This movie flew under my radar despite all the awards it won. I liked Yorgos Lanthimos' previous films, "The Lobster" and "Killing the Sacred Deer," which were darker, more tense films. Even looking at some of the reviews of this film, I think they are missing a key point, that I was immediately clued in on...this is a remake of "Bride of Frankenstein".Much in the same way, "The Shape of Water" is a remake of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon".
Yes, I know there is a book this is based upon. Still, that book is also another telling of "Bride of Frankenstein" Mary Shelley, never delved into the Bride aspect, aside from the fact that the Monster demanded Victor Frankenstein make him a mate, a project he started on, but became repulsed by the idea and aborted the project, thus escalating the Monster's malice against him.
Though the film portrayals of this rarely use this part of the story, unless they dedicate an entire movie to it. This more whimsical take on the story does add its own detail, such as Emma Stone's character trying to kill herself while pregnant, and the unborn baby's brain is transplanted into her, rather than just being bodies cobbled together to create new life. Willem Dafoe's character is the Monster, whose creator, whom he refers to as his father, picked up the art of reanimation, as the entire estate is filled with experiments that add to the atmosphere of the film.
In the movie itself, you can feel the ambiance of a Terry Gilliam movie. Emma Stone's acting is great. The wardrobe department took inspiration from Poppy, as every outfit Stone wore made her look more like her. The only flaw of this movie is a common mistake when Hollywood tries too hard to push something like girl power, as the movie's message becomes, the best way for a woman to make her way in the world is to become a whore, as she can not possibly have any other qualities aside from using sex as their stock and trade. This is the lesson Emma Stone's character becomes empowered by, with her big moment being not someone's property. Thus, she turns the tables. However, this is a minor annoyance; the bulk of the movie was a feast for the eyes, and well acted to you are largely distracted by this.
Technically this is not a horror movie, though the premise feels like something from a Brian Lumley novel. By the end, it feels more like something from a video game that mixes "Silent Hill" with "Call of Duty". The acting is really what sells it. Because this is an Apple Plus film, they have severely limited the impact, as it is better than most things I have seen in theaters recently. For Scott Derrickson whose main movies have been horror aside from Doctor Stange, he is branching out and showing how much more he is capable of as a director.
What sells the movie is Anya Taylor Joy, as Miles Teller does his best Jeremy Renner impersonation. I guess Joy is the Black Widow to that, as this could have easily been a Hawkeye / Black Widow movie for Marvel. Miles is however good enough to develop chemistry with Joy. Not that how this develops is really a huge surprise, though how this all goes down displays enough creative sparks to keep the movie fun. I think less would be more even it comes to the monsters. When you learn their origins it has been foreshadowed enough for it to all click, but the strength of this movie is how the visuals unfold when they dive into the gorge, there are many scenes where it looks like the cover of a death metal album, which of course appeals to me.
There was more of a sense of adventure than dread, as the movie turned. The protagonists were always capable and never afraid of their powerlessness even when confronted by un-natural creatures, which sets the tone for an action movie not a horror movie, This might be seen as darker sci-fi as well since science plays heavily into what unfolds, at the end of the day it's story telling with a hear to it that these actors tapped into and suspended your disbelief to invest into these characters , as the world that was so well built;t for them lent itself to further suspending your disbelief which at the end of the day is what movies are supposed to be about.
The very premise of this movie, if you have been baffled by the trailers, is going to be a spoiler. If you can not figure out what is going on in the first 30 seconds of this movie then you are also stupid enough to believe the trailer's claim that this is the most terrifying movie you are going to see all year. The closest Steven Soderberg has gotten to a horror movie is the thriller 'Unsane". This is obviously a ghost story so it seems like an odd choice for him given the types of movies he normally makes. In some ways, it reminds me of "American Beauty" when it comes to the struggling teen dysfunction, which is almost the real horror of the movie.
Now to talk about what is both the movie's strengths and weaknesses. This is not the first ghost story told from the ghost's perspective. The Other's felt more like a horror movie in how it pulled this off. It feels more like Soderbergh flipped the "Paranormal Activity" franchise formula on its head and made it work thanks to its bigger budget, allowing him to hire better actors and effects that work for what the film is trying to do without going overboard. There is a subplot that lays itself out right before going into the third act. The actors sell out on it and this is a well-made movie for what it is.
The problem with what it is lies in the fact this is a ghost story that is not scary. Making the claims the trailer made feel that much more ridiculous. I enjoyed this movie, I watched it in a day, which is better than what I am going to say about "Wolf Man" when we get around to talking about that. This makes this movie the bar for what movie's need to be scarier than in order to be considered horror this year, it is rides the line, and almost relies on the sub ject matter to belong on this page.
In 2024 the Horror genre continues to prove that it's not defined by A24 or Blumhouse, Shudder brought some strong indie fare. Social Media certainly shapes the way horror is marketed to us now. However, there was more buzz than hype for most of these movies. Most of the years more hyped films like "I Saw the TV Glow" were not horror or live up to the hype, thus not making the list, There was less word of mouth with these movies, some I never hear being brought up. The key to horror is it has to somehow make me feel uneasy. Just gore is not enough, This year the things that went bump in the night included classics like vampires, werewolves, zombies, ghosts, and psycho killers.,
These might not be the movies that got the best Rotten Tomatoes score, though they all did pretty decent, nor are they the most popular as the most mass-marketed movies tend to be for the lower common denominator. If your favorite movie is not on the list, it is not because I did not see it as I saw most horror movies that graced small screens and the inner webs this year, it is because in some cases your favorite movie was unimpressive or trying too hard, in other's well it was not that scary. So, these are movies that proved to engage me in some way more than the other horror movies not on this list. Here are the top ten horror movies of 2024
10-Werewolves
This movie takes the Purge and combines it with werewolves. It reminds me of the late 80s, sometimes this works better than other times when the werewolves look too much like puppets, I had to pretend this movie was from the 80s, but it was fun, despite its faults.
9-Oddity
Ireland has been busting out some decent horror in recent years, and this one is another notch in its belt. The Lovecraftian vibes are what earn its place here. It's a slow burn but maintains its eerie mood. Sure there are some plot holes, but suspension of disbelief is easy to maintain.
8-Terrifier 3
With a bigger budget, comes a more fully fleshed-out story, that takes Art the Clown in a more Nightmare of Elm Street direction as supernatural elements continue to expand the mythos. It's entertaining and works off the hype of having to make each film more extreme, but it also wanders away from what made the first film a classic.
I really enjoyed the "If Friday the 13th was an art film" feel of this movie. The pacing is very deliberate and not for everyone. Some of the gore scenes felt like they were from the 80's with Terrifier levels of absurdity which was an odd choice in its contrast, thus keeping it out of the top 6.
I understand why this is a love-it-or-hate-it film. It really depends on how invested you are in the 1922 version. I think where they dropped the ball was not sticking to the classic Orlok look. Aside from that, the movie looked great, though Dafoe carries it when it comes to acting as Orlok keeps to the shadows. It is a feast for the eye, that entertained me.
I like this movie's take on Hollywood and the ugly face of it. The cinematography was perhaps the year's best, but the writing did not have as much behind it, and the movie fell apart by the end, it ranked this high because it's such a good-looking horror movie with cool practical effects.
If David Lynch had directed "Silence of the Labs" then the results might have been similar. It was creepy and carried a lingering bleakness, that might not have come across as scary as the movies that took the top three places, but its atmosphere solidified its place here.
This movie was a lot of fun. Sure it worked off a familiar trope, but it did deviate from your typical vampire fare. It looked good but was creepy and tense. This tension gave classic horror fans more of what they wanted than, movies that were pretty to look at or more atmospheric in nature.
2-Late Night With the Devil
Sure there were some campy elements when it came to some of the effects and overacting, but it did a great job capturing the stylistic mood it sought to capture, and carried a looming sense of dread., underneath the smile the host gave the camera. It beat out the other eight films on this list thanks to a more original concept, despite pulling from a few familiar horror motiffs.
This Netflix movie from the Philippines takes the zombie genre and all its tropes and shapes them into something very bleak. It's as much about generational trauma as it is a s commentary on the end of the world. Things never get better only worse. This is more effective than jump scares. It takes the building tension of a movie like the "Shining" and gives you nowhere to run. Well made and effective in the way to goes after your psyche. It took the number one spot as it had da better ending than the other movies, better effects, and acting that felt real.
Eggers remake of the 1922 silent film finds him keeping the mood of the original film and building off it to create his own gothic vampire story that like the original is another retelling of the Bram Stoker story, though where the original would depict Orlok as a different character from the Dracula we would later come to know from 1931 "Dracula" as a suave seductive gentleman to Orlok's creepier monster persona. The first elephant in the room is the fact I had seen promotional pictures from the movie that showed Bill Skarsgard in makeup much closer to the original portrayal of Orlok, than what would appear in this film. I can appreciate keeping him in the shadows, but this new persona made him a more shambling wreck of a creature, perhaps to create more of a contrast and make Deep's relationship with him more shameful. But I kept waiting for him to shed the mustache and emerge as the classic Orlock which did not happen.
The film's strength was in its visually striking cinematography and the world that Eggers created. There were few shots wasted and even less than were not stunning to look at. Eggers said that he did not want the film to be contaminated by other cinematic vampire portrayals. He succeeded in doing this , though he comes closest to Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula from 1992. Both stick close to Stoker's book, though Egger's takes the slant of Orlok's arrival bringing a plague to the city. Willem Dafoe and Raph Ineson give the film's two strongest performances, with Dafoe stretching himself the most, while Ineson pretty much does what he does, it just falls into place here. Skarsgard serves as a body for make-up to be applied to and pantomimes his way through the film. Considering the original was a silent film this might be for the best.
Deep looks good in the costumes and once again serves as a body holding the place of a character who is walking through life in a dream-like trance. Her experience as a model comes in handy, as she sells the look more than tapping into an emotional connection with the role, and does not have any chemistry with anyone, though Dafoe carries the scenes with her. But perhaps this is intentional, as she could not connect to anyone so called forth a spirit to be with her, which is the crux of the movie, though it feels more told than shown despite that is how the film opens, a little more interaction with Orlok might have sold this fact better, but it worked well enough. I can understand where fans of the original are going to complain, this movie is more of a art piece based on concepts from the original. I enjoyed the bleak miserable mood it creates, and the darkness that envelopes it. It's not a happy Hollywood ending, which I also value in horror movies. A great experience to look at even at the cost of the high expectations that come with the source material.
There is a lot to like about this movie. It is tense, as the characters fall down their spirals in what would be a tragic manner if it was not driven by the ego-driven madness that is Hollywood. Things take a turn for the aging fitness icon, so she turns to a shadow corporation to make her young again. This is where the twist in the film is as it goes in a more Jekyll and Hyde direction, though Hyde is not a distorted monster version of herself but a younger hotter one. It is sadly being hailed by some as a feminist masterpiece when it is about narcissism taken to gruesome extremes.
Being famous is a choice, and rather than being thankful she made it to where she did Moore's character shows where self-obsession will take you and how Hollywood is the perfect echo chamber to bring it to a boil. The cinematography is pretty breath taking, its artfully delicious, with vibrant colors paying homage to Stanely Kubrick. Hyde is not the only classic monster it gives a wink at as John Carpenter's Thing, can be seen in the way the body horror goes to twisted extremes. There is also influence from both "Carrie" and the Hunchback Of Norte Dame. But you are less sympathetic as the characters only suffer the consequences of their own actions making this a cautionary tale.
All the eye candy makes this a fun ride, but while you are being dazzled by it you forget this is not that original concept just many mashed together Dorian Gray being who this story lifts most liberally from. By the end, you can tell where it is going, and it all falls apart with blood splatter that is hardly justified as there is little actual violence in the film aside from a showdown of sorts between the older and younger self. Until the end, the gore works well, as mutations from breaking the rules set it. It is a dark movie despite the bright lights is find's itself which might be its best quality. The writing and dialogue are lackluster, but the distraction works until the very when it just settles for a stylistic wandering. It is still recommended as it is technically brilliant even if the script needs substance.
We might as well get the biggest elephant in the room here out of the way... this movie is NOT horror. There is nothing or unsettling about it, if you found the plot thread of the main character's 'friend" wanting him to go off to the TV world dimension scary, then you need to get your diapers changed and go back to watching Nick at Nite. There are those of you who also just want to support the movie because it's almost completely shot in bi-lighting, and that is great, but when it comes to what actually makes a movie worthwhile, key elements like acting and storytelling, it falls pretty flat with the acting being the worst offender here. I had a feeling they were trying to make the main character on the spectrum and that fell flat, aside from his uncertainty with social cues.
At the end of the day you never had a stake in the game they were boring perpetual adolescents who I could have cared less if anything happened to them, thus eliminating any tension that could have developed, if the story went anywhere, which it did not so we do not have to worry about that. Here is where the chorus of Why can't you just let people enjoy things comes in whenever people shatter the social bubble of what the narrative is supposed to be and excuse shoddy art. It is not gatekeeping horror by saying this is not horror, no more than it would be to complain at the fact someone put a box of Capt Crunch Cereal where the box of croutons is supposed to be at the grocery, they are both edible, but one you pour milk on and eat for breakfast, the other you put on a salad. In fact, it's just good marketing as this film might have had a bigger box office if it was marketed as an art house teen drama because people who do not like horror movies might go see this and like it since it is not a horror movie. Simple business.
Genres and labels exist to help the audience find the art. This art works better in theory than execution. I guess if you are super high out of your mind you might like it, and it has a solid message in questioning the nature of reality, they do not go as far as saying it's a simulation but introduces those concepts, not scary concepts they just are thoughts worth exploring. Directors like David Lynch and David Cronenberg explore this kind of surreal filmmaking but done with more depth and better execution, compared to those guys this is trash. It's also an hour and a half of my life I wish I invested differently, there are actual horror movies I could have been watching with that wasted time. The only worthwhile part was when King Woman was on stage.
.jpg)
.jfif)
