October’s Movies of the Month - Horror 

Spooky season continues.

The Craft is such an interesting smashing of genres. Its as if Hocus Pocus, Obsession, and Carrie had a baby. Its 70% high school teen drama and 30% dark witch fantasy. The dynamics between our main characters are... odd. Why Sarah wants to remain with the dickhead football player is baffling. Why Sarah insists on hanging out with the witches after being rejected a couple times is also baffling. But then again, teen relationships never make sense.

I loved thay the film didn't hold back. We get lightning strikes, death, and almighty power. What more do you want?

I really enjoyed the film and I would definitely watch it again. Its a great Halloween rotation film.

I watched 9 to 5 in theaters

I saw this as a kid and I must have tuned out the first time, like i watched it but i didnt really "see" it.

because I don't remember most of the movie until now

Dolly is ofc great in it. Really liked Tomlin too , just saw her in another old movie recently but less old (the kid 2000) where funny enough ...she's also an overworked doting secretary that hates her boss. The scene with her as snow white was kind of weird as hell and didn't seem to relate to her character at all and I have no idea why they went that way, but it wasn't a bad scene, just strange. It was interesting and strange 🤔

Actually just realized each fantasy foreshadowed something they actually did in real life, Tomlin poisoning in snow white scene, Parton lassoing in her fantasy (tying him up phone cables) and fonda hunting him down with a rifle (actually shot at him irl)

Jane fonda really caught my eye though and I'm going to have to go back and watch more of her old movies because between this and me seeing california suite (1978) a year ago I am so captivated by her acting. She just seems to absorb into her characters. I really was only familiar with her for years off Barbarella and didn't realize like oh shit, she's actually a legit actress.

For example the early xerox room scene, this is like a snl silly sketch comedy premise where the machine is just spitting paper out in a cartoon way, but the way fonda is carrying it, with visible distress and that close up whimper at the end holding back the urge to cry turns a sitcom gag into a symbolic existential nightmare thats all too relatable. it really does feel like you're watching a real person in that scene, despite the absurd premise, she just comes across so natural

This movie is amazing! Easily one of the best vampire movies I’ve ever seen. This movie has been on my radar for a while now and I’ve seen clips of it mainly the Salma Hayek scenes so finally getting a chance to see it, I enjoyed it! I like that the start of this movie is a crime thriller then halfway through it becomes a bloody horror action film when the vampires show up. Salma Hayek as Santanico Pandemonium is my favorite character in this and she was also the main reason I wanted to check this out. The dance was so good and she looked so alluring, sexy, and beautiful. This is a good movie to watch during spooky season, I loved it!

Wes Craven returns to the franchise he never wanted to be a franchise in the first place as writer only. Also, of note is this is the first screen writing credit for Frank Darabont. But Wes isn’t alone as Heather Langenkamp’s Nancy from the first film is back, grey streak and all. It’s obvious throughout that his intention in writing Dream Warriors and the inclusion of Nancys arc was to end the franchise here. Nancy even states to the group of teens that they’re the last of the Elm Street children left of those responsible for Freddy’s death. As a fourth film followed a year later, Wes failed.

Elsewhere the knowing formula, after part twos possession malarkey, means Freddy is back to dispatching people in dreams as opposed to acting as a metaphor for repressed sexuality. Whilst the set ups are the same, the scenario and location are changed. Confining it in a psychiatric hospital with damaged ‘teens’ and original final girl Nancy overseeing it combines the old and the new. Yet Nancy still looks like a tween even though she’s supposed to be around her actual age, 22, which makes a change from older playing younger which is synonymous with these films. But it’s hard to take her seriously as an authority figure regardless of blouse and blazer when the kids she’s supposed to support look not much difference in age from her. This isn’t her film though, it rests more on the ensemble of troubled youths headed up by Patricia Arquette’s Kristen.

“Welcome to prime time bitch!” is one of several Freddy quips, but thankfully this is still the vicious, nasty child murderer we love. Here he turns the groups traits back on them. Their wants, desires and fears are all used as weapons. Be it puppeteer, aspiring actress, recovering drug addict and so on these character touches lead to brilliantly executed and original mayhem. Controlled to the top of a church tower and needle use are a couple of uncomfortable highlights.

The effects work, is for the most part, excellent for the time, barring a couple of obvious wire work scenes. For every goofy wizard we’ve a claymation Freddy puppet and an amusing skeleton scrapyard beat down. Director Chuck Russell does an impressive job blending the insanity with the the real.

Robert Englund gets more screen time as Freddie Krueger and at this point has fully made the role his. Quips, violence, loving to use the word ‘bitch’, he is still able to scare and disgust before becoming farcical in later entries.

Laurence Fishburne has a bit of a nothing role as hospital orderly Max, and Craig Wasson, best known for De Palma’s Body Double grates as an all too quick to believe doctor. He gets the B story of a nun subplot where Wes Craven continued his goal of trying to wrap the films up, leading to a bit of an eye roll reveal but also a line offering insight into Freddy’s origins, “The bastard son of 100 maniacs.”

An enjoyably imaginative sequel to the original. Equal parts clever and disgusting, and for once I didn’t wish death would hurry up and take the kids.

Wow. Im familiar with Yorgos Lanthimos and have seen a majority of his films but I always had Dogtooth on the watch list. I finally got around to watching it on MUBI and I have to say I think its his best film.

The premise while not new was amazingly executed. From the vocabulary used by the three young adults to how they act towards each other without example from the outside world really makes you think about our own morals and how they are influenced for good or for bad.

But the one thing this film does the best for me is the realisation of just how vulnerable children can be in their own home. Behind closed doors there are no laws or morals other than those opposed by the parents or adults, a truely horrible thought brought to life in Dogtooth.

Following up on the chaotic energy of Kalifornia, I want to talk about a film that mainstream critics completely tried to bury because it was simply too dark and too ugly for them to handle. Joel Schumachers 1999 neo noir masterpiece 8mm is a towering achievement in pure cinematic dread. Nicholas Cage delivers one of the most intense, uncompromised performances of his entire career as a private eye dragged straight down into the pitch black abyss of the snuff film underworld.

Coming from a background deeply immersed in the music business then naturally delving into independent film, I tend to look at pictures through a very specific lens. The atmosphere in this movie is pure, unfiltered industrial sludge. Schumacher did not pull a single punch. He captured a heavy, dangerous 90s grime that just sticks with you. The script by Andrew Kevin Walker is a masterpiece in psychological rot, showing you exactly what happens when a normal man stares into pure human malice for too long. James Gandolfini is absolutely terrifying as the sleazy, brutal enforcer Eddie Poole, and Peter Stormare plays the sick, theatrical mastermind Dino Velvet to perfection. Joaquin Phoenix is brilliant as the dirty, streetwise adult store clerk who acts as the ultimate guide through the shadows. It is a flawless, disturbing piece of art that was massively unappreciated by the mainstream suit and tie crowd.

In my humble opinion.

Cheers.

I came across this movie on YouTube and decided to give it a watch. It's pretty old, but it's available with subtitles, which helped a lot since the dialogues are in Malayalam.

The cinematography is top-notch , you get to see beautiful scenery throughout the entire film. The acting is splendid from everyone involved, kids and elders, the actor who plays the boogeyman (Kummatty) did a great job.

Spoilers ahead:

The premise is that kids are initially scared of Kummatty but over time they come to like him. He does a trick where each of the kids gets converted into an animal for some time. But during this, one of the kids runs off toward his home. When Kummatty brings the other kids back to human form, this kid doesn't get converted back, so he has to live as a dog.

For a while, it looks like he'll have to live that way forever. Thankfully, Kummatty comes back and converts him back to a human.

When he was a dog, he realized what it's like to be chained and to not have freedom. So when he comes back to his house, he releases the bird his family keeps in a cage.

There are traditional folklore songs. Even without understanding the language, the subtitles help you get the gist of it.

Honestly the best part of the movie is the scenery, the bird calls and sounds of nature in the background.

I would like to know if anyone has watched this movie and felt the same.

Thanks for reading!

When you hear about the film in any discussion, most of the comments will be about the cinematography of roger deakins in this, which I agree looked out of this world. But we need to keep in mind, a clear vision, development of characters and how they feel or thinking in a particular moment is what needed to complement good cinematography, which is the case here. Its a western by genre, but i think it would be more appropriate as anti-western. The whole film has just one robbery scene, although the film is about the one of the greatest legend of wild west history book, jesse james. Most of the film we actually travel with the jesse james who, at his final years, became a victim of his own legend in a way that paranoia, suspicion of betrayal grasped him completely. On the other hand, Robert Ford, a young 20 year old, from his childhood ideolized that same legend, but the central theme of the character is whether he actually wanted to be like jesse or be jesse. That dilemma later leads him to some critical choices, some out of fear, some out of despise, and some out of might to get a shortcut to take the place of jesse james with one event. That event, as you can see in the title, is killing Jesse James.

I dont like westerns to be honest but I loved this film. Although it takes it time among the snow, in jungle or wheat fields, it never felt like a slog observing the conversation between the characters, especially between jesse and bob(robert ford). It has totally different meaning watching one man observing other whether he is loyal or too ambitious and other whether he is getting the proper appreciation and treatment from his legend knowing bob will eventually kill jesse. Also we got to see the aftermath of that event, which makes the whole relationship among them and bob more tragic. The final 15 minutes is one of the greatest endings to me in a film I think.

Overall if you like westerns or simply just want to see a breakdown of idealisation of a legend and the myths around it, with breathtaking visual every frame, its a must see. Thanks.

J.J. Hunsecker, the most powerful newspaper columnist in New York, is determined to prevent his sister from marrying Steve Dallas, a jazz musician. He therefore covertly employs Sidney Falco, a sleazy and unscrupulous press agent, to break up the affair by any means possible.

I liked how Curtis and Lancaster went away from their typical heroic roles to play deeply manipulative, morally bankrupt characters. Surprisingly really funny at times. Probably some of the best 50-isims I’ve heard in a movie.

“I’d hate to take a bite outta you. You're a cookie full of arsenic.”

“You're dead, son. Get yourself buried.”

“Maybe I left my sense of humor in my other suit.”

“The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river.”

“Mr. Hunsecker, you've got more twists than a barrel of pretzels!”

Number 220 in my A-Z watch. Paranormal Activity gives us the found footage of a San Diego couple trying to capture the inexplicable occurrences they've been experiencing at night for the past few weeks.

Ever since i originally saw this movie in theaters it has always creeped me out. Going into the film knowing that it was made on an estimated $15K feels like it adds to the "legitimacy" of the phenomena we see on screen.

The movie builds tension so well. Using simple tools, like the timer on the camera, to basically tell you that something scary is about to happen and then still actually scare you is quite impressive.

8.5/10 It's not my favorite horror film, but i do feel like it's among the few that always get to me. You expect the film to rely on jump scares, but it genuinely feels like the build up is the scariest part of the movie. A really solid Halloween time watch.

This is a super fun movie that blends several of classic 80s themes. There's the main character Chris, a dorky college freshman who is trying to join a frat house because he's gushing over Cynthia, the girlfriend of the frat house leader and college stud Brad. On the other side there's police detective Ray, the classic lonewolf alcohol fueled police officer.

The first scene made me question my movie choice, to be honest. Super corny ET models drop a capsule into space which ends up falling on planet Earth during the 1960s. Somehow related, a madman killing people with an axe ends up in the middle of this mess. Anyway, 30 or so years later the aliens start entering and controlling the bodies of the dead, and their next target is the college campus.

I actually enjoyed this quite a lot. the premise is ridiculous but it works, the movie isn't afraid to make fun of itself. Great quotes such as "The good news is your dates are here. The bad news is... they're dead." and "What is this? A homicide, or a bad B-movie?" give more depth to a great performance by Tom Atkins.

Overall this is not a slasher or jump scare classic but it's quite fun and the special effects are the classic 80s work which I adore. Still very recommended today. 7/10

I just watched this again for the first time since I was a kid. It's a beautiful movie about being different in a society that just accepts you when your differences are beneficial to them. There's just nothing like peak Tim Burton. His fairytale aesthetic and parodying of suburban America blends super well together. And the emotions are all upfront, sincere, and powerful. I will admit, I cried as a kid and as a 29 year old. Depp's performance of Edward is over the top but fits perfectly inside Burton's whimsical movie because everything is over the top. And the music, my God, Danny Elfman did it again. Beautiful and heart wrenching. 10/10 movie.

Though I might be biased just because of how important Tim Burton and his movies have been to me.

Saw this on Tubi last night after watching Starman and wanted to see what other films Karen Allen had that were available, and came across Split Image from 1982. The movie has a solid cast starring Michael O'Keefe, Karen Allen, James Woods, Peter Fonda, and Brian Dennehy.

Michael plays Danny, a college student who gets involved with a cult after getting recruited by Karen Allen. Honestly, I don't blame him; if I were in his shoes and saw Karen Allen looking at me like I was her soulmate, I'd do anything she asked, including joining a cult. The cult is led by Peter Fonda, and soon enough he disavows his former life, to his family's heartbreak. Brian Dennehy, who plays his father, hires a private investigator, played by James Woods, to bring him back and deprogram him. James Woods is classic James Woods here.

Looking into it, Split Image barely made any money, but it seems the studio didn't market it much or give it a wide release. I liked it; it's solid enough, especially if you're a fan of the cast.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

In 2015, screenwriter David Goyer, whose crimes include but are not limited to the 1990 film “Death Warrant,” which cast Jean Claude Van Damme as a Canadian Mountie but somehow failed to feature him in the uniform for as much as a single scene, was up late reading about Aokigahara forest on Japan’s Honshu Island on Wikipedia and ended up outlining the story for what became “The Forest,” a film he’d eventually produce.

So next time you edit a Wikipedia page (that’s something everyone does, right?) think long and hard about what might happen the next time David Goyer has 45 minutes to spare. I for one dread the day he spends any amount of time on the page about that 1970 Orson Welles frozen peas ad recording, because I don’t want that on my conscience.

In “The Forest,” Natalie Dormer travels to Japan in search of her identical twin sister, who has vanished somewhere in the infamous and allegedly haunted woods. You can tell this is fiction because as much as I like the idea of the world having a backup Natalie Dormer, it’s really too good to be true.

Goyer weighed down a director’s chair on sets like “Blade: Trinity” and “The Unborn,” but even he passed on “The Forest” and instead inflicted the job on Jason Zada. This remains Zada’s only feature film, and these days he’s making slop AI ads and working for Coke. …as in, he’s making slop for Coca-Cola, not “working for coke” the way some would-be directors in his position end up doing. Presumably.

Zada also once directed a 90-minute livestream “interactive movie” at the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose as part of a product placement gimmick for Xfinity WiFi. I tried watching it, but I’m an Xfinity customer, so naturally my WiFi gave out.

None of that has anything to do with today’s movie, but today’s movie is a big dull dud, so anything to pass the time really.

“The Forest” is arguably an insensitive topic for a horror film, but in fairness there ARE countless ghost stories about the real location, and this isn’t fundamentally different from any of those.

Except those are probably, ya know, scary, which is something “The Forest” can only aspire to and something that would probably overcome all of its other sins, or at the very least distract from them.

According to a 2016 Toronto Sun story, while the movie did shoot some scenes in Japan, the actual forest scenes were in a location in Serbia. It looks good, especially given that night shoots in a forest location are a fucking nightmare, although again, not the kind of nightmare that’s scary or memorable, so you have to wonder if it was worth it.

“The Forest” was poorly received, with Slate dubbing it a “January mercy killing” and the Village Voice praising the atmosphere and Dormer herself but concluding the movie is just too dumb to make any of it matter.

“The Forest” made decent money and one of its screenwriters went on to create the actually pretty good “Channel Zero” series, but in the years since its release I don’t think a single person who didn’t help make this movie has thought about it.

This isn’t even close to being one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and it wasn’t even the worst horror movie released that month (looking at you, “The Boy,” even though you can’t tell on account of you’re a doll…). But it’s probably the movie that meant the least overall. Even “The Boy” at least got a sequel, much as its producers probably wish it hadn’t.

Tomorrow, a haunted location of a very different persuasion.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgKi0XVn4A

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

In 1973, the nudie mag Cavalier published then-relative unknown Stephen King’s short story “The Boogeyman,” because back then porn was a useful way to break into popular fiction markets. I’ve got a 4,000-word short story about a roughneck who works on an oilrig that I keep pitching to PornHub, but no one’s biting.

The central conceit of that story is that if you believe in and are afraid of something hard enough, it becomes real. Thirteen years later, King force-fed that concept until it swelled like fois-gras into an 1,100-page carboot of a book titled “IT,” and somehow TV executives looked at that Chrysler Building-sized volume and said:

“Oh yeah, we can definitely simmer this down to movie-length.” Not sure if it was blind optimism or just the cocaine, but it was a different time.

This is actually one of those two-part TV movies that were all the rage for King adaptations back then, but even clocking in at more than three hours, trying to squeeze “IT” into a film is like trying to wear a hat on two heads.

A 2015 Yahoo News story reveals that the original concept was for eight or ten one-hour-long “IT” episodes directed by King collaborator and blood oath recipient George Romero. The network then cut that back to six hours, then four, and then presumably the in-office game of Chicken moved onto daring Bog Iger to shave his head.

If you’re reading this then there’s an almost zero percent chance you’re not already familiar with “IT,” which tells a two-part story spread across roughly 30 years about a group of misfit kids struggling against an alien boogeyman in the worst town in America that isn’t Isla Vista.

That of course is the late Tim Curry as the titular shapeshifting monster, concealed under an incredibly surreal Bart Mixon makeup design. It’s almost impossible to make me not want to fuck Tim Curry in any role, up to and including the smog monster from “Fern Gully,” but congratulations Bart, you did it.

For most actors this would be the role of a lifetime, but for Curry it’s, like, the eighth or ninth most memorable thing on his CV. John Ritter, Emily Perkins, Michael Cole, Seth Green, and, yes, perhaps unfortunately, Jonathan Brandis fill out the cast.

Romero dropped out after they cut this runtime by 80 percent (directors, so sensitive…), and the chair went to Tommy Lee Wallace, who…seems like a very nice guy, but whose other credits at the time were Amityville 2, Halloween 3, Fright Night 2, and other regrettable applications of Arabic numerals.

They also only doled out $12 million for both episodes, the equivalent of about $31 million in today’s post-Fury Road currency. An enormous sum for a TV movie but, like, putting my swimtrunks on Wilt Chamberlain, still probably less than half of what was needed.

Despite casting some accomplished performers, the grown-up half of the story is definitely the weak link, in part because it has to navigate the book’s bizarre structure that necessitates strategic amnesia and marathon flashbacks.

The kids fare much better but obviously didn’t have enough time, as characters just pop into being without ever really being introduced, and we’re left to intuit the relationships they’ve formed rather than really see them. Wallace (who also penned the script) was presumably doing his best, but it’s no “Helliversity.”

Still, you’ve got to hand it to him and the crew for milking some real scares out of the cheapo effects, and the movie features standouts like composer Richard Bellis’ bizarre score. And of course, there’s a special joy to be found in Curry, because, hey, what was that movie Tim Curry was bad in again, nothing ever?

As you no doubt already know, the book was adapted again into a pair of blockbuster films that more than anything else kicked the doors open for the horror boom we’re in now. Last year saw a prequel HBO series (confusingly set during the same period as the original book) that was really not good but did at least fill the “Every Episode Will Feature the Most Fucked Up Thing You’ve Ever Seen” hole left by 2020’s “Lovecraft Country.”

Tomorrow, a movie about a location even more cursed than the hometown you never go back to.

TV Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NacWDFgZS0o

I recently revisited a masterclass in deeply unsettling, raw psychological tension and wanted to share my thoughts on a road trip thriller that deserves way more recognition. If you want a film that completely strips away Hollywood glamour, you need to look back at the 1993 gem Kalifornia, starring Brad Pitt, Juliette Lewis, David Duchovny, and Michelle Forbes.

Long before he became a polished global superstar, Brad Pitt gave an absolutely terrifying, unhinged performance as Early Grayce, a trailer park sociopath on a cross country tour of serial killer murder sites. His raw, volatile energy on screen is completely unpredictable and anchors the entire film in a state of pure dread. He is backed by a heartbreakingly tragic performance from Juliette Lewis, with David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes playing the perfect, naive counterweights to their chaotic world.

What makes this movie a true hidden gem is the gritty, low light cinematography by Bojan Bazelli and the uncompromising direction by Dominic Sena. The film delivers a dirty, sun drenched, yet pitch black neon aesthetic. The atmosphere feels sweaty, dangerous, and terrifyingly real, showing exactly how fast an ordinary road trip can devolve into a nightmare when you let the abyss into your backseat. As an independent filmmaker who thrives on raw storytelling, the uncompromised grit and suffocating atmosphere of this film have always been a massive creative inspiration to my own work. It sets a brilliant gold standard for 90s neo noir.

In my humble opinion.

Cheers.

Subtitled Freddy’s Revenge but I’m not too sure to who and why he’s getting revenge. The whole revenge angle is covered in the first film and there’s no one from the first in the sequel, so, yeah, here we are.

Wes Craven departs and in comes Jack Sholder… yeah, me neither. Craven isn’t the only thing absent. The premise and inventive kills are missing in action. Here Freddy no longer kills in dreams, rather he possesses young Jesse, Mark Patton, using him as a vessel to move into our world, beyond dreams, to kill. What worked so well in the first, the dreamscape enabling the laws of physics to not apply meaning brilliantly executed dispatching of the young and hopeless, is gone. Here, there’s a lot of slashing and stabbing. Not that it’s not occasionally enjoyable, such as the pool party, but the film is confused about what the rules are. Possession of Jesse also means pet parakeet attack/ combustion and boiling pool water?

As mentioned, no one is here from the first film. But Jesse and his family are in Nancys house. Also, would you believe it, Nancy had a diary for exposition. This helps us, Jesse, and bland girlfriend Lisa navigate what’s going on. Kim Myers is Lisa, whose most interesting trait is her uncanny ability to look like Meryl Streep.

Mark Patton is the de facto lead with Lisa less a final girl, more final… companion? To call her his girlfriend might be a bit of a stretch as the film has blatant undertones of repressed sexuality that skirt the line of subtext to pretty obvious. Jesse is heavily gay coded. His one sexual encounter with Lisa fizzled out due to his weird possession. He goes running to his male friend Grady, Robert Rusler, where he says this thing inside him stopped him, that something is trying to get inside him. We’re not even mentioning the night time bar visit and hanging out with leather daddy sports coach, and his amusingly high pitched screaming. If anything this certainly makes the film more interesting than it really deserves to be.

Robert Englund returns as Freddy, and for all you trivia fans he appears at the start of the film as the bus driver sans makeup. He has more to do here. He gets to be more violent and nasty. His Freddy is happiest when slicing and dicing but the film’s confused narrative and love wins out ending deflates the threat.

Less said about what ever those dogs with baby faces or whatever in the factory finale, the better.

In 16th-century Prague, a rabbi creates the Golem - a giant creature made of clay. Using sorcery, he brings the creature to life in order to protect the Jews of Prague from persecution.

Might be the oldest film I’ve watched. I like how you can see influences for horror films that come later like Frankenstein and other German expressionist films. A good add for October film watching.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Rating: 10/10
Watched: October 8, 2026

Some movies are so fantastic I genuinely wish I could clip the whole thing and just basically post the movie for people to watch and enjoy, but I'm sure that'd violate all kinds of ToS conditions, so the struggle to find the "right clip" for Last Crusade was as difficult as Indy's lifelong hunt for the Cross of Coronado.

While I have a tendency to hand out 10s based on my mood, nostalgia, or because I just plain old feel like it, Last Crusade genuinely is a perfect movie for me. I remember seeing this in theaters on Friday opening night. The theater was jam-packed because of course it was.

You don't have a movie like this one, with Sean Connery, River Phoenix, and an entire host of phenomenal actors, and just "not see it." I can't even remember what the buzz was like because it's been so long now, but I can guarantee you that the buzz had to have been enormous. Just like this movie.

But this excellent movie is not without it's bittersweetness, at least for me. River Phoenix as Young Indiana Jones was one of those truly perfect casting moments, and the first 10 minutes or so are just So Indiana Jones that it's pure entertainment. River absolutely nailed Indy's bravado, swagger, and self-certainty in a way that I don't think anyone else could have. It's bittersweet to watch that opening because I like to imagine that if River hadn't passed away so soon, he would've picked up the hat and whip again to play a slightly older Indiana Jones.

The movie itself is such a grand mix of action, adventure, comedy, tragedy, plain old excitement, and mystery that 17-year-old me (yes, even as a moody teenager who'd just discovered girls and partying and all of that) was absolutely locked on the silver screen.

Sure, it's less serious overall than Raiders and Temple of Doom, but that's not a flaw, it's a feature. Where the two movies that came before relied less on humor (but not by much), Last Crusade works harder at making the adventure more thrilling. It's really hard to explain it any other way. Where the other two movies were just as exciting, Last Crusade's lighter tone complements the derring-do of Indy and friends in a way that's more Golden Era than the others; in this one, Indy is no mere adventuring archaeologist. He is a legitimate swashbuckling hero, though he uses a whip (and guns, and his fists, and his wits) in equal measure.

One of the secret highlights for me is how the relationship between Indy and his dad changes dramatically from start to finish, and that has a lot to do with how I felt about my dad my whole life. Indy felt like his dad was distant and uncaring. Henry was waiting for Indy to "become interesting." Neither man had the conversation about what was going on between them until it was time for rescues in German-occupied castles, but the moment Indy and Henry latch onto the Grail's trail, you can see here and there that Henry is genuinely thinking, "Holy shit, this is my son. What the hell kind of man is he?" promptly followed by, "Holy shit, that's my fearless son!" and that's just beyond awesome.

Odds are, if you like any kind of movie, you've already seen it and love it as much now as the first time you saw it.

Maybe it's time for a revisit!

Info:

Release: October 17th, 1997

Director: Taylor Hackford

Music by: James Newton Howard

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino, Charlize Theron, Jeffrey Jones, Judith Ivey, Craig T. Nelson

Studio: Warner Bros.

Runtime: 2 hours, 24 minutes

Rating: R

Synopsis: Aspiring Florida defense lawyer Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) accepts a high-powered position at a New York law firm headed by legal shark John Milton (Al Pacino). As Kevin moves up in the firm's ranks, his wife, Mary Ann (Charlize Theron), has several frightening, mystical experiences that begin to warp her sense of reality. With the stakes getting higher with each case, Kevin quickly learns that his mentor is planning a far greater evil than simply winning without scruples.

Review: Yes, Keanu Reeves's Southern Accent is pretty jarring and bad at points, but this is still a great movie about the dangers of Absolute Power and Vanity. John Milton, a.k.a. Satan, being the head of a powerful law firm is pretty on the nose satire about the Justice System itself, but I think it works given the context of the film. Though the scene where Kevin confronts him is very VERY goofy at points, I genuinely can't tell which actor is overacting more than the other. Great ending though, "Vanity is definitely my favorite sin!" Even after getting a second chance and doing something selfless dor once, The Devil still has his claws hooked into Kevin no matter how many chances he may get.

I feel nostalgia about this film. I know it's not the best snake movie but snake movies from year 2000s were legit bangers like Anaconda of JLo, Anaconda hunt for blood orchid, Python, Boa vs Python, Boa movie, Python 2. For me, Boa vs Python made me rewatch the movie all over again. I watched it when I was 9 and I'm already 31 and it brings back memories. The best part of this movie are thirst traps, we can't deny it but it has great story, futuristic sci-fi movie and hot hunters (both antagonist couples) and what I love about it is they know how to turn the heat up and still watch the movie until finish. Broddick is one of the guys I love from this movie. Even he's the villain, you can't take away your eyes off him. The bar scene is my favorite and I always played it in a loop. I love hot men in movies but it made me watch when he heats up the scene then satisfying moments occur afterwards. ​​​​

So, it's old but gold I guess.

When Freddie Krueger began with his hideous bloody burns, deformed skin, red and green striped jumper, fedora and glove with razor fingers to slice and tear into the innocent, he was literally the stuff of nightmares. Later, as an 80s icon the fear was removed and he became a comedic pop culture figure which reflected in the films that followed, but here he was a menace… mostly.

In a move Director Wes Craven would repeat to more infamous effect years later with Scream were given a bit of a red herring opening with Amanda Wyss’s Tina running around in a nightmare. Dressed in virginal white, awaking with a torn nightgown and clutching a crucifix close you would believe her to be our heroine, our final girl. 18 minutes later, in the first of several impressive set pieces, she is dragged and thrown around her bedroom after having sex with her boyfriend, and left lying in a bloody pool on the floor. Another teenager pays the price for being sexually active!

Counter this with Heather Langenkamp’s Nancy. She has a boyfriend in Johnny Depp’s Glen, but we never see them act overtly sexual, even in his crop top! She proactively takes the lead, hunting Freddy down and trying to get both family and friends on her side. Her screaming and anger initially grates but Heather owns the role. Watching her wear down as she tries to stay awake, fight back, and deal with the stress, added grey streak to hair and all, you root for her as we witness those around her meet their grisly ends.

Craven crafts memorable scenes in the land of dreams where the absence of reality can aid the violent attacks and demises. Be it Tina’s death and subsequent body bag travels around school, Glen’s TV bedtime or the iconic phallic gloved hands rising between Nancys legs in the bath tub, they’re memorable because it beats the hack and chase of other killers, be it Myers or Voorhees.

Robert Englund as Freddie Krueger is great when menacing, but he can occasionally come across as a tad ridiculous whether chopping off his own fingers for effect or with the elongated arms near the start. It’s not helped by the slightly Home Alone type ending when Nancy rigs her home to fight back, sledgehammer to the stomach as he opens the door for example. He scares more in shadow, when we see glimpses of his face and hands. Here less is more.

A great 80s horror classic that launched an icon.

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” -Søren Kierkegaard 

I don’t think even Charlie Kaufman realized while writing it, that this would be a movie about truly understanding life by living it backwards. We are prisoners of time such that as much as we may try to imagine, life beyond our current circumstances is next to impossible to understand. That’s why what Joel Barish experiences is such a gift, even as it’s taken away. That’s just life though isn’t it? Nothing is permanent and yet it’s not all forgotten. The echoes remain. Joel and Clementine are different people from the beginning to the end. If they weren’t, Clementine would have been fine with Patrick and Joel wouldn’t have asked Clementine to stay. Life is impermanent but we can all grow better for what we carry even if it’s painful.

"One day the war will be over. I hope that the people who use this bridge in years to come. ...will remember how it was built, and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers. British soldiers, even in captivity."

- Colonel Nicholson

One of my favorite lines in this film. Pride and enthusiasm from Colonel Nicholson, with his contingent of British soldiers, as they work together for the construction of the railway connecting Thailand and Burma. Story is based on a French novel by Pierre Boulle, but set in a real World War II event called The Thailand-Burma "Death Railway".

I miss these kind of movies, due to its great casting. Notable performances by Alec Guinness, he's outstanding as Colonel Nicholson. William Holden as Major Shears, Jack Hawkins as Major Warden. And Sessue Hayakawa, I really thought he's brilliant portraying as the Japanese Colonel Saito. Everyone in the cast is just brilliant. From the main cast to the prisoner soldiers.

Fun fact: There is this one scene where the sequence is in night time, which in fact they filmed it at day time. They just adjust the color tone to make every shots at night. I love filming technique like this and I thought this is clever, it's classic.

This was one my favorite movies growing up. Of course my dad introduce me to these classics. Decided to get it on HD. I just watched it again on Blu-ray and man, this movie still stands the test of time. It's not just a brilliant and monumental film. But one of the most beautiful films I've seen. Beautiful cinematography. You can appreciate the wide array of shots this time around. From the over view section of the head quarters. To the beautiful shot off the bridge to the river. It's just perfect on widescreen.