The Signal Watch blog

Last Horror Watch: The Cycle (2026)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 13:33:00 +0000

Watched: 11/04/2026

Format: Shudder

Viewing: First

Director: Jordan Downey

More than one person reached out to let me know I should watch this movie, so thanks if you were are one of those two people!

I wasn't really given any heads up as to what the movie was about going in, so I'll do you a favor and drop this here:

SPOILERS

The Cycle (2026) is an indie horror movie - as indicated by its home as a Shudder original. What made me immediately interested was that the lead is Deborah Ann Woll, who I think is a solid actor but who I don't see in enough things. (Hollywood, get on that. Put Ms. Woll in more things.)

From the title, I knew this was about (a) a murderous bicycle, (b) someone's menstruation, or (c) most likely a werewolf or werewolves.

It was option (c).

Woll plays a scientist who does forensic work. When she was a small child, her father disappeared and did not return. Now, decades later, he's reappeared as a corpse and Woll is asked to look into the case as the small-town coroner/ funeral director can't really sort it out to the satisfaction of the cops.

The corpse doesn't make any sense. He's not showing usual signs of decomposition and the corpse is showing signs of what seems to be an incredible amount of trauma.

DOUBLE SPOILERS

Whoops. Apparently the human host dying is not enough to stop a werewolf.

Yeah, every month the corpse of Woll's father returns to life as a werewolf.

It's an interesting idea! And the zombiefied werewolf is a thing to behold. I feel like after decades of unimpressive werewolf designs, the past few years we've gotten some good stuff. Not only does this movie rely on overwhelmingly practical effects, they look cool! Hooray for people making stuff that doesn't look like a cartoon monster mash or make their creature look ridiculous.

I'm not sure, however, the plot makes much logical sense even with their internal logic.

Woll's father had not run far - for 30 years he's living on a semi-derelict oil platform off the pacific northwestern coast. I assume this keeps the werewolf trapped. I cannot imagine this makes any sense from either a "oil companies can move oil platforms" standpoint, or from a "he has to go to land to get things, wouldn't someone notice him?" sort of way.

I also don't understand why, after 30 years, you wouldn't at least try to burn your own corpse. Or why no one else tries it once they know what they have.

Still, it's a solid, moody, well-performed movie. Woll carries the film just fine as a lead, employing some of the hidden iron she employs as Karen Page on Daredevil. The movie cares about Page's state in a way that feels better written and more honest than many horror flicks that just default to "well, they're scared now, or not scared enough." Woll is dealing with 30 years of a missing father (and, hey, bold call to admit Woll is around 40 in a movie).

But the supporting characters are also well imagined, including Woll's parents.

Anyway, character driven horror! I'll take it.

As a side note - I started this movie before Halloween, and mid-way through we had a curious emergency at the house, and I only got back to the movie Wednesday night. Glad I did. But that's probably it for me and horror until, ironically, Werwulf.

G Watch: Godzilla Minus One (2023)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 13:33:00 +0000

seriously considering this as a tattoo on my right leg

Watched: 11/03/2026

Format: 4K disc

Viewing: Fifth? Sixth?

Director: Takashi Yamazaki

Well, that was a delight. Again.

Jamie and I have each seen the movie four times in the theater, and I think we saw it at home at least once, but I can't find the write-up. Anyway, there is plenty about this movie elsewhere on the site.

Godzilla Minus One (2023) wound up winning the Oscar for FX in 2024. And, in many ways, the movie likely earned the award for making what looks like a $200 million Hollywood movie on something like $15 million. But I think we all know - that movie really received an award for being a successful popular-style movie in the mode of a Steven Spielberg spectacular, and people who saw it mostly really liked it.

Like many Spielberg productions, it's a popcorn movie with a crazy premise but with grounded human characters with compelling, understandable arcs. Godzilla is dealt with as a force of nature more than as a big, goofy monster. The monster is both the aftershock of Japan losing a war for a Japan carried out based on a hubristic view of their place in the world, and the ghost of the belief our hero carries with him that he had a patriotic duty to die instead of a personal duty to live and his choice to live he's labeled as failure and cowardice.

No, I don't think the 20mm guns would have killed pre-atomic Godzilla.

The cast is charming and recognizable as tropes, but each character contain layers that ensure each feels somewhat three-dimensional.

In short - on this re-watch, both Jamie and I noted how tight the plotting and structure really is to this movie, while still working in analogies and metaphors. Again, this isn't a Peter Greenaway movie, it's popular entertainment, but it's saying quite a bit directly to its intended Japanese audience and to the world at large about the cost of war, and what a *good* battle looks like. And it's not one that asks men to willingly die for abstractions.

But the movie sails from point to point to point, covering years of time and still feeling like it moves as a rocket pace. But it does stop to deal with our lead's PTSD - which is the real point of the film, kids.

Since the movie's release I'd argue a *lot* of the complaining about the movie I've seen had been by dorks online was based in the fact that not everyone understands WWII, Japan, honor culture, PTSD, etc... Ie: why couldn't this just be a cool dude who stares down Godzilla and doesn't give a flip? Gosh.

But before you think this is just a movie where Godzilla barely appears (a) that is always the case in every Godzilla movie, as Godzilla doesn't talk and is an inscrutable force of nature, and (b) when Godzilla does appear, this is S-Tier scary Godzilla. Images from this movie are indelible and live right there in the easy-access folder for my mind's eye. And, still, I get tense watching the movie, something I reserve for The Thing and The Shining. And a few shots from Shin Godzilla.

I am not objective about this film. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but this one punches so many of my buttons, storywise and otherwise, I'm here for it every time.

Now I'm all set for Godzilla Minus Zero.

Happy Godzilla Day

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 19:45:09 +0000

On November 3rd, 1954, Gojira premiered in Japan.

Let's all celebrate Big G and 72 years of stomping and being a real problem for trains.

G-Watch: Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 03:09:16 +0000

Watched: 11/02/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Unknown

Director: Ishiro Honda

This movie I may have seen too many times.

Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster (1964) is 90 minutes that feels three times longer than that. I always forget that when I put it on.

Ostensibly the movie is about how King Ghidorah comes to Earth after devastating Venus, but the movie is 80% about a princess of a country where people dress like they raided a Shakespeare festival getting possessed by the ghost of a Venusian and the problems it causes. There's a cop who is supposed to help her and his goofy sister who works for a publication that is basically In Search of....

Godzilla doesn't make an appearance until about the 39th minute. And then disappears again for way too long. He is goofy and does a "my butt!" jump when Ghidorah stings his butt with Ghidorah-lightning. I am fine with this, but that's the sort of Godzilla we've got here.

Eventually we get Rodan, Godzilla, Mothra the Faeries, etc... but holy god is it a long walk to get there. I did enjoy this movie at one point, but I've seen it too many times, I guess.

We don't even really get how much fun King Ghidorah is as a boo-able villain until Invasion of Astro Monster, a plainly better and more entertaining movie.

RomCom Watch: The Love Hypothesis (2026)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 02:55:02 +0000

a movie that fully endorses faculty sleeping with students

Watched: 11/02/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

Director: Claire Scanlon

Jamie reads. A lot. Like, tears through books at a clip I admire but also - I only know what she's reading maybe every 1/3rd book. This was an adaptation of a book she'd read, and she wanted to check it out - and already had.

As your foremost guy who will put on a Hallmark movie as background noise or to nap to, Jamie was curious about my reaction to what is a modern romcom that hits a lot of Hallmark tropes but allows its characters to exist in a world far closer to our own. People swear and take off their shirt to do sports. Gang, there is sex! With a butt in view!

I mostly know star and Executive Producer Lili Reinhart as the girl who played Betty Cooper on Riverdale on the CW. She plays Olive, a RomCom trope with legs. Olive is (a) brilliant but lacks confidence, and is (b) adorably clumsy for exactly one scene. She's (c) hot but not in a way that will threaten our primary audience (and Olive obviously doesn't know it and somehow no one seems to think so). Therefore, somehow (d) against all odds, no one seems to ask her out. But (e) of course she doesn't make enough time for herself, she's so dedicated to her work and has no time for love.

This isn't a criticism. This is like being surprised a cop in a 1980's movie is divorced, drinks too much, is a loose canon, and is partnered with their seeming opposite. It's how these movies work.

And it is here I am going to stop my discussion. This movie was essentially what you think it will be. It's safe to say, this is fine for streaming as part of the package I already have, but it was not theatrical ready. And it's good there's a home and market for romcoms that is not Hallmark.

I do think Reinhart was better than the material and she shows signs she could be a thing. I'd like to see her in some more interesting material.

G-Watch: Godzilla (1954)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 04:23:06 +0000

Watched: 11/01/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Not sure

Director: Ishiro Honda

Well, it's Sunday and on Thursday, we're going to see Godzilla Minus Zero. To prepare, we're watching this movie, Ghidorah: The Three-Headed Monster, and then Godzilla: Minus One. It shall be a mini-Godzilla Gauntlet.

It's been a while since I last watched this one. In fact, I am unclear on when I last saw it. It may have been in the 2010's. Give me some grace, there's a lot of Godzilla I've seen over the past few years.

I love this movie in much the same way I love King Kong. Big ideas brought to the screen without blinking about how insane they are, and leaning into a theme. That said, in Godzilla (aka: Gojira - 1954), the theme is post-war trauma. This is a movie about dealing with what a country went through, and dealing with the cost of destruction and a decision to use the ultimate weapon to make it stop.

Godzilla is not a character in his own movie - he's a force of nature and a reckoning. Yeah, yeah, he's a mix of man-in-suit and hand puppet, but Ishiro Honda and Toho are not afraid to set the world on fire here in a way I'm not sure we'd see again until Shin Godzilla (and then Godzilla Minus One).

Of course the other movies have mass destruction - that's what they do. But this movie literally sets its sprawling metropolis on fire and has Godzilla walking through the flames as children cling to their mothers, who can only comfort them by telling them "we'll be with your father soon". I mean, Christ. Two movies later King Kong is being airlifted to fight Godzilla via balloons - there's a hard turn at Toho after this flick, which is just sad and dark from the first frames.

On a logical level, Godzilla is a sci-fi movies and we're told where he came from - underwater caverns sealed off since the age of the dinosaurs, opened up by the H-Bomb. We get the nuclear angle and some hand-wavy dinosaur science that's off by 145 million years. But who's counting?

Before that, we get the Odo Islanders who know - this is bad juju from the sea, and sacrifices will happen. We explain all we want with science, but at the end of the day, the world we created with war and weapons of war is coming back to bite us. By film's end, what was some folk-dancers is now a chorus being sung across the airwaves praying for peace. What else can you do?

The Godzilla movies have been almost everything over the decades, and some re-boots have ignored everything else except for this movie as they carved out their new path as a direct sequel. But Shin Godzilla and Godzilla Minus One most obviously take their inspiration from this movie, treating Godzilla as a force of nature again, even if they come at it from very different angles.

At the center of the story is the human family of paleontologist Dr. Yamane (Takashi Shimura) who wants to see Godzilla studied and understood. His fetching daughter Emiko (Momoko Kochi) is caught between her supposed betrothed - a brooding Dr. Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata) and a handsome manager of a shipping salvage company, Ogata (Akira Takarada). And Dr. Serizawa's Oppenheimer-like decision to use his weapon.

Anyway, the Raymond Burr version released in the US is... a choice. You can watch it. I'd put this one on instead, any day.

Hallo-Watch: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 31 Oct 2026 22:00:42 +0000

Watched: 10/31/2026

Format: 4K disc

Viewing: Unknown

Director: James Whale

Well, we managed to get in a viewing. It wasn't easy, but we did it.

Still top-tier for me, not as a sequel, but as a movie on its own.

I've been watching this movie for Halloween every year since at least 2015. Maybe earlier. I've lost track, and in ye olden days, this blog wasn't exactly a film-watching journal. So. I don't know beyond 2015. I do suspect I've seen this movie at least 20 times. More likely, something like 25-30 times. I don't believe I saw it until 2003 when Universal put out a crate of horror movies, so it's been a lot of catch-up.

As mentioned whilst discussing this year's viewing of Frankenstein, it felt like that movie left a lot of gaps in the conversation. Bride of Frankenstein picks up saying directly to the audience "oh, we weren't done. That's only half the story," and starts addressing those questions artfully and with pathos and a huge helping of humor.

An oddly quotable movie, somehow the quotes never made it into the mainstream. But have made good meme-fodder for those in the know. I always think today's kids would really like Dr. Praetorius, in particular, but somehow he's not an icon except in classic monster circles.

There isn't a sequence I dislike in the movie - I think Una O'Connor is a stitch, but I know other people don't find her brand of humor to their taste. But holy cats, is the birth sequence for the Bride one of the best things ever. It just fills me with joy. We need more Cosmic Diffusers, electric sparks and labs built into old towers in the world.

The movie tries to pick up the threads of the book, essentially filling in the fact that the creature didn't understand life or death, good or evil in the first movie, and here he learns those ideas. And so he chooses to set Henry Frankenstein free at the film's end, knowing he coerced Henry into doing it all over again, and participating in making someone else as miserable as he.

My only regret is that Elsa was not signed up to make another one of these. All of us would like to think that if the creature could survive, so could our girl. And there's been a few books about this - as well as Gunn's take in Creature Commandos. Most recently, we got the alternate take tanks to Maggie Gyllenhaal, and while it wasn't my jam, I know others love it.

The only down side to talking about this movie on the 31st (or posting on the 1st) is that it's always crunch time, and I don't spend as much time on it as I should. So. Maybe I'll do something in six months with a TLDR, which you people all hate.

Happy Halloween, amigos!

Hallo-Watch: Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 31 Oct 2026 19:34:04 +0000

Watched: 10/30/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: First. Ha. Just kidding.

Director: Frank Oz

James F. watched this and we had a bit of a convo about it in his comments, so I found myself watching Little Shop of Horrors (1986). Again.

I highly recommend checking out James' blog. Dude is crushing it over there, and had some interesting thoughts on this film. I don't always line up exactly (that would be boring), but I always get his point. Get over there and check him out.

So, read his post. My comments I'll limit. We've all seen the movie.

First, my crush on Audrey (if not Ellen Greene) continues on uninterrupted since a screening in 1986. Well done. We wrote about our crush 18 years ago at the old blog.

a goofy, lanky blonde with a heart of gold? I'd never find one in real life

Second, the past decade has seen the rise of the YouTube reaction video, which is its own topic. We covered that in detail. But what I noticed seeing some reaction videos, made largely by younger viewers, is that the context of Little Shop of Horrors is somewhat lost. Ie: people recognize it as a broad comedy, but they don't really appreciate the underlying joke.

Little Shop of Horrors originated as an off-off-Broadway show, not as something intended for tourists and high school productions. It was basically hipster camp - early 80's Boomers coming into their own and doing what young adults always do - dragging the pop culture of their youth into the present. It was the product of people growing up with re-runs of Corman movies playing on TV at 11:00 PM, the Phil Spector catalog (the trio of chorus singers are named Ronette, Chiffon and Crystal, natch), 50's and 60's consumerism as an end unto itself, and the explosion of *promotion*.

This is New York counter-culture folks making fun of all of that while reveling in it.

Grease, which people like to tee-hee about when they read the actual lyrics to Greased Lightning, started as a show in Chicago that went to New York, and in it's initial form was older show people doing a really raunchy show that was cleaned up, over and over, for the tourists in New York as the show became bigger and bigger.

I have seen the movie of Little Shop of Horrors several times, starting with the theatrical release, and the play at least twice (I'm thinking three times, but can't remember where the third time would have been). There are some structural differences, and the ending of the play is different from the end of the movie - which was killed by test audiences. The new, happy ending for Audrey 1 and Seymour, is part of the slow sanitization of the show to now being a high school theatre-kid staple (I don't know what ending they use in high schools, but I do wonder how much gets cut vis-a-vis the hints of Audrey's BDSM relationship with her dentist beau so little Kaylie and Schuyler don't start getting any ideas).

I've seen YouTube reactors watch all of "Somewhere That's Green" without any idea that this song is a joke. It's a period piece, and the period to which it refers is now about 70 years gone, it's the childhood of the grandparents of those making reaction videos. The days of Better Homes and Gardens and Good Housekeeping as a major lifestyle force has been dead for 30 years (I don't know a single person my age who subscribes). Dreaming of plastic on the furniture and Tupperware parties is just what today's kids would do if Influencers told them to do so. And just as today's wacky folks mock 1990's beige, etc... in the 90's we were having a time with fake wood paneling. But if you're unaware of fake wood paneling, it just reads as "I guess people wanted that" without the "and it was kind of ridiculous".

You can't expect for younger generations to conceive of the 1950's creature-feature boom, Corman movies, wacky radio DJs, selling snips of plants in magazines, or bikers in the mode of The Wild One and why making him a dentist is good stuff.

Anyway, you can't expect for The Youth to carry all the cultural ephemera that preceded them like genetic memory. This happens. It's always going to happen, I suppose. And what was transgressive and subversive in the work can get lost, but leaves behind a hollowed out version of the thing.*

Just as punk-inspired fashion is just something the kids wear now without knowing who Johnny Rotten is, things keep moving forward.

Anyway, I've written about this movie plenty before, and as I said up top, check out James' review.

*what I have seen of the most recent Rocky Horror on Broadway and when I tried to watch the Heathers musical online, it was like watching a Disney Cruise approved version of these stories meant not for the audience that originally embraced them, but safe for families

Frank Watch: Frankenstein (1931)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:54:12 +0000

Watched: 10/30/2026

Format: 4K Disc, kids. Yes, I bought a 4K disc so I could see film grain, I guess.

Viewing: Unknown

Director: James Whale

Uh... I have watched this movie a lot, and written about it a lot. We do watch this movie every Halloween, which happens almost every year, from what I'm told.

Think, me, think. What's our angle this time?

So, I think it's worth talking about the movie in non-poetic terms and just what actually happens.

Henry Frankenstein creates his human, and clearly shows why he should never be asked to raise a puppy. One, he mostly leaves his creation in the care of his helper, Fritz (you think his name is Igor. It's Fritz.) who is a malicious bastard and tortures the monster. Two, rather than initially being horrified, it seems Henry Frankenstein just gives up on the creature because he's too much work.

A few days after being shocked into existence, our newly made human is walking, he's following simple commands. Our creature has barely seen *light*, which is his favorite thing. This seems like terrific progress to this blogger.

At first, Henry is smug, pleased with his success. Then, because of an incident, Henry and his Doctor pal who is convinced the creature is *evil* because of brain shapes, decide to put our creature down. The creature, who *just* came to life and spends all his time in the dark, is not yet reading Thomas Pynchon novels or something.

Henry swoons and is whisked away, so he isn't even there when the professor starts poking and prodding instead of, say, setting the evidence on fire.

Our creature throttles the doctor and escapes into *the light* where he eventually *accidentally* kills Maria, which he regrets. It's bad, but he doesn't know what death even is.

It is not a new observation the creature is an innocent here. Which is why it's a bit odd his next act is to surprise Elizabeth. But what did he *do* and why? We never learn. She's seemingly physically unharmed, just very scared. But Henry is now out for revenge, and to cover his tracks before anyone knows what he did.

I'll skip past the angry mob forming - going after the creature because of Maria and Elizabeth, and jump to the end where we trap Henry Frankenstein and his creature in the tower. Henry survives after the creature angrily tosses him onto a windmill blade that slows his fall. And the monster is - seemingly - burned alive. And then we have a toast, pointedly, to a Son to the House of Frankenstein. In this case, I assume we're meant to know it's for the creature if we're the audience.

And, of course, Henry gets off scott-free to live a life of happiness with the dishy blonde.

we rarely talk about Mae Clarke but here she is

And one half wonders, if Henry's former professor hadn't been there needling him, what might have happened? And especially, what if everyone *did* leave Henry alone like he asked? We can only speculate, but it seems less bad than what *does* happen.

I guess, I'm working through how, without Bride of Frankenstein, this movie just... ends. There's no speechifying or consideration given. And the simplicity of it was read into the public consciousness that the creature was the fiend the mobbing villagers believed.

No one says otherwise. No one speaks on the creature's behalf. The monster was a brainless wretch at best, we decided - or malicious! we also decided.

Clearly Whale knows better, and leaves clues. It can seem our cultural opinion of Frank comes from half-remembered viewings from behind the haze of youth or what we've seen in derivative works or Halloween decorations. Much like when I see art depicting Frankie and the Bride in love, it feels like we've all deliberately chosen to miss the point.

I'd argue the creature of the novel, who we all agree is sympathetic, is far more malicious than this Monster. He bumps off innumerable friends and family in his bid to give his "father" a hard time in the book, but in the movie, he kills an annoying know-it-all doctor using bad science.

Anyway, I still want to keep aging into becoming exactly like the Baron in his movie.

Sir Patrick Stewart Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 20:32:10 +0000

Well, I've already pushed back some tears about this one.

Sir Patrick Stewart, our captain, has passed. He was 86.

Prepare for a few generations of people to be really broken up about losing one of the bright stars of our firmament.

I had seen Stewart in one or two things before I came to know him as Captain Picard with the Star Trek: The Next Generation pilot, Encounter at Farpoint. I was, originally, a bit thrown. But, within a few episodes, I understood what Stewart was bringing to the screen.

By the time I left for college it was with a poster that was just Picard, and so it was that Patrick Stewart - in the form of Jean-Luc - watched over me my freshman year.

It turned out that Sir Patrick, out of character, was an immensely interesting person, who seemed to embrace life and the world around him with more warmth with each passing year. After Star Trek, he made a tremendously good version of A Christmas Carol, he became Professor Xavier - a character I held dear from my X-Men reading days, and helped create the comic book movie as it exists now - one that demands the material find a truth to it. And during COVID, he read us Shakespeare.

He was outspoken about gay rights, about equality domestic abuse and other causes, and seemed, above all, a good man.

Among his Star Trek comrades, he truly did seem to be the Captain - the British-trained actor who expected the most out of everyone, and the love the cast showed for him on and off screen was apparent. And I knew during that final season of Picard, we were seeing a terrific gift given to us by that cast and crew. One final mission for a man who was aging and meant much to all of them.

If you can find it, this coming Christmas season, either find his version of A Christmas Carol on television or the audiobook he narrated of Dickens' book.

Fair sailing, Captain. You'll be missed.

Happy Birthday, Elsa Lanchester

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 21:56:15 +0000

Happy Birthday, Elsa.

Today marks Lanchester's 124th birthday.

Thanks to Elsa for marrying Laughton and giving hope to dumpy dudes who hope their sparkling personalities will make up for everything else.

Walter Koenig Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:21:51 +0000

Sorry to hear about the passing of acting Walter Koenig.

Whenever one of the cast of Star Trek passes, it feels like you're hearing someone you knew in high school or college has gone to their reward. And surely Koenig is no different.

As part of the main Star Trek crew who appeared across the series and into the movies, he's been a staple in my life since I was 9 years old. Of course seeing him appear outside of Star Trek was always welcome, but without his Chekov accent, it was always a little odd.

We don't have much of the original crew left. He'll be missed.

Horror Watch: Dolls (1986)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 12:58:10 +0000

Watched: 10/25/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: I'll call it a first viewing

Director: Stuart Gordon

Sometimes I just want to know what the story is or was about a movie more than I care about the movie.

One day I'll do a full de-brief on Stuart Gordon's From Beyond, but the movie which is the subject of our post - Dolls (1986) - and From Beyond were apparently shot back-to-back re-using some of the same locations and sets. They certainly share some of the same producers and a Director of Photography, Mac Ahlberg.

I'm guessing Dolls was shot as a sure-fire money-maker - and it's worth noting one of the producers involved with Dolls wound up writing Puppetmaster - which has a cameo by our own Barbara Crampton, star of From Beyond.

All that aside, Dolls was a movie I saw at least in part around 8th grade. I was staying the night with my pal, Peabo. Peabo had all the movie channels, something we did not have at our house, but that night he fell asleep early - and fell asleep hard while we were in the living room. His mom was a movie-fiend, sometimes driving us to the movies and then sitting a row or three behind us instead of dropping us off (she even came to RoboCop 2). She observed Peabo drooling onto the sofa and pulled up her own seat, and so it was I remember watching at least part of Dolls with my friend's mom circa 1988, lasting til like 1:00 AM. Phyllis was always all right.*

I don't think we finished it, because I only remembered bits til about the halfway point, but that was almost forty years ago, so who knows.

Dolls, itself, is a very un-serious movie that is probably best categorized as "horror-comedy" and feels more like a sketch of an idea than a full movie.

A young girl, Judy, is travelling with her dad (Ian Patrick Williams) and his new wife (Carolyn Purdy-Gordon) on a "family" vacation. The step-mom is a Cruella DeVille sort of terrible human, and the dad is not thrilled to have to take care of his own child, but it's part of the divorce settlement.

They're lost on their road-trip when the car breaks down in front of a spooky, big old house. With a wild storm blowing in, they break into the house. Inside they meet the owners, an older couple, Gabriel (Guy Rolfe) and Hilary (Hilary Mason). Gabriel is a toy and doll-maker.

Immediately, three people crash the house to get out of the weather - two British punk-rockers and Ralph, a nice fellow. One of the girls is played by Bunty Bailey. And if you don't know her, she's the woman from the Take on Me video by A-ha. Here, she's dressed like punk Madonna. The other woman is Cassie Stuart and Ralph is Stephen Lee.

Bunty Bailey goes to steal things from the house when she gets abducted by *dolls*. Judy sees them snatch her away and she goes to tell her father, who tells her to take a hike, and then Ralph, who believes *something* happened.

And that's it. It's a kindly old couple insisting nothing is up as the guests are picked off and transformed into Dolls.

Oddly, I probably like it more than Puppet Master, which came out of the gate with so much "lore" it could have used the simple through-line of Dolls. And I did dig that Dolls, like Puppet Master, has full sequences with stop-motion mixed with puppetry and other visuals. And the creepy transformation of Bunty Bailey is pretty interesting.

It's not a *bad* movie, but no one seems like they think this is much more prestigious than an episode of an anthology show. I do appreciate that Stuart Gordon's sense of zaniness is ever-present, including a completely unnecessary fantasy sequence in which a teddy bear takes out the parents (this is in the first minutes and is in the trailer).

Probably a good first Rated-R horror for some kid out there.

*she also didn't rat me and Steanso out for the time she was watering her plants when Steanso, then 16, drove past their house and I had to exit the car while it was moving and she watched me log roll down the street.

Frank Watch: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 25 Oct 2026 14:35:14 +0000

Watched: 10/24/2026

Viewing: Third?

Format: Disc

Director: Terence Fisher

One of the fun things about having Peter Cushing in so many Hammer and horror movies is that you can see how Hammer had specific ideas and Cushing absolutely crushes it when he plays both the absolutely vile Victor Frankenstein versus the obsessive but good Van Helsing.

Yes, of course, Christopher Lee shows his range as The Creature and Dracula - two *very* different roles. But Cushing goes from one of the most well-crafted concepts for a villain in cinema in the Frankenstein movies to one of the most driven/ obsessed heroes in Van Helsing. Good stuff.

Hammer's Frankenstein movies are the opposite of the Universal pictures. First, they know that Frankenstein is the name of the creator - and, second, they focus on the doctor in every single movie (Henry Frankenstein only appears in 2 films of the Universal films, and then the name is bestowed to the creature). With Hammer, the creature is a product of Victor's genius and madness in the first movie and never appears again. Instead, the movies are about Victor Frankenstein being 100% right, that he *does* know how to create life, sees everyone else is below him in intellect and therefore only valued if of use to him, personally. He's also largely on the run.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) is a departure so large from the Shelley novel it's kind of mind-boggling, but as its own thing - a series of movies about the arrogant and psychopathic doctor, it's wild to see where the movies go. That said, I've only seen the first five, and it's been some time since I watched the rest.

The movie creates Paul Krempke (Robert Urquhart) from whole cloth - a tutor and eventual scientific partner to Victor, he's also the Jiminy Cricket to Victor, informing him maybe they shouldn't be building men from parts. He's such a bummer of a character, you kind of root against him and for Victor to just do his thing, as it seems like maybe he's just nice-guying his way around the fair Elizabeth who is promised to Victor.

That fair Elizabeth is played by Hazel Court, who is so well-mannered it never occurs to her to look in the lab where her betrothed spends 18 hours a day. Like, gurl... She also reacts to seeing a monster looking at her through the window by going outside to see what *that* was about. Not exactly a rocket scientist, our Elizabeth.

Valerie Gaunt plays Justine in the film, a character changed a great deal from the book, but the first signs of Victor's real madness start bubbling up in his relationship with her. You'll remember her as the first vampire woman from Horror of Dracula, and she's probably even better here? I think so. But she only did four things that showed up on IMDB, and these are two of them. Not bad to have half your work wind up as pop culture favorites.

If James Whale built a fascinating, crumbling watch tower for his sweeping sets for Frankenstein and Bride of, the sets here are very proto-Hammer. a castle interior with stairs and a balcony opening up to the main area. The lab feels more *likely* as a lab in someone's actual home, but still has kooky equipment and makes the most of the color film utilized, with bubbling Kool-Aid flavors. And, fun fact, the tank used in Rocky Horror Picture Show where Janet and Rocky make it? That's the same tank used in this film to build the creature.

Anyhoo - I recommend it. I'm a fan. It's a fun distraction of a movie even if it basically tosses the book aside altogether to make a true mad scientist film.

Also, if anyone wants to buy me the 4K restoration, I won't turn down a copy.

Noir Watch: The Woman on Pier 13 (1949)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 24 Oct 2026 18:03:10 +0000

Watched: 10/22/2026

Format: TCM

Viewing: First

Director: Robert Stevenson

We're still in the late 1940's with the release of The Woman on Pier 13 (1949), and there's still more of the grit in the movies that audiences felt reflected the post-war moment than we'd see five or six years later, even in noir.

A movie about the ruthlessness of American Communists and romance twisted to obsession into cruelty, the movie finds us alongside newlyweds Brad and Nan Collins (Robert Ryan and Laraine Day). Ryan plays a guy who came up the hard way, from a San Francisco stevedore to the newly appointed Vice President of a shipping company.

He's met Day as the decorator for his office and married her within two weeks - something that movies treated as fairly *normal* until the 1960's.* During their honeymoon, two things occur.

1) Day says "you don't know anything about me" and Ryan says "baby, our lives started the day we met. I don't need to know anything else." Red flag! Red flag!

2) Ryan's ex-girlfriend shows up in the form of tall blonde Janis Carter playing Christine Norman. She's a fast talking city-gal in fancy clothes, so we've set up the virgin/not-virgin dichotomy noir just adores.

But the real hook is that Ryan's Brad Collins used to be Frank Johnson - a communist! And when he knew Christine, they were both commies, which she still is, despite capitalist success. And she's on a mission - having fingered Frank/ Brad, the Commies want Brad to mess up the union negotiations down at the docks.

The Commies send for Brad and their boss - in the form of the always phenomenal Thomas Gomez - informs Brad he'll not just tell people he was a Fellow Traveler, he'll also reveal to everyone that Brad killed a guy during a strike. Apparently Commies have very thorough and incriminating after-action reports, which they hand-write. themselves?

To keep Brad on a short leash, the ex starts seeing his brother-in-law played by (sigh) John Agar.

SPOILERS

This movie is very bad at understanding that people in extreme circumstances may go to extreme measures. In short, our lead is a coward and rather than face the music, and he throws all the dock workers and his friends in the corporate offices under the bus - and he knows he will continue to do so.

But the hook that the Communists have people write their own reports incriminating themselves seems... kind of nuts? Did real life commies do this? Man, I have no idea, but keeping a record of crimes your people have been doing, even as blackmail material, seems like a good way to ensure the FBI is going to nab you and that no one ever wants to join your org once word gets out (it is, of course, a thing cults do all the time).

But it seems Gomez's character is absolutely asking to get bumped off if Ryan figures he's @#$%ed no matter what he does.

In a way, the movie accidentally argues that capitalists are all cowards protecting their own lot.

In the movie, Gomez also does the right thing and sends a goon to run over John Agar. However, in the context of this movie it's because he's Brad's brother-in-law. The action sends the rest of the movie into play. Which includes Ryan's commie getting killed at the end for the Hayes-approved reason of being a *former* commie, which seems like a bad lesson.

In 1949, don't you want people to stop being communists and see some light in becoming a capitalist?

The movie does have a more nuanced take on Unions than any rhetoric I've heard in my lifetime, or at least since the 1980's as dumb ol' Agar sorts out if he's a Union man or should be a commie. And I admit, Janis Carter makes a persuasive argument for joining up.

The movie is billed as a Laraine Day movie, and she finally manages to become interesting in the back 1/3rd - before that, you absolutely wonder why Ryan is so ga-ga over her. She's fine, but you could have dropped anyone into this role, I think.

Anyway, for top Thomas Gomez, I recommend it. It's exciting but not the most brilliant movie I've ever seen.

*Were Americans doing this? I have no idea. I've never figured it out.

Vamp Watch: Interview with the Vampire - The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Watched: 10/22/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Second

Director: Neil Jordan

Credit where it's due. We don't get the last 30 years of vampire media without, first, Anne Rice's vampire novels and probably not without Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994). It's also hard to explain what a huge deal Anne Rice was in an era of B. Dalton book stores and a lack of access to somewhat transgressive fiction for suburban kids. You want quasi-queer fiction you can read at the lunch table? This was it. And, there is a line somewhere from Anne Rice's novels to Twilight to stuff like Vampire Academy and, absolutely, the current popularity of supernatural romance.

I should be clear - I'm more of a Bela Lugosi / Nosferatu / Sinners / Near Dark kind of vampire guy. I've never read any of Rice's books. And in 1994, I took a pass on the movie in the theaters, in part because I was busy with college, and in part because I thought Tom Cruise was a chode who had weaseled his way into the movie.

I finally watched Interview with the Vampire on VHS by myself at some point shortly after it hit the Blockbuster - but I couldn't tell you when. All I can tell you is that I was really, really bored.

Well, I have news about re-watching this movie in 2026.

I was really, really bored.

At the time - much was made of the casting of this movie, especially casting Tom Cruise as Lestat. My memory is that contemporary reviews were pretty nice about him, a sort of "well, it could have been way worse. Nice job, Tom," thing. He's... fine? I guess. I don't know what else he's supposed to be like, but everyone is tripping over the stylized dialogue by Rice, who is credited as the film's screenwriter. I think real-life Cruise seems far more dangerous than this Cruise, but whatever.

Brad Pitt seems to take "I'm a vampire" as "I'm a stiff, uninteresting guy" which is maybe sensible as his character's hallmark is that he's terrible at vampiring for most of the movie. But does make the entire last quarter of the movie make less sense. If Pitt is doing all of his work internally, it is locked up so tight, no air or light is escaping.

The breakout from the movie was Kirsten Dunst, who was already a powerhouse pint-sized actor. It'd feel weirder, but I'd seen Anna Paquin in The Piano in 1993, so everything seemed possible. I still like Dunst. She's terrific in this, and she's A-list for her generation in my book.

We also get Stephen Rea when he was enjoying his fifteen minutes after The Crying Game, and Antonio Banderas in the thickest wig you will ever see - riding high on his mid-90's success. He is, arguably, the best in the film.

Casting aside - the actual movie reminds me of the times where I've read the source material a movie is based on, and walk out completely satisfied, but for those without all the info at-hand from the novel are left wondering what the big deal was (I think reactions I saw to Project Hail Mary sometimes reflected that POV).

Movies are both more and less than the printed page, but in adapting a book to the screen, *why* things are what they are - that was clear in the book - can get lost. Dropping the necessary detail can occur as the screenplay may focus more on character than plot mechanics and logistics. Some things may be deemed impractical for a movie with a 2 hour time limit, if those story beats don't obviously advance what plot the filmmakers are following. What is shot and performed will impact what we get, as does what gets edited in and out of the final film - movies are made in the edit suite.

I'll argue, Interview with the Vampire leaves way too much out that was necessary for the story to hold, and leaves behind a snooze fest of pouty vampires whining at each other for 2 hours.

Starting in then-contemporary 1994 San Francisco, the story takes place in flashback as Louis, our narrator, relates his story to a befuddled Christian Slater.

For a movie about a literal interview with a vampire, I have zero idea how they got to this point. Slater seems like a skeptical, cynical 90's-sort-of-guy. Why is he in this apartment with a stranger interviewing him at all? It feels like three minutes of this set up would have provided a lot more context.

Through Louis's narrative, this movie spends two hours acting like it's trying to tell you something, but after two hours, I'm kind of unclear as to what that would be. An eternal life condemned to shadows being lonesome and sad gets covered in most romantic vampire fiction (see: many Draculas and Dark Shadows). Mostly it seems like Louis' story creates the very specific world of vampires and the rules for those vampires, and then shows how those rules are bad, indeed, both in regards to biology and social norms for vampires (ie: we don't kill other vampires. Why? I need to know.)

But what it seems to want to dig into is the culture of the vampires, and seems to skim over the top. Because it's the mid-90's, the movie is cowardly about the clearly erotic and sexual underpinnings of what Rice seems to care about: the erotic/ romantic connection between the vampires. Whether Louis and Lestat are having actual intercourse, or their sharing of blood replaces that urge, I can't say, but the family unit is clearly Lestat and Louis as a couple with Claudia (Dunst) as their child. The relationships are not bro-coded, they're coded as lovers. Very AO3.

Similarly, Armand's obsession with Louis (the last quarter bit I didn't buy) is clearly romantic in nature, but the movie just refuses to let two dudes be gay in 1994. And the story makes the most sense if Rea's character is the lover who sees his partner's eye turning from him to something more exciting (and less goofy).

There's also the perversion of human morality, of course, that's given short shrift and never delved into. Yes, we get a scene where Louis and Lestat have a catty fight over him not doing the deed. But we get almost nothing regarding the lives they take, even how they rationalize it, or if the do or don't. We get little about what they feel about what they did to Claudia, just sort of broad strokes about what it means she'll never grow up. There's no commentary about what is witnessed in the Grand-Guignol (based on a real theater, btw), we just see it and Pitt blandly stares at it.

It's a movie about Whoops! All Villains! so it's a matter of who is worse than whom, which in inherently interesting (to me), but all we talk about is how Louis is the Mary-Sue of vampires.

The movie also has some odd logical bits. And that's fine - it is a movie about people who magically get good hair. But, yeah, l didn't get how Lestat was decamping to 18th Century plantation country Louisiana, being weird as hell, and killing 2-3 people a day, and no one has figured it out? That's a minimum of 700 people a year. That's 60-90 in a month. I won't even get into the practicalities of dealing with 90 bodies a month.

And, frankly, the end of the Paris sojourn can only be what it is because the vampires are written to be dumb as fuck. You're going to kill someone's daughter and think because of some gentleman's agreement he's not going to come back and burn your place down? Maybe humans don't do that, but vampires are out there popping off a person every time they get peckish. I don't see them having a lot of qualms about bumping off one of their own. Like, get some dogs or something to protect the place.

I guess the point of the movie by the end is that living forever by murder is bad and not worth it. But I think that's more of a thirty second rhetorical query than a movie that spends two hours going in circles.

As I said, I was bored, mostly. But I have to give props to Rice and the movie, because they really did a thing with this flick, and now we're drowning in pop vampire fiction.

Tom Skerritt Merges With the Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 12:03:00 +0000

Actor Tom Skerritt, fixture of five decades of film, has passed.

Skerritt was kind of amazing because you could just drop him in anywhere and he was buyable. Running a space ship hauler? Sure! Someone's dad in Wyoming. Why not? Sometimes the stalwart, sometimes the villain, we always got the assignment.

He'll be missed.

85th Anniversary of Wonder Woman

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:23:48 +0000

Today marks the 85th Anniversary of Wonder Woman.

Oh, gosh, I guess it was around 2000 that I picked up my first Wonder Woman comic during the Phil Jimenez run. I'd seen positive comments online (where was I looking for comic news in 2000?) and the character, on the page, immediately clicked.

I know I was already interested from reading Morrison's JLA, and was sampling all of the JLA at that time. I was a real Martian Manhunter fiend for a while there.

Jimenez was pivoting away from the sexed up art that had appeared in preceding years in the pages of Wonder Woman - the 90's were an odd time for comic art with some, uh, ideas about anatomy and the general thong-i-ness of female character's costumes. His Diana was an athletic, impressive figure drawn beautifully, but without a hint of exploitation. He understood the character and how she fit into the world - her wisdom was mistaken for naivete, her kindness mistaken for weakness, but at her core, she was made of the strongest iron.

And she proved them all wrong again and again.

I loved the run on the comic and have stuck with the comics more or less since. Until recently, Jimenez's run was one of the last times I felt like Wonder Woman was written as an adult character living in an adult world, which may sound bizarre for a character wrapped up in Greek mythology and magic, but it's that the character could exist in our world and hold fast to who she was and her beliefs that always felt the most satisfying as a reader.

some Jimenez art

The image at the top is from the current run by Tom King on words and Daniel Sampere on art chores. Do I like that he draws Wonder Woman like a WNBA 4 or small 5? Maybe a discus thrower? I am not mad about it. The story is compelling as hell, and the 40-ish issues of the series has been the best Wonder Woman comic books have been in some time.

At the end of this run, I did plan to move to trades instead of floppies. But, of course, DC has announced today they'll make maybe impossible for me as they're now lining up a year of publishing events for the character. Including teaming with Lois Lane, which... I mean. Take my money, etc...

And, yes, I am going to start Absolute Wonder Woman in short order. Stop pestering me. (It's really hard to get past the edge-lord coded art, but I'll do it.) In the meantime, you should go read Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons. It's an astonishing 3-issue series on who the Amazons are and how they came to be. Words by Kellsue Deconnick, art by Phil Jimenez, Gene Ha and Nicola Scott.

Wondy bursts onto the scene!

I have a *lot* of Wonder Woman opinions, and they are of dubious value. Over 85 years, she's been many things. She started as a thesis by William Moulton Marston about the power of "loving submission", and created a bananas world of colorful villains and challenges, powering along just on the edge of what was the norm in superhero comics. And, yes, there's some oddball stuff in there that's... interesting to 2026 eyes.

Of course to the public for four decades, Wonder Woman was Lynda Carter thanks to three seasons of what I consider highly entertaining television. You could do way worse than to settle in for a sprint through the series, which is largely episodic, and easy to digest. Carter's take evolves over the course of the show, from bright-eyed and new-to-the-world, to a person who has seen what man's world has to offer up, and has hope, but knows she'll see it again.

I remain a fan of the first Wonder Woman feature film with Gal Gadot in the role - I think she and Patty Jenkins really did something there. And I admit to getting a little misty-eyed seeing Themyscira on the big screen, better than I ever imagined. But the follow ups with Justice League and Wonder Woman 1984 took a lot of that wind out of my sails. I am, of course, waiting to see what DCSU will do with the character and her world.

in the 'ol red, white and bluuuue

I personally think Wonder Woman is most effective as a stranger-in-a-strange-land. She does best when she can comment and push back against the worst things about us we take for granted. Superman is there to be the best we could be, one of us having power and using it for good. Wonder Woman is there to do the emotional labor, too. Or at least not take the bullshit for granted as something we must merely be better than.

Lately, a lot of stories have revolved around Wonder Woman and Themyscira, the internal politics and mythological shenanigans there, but to me, she's strongest when she's exactly who she is, unapologetically herself no matter what the world wants to make her into. And that is what's been so great about Tom King and Sampere's run.

But, she's also first to extend the hand of peace. She's probably jostling with Superman to comfort upset children. She just wants people to live in peace, and she will whup your ass if you are creating a problem that is preventing people from doing just that.

The mythology of the Amazons is what informs her, as much as Bruce Wayne's parents' deaths are his world. But by constantly returning to Themyscira and *staying there*, I think people are playing with the wrong toys. Yes, it's neat to see her dressing down a god, it's far more exciting to see her saving the day by fighting in our world, not just doing house cleaning.

And keep the sword out of her hand. She knows how to use it, but the lasso is a dozen times more interesting. When your tool of choice is a weapon of *truth*, you're a 100 times more interesting than someone who can poke holes in people (sorry, Wolverine).

Anyway, Happy 85th, Diana. You're an all-timer in my book. Here's to the next 85.

And, between when I started this post and when I finished it, my copy of Absolute Wonder Woman Historia showed up in the mail. DC is not @#$%ing about with these books.

Also, I forgot to mention, Diana watches over me very day as I work.

Noir Watch: The Chicago Syndicate (1954)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:31:58 +0000

Watched: 10/20/2026

Format: TCM Noir Alley

Viewing: First

Director: Fred F. Sears

This was... shockingly good. Or, at least, The Chicago Syndicate (1954) really landed for me. Maybe I was shocked it wasn't bad, tilting into me outright enjoying the film.

I don't rank movies by numbers or stars or whatever, but I give it... 7 Emmylous.

just one Emmylou is quite a good thing to have

I will not be explaining this ranking system at this time.

It's perhaps because the movie has the quick pacing of nearly a modern film, or because they throw both Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane at you... Anyway - I dug it.

After the accountant for the syndicate boss is bumped off by the boss's hoods, law-enforcement has had it, and goes all in by basically buying an upright accountant (Dennis O'Keefe) and asking him to insert himself into the syndicate's organization. Fortunately for them, they've picked the fighting'est, dick-swingest accountant in all the Chicagoland area.

Allison Hayes plays what seems like a lush hanging out at one of the clubs used by the syndicate, and Abbe Lane plays the lounge singer / moll of the mob boss (the redoubtable Paul Stewart). O'Keefe makes his way slowly but surely into the organization.

Well written, well paced and with solid performances from everyone - including Lane who hadn't been in much yet - it's a solid 85 minutes or so. It's not particularly ground-breaking, we've seen plenty of movies in the post-Capone era where paper-shuffling wins the day. But there's some good character stuff, and the movie comes *this close* to reflecting on the misogyny inherent in the set-up, the predictable nature of abuse in that system, and how it's bad for everyone. Lane plays one tough cookie and I don't remember a woman getting slapped around like this in a movie at *all* in this era - and still come back spitting.

Partially shot on location, you'd think filming in Chicago would be a slam dunk. But if I have a ding on the movie, it's that it just looks *fine*. Like, yup, there's a street scene on Quincy, and there's Wacker, but one wonders what it would look like under James Wong Howe or John Alton. Chicago may be tied for the most photogenic city in America that I've seen, and it never feels that way here.

There's probably plenty more to mention about Abbe Lane, who passed just this year - but it's outside the scope of this review. I knew her, frankly, strictly from social media accounts specializing in mid-century pin-ups. Otherwise, I didn't know her previously, but her filmography isn't exactly expansive. But she makes an impression here I'm surprised didn't catch more fire.

At the time, she was married to band leader Xavier Cugat - who was apparently really good at marrying much younger women while not exactly looking like an Adonis, but I guess he must have been wildly cool in person or something. Cugat is in the movie and he's not bad. So that had to have been kind of fun for everyone.

Hayes, who you know from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, is gorgeous and terrific here as a woman who is not what she seems. And that's all I'll say to spoil it.

O'Keefe is just one of those guys who feel like they were assembled at the leading-man factory. He's rock solid, charming, cool and you buy it when his character throws a punch and mixes it up. Ideal 1950's noir stuff.

Anyway, all-in-all, a good 85 minutes of movie. I don't want to oversell it - but it's a movie that sets out to do one thing and kind of sticks the landing really well.

Horror Watch: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:02:52 +0000

Watched: 10/18/2026

Format: State Theater/ Panic at the Paramount

Viewing: Second

Director: Robert Fuest

A couple of weeks ago, pal-CB asked if I wanted to go see The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) at Panic at the Paramount, a now-annual film series hosted between the Paramount Theatre (currently closed for remodeling) and its sister theater/ nextdoor facility, The State Theater.

Really, it should just be a rule that when someone asks you if you want to see Dr. Phibes, you say "yes".

A very odd comedy-horror, there are movies with similar plots, including Price's own Theatre of Blood, but nothing else feels like or even looks like The Abominable Dr. Phibes. It's set in 1920's London with a mix of chic art deco architecture and old-school Victorian homes and offices. Phibes himself dwells in the coolest villain layer I can think of - complete with his own Rock-a-Fire Explosion mechanical band.

A doctor is killed when a mysterious pair release giant vampire bats into his bedchambers at night. While checking out the scene, our Inspector Trout (Peter Jeffrey) is told that a different doctor was killed by bees two days prior. Soon, another doctor turns up dead, killed in bizarre circumstances, and now we have a pattern.

You see, several years ago Swiss musical maestro, organist and theologian, Dr. Anton Phibes (Vincent Price) heard his wife was dying in London, and while he raced to meet her, he accidentally drove off a cliff and burned to death (he did not die). Despite the efforts of the surgery team at a hospital, his wife (League-fave Caroline Munro in an uncredited appearance) died on the table.

Phibes survived and did what we do - he blamed the doctors, calling them murderers.

And now he's killing each of them using a method calling back to the plagues set upon Egypt in the Old Testament. And he's a weird guy, no lie - even beyond the murdering. Style for days, but maybe too focused on work.

I noticed the comedy a *lot more* this time, partially because I was seated next to CB who is pretty quick to have a bit of a laugh or guffaw. There's some very good bits, like no one pronouncing anyone's name correctly and no one remembering what fish the lead detective is named for. The unicorn head, though, got the biggest laugh from me. That's just phenomenal comedic timing.

Anyway, I am not objective about Vincent Price or his work. He's just the best, in my book.

This may be a perennial horror movie more than a Halloween scare, but I think you'll dig it.

Fam Watch: The Addams Family (1991)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 20:06:33 +0000

Watched: 10/18/2026

Format: BluRay

Viewing: Unknown

Director: Barry Sonnenfeld

This was a Halloween watch with the niblings.

Steanso's kids hear-tell that Unky Ry watches a lot of movies, and they kind of like movies, so there's often a bit of "you should watch a movie with the kids" which I am totally game for. But these are 2026 kids with screens, and their relationship to movies is more like... The Minions and Mario Bros. movie than what I watch.

So, as smart, curious kids, they want to know what someone who watches a lot of movies likes, and I can't really say "let's talk about why everyone is wrong about Showgirls and how it's a brilliant critique of showbiz, capitalism and America..."

As someone who grew up thinking The Addams Family was pretty keen and as a 16-year-old eagerly saw the movie opening weekend, I thought "well, I remember kids being there for this one. It's a comedy. Kids love Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston, right? Right...?"

The movie went over like a lead balloon.

It's fine. It *is* a particular flavor of comedy they may not be ready for, and I kind of forgot how horny the movie is, which I think freaked the kids out a little. And, apparently, the notion of things like Wednesday and Pugsley blowing each other up just off-screen did not click.

Well, maybe one day.

Drac Watch: Dan Curtis' Dracula (1973)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 19:27:53 +0000

Watched: 10/17/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

Director: Dan Curtis

I'd heard this particular version of Dracula was pretty good, and I think that's not wrong. I suspect it means more to British people who are familiar with the largely English cast. It's a TV movie from the BBC, I assume, from 1973 and feels like a theatrical release, which is a reminder that TV didn't always put effort in back in the day, but when they did, it could be impressive.

Dan Curtis's Dracula (1973) is essentially yet another version of Bram Stoker's Dracula that mixes and matches elements from the novel and other movies. Parts of it are a wee bit more violent or gory than I expected for the primetime viewing hour, but very Dracula on-brand. But I don't know the context of when and how it aired.

It basically bumps off Harker, which I've seen a few places and makes sense for narrative expediency depending on what you think the end should look like.

I won't get into it too much, but in this one Drac sees a picture of Lucy and she's the reincarnated ex. When Van Helsing stakes her, everything that happens after is revenge for them taking his lady-love away. Lucy also has only Arthur as a suitor - there is a tragic lack of a cowboy in the movie, which is bullshit.

I vaguely remember Simon Ward from something including Supergirl. But mostly I was shocked someone cast Jack Palance as our Transylvanian Tepes. Aside from that, none of these people meant a whole lot to me.

Oddly, Palance is really, really good as Dracula. It's the best I've seen him outside of Shane, and I've seen a handful of his movies (he's okay in The Big Knife).

The thing eschews German Expressionism or even the punchy colors of early Hammer and sometimes looks like Dracula just running around someone's house, which is more or less what the book actually did. That's not to say it looks bad - it's just not using light for mood a lot of the time.

If I'm struggling to say much, it's because there's not much to say - but I think you can draw an interesting line from this version of the story to Coppola's version. Both really want to mythologize Drac's origins and love for a woman across an ocean of time, etc...

Halloween Watch: Trick 'r Treat (2007)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 02:43:06 +0000

Watched: 10/17/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Second

Director: Michael Dougherty

I'm always surprised you don't hear more about Trick 'r Treat (2007). It's kind of the *ideal* Halloween horror movie, but it just seems to float around the periphery.

It has it's own little mascot fellow, just like a Friday the 13th or, I guess, Terrifier (I haven't seen those). It's very much *about* the season while also telling tales for the season. It has an all-timer sequence with Dylan Baker, the most under-appreciated actor of the last forty years.

It plays with multiple horror genres, including kids telling a story about a tragedy, a maniacal killer, girls who maybe should be in peril, and a vicious little demon. And manages to run strong threads to pull it all together.

It's well-shot, has a black little heart, and everyone gets the assignment.

I don't have that much to say about it at the moment. I was positive SimonUK and I had podcasted it, but apparently that was a no-podcast hang? Oh, yeah, it was way back in 2015.

If I go on, I'd likely spoil the whole thing. But if you don't want to just watch a horror movie you could watch any old time, and you want one for the spooky season? This perfectly fits the bill.

I do remember being much more aware of who much of the cast was in 2015, but watching it now... I remember the name Leslie Bibb, but had to look her up to remember why. The movie was also produced by Bryan Singer, which may be why there has not been a follow up.

Crampton Watch: Stay Out Stay Alive (2019)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:33:49 +0000

Watched: 10/16/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

Director: Dean Yurke

Well, Barbara Crampton was not in this one enough to really justify the viewing, but I still watched it.

Stay Out Stay Alive (2019) is a spring of a short story stretched out well past the point where the coil lost all its tension. It's borrowing from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the last ten minutes of Last Crusade, 10,000 cheap horror films, and spooooky ghost stories, I guess.

It's hard not to acknowledge that horror films are (and have been) a way for would-be filmmakers to get noticed. Some folks stay in this lane and just keep making cheap horror movies as there's apparently an audience of eternally-hungry horror fiends who will watch just about anything if you put Barbara Crampton in it. Oh, wait... while we pause for station self-reflection.

But, yeah, that's another cheap movie trick. Just hire a name talent and have them show up in a supporting role. It's not the worst trick, certainly.

This movie *also* trots out the idea it's based on true events, but it's based on all the stuff that happens 150+ years before the movie starts. So, by that measure, every movie is based on a true story, I guess.

Our plot: A group of early 20-somethings go camping. At the ranger station, they somewhat arbitrarily decide the ranger (Crampton) is creepy and so they choose a different camp site than the one they were assigned to, lest she come find them.

At *midnight, in the woods* one of the campers decides to go for a hike.

A lot of this movie is people doing things someone *might* do, but those things are not narratively interesting or satisfying, and may make you think that person is just an idiot. But, it's also hard to know what choices the characters are making versus how are they being influenced by the wrathful spirits of the murdered Native Americans.

thrilling permit-checking action!

You see, our midnight hiker fell down a hole and into a mine. When discovered, instead of getting help, they keep going down into the hole. And in that hole? Gold. Not narrative gold, just haunted gold.

Our stars have different personalities, and that's definitely on the actors - many of whom don't even have a headshot on IMDB. But they're working their roles, as thin as they are. But they all get gold fever and decide to get as much as they can without drawing the attention of the ranger.

And then a bunch of predictable stuff happens.

I was bored to tears by this movie and kind of quit watching it after opening my laptop, and it really didn't matter if I looked away, because it was all the same conversations in a circle for the back 60 minutes.

And then there's a moment where we see the ghosts, and it's just... awkward.

My pal JAL has a thing where he judges a movie seemingly more by "what were they trying for? Was it new? Different?" than even if the execution was entirely successful. I think about that sometimes while looking at a movie - and I don't feel like there's anything novel or fun here. It's more of an exercise and reel for our writer/ director than anything else. And that's fine. It's just not my bag, baby.

Anyway - you can confidently skip it.

Horror Watch: House of the Long Shadows (1983)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:15:56 +0000

Watched: 10/16/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

Director: Pete Walker

Like a dork, I saw who all was in this movie, got excited and hit play.

And then the credits started with with "A Golan/ Globus Production" and I died a little inside.

House of the Long Shadows (1983) is like an aging musical super group. Imagine you just got Jagger and Richards, paired them with Townsend and Stuart Copeland on drums, but then fronted by, like, the talentless child of Donny Osmond.*

Anyway, the movie features my boys Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, along with John Carradine. And then the movie stars Desi Arnaz Jr. for some reason. It's a very Gothic, Poe-esque, Old Dark House sort of movie, which is usually a solid set-up to begin with.

In this case, our framing device is that Desi Arnaz Jr. plays a popular American writer in London to promote his novel. He's a supposedly cynical fellow, and after a debate about the writing in things like Wuthering Heights (which makes him sound like a douche canoe) he agrees to go out to a Welsh Manor where he will write a whole novel in that style in 24 hours (the balls on this douche canoe).

Soon after his arrival, he discovers two housekeepers in the form of a elderly John Carradine and Sheila Keith. Then, his agent's secretary shows up (Julie Peasgood) followed swiftly by Peter Cushing, Vincent Price, and then Christopher Lee.

What spills out is a good sort of locked-room, decaying-family mystery that unfolds with great performances from the older actors just enjoying a good hang together. But it feels like they're dragging an anchor meant for a cruise ship taking Desi Arnaz Jr. along for the ride. He'd have fit in well in a sitcom in 1983, been good, even. He just has no gravitas, and in this company, he's just out of his weight class.

SPOILERS

The movie is also a tad predictable. You kind of know at the beginning "everything we see will be what's in his actual novel'" and despite two fake-outs, yeah. That's it.

Like, as you watch the movie you think "this won't be what it looks like" and sure enough, they went for both other options. By 1983, we don't want our horror uncles and grandpas to get bumped off, even if that's the better version of the story.

Anyway, I certainly don't regret watching this movie. It wasn't great, but it was fun seeing my guys.

*I don't know if the Osmond children exist and/ or are talented or not. Stick with me.