chew over. Obesity is what some would consider epidemic in our culture, a "Stuff" remake could tackle that. The tagline for the fictional product in this movie is "Enough Is Never Enough". Now there's a critique on United States consumer culture if I've ever heard one. Even how the dessert takes over the people who consume it could be made into commentary about how our corporate controlled media is steering peoples politcal beliefs to those in line with massive corporations.
Even better, an ambitious director could try his hand at all of those themes and more, because they're all ready in "The Stuff". The trouble is that Larry Cohen is less interested in pursuing metaphor than just slogging through the story. I'm not saying that "The Stuff" isn't fun. Watching Michael Moriarity goof his way through a movie fighting evil Cool Whip is great fun, as is Garrett Morris and the awesome "Stuffie" effects. It's all a blast. But... yeah. But.
The movie almost begs to be remade, because the story has a lot of untapped potential. Even one of those casually tossed out themes would be a great central premis for a horror film. As we watch our characters infiltrate and try to stop the evil Stuff corporation, those thoughts and any other cognizant ones get tossed to the wayside in favor of budget restraintsm zippy one-liners and eventually explosions. These are not without there place, but it seems to be the kind of thing "The Stuff " wants to be against. It's all filler.
Movie for 10/24/07 - "Vampyr" (1932)
Movie #25 - "Vampyr" (1932)
You've got to wonder what might of happened if some of the events surrounding World War II hadn't happened. Obvious ponderances aside, what would have come out of Germany culturally is a big one for me. The years leading up to World War II saw the German's completely owning the new medium of the moving picture. The fact that movies such as "Nosferatu", "The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari" and "Metropolis" are all regarded as not just classics of the genre, but of film in general is testament to that. As a matter of fact, these early strides into the world of film are still ranked by most critics as some of the best of all time. Take that, "Delta Farce"!
Of course, I do realize that without the events surrounding World War II, the social and artistic climate would have been different, and these films never produced, however one has to think that Germany might just be the movie capital of the world had things gone differently. The vision was there, and the influence of their vision was spreading. When you watch "Vampyr", it is highly evident. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the director, Carl Theodor Dreyer, was Dutch and not German.
The tale itself is not much. A young man, Allan Gray, is travelling through the countryside, where he decides to stay at an inn. After a series of strange visions and cryptic messages, he finds himself (himselves?) investigating a curious murder and an even curiouser condition of an old man's daughter. Is it the supernatural? Is it his imagination? And just where, oh where, did we leave that line between dream and reality?
Like I said, the influence of the German expressionist film can be felt very strongly here. The fact that the film seems to value style over substance can be easily forgiven seeing as that with expressionism, the style is often the substance. And boy, do we get style. Innovative trick photography, new uses of lens filters and a brilliant eye for framing make this film feel more like a dream than anything else. Sound, still a very new introduction to film at the time this was made (about two years before it's release), is used minimally, but effectively. People don't talk for talkings sake. The pictures tell the story, and the striking imagery keeps you engrossed.
Not a film for everyone, to be sure. It is very light on story and cries of "dull" could be understood. But from an artistic and a historical perspective, "Vampyr" is really something special, and delivers some truly striking and chill inducing visuals.
Movie for 10/25/07 - ... oh, poop. I better think of one!
Movie #26 - "The Demons of Ludlow" (1983)
So, at home, I have one of those "Big Box-O-Movies". Y'know, the kind that have 50 public domain movies for twenty bucks or so. There are some gems in there, there are some dogs and when I've needed a new movie, I've simply turned to it, and picked one out. Last night I needed a flick, so I went to a movie that was going to be my Plan B in a previous entry, "Oasis Of The Zombies" (1981).
As I was about to pop it in, I noticed who directed it: Jess Franco. You see, Jess Franco has hundreds of films to his name, all sharing one quality: They're kinda bad. Sure, there are bright spots, but Jess Franco is not a name that instills hope in any film goer. Being sleepy, I decided to shelve this sure to be classic Jess Franco outing in favor of the completely unknown to me, "The Demons Of Ludlow". Unwittingly, I slipped this one into the DVD player. Then it happened. A name popped up that struck mortal terror into my heart. A groan escaped my lips and also my soul, I'd wager. The name?
Bill Rebane.
Don't know the name? Well, let's just say that no matter what happens in history, Wisconsin is in no danger of usurping Hollywood as motion picture capital, judging by it's most notable film maker's output. Fans of the television show "Mystery Science Theater 3000" may be familiar with a couple of his finer pieces, "Monster A-Go-Go" and "Giant Spider Invasion".
No, this wasn't going to be pretty. I decided to go along for the ride anyways. And having come out intact on the other side, let me say this:
Bill Rebane gets some of the most serious, earnest performances out of his actors.
Too bad the movie, even the acting no matter how earnest, is complete crap. We have some vague plot about a ghost seeking revenge on a town that gave him the boot. But still named themselves after him. There is talk of demons, cannibalism, vampires... none of it really pans out. We have a preacher with a drunk wife, a reporter who used to call the town home... none of that works out. Subplot about growing the town's population above 47? Well, not so much resolved or anything.
As a matter of fact, the only thing that is obvious is that Bill Rebane spent money on fake teeth for some of his actors. It would all be laughable if weren't so boring.
But the cruellest blow of all came from the packaging, which said the movie was 84 minutes long. Lies. 94. Ten more painful minutes than I bargained for... Just twist the knife, Bill...
On the upside, I am now actually looking forward to watching a remake after this movie!
Movie for 10/26/07 - "Dawn Of The Dead" (2004)
Movie #27 - "Dawn Of The Dead"
Going into this movie, I tried to keep an open mind. The original is one of my favorite movies ever. Gory, engrossing and wickedly funny (and smart!), George Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead" is an amazing bit of film making and biting social commentary. When they announced a remake, I felt ill. There was no reason, as the original still holds up, and may be even more relevant today than it was almost 30 years ago.
Then, funny things started happening. Photos were shown... they looked good. I read interviews with Zack Snyder, the director. He was saying all the right things. Preliminary reports and early reviews were... good. Here were fellow freaks on horror message boards telling people it was good. Friends of mine went and saw it... and said it was good, great even. In the end, I dodged the bullet. I just didn't see it. Until now.
And the verdict?
It's okay.
Honestly, I would have loved to walk away from this one really loving or hating it, but in the end, I found it okay. As far as zombie movies go, it was nothing we haven't seen before, even with the remake business aside. It was slick, it did what a movie should. Kept me interested and kept me entertained. But there was too much working against it to make it great.
First, the zombies. I understand that fast zombies are supposed to equal scarier. 'Cause their fast. But when you have preteen zombies doing silly looking ninja leaps and all of them making the same noise that was played over the loud speakers whenever my high school football team would score a touchdown... it gets a little silly. Part of the scare of slow zombies is that there are so many, and they just don't stop. And you usually end up as a victim by your own hand... no one to blame but yourself. That goes nicely with the metaphor of the zombie as a mindless consumerist.
But the new Dawn eschews commentary for action movie cliche and throwaway pop culture jokes. Whereas the original took a small ensemble to present the wide array of potential conflict, the new one adds more people and examines less ground. The original made the point that no matter what, humans will remain their own worst enemy. The new...well, I'm not sure what he was trying to say, but it sure did look good.
Movie for 10/27/07 - "Black Candles" (1982)
Movie #28 - "Black Candles" (1982)
For all that happened in this movie, this may be the one I have the least to say about.
Once again, being in a cult seems like a pretty sweet deal. Everyone in this movie at some point or another, got nekkid and got some! Even the goat! Yes... they went there.
This is the definition of grindhouse cinema, folks. It's nudity and a bit of gore all loosely wrapped up in a "plot".
And it's a blast! Definitely not one for everyone and certainly not one to watch with grandma and grandpa. And most certainly no one under 18, but one could do a lot worse that the tale of a girl trying to resist a satanic cult whose main pre-occupation in "teh sex".
Viva la sexploitation!
Movie for 10/28/07 - "Nosferatu" (1922) featuring a "soundtrack" by Type O Negative.
Oh man! I have been watching quite a few horror movies lately as well. Today I watched Dead Alive. I have had it in my collection for a while now, but I never got around to watching it. Wow! Have you guys seen this one? Totally gross. I had to stop it a couple of times because it was making me sick. The part when the mother's arm starts spurting out that gooey blood into the guys custard! And he eats it! Wow! So awesome... :D
Oh man! I have been watching quite a few horror movies lately as well. Today I watched Dead Alive. I have had it in my collection for a while now, but I never got around to watching it. Wow! Have you guys seen this one? Totally gross. I had to stop it a couple of times because it was making me sick. The part when the mother's arm starts spurting out that gooey blood into the guys custard! And he eats it! Wow! So awesome... :D
"Your mother ate my dog!!!" :D
Ha! That part was awful! I didn't know what he was pulling out of her face!
Pages