The next film is another exercise in taking the day-to-day and pointing out that it is frightening. I tell you what’s scary: pregnancy. I tell you what else is scary: old people. It’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), another undisputed great in the pantheon of horror classics…

This film has clearly informed and inspired pletty of horror films hence. The earlier-watched Hereditary (which wasn’t too bad at all), is essentially the same story approached from a slightly different time point; it could easily be a reboot, or at least some sort of sequel. There are also some similarities with Suspiria (which was too bad at all) and maybe also The Exorcist. Unfortunately, despite the fact that unsettling horror is “a gimme” when dealing with non-straighforward pregnancy, the film is somewhat predictable, weirdly-acted, boring and not-scary-in-the-least. For my taste, like so many other horror movies, it loses much of its ability to be frightening or unsettling because the characters are so wilfully stupid, or at the very least difficult to empathise with, that you feel apathetic towards their fate.

And it was kinda fun – in a necrophile sort of way.

The only character that we might really care about is Rosemary (played by Mia Farrow) and any disquiet we might feel comes from her experience of pregnancy, entwined sense of isolation and uncertainty over her grasp of reality. Again, it is disappointingly difficult to empathise with her character because, on the whole, she comes across as rather stupid and a bit “wet.” Now, there are plenty of reasons why one could forgive Rosemary for her general demeanour (SPOILERS FOLLOWING)… perhaps most prominantly there is clearly witchcraft afoot, which is capable of making people blind/suicidal/evil and could be a broad-brush explanation for her general lack of agency or intelligence at key moments. Secondly, she does not have a sympathetic character upon whom she can rely, so is very much alone in her situation. Thirdly, there’s widespread drugging (although this might fit in with ‘witchcraft’ above)… This leads us to ‘fourthly,’ and perhaps from a non-supernatural psycholgical viewpoint, ‘most importantly’ she is in the worst kind of abusive and coercive relationship. Her husband, Guy (played by John Cassavetes), is an absolute DICK and certainly the most loathsome person in the film (who commits the most heinous act, which he explains nonchalently as a different but possibly-equally-heinous act). There are therefore many reasons why one could forgive Rosemary her general lack of backbone, but it doesn’t make her particularly likeable, and thus when the completely predictable happens (which is effectively everything) it’s hard to feel either way about it, or her, or the film as a whole.

It’s definitely a horror though? Well there are demons, an intimated (if not at all misleading) twisting of reality, witchcraft, unexplained blindness/comas/death, gratuitous nudity and an complete absence of anything you might describe as frightening… so probably yes. Also, it’s massively underwhelming and, to my mind, overrated (#7 Time Out, #11 Empire, 8.0 on IMDB!) so, once again, probably a horror.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Mia Farrow does an excellent job of acting pathetic. A pregnant woman drinking loads and being surrounded by smoking people is particularly fun in the 21st century. Hutch is a likeable character.

What are the worst bits? Some of the dialogue, or exchanges between characters, is difficult ot listen to… particularly any time Guy speaks and thinks he’s funny, or when Rosemary has a brief conversation with Terry Ginofrio in the laundry room. It’s difficult to understand why Rosemary does anything, she is like basic flotsam. The things which could be utilised to ramp up some tension or sense of disconcertion… pregnancy, the horrendous, coercive actions of the husband, the inherent creepiness of unnecessarily friendly (elderly) neighbours… is underused or perhaps so dilute as to be aromatherapy-levels of ineffective. There’s some vague commentary about satanism and catholicism, although I’m not sure why, or what the point was, if any. It goes on a bit.

You’re surely missing the point, isn’t this one of the best films (not jsut horror) of all time? Apparently so. I am a great believer in reading/watching/listening to the classics, to better understand the roots of cultural artifacts, enjoy the originals as they were first presented and generally get to grips with the development of storytelling/films/music/etc. However, I do feel like horror films (or even films of certain eras if they were sufficiently critically-acclaimed/popular in their time) or sometimes ‘given a pass’ when the storyline is inconsistent or they have narrative flaws. I’m not saying that joining Roman Polanski, Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes in transmuting a then-very-popular novel into film, whilst adding a strong dose of then-risque satanism, nudity and subversion of domestic norms, is sufficient to make a film heralded in the highest regard (a position it has never really relinquished), despite it being widely defective… oh wait… that IS exactly what I’m saying.

In some ways following the same general premise of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, with a young woman being terrorised by crazed criminal redneck types, the next film I watched was more horrifying but whilst it probably had more consistent plot, better acting and higher production values than Texas Chain Saw, whether it’s a “better film,” or certainly whether it is a “better horror film,” are difficult questions. It’s I Spit on Your Grave (1978) which has since seen remakes and sequels.

This film is horrific, there are genuine moments of suspense and a sense of imminent peril throughout. The problem I struggle with (and there are spoilers here) is that the “horror” is based on repeated sexual abuse of the main protagonist, who repeatedly tries to escape a group of redneck rapists, only to be brutally beaten and raped by them. Now, when it comes to slasher films, with blood-splattering murder, unlikely weapons (chainsaws, hammers, kitchen knives being used from the elbow…) and characters making poor life choices resulting in their gruesome demise then, in a weird way, it seems more harmless. Somehow, helpless young people being slaughtered seemingly at random is much less horrific than a young person being repeatedly sexually abused then murdered (although, for the story to conclude, the murder doesn’t happen). Following all of that, the woman then proceeds to take bloody revenge on all of them, which feels more like a horror, but in no way removes the unsettling feeling that the whole thing is not really entertainment.

A lot of horror films have gratuitous nudity. That seems to be an industry standard that I’ve commented upon earlier in the month. Jennifer (the heroine) in I Spit on Your Grave probably spends more of the film naked than not, which would fit with the genre generally if it wasn’t for all the sexual and related non-sexual violence she suffers. Even if someone tried to argue that the nudity wasn’t exploitative in the first part of the film, in the second (revenge) part, Jennifer not only gets naked with one of the original perpetrators as part of her revenge plan, but actually has sex with another one… all for apparently no good reason. She has ample opportunity to shoot her rapists (she has a gun at this point), yet does something a lot more elaborate, inherently illogically risky and personally degrading… presumably because it means the actor can spend more time naked on-screen. It’s not great.

I have no friends because of you.

It’s definitely a horror though? I’m not sure. If the first half was different (maybe the men killed her family/friends in a classic slasher way or perhaps if there was less gratuitous abuse), then the second half would definitely be a horror film, because the gratuitous nudity, odd decision-making and general elaborately constructed gore-scenes would be more acceptably entertaining. Again, I struggle with what a horror film “is,” but there’s something about this movie that makes me feel like it “isn’t” (at least in parts).

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? There’s a whole interaction where one of the men essentially explains his actions to Jennifer by victim-blaming her, which may have been ahead of its time in terms of social commentary. Some of the acting was good (Camille Keaton in murder-mode is a particular highlight).

What are the worst bits? There are no winners in this game. The whole premise of the film does not make the bloody revenge seem as euphoric as you’d hope. It’s all pretty grim. In the second half, the protagonist (with respect to horror movie tradition) does make a series of odd/bad decisions, but unhappily they just seem invited to blur the line further between entertainment and sexual violence. You feel like this is definitely not the sort of thing that would get made now.

But what about the 2010 remake… and sequels? It might be interesting to know what a modern version of this movie looks like, but I’m not sure that curiosity is enough to make me find out.

A few time on this journey I have watched a film which was so rubbish that writing about it seemed an even further waste of my time. Hoping to forget yesterday’s low-budget disappointment, and following relatively closely to Halloween (which I surmised was alright as films go), today was time for another classic slasher, similarly highly rated, and spawning a similarly high number of sequels, prequels and reboots. It’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) (or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, not sure which one is right).

Spolier alert: it’s rubbish.

It deals with the standard slasher set up of young people ending up somewhere, then getting murdered one by one. There’s a slight twist on who the killer is, but it’s mostly a plotless, low-budget pile of nonsense which involves a lot of screaming. It seems to follow the old horror adage that the American countryside is terrifying and full of criminally crazed redneck types. There’s a lot of abattoir talk.

My family’s always been in meat.

Everyone is killed with a chainsaw? You would think that wouldn’t you.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? I can’t think of a single thing. To be honest, it was a struggle to keep watching it, let alone care about what was going on. The killer, leatherface, is big.

What are the worst bits? The fact I had to watch it, closely followed by the fact that it is considerd one of the high-points in horror movie making.

Anything else to say? After 21 films, including a large number which have very good IMDB ratings or otherwise are highly valued in the genre, I believe that whilst there are good horror films, the vast majority are bad or truly awful. The graph from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Truly truly awful’ would apparently rise exponentially from a quite flat, x-axis-hugging start.

Halloween had one guy in blue overalls, some decent acting, a reasonable runtime, a surprising lack of gore and a coherent storyline. Today’s film had lots of guys in blue overalls, terrible acting, an excessive runtime, lots of rubbish gore and an veritable surfeit of nonsense. Whilst Dawn of the Dead (1978) was made in the same year and still features high up on lists of the best horror films, it is just so, so awful. It thinks it’s an action film. There are zero redeeming features. After a handful of acceptable, even borderline enjoyable movies, this is horror films back on form: shit, pointless and a massive waste of life.

Dummies! Dummies! Dummies!

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? There’s an attempt at gentle humour, regarding the behaviour of the zombies and some satire on how people, and the media, would react to a full-on zombie apocalpyse. However, this is disjointed and not very clever or funny. Some of the music is fun.

What are the worst bits? The acting is rubbish. Painfully so. The zombies have blue faces like smurfs, and are rubbish. Actors are used multiple times, with little attempt to make them seem at all different. There’s a lot of gore, but it is rubbish: the blood is like red oil paint. It is far too long and feels even longer than that. Nothing makes sense. The zombies are useless, but are fortunately faced with even more useless human beings. Name anything you might find in a film, and it will be rubbish in this. At one point someone tries to hit a zombie with a hammer and they just fall into each other; it would be funny but it’s just sad. The ending is completely unsatisfying.

Anything else to say? No. I want to forget I ever watched that film now please. Just don’t watch Dawn of the Dead. You have been warned.

Following the previous day’s minor revelation about quality actors and horror films, who should turn up in the next one but Donald “I can see that pin down there” Pleasence. The movie also stars an actual Oscar winner, but as she’s being “introduced” by this film, she can’t really be considered a famous actor at this point. I am, of course, talking about Halloween (1978) which features in the top ten of both Empire and Time Out‘s lists.

It’s a slasher film. In many ways it’s THE slasher film. Although it didn’t quite invent the genre, it pretty much introduced the world to it. Directed by John Carpenter (who subsequently directed They Live, which I watched earlier, and The Fog, which I may watch later) it introduced the world to Michael Myers; a somewhat lumbering and clumsy psychotic killer who is at once ‘the boogieman’ and the personification of evil.

It’s a proper horror film with murder, suspense, gratuitous nudity, twelve additional sequels/prequels/reboots, some poor decision making and overarm stabbing. I’m not sure why murderers favour overarm downward stabbing, usually originating at the elbow, as it seems really inefficient. This point is probably best illustrated by the times Michael Myers unsuccessfully tries to stab our main protagonist.

This has not been my night. I spilled butter all over my clothes, they’re in the wash. I got stuck in the laundry room…

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Jamie Lee Curtis is good. It does everything that is necessary to be a good slasher film. Some young people die. There is suspense. The killer looks pretty freaky. There’s murder, gratuitous nudity, overarm stabbing and a massive twist within the first couple of minutes of the film (which is impressive going). It doesn’t drag on.

What are the worst bits? One girl gets stuck halfway through a window because one foot is slightly resting on a shelf. No explanation is made as to how she got into that position or why it made her so incapable of movement. A door with a circular ‘twist’ handle is effectively solidly locked by a rake resting on it (this is a bit like in Phantasm when Jody locks Mike in his room by pushing a screwdriver in between the door and its frame, but possibly even more unlikely). At one stage someone mistakenly thinks they’ve killed Michael Myers, so effectively turns their back on him. A couple of moments later they do exactly the same thing, this time literally turning their back on him.

That’s a lot of worst bits. It’s crap then? Actually no. It’s pretty good. It cracks along at a decent pace and, at only an hour and a half, is soon over with. Some of the scenes/lines/situations are pretty corny, but it’s by no means terrible. Worth a watch.

Will you be watching the sequels/prequels/reboots then? No. Why would you?

Next up, a film which features two particularly great actors: Toni Collette and Gabriel Byrne. This is something of a surprise and makes me think about horror films and their actors. Obviously they’re mostly Keith David and Mia Goth (and before you ask, I’ve checked they’re not actually in the same horror film together), but they are also largely not very famous (or possibly even good). I feel like this may take some further investigating at the end of this exercise, but for now let me just reiterate my shock at finding a horror film with two ‘big name’ actors in it.

I’m talking about Hereditary (2018), a film from A24 (who also produced Everything Everywhere All at Once, Lady Bird and, a film from earlier this week, X). It’s all about a family after the loss of the grandmother.

It’s heartening to see so many strange, new faces here today. I know my mom would be very touched, and probably a little suspicious.

For the second day running, this film is actually alright. I shouldn’t be so surprised by that, but I am. It’s a pleasant surprise.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? It’s definitely a horror/mystery/thriller because you spent most of the film wondering who’s doing what to who; it’s a bit like a whodunnit of horror. There’s arguably a bit of a Fight Club vibe to it, which can’t be bad. Unexpected stuff is always happening, but not in a contrived misdirectional or ‘twist’ way, which is refreshing. The acting’s pretty good. Some of the imagery at the very end is pretty unsettling. It’s not complete nonsense.

What are the worst bits? Whilst the ending brings a bit more sense to the general ‘goings on’, it does take a somewhat broad-brush approach to explaining what has occurred; not quite in the realms of ‘it was all a dream’ but a weirdly ‘simple’ explanation to a lot of unexpected events. The teenage son played by Alex Wolff, who in reality couldn’t have been older than 21 when the movie was film, looks old enough to be MY dad… possibly not, but he’s not a convincing teenager. The creepy daughter is not given the character development or exploration that may have been useful. It also feels a bit long, but only a bit.

Worth seeing? Yeah, why not? It’s got Toni Collette in it, and she gets to do ALL the acting in this role. It’s a single-film attempt at completing acting. Also, as I say, there’re some good scenes reminiscient (but not derivative) of films like The Exorcist.

Number one on Time Out, this is definitely one of the most famous horror films of all time. I had never seen it before, yet knew so many of the lines, characters, scenes and set ups from popular references and phrases that have slipped into our lexicon. This is a proper horror movie (IMDB lists it only as a horror) and the biggest shock is probably that it’s actually pretty good.

La plume de ma tante.

The Exorcist (1973) sets up at a nice steady pace, then things gradually start getting out of control. The initial root of terror is the unexplained sickness of a child, which derives from horrifying aspects of reality. The film is largely framed through the eyes of the mother, who loses one person and has to deal with the whole demonic situation whilst ineffectually aided by clincal doctors and experts who can offer no answers or practical solutions.

So what happened which was unexpected (spoilers if you’ve been living under a rock)? Well we all know the spinny head, the floating, the angry sexual things said to priests… what I wasn’t expecting was the opening few scenes, the somehow chillingly normal 1970s setting, and the ending.

It’s good then? Yes. It has Max von Sydow in it.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? It’s nicely paced. The story is consistent. The characters are believable. It’s based on normality, with the whole ‘exorcism’ thing being the outlier. It isn’t over-explained. In many ways it’s quite a simple tale told simply.

Is it scary then? Not massively, but it could definitely be described as unsettling, particularly insofar as it points to real life.

What are the worst bits? It’s naturally a little dated and maybe feels a touch long. It’s still not the greatest film ever made, but then again what is?

This month is a little more worthwhile then? Oh so very slightly. If nothing else I’ve finally seen a film that has informed so many other cultural items, that my previous unseeing of it was probably an unreasonable oversight.

Fair warning, this contains spoliers throughout. Not really sure how to discuss it otherwise. It’s, you’ve guessed it, another horror film. This time it’s called X (2022), which naturally raises the question: is it as terrifying as what Elon Musk has done to Twitter? The answer is obviously no.

I tell you what is terrifying though. Old age. I tell you what else is terrifying. Intimacy. Put the two together and what do you get? Old age + intimacy = terrifying squared. That’s the theory anyway.

We’re like a foxy car wreck.

The film has what seems to be a pretty straightforward slasher set-up: a group of (generally) young people rent a cabin on a farm to make a porno in the 1970s. The farm is owned by creepy old people (who, in classic horror fashion, are both creepy because they’re old, and creepy). There’s a slow build up followed by multiple murders.

Are there any lessons to be learned? Don’t trust old people, that’s how they get close to you. If a film mentions Psycho earlier in the piece, it will then cement that with strong swamp/car combinations later. If a film mentions The Shining earlier in the piece, it will then cement that with strong axe/door combinations later. Farms are dangerous places. Don’t walk around with your shoes off (although surely Die Hard taught us that). Sex is important/arbitrary/terrifying/disgusting.

So nudity then? Yes. It’s a horror film. Also it’s about making a porno. Also it has Mia Goth in it (from Infinity Pool that we watched earlier in this lamentable series). Now I’ve started to believe that the general nakedness (often unnecessary) found in horror films is the result of two things. Firstly, the time-honoured axis of sex and death that literally everyone has flogged since before Chaucer (and is unabashedly flogged further in X). Secondly, (and this is what I’d called an informed guess) the likelihood of horror flicks being made as ‘make out’ films, for young, horny 1960s teenagers to watch in big cars at drive-in movie theatres whilst presumably getting to 2nd base, or 3rd base (as a non-American I don’t know the base system of sexual conquest). The whole added gratutious nudity element presumably helps to get everyone in the mood. On this point, whilst X appears to start going down that route, it really is not a film to put you in the mood for coitous (well, I really hope it doesn’t). It seems to both condone sexual liberty and try its darnedest to put you off it at the same time.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The relatively slow-moving old people make it a bit like an old-school zombie flick, where the danger is coming at slow speed, but you still apparently can’t escape it. The crocodile set-up is nice. The neck-stabbing leaves little to the imagination. As a slasher movie, you get what you expect from it.

What are the worst bits? I’m not sure what the message was. Throwing in religion just seems to complicate that sentiment further. I’m not sure Mia Goth also had to be the old woman, but there’s a prequel which adds sense to the situation. It’s quite predictable, not completely, but mainly.

Is it a horror? Yes. Slasher horror. A few minor jumps, a decent dose of gore. Some general terror at the horrors of ageing.

Is it scary? No. But, then again, what is?

Are you going to watch the prequel? Possibly.

The Lighthouse (2019), a drama/fantasy/horror directed by Robert Eggers, the same guy who brought us The Witch with Anya Taylor-Joy and Black Phillip (the goat). Essentially a black and white two-hander set on an inhospitable island.

‘Twas ye what damned us, dog, ’twas ye!

At a very basic level this is just two men going mad in (and around) a lighthouse. There’s a lot of nautical and mythical imagery. It’s pretty dark (thematic and literal). ..

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The early section with the seagull, which may or not be important, is absolutely brutal. The weaving of nautical nonsense with the isolation and inclement weather is pretty atmospheric. The generous use of the word ‘ye’ by Willem Dafoe. Actually, just Willem Dafoe. He is the best bit of most things. It’s like he inhabited the actor from the Guinness ‘surfer’ ad for 2 straight hours. The whole film is a bit weird (in a good way).

What are the worst bits? For all that I enjoyed Willem Dafoe’s salty seadog. I often found Robert Pattinson’s acting a bit jarring. The accent/mannerisms may have been authentic for someone of his description in the 1890s, but I wasn’t convinced. Some of the near-constant dialogue seemed unnecessary and perhaps badly improvised. All the drinking was a bit boring and predictable. I feel like the film would’ve benefitted from more tension, rather than vacillating randomly between irreconcilable enmity and drunken joyfulness.

Is it a horror? Again, if there were more tension, or the outcome (and the reasoning for it) was less predictable, then probably yes. There are arguably horrific moments, and there’s a healthy dose of magical realism, so it’s not far off.

What is it then? It’s a play. It feels like it must be a screenplay derived from an actual theatre production, such is the reliance on dialogue and often cramped scenes. However, it is not based on a play. It’s based on a true story about a lighthouse team of two chaps named Thomas.

Worth it’s 7.4 IMDB rating or simply worthwhile? Yes. Why not? It is essentially what it sets out to be. It’s theatrical and lo-fi, dependant on the quality of the acting and the natural/unnatural/supernatural setting which it occupies for its success. I think it’s a touch overrated, but it’s a noble endeavour and committed, so you can forgive it being less ‘gripping’ or ‘convincingly-acted’ than it arguably could be.

If I’ve established anything thus far, it’s that the less ‘horror-y’ a film, the better it seems to be. I therefore thought I’d see how far you can go within the horror genre with possibly the world’s most famous Comedy-Horror-Musical: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I would like, if I may… to take you… on a strange journey.

I had never seen Rocky Horror, and it’s fun, but not really a horror. It’s like Grease with more fishnet tights. There are lots of excellent moments and the songs are generally alright. There’s no real chance to get bored, but nothing happens of any consequence and it’s all rather intentionally silly. I think writing about it is probably pointless except to say that, despite having ‘horror’ in the title, it only has a very loose relationship with that sort of thing, so I probably shouldn’t have watched it as part of Nightmare November. But what’s done is done…

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The time warp. The acting is all pretty awesome. There are some funny moments

What are the worst bits? It’s all a bit haphazard. The songs are pretty consistent and good, but there are a couple I could have lived without. The criminologist – an expert.

Is there any horror? The “monster” Rocky Horror is scary/unsettling. No-one should look like that. There’s some mild instances of peril. The mouth at the beginning is difficult to watch. There’re lots of horror-type characters which are a bit like aliens, dracula, frankenstein, igors and witches. There’s a classic horror set-up (broken-down car, young couple, imposing gothic mansion).

Will you watch it again? Probably not.