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.

Not sure where this next film came from and I think I added it to the list with a feeling that it might not consitute a ‘true’ horror film. However, after the heady mixture of dross and disappointment that ‘true’ horror films had recently brought me, I chose to watch Totally Killer (2023) in the hope that it might not be totally awful.

I hate time travel movies. They never make any sense.

It was not totally awful. It was also not totally a horror film. It was fortunately enough of a horror film to qualify for this whole exercise, whilst being not-enough-of-a-horror-film to be enjoyable. I’ve never seen Halloween (a situation I think will change before month’s end), but I’d describe Totally Killer as a mixture of Halloween, Scream and Back to the Future. It’s a pretty lighthearted slasher flick with fun time-travel elements. Really a horror-comedy, it’s all good fun with a good few murders and sufficient uncertainty to invite some moments of peril.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The approach to time-travel is quite novel (in terms of possible outcomes). There are some unexpected twists and turns, but none are made overly complicated considering the subject matter. The acting’s good. It’s funny. The 80s setting is used to relatively good effect without trying too hard. Despite the far-fetched premise of time travel, the film is more believable than many horror films because the people in it act reasonably sanely: you can suspend your disbelief to accept that IF time-travel was a thing, the events shown MIGHT happen because people act according to relatively sensible reasoning. It all works.

What are the worst bits? Not too much. Pretty much all films could be better, but this does its job well enough. Both versions of Jamie’s Dad could be a bit less weird, but that’s more personal preference.

Have you learned any more about horror films from this movie? Perhaps fun, not-very-scary, slasher-type films are a particularly strong end of the genre. Maybe the less scary the film tries to be, the better it can be. Perhaps films which don’t try too hard to be scary can still be horror films… To surmise, I’ve not learned anything concrete, but I was happier just enjoying a good film rather than committing to yet another full-horror combination of nonsense.

Once again we decided to watch an apparent all-time horror movie great. Once again, we expected to see something half-decent. Once again we were disappointed. Having already watched 11 horror films in a row, I thought I’d understood the genre enough to lower all expectations, even in the face of otherwise stellar reviews (#11 on TimeOut, #20 on Empire, a 7.3 rating on IMDB). I couldn’t be more wrong. This might be the worst film I’ve ever seen. Welcome to Suspiria (1977).

I once read that names which begin with the letter ‘S’ are the names of SNAKES! Sssss! Ssssss!

The soundstrack, whilst loosely reminiscient of Tubular Bells from The Exorcist, was far more repetitive and LOUD. It’s like the director decided that anytime there needed to be a frightening situation, the music should just be played super loud. From practically the very first scene, super loud, jarring music. Don’t worry about building character, atmosphere, or any sort of storyline, just super-loud music. This film went nowhere, was incredibly boring and, once it had decided to be about witches, was immensely predictable.

Director: Should we go somewhere with this?

Someone else: Probably. What about suddenly mentioning witches and making that a thing?

Director: Yes. Let’s do that.

Someone else: What did you say? This music is really unnecessarily loud.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The end. The knowledge that when it has ended you don’t have to watch any more of it. The setting was almost good, but then you spend literally minutes with the camera fixed on something banal whilst SUPERLOUD repetitive music plays, which soon makes the whole setting just annoying. Unnecessary, impractical and unlikely chatting whilst swimming was the best bit, although it was typically broken up by a pointless long single shot where nothing happens and loud repetitive music plays.

What are the worst bits? All of it. I know that’s not very helpful, but there are genuinely no redeeming features. It’s not “so bad it’s good,” it’s just bad. A waste of life. Don’t watch it. Don’t watch it ironically. Don’t be mislead by the reviews or the assumption that there must be something about it that makes it worthwhile. It’s shit. I hate that it was made in the first place. I hate even more that I had to watch it. I will always hate this film.

So are you going to watch the 2018 remake? Good question. The remake has Tilda Swinton, Chloe Grace Moritz, Dakota Johnson and, apparently like all modern horror, Mia Goth in it. Also it just CAN’T be as bad as the original. Whether I’m willing to risk two and a half hours of my life finding out, I’m not sure. The original was such a horrific experience (and by horrific, I mean boring) that I almost never want to see a film again, let alone one called Suspiria.

After such an experience, can you keep watching horror films? To be honest, I’d rather not. If Suspiria, The Thing, The Wicker Man and (to a much lesser extent) Psycho are representative of the pantheon of exceptional horror movies, then I’m truly ‘on a hiding to nothing.’ However, this is a challenge I willingly accepted and, if nothing else, finishing the month will prove that my previous reticence to watching horror films was perfectly justified and that I can dispense with them in the future. I don’t want to say that horror=bad, but empirical evidence is starting to make it seem that way.

You can’t mean that, can you? Maybe not. It’s just Suspiria was so bad. Ask me again tomorrow.