TYTD Reviews

'The Conjuring 2' is, in essence just 'The Conjuring' but beefed up…I wish there was more I could say really than that. But sometimes you have to call a horse a horse, and thats what this is…a slightly beefier, slightly slower tank of a horse that in many ways is better than the other horse THIS horse was based on…But at the same time has more significant issues.

Its almost like the production team behind this looked at the original 'Conjuring' and every facet they could identify they draw a big ring around with a caption next to it saying 'Do more with it'…and by god if they didnt try and do just that.

The film OPENS with them shorthand solving the problems at the 'Amityville House'…That isnt even the BASE for this movie…thats basically just framed as a vignette to help re-establish the Warrens as they'd been off screen for 3 years.

From there the bulk of the film is a 'based on a true story'/ distorted by Hollywood account of 'The Enfield Haunting' an incident that occured in London between 1977 and 1979 in which a family were *allegedly* haunted by the ghost of a man named Bill Wilkins who had died in the house prior to the family moving in.

Two things make them choosing this story to adapt funny. One is that this particular incident, while having some unexplained elements, is arguably one of the easiest to provably dismiss as a fake, the family were struggling for money, and their were multiple incidents where the kids were caught fabricating evidence and misleading paranormal investigators.

The other point being that the Warrens involvement in this case was INCREDIBLY short, lasting barely a few days, in which the only notable thing Wikipedia seems to record, is that the Warrens didnt really find anything substantial, and that Ed Warren told the family they could make a lot of money by writing a book about their experiences, copyrighting the experience and licensing it out to be adapted for film.

But Hollywood wont let THAT get in the way of a good story, and so in this outing Ed and Lorraine head to England, and fight a demonic force taking the shape of a nun, spend most of the build up to christmas hanging around with the families, buying them records and bringing positive energy, and of course Ed and Lorraine crack the cause of the haunting of Enfield and end up having a hand to hand throw down with demons and the deceased to free the family from a terrible curse.

Yes, its a fantastical reimagining of something that kind of sort of happened, but absolutely didnt. But; Im not here to chart this films historical accuracy, im here to talk about how good of a movie it is…and on that front? Its a pretty solid, but WAY too long horror movie.

I thought the original 'Conjuring' was abusing my trust by running to an hour and 52…this film runs to 2 hours and 15 minutes and ABSOLUTELY didnt need to do that. I will give this film more credit than its previous entry in that, script wise, this one puts rubber to road a LOT quicker on setting up the paranormal elements, getting the Warrens involved and getting the spooky shenanigans on the road…But extended conversations about Biscuits, idle chatter about the families absent father, and an extended sequence of Ed playing 'Elvis' greatest hits act as speed bumps on a film that could have been astounding at an hour and 45 or an hour and 50…but slumps at two and quarter hours and doesnt manage to keep a consistent pace.

The characters are a bit better developed than those from the original film, the complexities of the family are better established. But contrasting that, the film asks the audience to take MUCH greater 'leaps of faith' in the plot holes and inconsistencies. It tries desperately to smooth over the cracks of the plot holes not only the instances created BY the film itself, but the holes from the original investigation. Which is problematic if your approaching the film as a non believer in the paranormal (as I am.)

Add to this that the dialogue and vocal performances of the cast are PAINFULLY British, to a point I almost felt the need to call 'racism'. Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins was less English than the cast in this one are trying to play. and it annoyed me consistently across the runtime. This isnt a faithful attempt at recreating Britain in the 1970s…its an American skewed attempt at creating Britain in the 1970s by essentially starting with Britain today, and then just making everything look shabbier and occasionally flashing up Margret Thatcher (something I personally found terrifying…)

Beyond those faults however, I found elements of the plotting in this one to be more interesting a better structured than the original, the ending was more satisfying and felt grander than the original. and that pretty much plots the course for what I mentioned above…everything here is just as good as the first film, but for better (or worse) its beefier.

The direction matches the same creative vision and flow of the first one, but with a bigger budget theyre able to go grander, make more complex visions and intricate set pieces (the final fight between Ed and the demon of the house is a fantastic example of this). But in doing these grander more intricate visual pieces, it makes the quieter sentimental pieces feel less believable and less sincere than the first film. Its hard to imagine a family being traumatised by demons, where everything is constantly being smashed and their children are being tossed around the room, are going to be composed enough to still bother setting up for Christmas.

The cine feels bigger budget, more refined and stronger than the original in terms of realising the creative vision…But because everything is SO much more polished and tightly structured, it takes away from the gritty realism and makes everything feel a bit synthetic by contrast.

performance wise, everything feels a bit more polished and refined, but as mentioned the english accents are horrendous to me, and I do feel we lose a bit more of the emotional intimacy that the characters all held in the first film. Plus its really a VERY hard watch to see a bunch of nerdy 70s British people get the American upgrade…it reminded me VERY heavily of when 'The Comic Strip' made 'Strike!' an american re-imagining (parody) of the minors strike starring Al Pachino…

The soundtracks solid, and its nice that the mixing on the jump scare audios is a bit more balanced. But I feel its fair to say ultimately that this is a more complex and engaging work than the original 'Conjuring' but with that comes more opportunity to fail, and it does on several occasions.

This may sound like a negative review, but ultimately I did enjoy 'The Conjuring 2' While I do feel that it is over long and that they didnt really manage to win me over on the realisation of Britain in the 1970s…not helped that around the same time this film came out, the BBC made an adaptation of the enfield hauntings that felt MUCH more British, was a HELL of a lot shorter and I felt showed what happened in a more believable way. It ends up feeling inferior by comparison.

My ultimate 'hot tip'? seek out the BBC adaptation of the Enfield haunting (Called 'The Enfield Haunting' and released in 2015) and you'll have a more accurate and entertaining 'small budget' experience. As for this? if you liked the first Conjuring, you'll almost certainly enjoy this! I enjoyed this! and I'll almost certainly watch it again sooner rather than later…I just wish it'd maybe aimed a bit lower and tried to keep things a bit more faithful to what actually happened. Rather than queuing up this entry to be the launch pad for half a dozen spin off films.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-conjuring-2/

It wasnt the first time that a movie had oversold it's monster when 'Night of the Lepus' hit screens in 1972, and it certainly wouldnt be the last. But; as with 'The Giant Claw' before it, "Lepus" seemingly bit off more than it could chew, transforming this pseudo 'Atom Age' giant monster Horror drama, into a completely unintentional comedy.

The plot follows Roy and Gerry Bennett (Played by cinema legends Stuart Whitman and Janet Leigh) as scientists assisting ranchers who have a big problem on their hands, thats about to get BIGGER!

See, life of the ranch has had problems of late, as a large infestation of rabbits have rendered large swathes of crops inedbile and are creating holes all over the prairie. They're reaching serious infestation levels when ranch owner Cole Hillman is put in touch with Roy via a mutual friend Elgin (played by DeForrest Kelly) Roy and Gerry visit the ranch with their daughter and agree to take some of the Rabbits away to test some new hormonal serums on them, with the aim being to make them sterile and re-release them into the population with a viral version of the serum which would spread through the populace…as the alternative is spraying poison all over the land, which will kill absolutely everything.

After testing on over two dozen rabbits, the pair are struggling to find a breakthrough, when their daughter Amanda, takes a liking to one of the test rabbits, and while her parents arnt looking, she swipes it from the facility to take home as a pet…However; when returning to the ranch with the rabbit, Cole's son see's Amanda with the rabbit and forces her to set it free. Not realising that the rabbit they just set free had in fact been infected with an experimental hormonal serum with an unintended consequence…rapid growth and gestation abilities.

In no time at all, a nearby mineshaft is brimming with ultra fertile rabbits the size of wolves. and they're only going to get bigger! When the gang discover the giant rabbits, they try to trap them by blowing up the mine shaft they've occupied…but they forget that rabbits can dig! and within hours, the town is swarming with giant killer bunnys! leaving it down to Roy, Gerry and Cole to try and slow the rabbits approach to civilization by ANY means necessary!

So, for those of you that havent seen this one, the main reason it lives on in infamy amongst cult film aficionados, is the same reason 'The Giant Claw' does, the cast were told that the 'Killer rabbits' were going to be terrifying snarling beasts vicious critters with appearances more in line with the scariest offerings from 'Watership Down' than your average bunny. However; whether it was technical limitations or budgetary concerns. the studio didnt have the ability to make the rabbits look disturbing. they basically had enough of a budget to buy a couple dozen normal rabbits, a couple of 'rabbit costumes' for stuntmen to dress in, and a few gallons of fake blood/jam to smear on the rabbits to make them 'blood soaked'…and the end result is a film where our cast look on in terror as the CUTEST little bun-buns you've ever seen slow motion ride through the countryside.

It does rather 'defang' the viewing experience…transforming what did have the potential to be an actually kind of spooky 'what if?' in line with 'The Birds' or 'Rats: Night of terror' into something that is endlessly laughable. and as a result, the entire film suffers for it.

The script itself is a bit of a shame honestly, I can see how the bones of this could have made for a particularly engaging novel or short story. as a cinematic offering, the story itself isnt terrible either, reminding me very much of the early 50s creature features…However; I came to this expecting a horror film, maybe with some light drama elements…but instead its more of a Drama with some suspenseful horror elements peppered in. and given what i've said about the 'horror' and how almost all of the 'horror' in this is led by the rabbits scenes…the end result is a kind of flat drama, with the selling point absolutely deflated…

The pacing is painfully slow, this is an 80 minute feature that takes 50 minutes of setup to really get going. the film overexplains itself to extreme lengths, the act transitions are WAY too slow burn, to the point that the acts kind of just all blur into themselves without enough key plot points to hand to help tentpeg the structure of the script. The dialogues slow going and overly detailed. The characters are just about fine enough for this kind of thing, and they do get some time to have a bit of development granted across the runtime.

But the horror comes in way too late, is undercut by the failure to make the subject actually scary, and it ultimately means it feels like a horror film thats in a chronic sense of 'build up' that never pays off…it just fizzles out.

The direction is pretty nice here, its definitely got a creative vision behind it, though again, we as the audience cant escape the fact that they're limited on what they can do with the bunnies…while there is some creative model work used, and they try their best with some bluescreen work…it ultimately ends up being a film that looks pretty solid, and has some creative flourishes…but never quite nails what it sets out to do.

The cine is equally rock solid, and probably the best part of this film, some fantastic shots, that really help keep the film popping visually, nicely coordinated into decent sequences that try and make the best of a bad situation. Barring a couple of bizarre editing choices in the 3rd act. I had no quibbles with this one.

The performances are about as good as they can be, with the dialogue choices being rough around the edges, the cast can only work with what they've got, counterbalancing that issue we have the fact that the film has horror and suspense royalty bouying up the feature. But even with some of the cream of the crop on the bill, a poorly written script can only get you so far, and the end result is a scenario where a great cast do their best with a bad hand and sort of, kind of pull it off. I dont think the performances were particularly beliveable, but they were compelling.

And as for the soundtrack? its pretty solid, an acoustic and string arrangement very much of the 70s. it gives the film a degree of melancholy that I felt compelling, its quite well utilised. but maybe a tad generic.

If your a fan of weird and cult cinema 'Night of the Lepus' is definitely a film you should see at least once. Its not as interesting a piece as say 'Killdozer' or 'The Strangeness'…But it has enough going on to make it worth your time just about. If however you arnt that invested in movies that have just a single core gimmick carrying the whole thing, you will be bitterly dissapointed with this one. and absolutely should avoid it at all costs.

Myself? I thought it was underwhelming…but fine. I was expecting a bit more out of it on the horror, gore and violence front. But theres a charm in seeing them try and convince the audience that this REALLY TRUELY IS terrifying, that kept me hanging on till the end. Not one i'll be rushing back to watch again. But I didnt hate it. I just kind of hoped it would be better.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/night-of-the-lepus/

Jumping into 'Ouija' I was trying to be somewhat hopeful. Im always trying to broaden my horizons when it comes to more 'contemporary' Horror as a way of working on myself. So! I queued it up, got comfy…aaaaand not a whole lot happened…I kind of wish I could be kinder to this one. But theres very little I can really say to be any more precise than that.

The plot follows 'Laine' the older of two sisters who's living with her 'Nonna' and is living the bog standard high school student life with her best friend 4eva 'Debbie'. The film opens establishing that, even as kids, Debbie and Laine used to mess around with an 'Ouija' board. but back then they were just goofing around, and didnt really know what they were getting into.

Skip forward to the present day, and Laine is growing concerned for Debbie, who is becoming increasingly recluse. As it turns out, Debbie has found a new 'Ouija' board in her house, and…after messing around with it by herself (something the film tells us we must NEVER do.) Debbie winds up dead. Laine cant quite believe her friend has gone, and her circle of associates gather to both attend the funeral, and look out for a devestated Laine.

When Laine feels like she needs to contact Debbie one more time, she discovers Debbies Ouija board and manages to convince her friends and her younger sister Sarah to take part in a seance to see if they can contact Debbie and get closure on the whole thing.

Unfortunately; it doesnt really work out that way, and things quickly begin to spiral out of control, as Debbie and her friends may have actually unleashed more than they bargained for. Leading Laine and the group on a hunt through the houses history, and a terrifying history of witchcraft and the dark arts, all of which is connected to the dissapearence of a young girl…and a spirit board brimming with evil…

And the quick caption summary for this 'horror' film, is theres about 25 minutes of actual honest to goodness haunted house shenanigans, married up to about an hours worth of plot that could best be described as an after school special on the subject of 'The death of a loved one'.

This films biggest problem is the pacing. its glacial. its painfully slow in places, annoyingly slow, as we watch characters basically explain absolutely EVERYTHING In painful detail, leaving almost nothing for the film to actually 'SHOW'. and the one or two twists that DO come up here are undercut with overt foreshadowing that is clearly designed for people who lack media literacy skills.

Tonally; its a bit murky, theres definitely a horror element here, but the overwhelming feeling is more of a 'Drama' in my opinion…and not a particularly great one at that. The characters all feel painfully surface level to the point that I have to assume the film makers assumed that a flashback at the beginning was enough to flesh them out. they arnt complex, they dont feel 'lived in' these are characters that exist for as long as the film flickers on the screen, and the SECOND the credits roll hits, they're off into the ether. barely able to hold things together even at the height of the films action.

The dialogues bland, the act structuring feels sluggish and inconsistent, theres no clear act change transitions, it just rumbles on, occasionally remembering its a horror film, at which point it delivers 5-10 good minutes of quite well put together horror plotting…before getting back to 'Dawsons Creek'.

From here, we basically just run through 'acceptable' across the board. The direction is to a studio standard…which here means it isnt abysmal, but it is absolutely the barest minimum of whats needed to be considered 'Studio quality'. the vision is beige, but firmed up, the direction of the sequences has a few flickers of originality muddled in there, but this is almost a year after 'The Conjuring' reset the standard for the 'haunted house' movie, and since then 'Insideous' and 'Sinister' had only taken the genre from strength to strength. leaving this one feeling a little bland by comparison.

Same goes for the cine, shots are fine, and the horror elements do have some pretty satisfying moments here and there, but again; its nothing groundbreaking and ultimately over 10 years on, this feels a bit overly generic. When I can say 'Sterling Entertainment' films have had more imaginative direction and cine…I hope that goes some way to say just how by the numbers and bland this gets at time.

The cast do the best they can with the script, I cant fault their performances honestly, but I can fault the dialogue they've been given to work with. They have a reasonable physical energy, at times they drift into 'Asylum' terratory with the line deliveries. But across the board I think they're all just about of a 'standard' maybe occasionally drifting into 'stiff' terratory on deliveries. And; as an aside, theres a LOT of CGI in this…not all of it good, and it does impact the performances because I get the feeling that the cast either wernt aware of what effects were going to be used in the final cut. Or they were told, but didnt have it explained. Because sometimes their reactions dont really match the CG thats happening on screen.

The soundtracks ultimatley kind of unmemorable too. mainly drone and string arrangements…nothing remarkable. my only compliment being that at least the sound balance is okay, no major audio jump scares…

All in all? I didnt hate 'Ouija'…but its a VERY beige production. It takes an age to get going, when it finally does build up some steam it splutters while doing so, the plot is fine, but the dialogues rough, and the direction, cine and scoring are largely either copying other movies from this time, or the safest most overly beige options…

As a result, I cant personally recommend this one. its not bad enough for me to come out swinging at it, and; as a 'background movie' I think its okay enough…But there are FAR FAR better films out there that tackle this kind of thing. And I think this 'Spooky season' you absolutely can do better.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/ouija/

So this year throughout Halloween, me and the missus have decided to take a trip through all of 'The Conjuring' movies. And kicking things off, we have the original entry that started the 11 film franchise that just WILL NOT DIE.

Yes, its the original 'Conjuring', a 'Based on a true story' style adaptation of the 1971 story of the Perron family, a young couple with 5 daughters who move into a farm house that is NOT *The* Amityville house…only to find that things take a turn for the spooky.

When the Warrrens come into the area to give a series of lecture talks, mother Carolyn reaches out to the paranormalists to investigate…only to unearth the terrifying reality that their family home…has basically been the epicenter of a dozen grizzly murders all stemming back to the awful tale of a witch who took her own life on a tree near the family home, cursing the land in the process.

Together, the Warrens and the Perrons (alongside local law enforcement) must work together to try and cleanse the house of the evil spirits, before things go too far out out of control!

And all round? I can absolutely see why this is a much loved modernization of the 'Haunted House' film. It has the grounding of it being loosely based on a true story, but the modern film making techniques to help give it the kind of glossy sheen that the likes of the original 'Amityville horror' or 'The Evil Dead' cant really compete with. As for me? I can absolutely appreciate this one for what it is, a sturdy paranormal horror film. But I dont *personally* think I enjoy this one as much as I do films like 'Insideous' or the 'Sinister' series.

Across the board everythings really pretty solid. The script tells a compelling story, its paced out rather well, tonally its consistent across the runtime, having the script based of real life accounts means that the characters feel much more real and complex than had this been a total work of fiction. The dialogues a little bit pompus in places…but Its all thematic tone setting, so I can kind of give it a pass on that front.

What I cant excuse however is the runtime, clocking in at just shy of 2 hours, the pacing at times here is meandering. Some would say its contextualizing, or getting us fully bedded into our characters for the film. But I say that this could have been 15-20 minutes shorter and would have been a LOT lot better. As it stands? At the length it runs to, I found myself struggling to really stay engaged with the plot when things got a bit too 'all American Schmaltz' or when they were just…existing and not really doing much else.

Outside of that though, The rest of the film is pretty solid. The directions got a very clear and distinct vision, so much so that it clearly helped influence most low budget haunted house movies of the last 13 years. theres some really nice suspense moments across the runtime and some effective sequences that have been intentionally planned out to leave the audience not *quite* sure what they're looking at.

Direction of the cast *is* a little theatrical for my blood, lacking that grittier roughness of a 'of real life' performance. But on the whole, I think its solid, the cast are fairly reactive, hit their marks, and the scenes have clearly been marked out for maximum shock and scare factor.

The cine is also pretty solid, while it has to be said, some of the CGI is starting to show its age a bit. on the whole compositions are distinct, creative and feel great. sequences are fairly well crafted, the edit is rock solid and theres plenty of B-roll to help keep things fresh, flowing and moving along.

Performances are largely solid too, the obvious limelight stealer here is Lili Taylor as Carolyn Perron, she gets a really meaty duel performance across the runtime that really showcases her versatility and capability as a performer, she felt like one of the more believable performances, and is almost worth the price of admission alone! Credit also has to go to the Warrens themselves Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, who both come across as sincere, if not a little preachy as the Warrens, again getting a good versatile range to work with and delivering exactly what you wanna see when you come to a paranormal spooky movie.

The rest of the cast unfortunately do run the gauntlet from just about believable, to just a bit dry and awkward, to 'Asylum' level performances…its a mixed bag and probably the weakest element of this production on the whole if im being honest.

And finally, the soundtrack! Which is a solid semi orchestral work with a few contemporary jukebox tracks dropped in, it definitely creates a solid atmosphere, but im not sure if id say it was particularly memorable. This film also commits the cardinal sin of doing audio jumpscares and mixing the audio tracks VERY poorly…meaning for the most part I had to have subtitles on to even figure out what was being said, and frequently the film would go from characters mumbling border inaudibly, to a jumpscare sting that damn near ruptured next DOORS eardrums…letalone my own…

All in all? 'The Conjuring' is absolutely a solid horror film from the 2010's…sometimes mainstream horror films are mainstream BECAUSE they're just really quite well made, and I think this one almost certainly is that way. While I have my own personal issues with this one. I can acknowledge that this was a fun watch ultimately, one I've watched a few times over the years, and no doubt will watch again. I can recommend it if you havent seen it before, if nothing else so that you can appreciate where most of the films that imitate this one got their ideas from. Just buckle up for that hour and 52 runtime, because it feels every bit as long as that runtime suggests!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-conjuring/

A fabulous little supercut/youtube poop offering found on Tubi. essentially its just over an hour of SOV, instructional tape and other sourced footage dedicated to old pitch himself. A mesmorising watch, it reminds me quite heavily of the AGFA Mystery tape series. But its a bit more gassed up, a lot quicker paced, not afraid to get a bit trippy, and less focussed on showing VHS oddities, and more focussed on remixing said oddities into a hazy brew of visuals.

I really liked it! I thought it was very well edited (if not a little fast paced for my personal taste) and had a lot of clips I hadnt seen before. So this is definitely one I can recommend if you like this kind of thing. Apparently, the company behind this has been doing it for years with tons of different focal points. So I feel like I've struck a solid oil line here with this group! I'll definitely be checking out more in future!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-great-satan/

I've been a fan of Norm Macdonald for a number of years, and his unfortunate demise in 2021 sent me down a rabbit hole of trying to track down some of his more 'Complete' work, as a lot of what i'd seen had been television appearances or interviews. That was how I landed on 'Dirty Work' and after keeping it on my 'watch list' for a number of years, Vinegar Syndrome decided to release it in 4k…which I promptly snatched up…Then it sat in my 'To Watch' pile for a while…I wasnt THAT invested…anyway; I watched it.

The plot is pretty simple, Norm plays Mitch, a man with one clear life value. He doesnt take crap from anyone. In the past, this meant getting revenge on those that wronged him in increasingly chaotic and creative ways. However; time passes and in his 30s Mitch finds himself fired from several jobs, broken up with and having to live at his friend Sams house with his increasingly perverted and aggressive father.

Things go from bad to worse, when 'Pops' suffers a massive heart attack, and because he's old and not famous. He's at the bottom of the donor list. That is until a doctor offers Mitch and Sam a proposition, if they can find 50 grand to help the doctor pay off the bookies, the doctor will pull some strings to push Pops to the top of the donor list.

At first, the pair try several jobs to little or no success…Until a chance encounter gives MItch the push he needs. they'll open a 'revenge for hire' business. Its simple, you call with a grievence, Mitch and Sam turn up and get revenge, get paid and get the money to save Pops.

However, when they end up in front of rich businessman Travis Cole who offers to fully fund their venture. They find themselves embroiled in a situation that may cost them absolutely everything.

For the purpose of this review I should clarify that I watched the 'Dirtier' version of this film, apparently that means theres a few extended and additional scenes that take it from a PG13 rating to an R rating. more edgy jokes etc…Its kind of hard to tell whats been added/removed to make it the R cut, because this was a comedy made in 1998 and, realistically; the amount of political incorrectness here kind of makes it hard to tell what was '90s' acceptable…and what wasnt.

In either case, I was very pleasantly surprised by this one, the script is solid, moves at a clip, has a good clean 3 act structure and has a quite satisfying ending. The tone is very much in line with Norms usual style of dry and acidic humour. Very self aware, very much willfully obtuse. And to that end, this thing has a hell of a hit rate on gags. I laughed openly pretty much every couple of minutes on this, which given its a fairly 'hidden' 90s comedy, makes it something of a hidden gem really.

The cast all get a decent share of the gags, with it being a 90s comedy, you CAN expect to see multiple VERY non PC gags make it in, its a known hazard that comes with the terratory, so expect several rape and homophobic gags alongside other bits in dribs and drabs. If you can stomach those pitfalls though, the rest is really quite funny and a good introduction to Norms usual style.

The direction and cine are both studio grade, not a whole lot to report on that front from me, its a solid enough shot MGM piece that doesnt exactly elevate the genre. But it gets the job done and almost all of the visual gags are handled extremely well. compositions are solid, sequences flow effortlessly, theres a really nice vibrant colour palette. the cast all know exactly how to time their gags and where they should be placed on set. Its a really solid work that helps to keep things chugging along.

The real surprise for me was the cast roster. This film is STUDDED. and I *mean* STUDDED with more comedy royalty that I can even begin to list. WIth key players being Norm (obviously) Don RIckles, Chris Farley, Chevy Chase, John Goodman, Traylor Howard and a not insignificant number of deeper cut stand up comics from the time. Honestly, I didnt expect that many known faces to turn up for a somewhat obscure picture. and again, they REALLY help to smooth over any issues and bring the thing to life.

Add to that a good little 'Jukebox' soundtrack mixing contemporary 90s pop such as Green day, Chumbawumba and Third eye blind with the likes of ACDC, Rupert Holmes and KMFDM. Its a solid soundtrack that does sound a little bit 'noisy' at times…but again, victim of the times unfortunatley on that front. Its positively nostalgic at this point and also raised a few laughs to boot!

All in all, I went into 'Dirty Work' with somewhat lowered expectations given how buried it had been over the years. But having now seen it, I was actually very pleasently surprised. I dont think it'd land quite as well with younger audiences today. I think you very much had to live through the times to really properly 'get' it. But if you were around in the 90s, and you know what your getting into with late 90's early 2000s gross out comedies…Then I think you'll be very pleasently surprised. I really enjoyed it, and Id absolutely recommend it to anyone looking for a 90s comedy 'fix'

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dirty-work-1998/

Decided to catch the 'Rifftrax' version today. Honestly, I think Mike and the gang were the only thing stopping this stink bomb from falling into the sea.

'Hillbillys in a HAunted House' is about an hour long and is best summed up as follows:

A group of country singers lose their way on the way to a country jamboree, they end up getting directions to a spooky house, in the house it turns out theres some no goodnicks looking to do…something! To make these country singers leave. They dont. Cue a ton of sitting around, intercut with country music numbers, and eventually one of the gangs female singers wanders off, gets kidnapped, a gorilla shows up…and…the house they're stopping in may or may not actually be haunted.

Its a slog of a watch, the mirth of 'Hillbilly' antics can only really carry this film so far, NOTHING happens for the vast majority of the runtime, the dialogue is aiming for jovial but lands in just plain strange. The characters arnt that interesting either…and not even David Carradine and Basil Rathbone can bring the vibe up.

The films biggest flaw? its a haunted house movie with very VERY little 'Haunting' and certainly no 'Horror' to be had. its just a very dry, not particularly funny musical comedy set in a haunted house that isnt all that haunted.

VIsually its a bit of a wash too. It reminded me HEAVILY of 'Monsters Crash the Pyjama Party' its all quite flat, bland undressed sets, colour palettes that feel washed out and drab. Theres nothing here to grab the eye or catch the attention. It just feels like a lame duck.

Throw in some subpar acting and songs that are just…SO souless…and you've got the perfect makings of a stinker of a picture. Dont get me wrong! This is by no means one of the worst movies ever made! It does have one or two jokes that land quite well, and like a broken clock, our main male leads do manage to make a gag or two land well! But as I said at the start of this review, if it wasnt for the rifftrax gang VERY much adding some seasoning to this cold, wet, unseasoned chicken breast of a movie. I dont think it would have been anywhere near as enjoyable a watch.

I can recommend the rifftrax dub. I absolutely cant recommend the film itself…oooh boy its a stinker.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hillbillys-in-a-haunted-house/

Popped this on while having my evening meal. A not unpleasent, but ultra basic rundown of 50 of the *alleged* worst movies ever made.

I refuse to take a authoritive list seriously that has 'Troll' in there…but not 'Troll 2'. The choices are questionable at best, and not exactly insightful…that being said, it gave me 10 films I haven't seen before that I need to check out sometime…so its got that going for it!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-50-worst-movies-ever-made/

What do you do if your a director sitting on three unfinished films that have the potential to make it big, but not the budget or time to get them over the line? Well! if your Jay Schlossberg-Cohen, the answer is, you do some ADR work to smooth over the gaps in the narrative, make some VERY questionable cuts to try and jump around in the narrative, film about 15 minutes of new footage as a framing device and get a relative to boogie down 'Monster Club' style turning 3 unfinished features into an Anthology that'll have you wondering 'WE CHOSE TO WATCH *THIS* ON HALLOWEEN!?'

That, is 'Night Train to Terror' a cobbled together mid 80s anothology feature that had a limited release at first, and found revived interest on the home video market (particularly with Vinegar syndromes Bluray release). And…well, I dont think its particularly 'good'! but its definitely a vibe!

As mentioned the film comprises of three unfinished films: One revolving around a hospital that appears to be kidnapping people for unknown reasons (a proto 'Hostel' if you will…), the second revolving around a young female musician who falls in with a rich old man who promises her fame and fortune…which turns out to be regular work in 'Adult' films, when a young college grad catches one of her features at a stag party, he hunts the woman down and steals her from the rich old man…leading them both into the arms of a strange 'Saw' like cult dedicated to death by increasingly bizarre methods…

And a finale revolving around a coven of (what I assume are) either Nazi vampires or Nazi demons who've been running a shadowey operation for hundreds of years…and who are about to be discovered by a woman with horrifying recurring nightmares…All of this? is framed as stories told by 'God' and 'The Devil' while they take a long train ride, destination: 'Unknown'…Oh..and for some reason, this train has a jumping rocky pop band that bop their way from station to station with the kind of 'filler' pop that really sells you on the idea this wasnt envisioned as it stands.

To judge these stories by their scripting and plot feels almost like a moot point honestly. They were unfinished films, and as 'A Night to Dismember' has taught us, seeing a re-cobbled together 'reimagining' of an end product that never actually got finished. usually winds up in a totally incomprehensible mess.

The tales told here are a *bit* more coherent, but are heavily reliant on the additional ADR narration, and their original intentions have had to be MASSIVELY paired back to fit the timings of the anthology entries…as such, I cant really comment on what could have been. But what I can say of what is here is…its messy. the plotting barely holds together for the most part, the footage pin pongs around something chronic, meaning I felt like I was constantly trying to play catch up on what exactly was going on.

The characters are largely fleshed out by the ADR narration, and the narrator for this is fine enough…nothing special, but not awful…its just that a lot of the narration is doing a LOT of heavy lifting to condense a lot of the missing footage down to a digestable and understandable format. in places, it works fine, in others I had NO idea what was actually going on.

the pacings all over the place, we'll crash through 30 minutes worth of plot in 5 minutes, and then spend 10 minutes focussing REALLY hard on a single plot point, because that was one of the few scenes that WAS filmed to completion. the tones a weird mixture of hyperactive gory horror, and campier comedy elements…but the campier elements are distinctly seperated from the stories themselves. They're only really present in the 'train' segments which, in and of themselves are filmed very nicely and are about the most sensical thing in this production.

The direction for all three films is mixed, but solid enough. I personally didnt see anything I disliked, theres some really decent stop motion effects work here that I enjoyed, some nice choices in lighting, gore effects, colour work. its nothing that I can point at and say 'THIS. is worth the price of admission!' But it is well enough handled that I would consider it a big selling point of the film, because the base plots themselves arnt really up to all that much.

Visually the film pops with colours, is very invested in early visual effects, and compositions look solid enough and feel good. sequences are incredibly messy however, scene structurings are poor and I really dont feel like we got to see the best presentation of these films…regardless of how little there was to use.

The train sequences, as mentioned are probably my favourite bits, they feel very professionally handled and, given they were more of a last minute addition to tie the films together, they actually look more expensive than the 3 full films featured.

As for the performances? Well…a lot of the film footage used is talked over by narration, there minimal dialogue here in the films themselves. And our cast are fine enough…but lets be honest, we're all here for Cameron Mitchell in the 3rd story as the Lieutenant. and…while he's not full on 'Terror in Beverley hills' here…He still gives a fun enough performance.

Throw in the scoring which mixed synthy horror beats with light pop…and this thing ultimately gave me real 'Monster Club' vibes…but without the halloween'y warmth or the charm of Vincent Price that 'The Monster Club' offers in spades.

All in all? this is a fine 'once in a blue moon' watch, its fairly nuts in places, which will make cult and low budget movie fans happy to catch it, im not entirely convinced of the 'rewatch' value though…I could see this pairing up as a later in the evening B-picture to 'The Monster Club'…But then, my brain automatically asks the question 'Well…if this is an offering that feels like a poor mans 'Monster Club' why not just watch 'The Monster Club'?!' …

Me personally? I may revisit this one again in future. and it may sit better with me in time. But as of today, it was just kind of a quirky, fun, but ultimately kind of unremarkable watch.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/night-train-to-terror/

Perfect viewing through the milky fug of a few tipples at 3am, 'Summer Camp Girls' is an adult feature brought to us by Gary Graver who you may recognise as his career seems to predominantly consist of a mixture of hard and softcore features, occasionally peppered with more 'family friendly' (I.E Not porn) horror and Sci-fi features.

I personally know Gravers work from 'Trick or Treat' the 1982 horror movie in which a kid 'Dennis the menaces' his baby sitter while an ACTUAL killer slowly stalks the family home…and 'One Million Heels B.C' the B-feature to the infamous 'Scream Queen Hot Tub Party' in which Michelle Baur plays a cavewoman thawed out in the present day who…well…you can imagine…its a softcore feature with Michelle Baur in a fur bikni…You can fill in the blanks.

'Summer Camp Girls' was shot in the earlier phase of his career. Not so early that he didnt have experience by this time, he'd already got 26 credits under his belt by this point, working a variety of different styles in Adult features AND he'd dabbled at least a couple of times with horror and sci fi. But as of today the guy has almost 150 directing credits. So being number 27, is still pretty early.

The plots about as straightforward as these films can get really. As the film opens introducing us to 'Angela' a rebellious teen woman who comes from an affluent background (her father is in some kind of organised crime syndicate) who's family are at their wits end with her. Angela likes bad boys, and has been dating (and is engaged) to a bad BAD boy. Much to her parents disapproval.

At their wits end, her father stumbles on an advert for a 'correctional' camp. 'Camp Quimm' which promises to take rebellious teens and, over several weeks, remove them from the systems that corrupt them, and turn them into model citizens. Her father is intreagued by the option and signs Angela up without hesitation, much to Angelas upset.

On arriving at the camp however, Angela finds that this 'all girls' camp is full of teens like her, who, conveniently, more or less all have the same background and story to her…So she quite quickly gets on and makes several friends.

It looks like its going to be a dull, dry, chaste summer…BUT AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, Literally on the outskirts of the camp, a couple of bikers called 'J.D' and 'Animal' have set up camp while their brothers are passing through the area, they've already captured one girl 'Carla' as their prize. and J.D is looking to bed as many of the camp girls as possible. Leading to the camp councillors to place a ban on them coming into the camp, or any of the girls leaving.

As you can imagine, J.D takes a liking to Angela, much to Carlas AGGRESSIVE disapproval. But it doesnt take too long for the girls of the camp to start climbing the walls looking for men, with two of the girls trying to molest the only male camp councillor on the grounds, who refuses to reciprocate because he'd lose his job, and the other girls planning a daring break to seek flesh.

When news of the breakout hits the staff, they panic and begin plans to try and recapture the girls. This is made all the more complicated however, when Angelas father gets word of bikers and breakouts and sends a memo out to say he'll be visiting the camp in two hours time, and he expects the camp to be full, and the tone to be 'celibate.' Leading to a race against time to recapture the girls before they have TOO much fun.

And…on the whole this is a somewhat upbeat, but surprisingly aggressive adult feature. The script contrasts an upbeat and semi comedic tone with sex scenes that are overly 'hands on' a bit rough and filled with aggressive word play.

The pacing moves at a clip, which is good because I feel this kind of setup very much has the risk of dragging. tonally its a unique mesh that I dont think will really be for everyone, but for anyone with a kink for 'soft' sub/dom dynamics. you'll probably get what you paid for with this one. I found the contrast of forcefulness and gentle humour to be a bit of an unusual mix, but not an unpalatable one. It makes the plot, which could have been very dry without those elements, come to life a bit more and feel altogether more stable.

The dialogues pretty solid, again, with these kind of films theres always a risk of the dialogue feeling a bit corny, and while I will say, some of the sex scene dialogue is a bit cringe at times, the actual plot dialogue is surprisingly well written and does have a bit of an acidic punch to boot! The characters all have very distinct personalities, goals and ambitions and the film does give them enough development to feel like theres a sense of growth across the runtime. ending things in a satisfying, but rather abrupt way.

The direction is about on the level, the non sex scenes are competent, feel solid and have a definite creative vision behind how they play out. This film came out at the back end of a bit of an era of change for the genre, and while quite a few movies of this time STILL clung onto the 'one very seedy looking room, with 2-3 very clearly ill looking people getting it on. Producers and studios were getting wise to the fact that the films where they portrayed good looking NON ill looking people in sunny PLEASENT locations…rather than just a motel room off i95 that was last renovated in 1952…was a more lucrative gambit.

To that end, the cine in this film is vibrant, is well lit, has complimenting colour grades and locations that feel fresh and open. the cast are all clearly being given solid direction on how the scenes are to play out and what marks to hit where, the sex scenes mix up initimate close up shots of the cast members really emoting, and broader scenes that help set the mood and tension. while the dialogue used throughout ranges from 'steamy' to 'cringe'. the cine is very much clued into the vibe of the sex scenes in question and never feels like it drops the ball really.

Sequences are well crafted, the scenes flow very nicely into one another, and this helps bolster the sturdy script into something much more robust in my opinion.

The casting is also relatively solid. While Shauna Grants 'Angela' is the 'In' to the world this film fleshes out, she is somewhat overshadowed almost immediately by several other larger than life performers such as Joanna Storm and Kimberley Carson as Tammy and Veronica, Herschel Savage as J.D, Antonio Crab as Animal…and in much more subtle (but effective) performance; Paul Thomas as Greg.

While the performances of the above are certainly entertaining and bombastic enough to keep viewers glued to their seats. It does come with the rather unfortunate side effect of the film feeling at times like the cast are fighting for the limelight, one upping each other time after time on who can give the biggest, most over the top turn. For my money, that title would go to Tara Aire as Carla, the jealous girlfriend of J.D who is literally only one click away from the kind of intensity 'Judy' from 'Sleepaway Camp' achieved. Shes manic, over the top and intensely campy. I thought she was great.

And as for the soundtrack? its nothing to write home about, but in an era where library tracks were still the common use of the day. This has some original compositions in there, adds mirth to the lighter tones of the film and is used effectively and consistently. I cant say its the best i've ever heard, but its far from the worst.

All in all? 'Summer Camp Girls' is a fine enough adult production. its tailored to audiences who prefer things a bit nastier and rougher, but dont want to go full 'whips and chains'. and it balances a lot of the contrasting tones and vibes within that well. I feel like this is a solid work, that; if your exploring the history of adult film is probably worth your time. While it doesnt do anything exceptionally well in my opinion. its a great example of the era and how the adult film industry was diversifying at that time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/summer-camp-girls/