Blogs Against Humanity - Adventures in Sympathetic Misanthropy

This, the third film-adaptation of Jack Finney's 1955 novel, "The Body Snatchers", does quite a lot of things right, but ultimately falls a bit short.  "They get you when you sleep." - Andy  This is going to get spoilery, so if you haven't watched this flick and don't like spoilers, then you may want to skip this review.  So, as I mentioned before, this is remake month, and as was the case with DRACULA (though not to the same extent), there are more than two film adaptations of Jack Finney's 1954 science fiction novel "The Body Snatchers" to choose from. So, before I hit this version, I watched both of the previous versions, titled INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS , from 1956 and 1978, respectively.   Those adaptations are widely considered to be absolute classics by movie-buffs and critics alike, so, when compared to its predecessors, BODY SNATCHERS has some very big shoes to fill. We have another new setting, this time out of an Army-base

DRACULA (1931) ***1/2 Tod Browning's Dracula is adapted from the then-popular stage-play, and the influence is quite obvious upon viewing, as the film eventually becomes quite stagey and static. A lot of the camera-work is pedestrian, and the scene transitions are often short and somewhat jarring. Too much exposition also slows down the film, and when compared to its contemporary, James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, it simply doesn't fare as well. As some critics have remarked, its essentially a stylistic holdover from the silent-film era. And, as a last critique, this film doesn't end so much as simply STOP, and there's a big difference between these two concepts. However, for all its flaws, this movie definitely deserves its classic status. Even without a pair of fangs, Bela Lugosi set a standard as Count Dracula against which all others would be measured to this very day. His Dracula is stiff and formal, yet prone to sudden bursts of quick-fury. He's quite obviously

So, let's take a quick look at how I rated the 10 films I watched for the pre-show: CHILDREN OF MEN - *****   Best movie of the pre-show, a phenomenal, moving film, with powerful performances and some extraordinary cinematography. I cannot recommend it highly enough.   CONTAGION - ****1/2   Easily the best pandemic-type film in terms of the science. great acting all-around, some surprises, and very prescient.   RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR - **   Starts off strong, claustrophobic and bleak, ultimately let down by bad science. BOO-ums!   PONTYPOOL - ****1/2   Extremely clever, well-acted, low-budget thriller in what amounts to a stage-play on film. Stephen McHattie is a Canadian national treasure. 12 MONKEYS - *****   A sci-fi tragedy by Terry Gilliam. A great film that I don't personally love.   REC - ****1/2   Easily one of the best found-footage style horror-flicks ever made, very much in the style of a first-person survival-horror game. A great flick!   MAGGIE - ***1/2   Good fi

Yes, my friends, it is indeed almost that time again! I'll be starting my annual marathon of horrors with a week-long pre-show on August the 25th .  This is the sixth year that I've done this, and generally I just post about it on Facebook. I'll be doing that this year too, although I'm paring back the FB coverage this time out because, well, screw Zuckerberg, and screw Facebook. While I'll post notifications about what and when I'm watching on FB, my reviews will no longer be posted there. Instead, I'll be posting them right here, where they belong. So, for this year's pre-show, I have 10 films lined up. The theme is pandemics (naturally): Children Of Men (2006) 12 Monkeys (1995) Blindness (2008) Maggie (2015) REC (2007) Contagion (2011) The Seventh Seal (1957) Right At Your Door (2006) Zombieland - Double-Tap (2019) Pontypool (2008) Out of these, I've seen Pontypool and 12 Monkeys . I saw the former about 9 years ago, and the latter I proba

The team is held hostage, but looks bored. I feel ya, ladies. Oh man, if only this flick was as entertaining as its poster and promo images lead you to believe its going to be.  GIRLS WITH BALLS is a French/Belgian sports-themed horror-comedy, directed by Olivier Afonso, that simply manages to lose track of what sort of film it wishes to be, and flounders its way to an unsatisfactory ending. To be honest, I should have known from the start that the tone-deaf vagabond-cowboy-bard narrator with a penchant for spoilers was a bad sign. Unfunny singing-narrator aside, the first act does its job well, and establishes the characters in rip-roaring fashion, via a Volleyball cup-match, and subsequent character-interaction inside the team's RV once the game is won. Schlocky, silly, and sophomoric, it manages to be a lot of goofy fun for the first 15 minutes. When the team gets lost and detoured towards a backwoods hostel populated by inbred, cannibal-hicks, the bad-guys are established, an

So, that promised BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER rewatch? Yeah, that's on hold, and I apologize.  Why is that? To be honest, I may be going about it the wrong way. I had decided to do a very in-depth deep-dive style of review, and that's what I was working on as I watched Welcome To The Hellmouth , but in the end, I may have waded into deeper waters than I have the energy to navigate. The review I was writing got so long and involved, it frankly became a slog. And why? Why should I turn something like that into a slog? There are Buffy deep-dives aplenty out there, and have been since the very start. I really don't know if I can say anything new about the show with an in-depth approach, and honestly, I just don't have the background in things like philosophy and film-studies to justify it, I'd just be building off the work that others has done before, and done better. So, I'm going to hang back, and take a more relaxed approach to it, and see what develops. Rather th