Return of the Living SB Movie Experiment: Pontypool

[bob loves the Hurt Syndicate]

I'm a big fan of all of the options on the poll that I've heard of......so I flipped a coin and voted for The Shinning.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Deadly Prey

Suggested by I'm Team Bayley and Indi


WOW...

I mean... WOW. Wow wow wow wow wow... that is... wow.

Have you ever seen a movie where you knew for a fact that exactly zero f***s were given? And I don't mean stuff like Birdemic or The Room which turned out to be unbelievably abysmal but still, you can tell the person behind them genuinely wanted to make something compelling and thought-provoking, so there is at least one f*** given.

This film... is incredible. it is a catalogue of every single 80's action, war and vigilante movie clichés rolled into one, and the most beautiful thing is that it's all played straight. At no point did the makers of this film ever have a second though. Not during writing (the story being simultaneously almost non-existant and unbelievably stupid), not during filming, not during editing, not ever. They knew what they wanted to do and they did it, somehow never realizing how profoundly dumb every single frame of this work is.

Right from the very start this film surprises you with how no-one has any clue what they're doing yet nobody cares. We don't need your advice. F*** you, we're making Deadly Prey and it's going to be the best film ever. The opening scene, before the credits even roll, is our hero, who we can only see in silhouette against the sunset, striking a pose which I think is supposed to evoke a roar of victory but just looks like he's having a stroke and to top it off, the film throws a nice surprise as just as you think it's going to fade to black, it goes out of freeze-frame to show him grabbing his rifle in a confused determined manner. That's how they chose to open the movie.

So, the story, which as I alluded to earlier, is incredibly basic yet somehow these guys managed to make it one hell of a trainwreck. It's about this mercenary group who kidnaps our hero, Mike Danton and he must escape from them. Sounds simple enough and as good a plot for a mindless actioner as any, right? But wait, it turns out they kidnapped him... for training. No, they don't want to force him to train recruits, they want him to run around a forest so the trainees can hunt him, because their leader believes war games are bullshit. It just makes too much sense.

Now I'm no expert on subject but if I were the head of a mercenary group, especially one like the one shown in this movie, I would try and lay low. But wait, it's not quite stupid enough yet so they make sure to kidnap him in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, while his girlfriend is watching them. They also operate "75 km south-east of Los Angeles" (even though they can make the trip back and forth to kidnap him in what looks like minutes, as does Danton, by foot) so... presumably a fairly densely populated area because I guess the bad guy doesn't believe in discretion either. This is compounded when we have a scene where two rednecks just... randomly stumble upon Danton one morning while he was still asleep after setting up camp; they mock him for a while and tell him to leave (and before you ask, no, he does not even consider asking them for help). And no, they aren't with the mercenaries, which further gives the impression that they seriously are in a wood just outside a heavily populated area and Danton could probably make it to a highway and escape easily if he weren't such an unbelievable imbecile.

And that's about all there is to he plot really. All that is set in about 10 minutes and everything else is a stampede of stupidity, a stupede if you will. I can't really give too many specific examples because it would spoil the whole fun, but you have to see our hero, wearing nothing but an absurdly short jeans short for 90% of the movie, his admittedly chiselled body glittering with oil, killing mooks by the dozen in the most ludicrous ways imaginable (I have a soft spot for that time he somehow digs himself underground and springs up form under his enemy's feet), grenades that kill you instantly and make you fly several metres yet don't leave a scratch on your corpse, the businessman character who invests in the mercenary group, whose ridiculousness is outmatched only by his pointlessness (he gets killed halfway through by, of all people, the hero's father-in-law after a speech that will make you shed a tear. Of laughter, but still), Danton picking up a rifle only to never have it again, mooks that never notice their colleagues being slaughtered right behind them no matter how much noise they make, etc... this film is an unintentional masterpiece.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: wow. You really have to see it for yourself to fully appreciate how insane, incompetent and insaly incompetent this movie is.


Next, we'll stick to action but somehow I think it will be a bit easier to take seriously, as we will celebrate out 50th film milestone with the semi-biographical martial arts film Ip Man.

[Deleted]

I can't vote via poll, so I still vote Would You Rather

[I'm Team Bayley and Indi]

Forgot I suggested Deadly Prey months ago, really enjoyed your write up of it, really captured what fun the movie is.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Oct 20, 2014 15:26:54 GMT -5 I'm Team Bayley and Indi said:

Forgot I suggested Deadly Prey months ago, really enjoyed your write up of it, really captured what fun the movie is.

Glad you liked it. I think this movie is actually the best example why "self-aware" attempts at making movies that are intentionally this cheesy don't work: this film has got to be one of the most extreme examples of 80's cheese I know, it's all the clichés you can think of taken to the limit, and what makes it so fascinating is that the people who made this still intended to play this all straight and having it be good. They didn't see what was wrong with it. The appeal is how far the end product is from the original goal. So if you try to make it intentionally bad, it ends up feeling forced and, paradoxically, you end up with something far LESS self-aware than the original work because they completely miss the point of what makes so-bad-it's-good movies so enjoyable: they are accidents.

And that's this movie in a nutshell: you can't believe someone made this and thought it was genuinely good, yet here it is before your very eyes.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Alright! Voting is closed and we have our results! I shall review the films in reverse order of how many votes they got in order to keep the most requested one for the end. Only six movies actually got votes, so the seventh movie will be the first horror film to come on the backlog. Similarly, since we have multiple draws, I will refer to the backlog to see which films with the same amount of votes come first. So, without further ado, let me reveal the list of films I will review for Halloween Week and the order in which they will be reviewed:


Day 1: Would You Rather?

Day 2: Ginger Snaps

Day 3: Rosemary's Baby

Day 4: The Shining

Day 5: Plan 9 From Outer Space

Day 6: Dracula

Day 7: Teeth

[Deleted]

We had a poll? Yay someone voted my suggestion Ginger Snaps!

[Glitch]

Let's hear a review of Sanctum. I can't be the only one who hates that thinly veiled snuff film.

[Deleted]

I can't wait to hear this review of Would You Rather. I went either way with it

[Deleted]

Oct 25, 2014 15:16:07 GMT -5 Glitch said:

Let's hear a review of Sanctum. I can't be the only one who hates that thinly veiled snuff film.

Trust me, you're not

[Glitch]

Oct 25, 2014 15:21:35 GMT -5 cageking666 said:

Oct 25, 2014 15:16:07 GMT -5 Glitch said:

Let's hear a review of Sanctum. I can't be the only one who hates that thinly veiled snuff film.

Trust me, you're not

I just want to hear Ssnakebite say "Sanctum? More like rectum!"

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 1

Would You Rather

Suggested by cageking666


Would You Rather is a horror movie in the long-standing tradition of "deadly game" sub-genre of horror. In this case, we have a wealthy asshole who tricks people into participating into a sadistic version of titular "Would you rather?" game. You know, like when you take turns asking friends stuff like "would you rather be farted on by a hippopotamus or be followed by a family of ducks for the rest of your life?", except here, the choices are between two horrific options and you have to act on it or be killed, so really it has very little to do with the original game when you think about it. But still, it's fairly standard fare for modern versions of such films, especially since the Saw franchise revitalised them, except of course, it's when they started focusing on this kind of plots that the Saw films started sucking really hard.

But what about this film? Well, I wouldn't say it sucks but it's not particularly interesting either, owing mostly to its gimmick of trying to adapt the "would you rather?" game, which makes the pacing very awkward and repetitive, especially since for every round, every character is faced with the same choice, making it all the more tedious. Really, once you've summed up the premise of the film, that's pretty much all there is to it. They do try to bring more interest with a few more... proactive moments and to be fair, the film did manage to genuinely take me by surprise a couple times with some moments whose conclusion I thought I could predict a mile away, only for the film to throw me a curve ball and take the scene somewhere I hadn't expected, but eventually the statu quo doesn't really change.

When it comes to the characters, this film is a rogues gallery of Hollywood B-listers. Brittany Snow, Jeffrey Combs, Jonny Coyne, John Heard and even Sasha Grey all make appearances to add a notch to their "I know I've seen him/her everywhere but where have I seen him/her?" belt. I've got to praise this film for having main characters who are actually likeable and even act in a believable and fairly rational and intelligent manner, being decent to one-another and immediately deciding to work together instead of screwing each-other. For example, while in other similar movies I often end up wondering why they don't even try rushing the bad guy (sure, they might get hurt, but the alternative is getting killed anyway), here they do try and it almost looks like it's going to work... almost. All that does help identify and sympathize with the characters.

On the other hand, the villains are ridiculous and in no way believable. First we have the archetypal rich asshole who dresses flamboyantly, views poor people as toys and you bet your ass he does the evil laugh and of course he's still acting sophisticated because oh the irony of the contrast between his attitude and his actions and something something decadence of the upper class something something social struggle symbolism something something we've seen this a million times before. Then we have the one asshole of the group who acts and talks entirely in clichés; they do try to slap on a tragic backstory on her at the last minute, but it's so forced and comes in so late it only makes things worse.

The acting can also vary widely. While Combs is his usual endearingly over-the-top self and manages to salvage his ludicrous character, the actor playing his son just comes out flat, although I must admit he is not helped by a character and lines that would have felt more at home in a parody of this kind of films. And can we finally agree that Sasha Grey just isn't a good actress? Look, I know she's become something of a pop culture icon, she's obviously a women of many talents as she's also a musician and author, but acting isn't one of them so I would encourage her to pursue her other ventures and drop this one.

So yeah. As far as this kind of movies go, it's not awful - Hell, when you've seen Death Tube, you start welcoming anything that isn't as incomprehensibly stupid - but as a horror movie or a thriller, it's just not really worth watching when there are so many better options out there.


Tomorrow, Halloween Week continues with a movie about a tragically forgotten type of monster, werewolves, with Ginger Snaps.

[Deleted]

You have any other recommendations for the deadly game genre?

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Oct 25, 2014 21:05:59 GMT -5 cageking666 said:

You have any other recommendations for the deadly game genre?

Not many, unfortunately. Thing is, most of them... aren't very good. It's an interesting concept but it needs especially talented writers and directors to pull it off. I suppose Battle Royale would be the best example and it IS a very good film, though I'm not sure it really fits the description. I might be able to think about one or two more but off the top of my head, nothing more really pops up.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 2

Ginger Snaps

Suggested by @supersweetbotch


With a few exceptions like Scream, teen horror films don't really get a very good rap. Even the better ones (Final Destination, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc...) are generally seen as rather generic cash-grabs and frankly, it's rarely unfair. This one, however, is more than that. Now don't get me wrong, it's not great, I wouldn't put it among horror classics, but it is good, it doesn't go through the motions like most teen horror films do. It actually tries and usually succeeds to bring something new to the table and to be scary and atmospheric.

As I alluded to at the end of the previous review, this is a werewolf film. Brigitte and Ginger, two gloomy Goth-ish sisters obsessed with death (as many teenagers are) try to get back at a bully girl from their school but in the process, one of them ends up bitten by a werewolf and over the days starts becoming one herself.

Now, as with many werewolf stories, this one obviously uses it as a metaphor for puberty (physical and psychological changes, hair growing, etc...) and it's unlikely to be a coincidence that Ginger has her first period the same night she gets bitten (which seemed weird to me as she's 16 and already looked pubescent before but then again, I have only rarely been a teenage girl so what do I know?).
It's interesting but I'm not sure how much I like this parallel because I couldn't help but feel it isn't fully realized; they didn't do much with it other than pointing out that being a werewolf is weird and scary, just like going through puberty. It doesn't help that the film seems to change its mind halfway through and decides to replace that with a metaphor for drug abuse (with one character being a weed dealer and all) which to be fair I found more fitting and better executed than the puberty one.

That said, it doesn't take away from the fact that it remains an enjoyable film due to fairly good writing. There are hiccups here and there, like the fact that everyone seems to have serious hearing and vision problem as they never hear people screaming metres away from them and they don't spot corpses until they're right in front of them or, in one case, literally fall onto them, but I liked the way they treated the werewolf mythos in an original manner and I especially liked the fact that it's a slow burn done well (again, something that's missing from many teen horror films), making it feel like the sisters might be able to keep the situation under control and deal with it at first, only for things to spiral further and further into madness, making you wonder if they haven't already crossed the point of no return.

I was pleasantly surprised with the characters too. At first I thought we were dealing with generic dickish angsty teens in a way that bad writers think teenagers act, being rebllious for rebellion's sake, never cracking a smile and hating everything, but while it is true to an extent, they are indeed three-dimensional characters and show a more likeable side that makes them more relatable. It's almost like in Daria, where the teenagers are somewhat angsty, but they're not ridiculous emotionless drones and they do care about what's going on around them.

Visually speaking, the film looks very good with some impressive make-up and animatronics work, to say nothing of the gore effects (I'm surprised the film only got a 12+ rating over here, which according to IMDb makes it the most generous age ratings the film got in the World). However, brace yourselves for a nostalgia trip as this film is bathed in that weird early-2000s grungy aesthetic from that short window of time when we tried to out-90s the 90s.

All in all, a flawed but still good film, definitely worth watching and a very good entry-level horror film. Certainly way aboce your average teen horror film, and it's nice to see werewolves again.


Next on Halloween Week, we have a classic from the 60's. One I've been wanting to see for ages and I finally get an opportunity, it's Rosemary's Baby.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 3

Rosemary's Baby

Suggested by bob loves the Hurt Syndicate


This is of course an all-time classic by Roman Polansky, from the days when the creepiest interaction he had with children was making horror films about them (although the story is adapted from a novel by Ira Levin). The story is that of the titular woman Rosemary, buying an apartment with her husband Guy, with who (spoilers) she intends to have a baby. After a few days, she starts noticing strange goings on in the building and even though she pays little mind to it at first, she becomes increasingly suspicious once she becomes pregnant, and starts fearing for her baby's safety as she becomes convinced cult activities are going on.

Right away, let me tell you that this is a slow burn. A very slow burn. So if you're not into that, you'll probably find it boring. I didn't as I don't mind a movie that takes its time (especially in horror) and the direction was good enough to keep you interested, but I must admit there were times I felt it could pick up the pace a bit.

Other than this, I really liked the trippy, bizarre atmosphere that came from the movie (probably enhanced by the fact that the 60's aesthetics is strongly present), especially during the various dream sequences, not to mention it's left ambiguous for a long time whether those are dreams or not. However, I found it an odd choice to reveal many aspects of the plot to us ahead of time, leaving Rosemary to discover it as we already knew what was going on, at least in large parts. For example, it is revealed to us (or at least very heavily implied) early on that a sect is behind everything but Rosemary has to figure it out herself.

Still, definitely a good horror movie which is all about atmosphere, almost something that Poe or Lovecraft could have written. It's really the kind of films we need to show the countless people who seem convinced that jump scares = psychological horror (it's not gory so it HAS to be psychological! That's how that works, right?). In fact, I seem to have spotted many influences on the Silent Hill series: blurred line between the real and the imaginary, cult with a ritual based on pregnancy, etc... in fact, a somewhat important element of the film is a pendant given to Rosemary inside which is a small item said to be a good luck charm, and an almost identical pendant is owned by Heather, the main character of Silent Hill 3, and also contains a good luck charm inside it.


From one classic to another! The next film is an adaptation of one of my favourite books. Let us see what happens when the nightmarish mind of Stephen King meets Stanley Kubrick's in The Shining.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 4

The Shining

Suggested by bob loves the Hurt Syndicate


Warning: there will be some pretty big spoilers for both the film and the book. I usually avoid those, but here I felt it was necessary to explain my opinions.

One of the all-time biggest names of cinematic horror, based an already massively successful novel by Stephen King. In fact, I think your enjoyment of this film will be largely influenced by whether or not you've read the book. I think that had I seen this movie with no knowledge of the book, I would have absolutely loved it because objectively, it's an excellent movie. Being a Kubrick film, it of course has brilliant direction (and it should considering he drove Nicholson and especially Duvall to such emotional extremes that it's a bit of a miracle that they didn't recreate the events from the story in real-life) and all the actors are giving outstanding performances, especially of course Shelley Duvall and Jack Nicholson.

But having read the book, I couldn't help but continuously feel that comparing the film to the book, the book executed the same concepts better on almost all fronts. I understand that in an adaptation, there will be changes as some things that work well in a written media don't work so well in a visual one and I am actually quite impressed that Kubrick cut very little of the story, but I can't help but feel many of the changes Kubrick made were not very wise, especially since he changed some very important aspects of the book, at least from a thematic point of view.

The biggest problem I have with the film is Jack Torrance. Oh don't get me wrong, Nicholson plays him to perfection and in fact, he's probably the best illustration of what I mean when I say that without reading the book, I probably would have appreciated this film a lot more; but here's the thing: in this film, Jack seems to go from zero to psychotic in the blink of an eye. There's few tender moments between he and his family, few moments where he's even likeable.

In the book, it's a lot more gradual, Jack going slowly out of his mind, so subtly that even as a reader, you almost don't notice the changes in his attitude (or at least worry about them) until it's too late. On top of that, there are many scenes that show him genuinely loving his wife and his son, trying as hard as he can to give them a good, comfortable life and overcoming his inner demons, which make it all the more dramatic and sad when he finally loses his grip on his own mind.

Plus, there is quite a lot of back and forth between the moments where he's slipping and moments when he's regaining control, which really make you believe he has a chance to transcend his vices, which of course makes a great parallel to his alcoholism as his actions mirror those of a recovering alcoholic constantly struggling to avoid falling back into it and how it can affect their psyche. In the film, it's pretty clear right from the start that he's going to go literally ax-crazy, which I feel makes it less meaningful to the viewer as we sympathize less with Jack; we never truly expect him to recover so we're not shocked when he goes nuts.

Another change I have a problem with is the character of Dick Halloran. In the book, he is a very important character who eventually saves the day and even survives, staying in contact with Wendy and Danny after the events of the Overlook hotel, with the implication that he will help Danny master his gift and use it for good. In the movie he does have a talk with Danny about his power but after that, he doesn't do much, gets unceremoniously killed as soon as he makes it to the hotel t try and help the Torrances and really, his subplot could have been cut out of the movie entirely and it would have hardly affected anything. But of course the worst change is that in the book, he's depicted as sporting a massive afro and in the film, he's bald. Unforgivable.

My third and final major gripe with the changes is Jack using an ax. Okay, I get that to many people, a roque club may look silly as a weapon (I don't really get why, but whatever) but still, an ax feels like such a generic weapon when again, in the book, Jack using this specific weapon had a high symbolic value, which you'd think Kubrick would be very sensitive to. If you're going to replace it with something more menacing, how about a meat tenderizer (especially considering they spend several minutes introducing us to the kitchen at the beginning of the movie)? It still head the two heads, which are usually of different shape, keeping the symbolism form the book alive, and it certainly is a threatening weapon.

As for stuff specific to the film, I really don't have many problems with it, except for maybe the music. Don't get me wrong, it's excellent and very disturbing... but I feel it was used a bit too liberally. You have this very tense and creepy music that plays very frequently, even in scenes where there is really no need for it when nothing creepy is happening and you can't even use the excuse that it's meant to show the characters' feelings as it plays during scenes where the characters are pretty relaxed. This kind of makes me wonder if a big part of the reason why people found this film so scary isn't due solely to the admittedly haunting and creepy soundtrack.

However, as I said earlier, this is still definitely a very good film and I still have to recommend it. Even if you've read the book, I think you might be interested to see an alternate take on the story. Inversely, if you have only seen the film, I strongly recommend reading the book as well.


For Day 5 of Halloween Week, we'll take a look at a film that... well, I guess it also is a classic, but for completely different reasons. Just keep in mind that future reviews such as these might affect you in the future. My friends, can your hearts stand the shocking incompetence... of Plan 9 From Outer Space?

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 5

Plan 9 From Outer Space

Suggested by Ringmaster


Like My Name is Nobody, one of the first films I watched for this thread, I had actually seen a bit of this movie before, but it was only 20 minutes or so and even then I didn't remember much about it other than a mixture of hilarity and confusion, which is a feeling that pretty much sums up the experience of watching Plan 9 From Outer Space, one of if not the first so-bad-it's-good movie to become famous as such and as a result, the go-to reference whenever someone discusses such films.

Well, there isn't much I can say that you don't already know and trying to describe it is pretty much impossible seeing how everything you think you know about the plot is immediately contradicted by another element. It is a veritable monument of incompetence, a golem that only managed to find life thanks to one man's infallible determination... and naiveté. Everything, EVERYTHING about it is wrong. The hockey acting, the cheap sets, the constant contradictions, the awkward editing, the incomprehensible dialogue (literally in the case of Tor Johnson's character before being zombified), the certainly "special" effects... it's quite incredible that this film was such a disaster in so many ways while still actually being finished and released.

It is less to be seen as a movie and more as an unbelievable voyage through Ed Wood's man. How could someone have so little talent without noticing it? Did he honestly believe that his tricks would convince anyone? How did he read through his script and find nothing wrong with it? How did he miss so many blatant mistakes, to the point that one actor purposefully acted like an idiot with his gun in many scenes just to see if he'd notice, the final film being evidence that he didn't? When you see this film, you can't help but wonder how man like Ed Wood functions.

I mean sure, I could describe in great detail everything wrong with this film on a technical level but what would be the point? We all know about the toy saucers on strings, the silly lines, the wobbly tombstones, the stock footage that doesn't match the rest of the film one bit, the actors casting shadows on the matte paintings/blank walls and all that, so that's how I recommend watching this film: as a study of Ed Wood's psyche, an unbelievable illustration of an adorably naive yet obviously strong willed man's complete lack of self-awareness.

In a way, even though people love this film for how hilariously bad it is, I think deep down there is another reason we love this film and Ed Wood in general: because as much as we mock him, at the end of the day, he did what he liked and let nobody tell him how to live. Ed Wood was what we all wish we could be: a small guy doing what he's been doing of dreaming and finding joy in doing it no matter what. And after all, who cares if people don't like your stuff - Hell! Who cares if you're not good at it, as long as you do it and have fun doing it?

So yes, despite itself, Plan 9 From Outer Space has become a very important part of cinema as has Ed Wood, who went so far towards bad that he turned around and approached genius from the wrong way.


And it is quite fitting that, after seeing a film starring (stock footage intended for other movies of) Bela Lugosi doing his Dracula schtick, we will be taking a look at his original performance, for on day 6 of Halloween Week, it's Dracula. Would you care to join me for a drink?

[bob loves the Hurt Syndicate]

I like how you went from The Shining to Plan 9, and the next film to Dracula all three of which I greatly enjoy for very different reasons. It's almost as epic as the Metropolis Sharknado double feature.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Halloween Week: Day 6

Dracula

Suggested by bob loves the Hurt Syndicate


I hate to say it but I'm actually pretty disappointed; the film really hasn't aged well. Granted, it still offers some stunning visuals with some of the backgrounds but in most aspects, although I can see the 1931 crowd being impressed with it, much like a vampire unable to feed, it has lost its lustre and its power. There are only so many times I can try to convince myself that a toy bat on a string (which to be fair still look a Hell of a lot better than Ed Wood's flying saucers) and lights shined into Lugosi's eyes are scary, or that Dwight Frye's overacting isn't ridiculous.

I mean sure, it's still fun to watch Bela Lugosi in his most famous role and to spot the famous lines ("yaaay! He said the thing about the wine!"), but this film just doesn't have enough meat to it in my opinion. It never really seems to get off the ground. Scenes happen, follow one another, but it doesn't seem to form a coherent story and the atmosphere never really settles. Characters just kind of know things because I guess they just happen to know them, Van Helsing being apparently already aware of everything regarding Vampires in general and Dracula in particular. As a result, there's no real conflict or tension. It's just kind of "Oh, count Dracula is here, I guess. And he's a Vampire, I guess. Suppose that means we gotta kill him. Oh look, we've killed him. Celebratiooon".

If you add to this that at 75 minutes, this is a very short film for a major release with obviously great artistic ambitions, there just isn't much to it. I understand that perhaps pop culture has referenced and parodied this film so much that it has retroactively become cliché like so many classics, but I very much doubt I would have been impressed with it even if I had no knowledge of vampire movies. Like I said, events just sort of happen and everything is exactly as it should be with no twist, no turn, no surprise. Sorry Dracula, you were once a mighty creature, but now you're better off resting in your coffin.


But tomorrow is the seventh and final day of Halloween Week and I know one way or the other, this film won't leave me stoic. It is the most-voted film for this week, it is the one you've all been waiting for, and it is a film about a subject which I must admit is indeed exceptionally scary. That's right, for Halloween, YOU made me watch this: