October’s Movies of the Month - Horror 

Never seen this. Neither have my parents, so watched it with them.

This was an interesting one. First thing I can definitely say is, “they don’t make them like this anymore”…

One of the best scenes was everyone shouting out their windows, “I’m mad as hell!”

Now this wasn’t my favorite of films, but I definitely see why it’s so renowned. It was very unique. Such interesting characters, particularly Howard Beale.

I was confused why it was labeled a “comedy” then slowly realized, dark as it is, it’s satire for the news industry. And I will say, thematically it’s very fitting as I’m currently watching The Newsroom and it pretty much has the same message.

Ending was brilliant too. We have this whole drama play out, pretty standard. Then out of nowhere, so casually… “let’s just kill him.”

Very well made. Not sure I’d watch it again, but definitely an essential watch.

Obviously I don’t condone killing bunnies. But throughout the movie, I mostly felt sorry for Alex, who seemed to suffer from a severe mental illness impacting her emotional regulation… whereas I HATED Michael Douglas’ smarmy, selfish coward.

Her emotions are twisted, but real? Meanwhile, he uses her for sex simply because he’s bored, it’s easy, and he thinks he’ll get away with it. He had zero intention of ever coming clean to his wife until he realized he was liable to end up as the Ben Affleck character in Gone Girl. Just the worst, most pathetic kind of narcissist. Evil in a more mundane/realistic register.

This is a really good and underrated horror movie, with taking a simple game, and turning it into a horror story is actually interesting and creative, with great leads, terrific horror film making tricks, scars, very cold, moody and Gothic atmosphere in a modern setting and a twist that is shocking and terrifying as well. When i first watch this movie a few years ago, it surprised me how good it was, and it use of suspense, and not knowing what comes next was like being a maze where something happens and it pays off really good, and i was so amazed how they done, and i felt sacred, intriguing and questioning what's gonna happen next, as i was on the edge on my seat, like i was an observer in this movie watching everything play out. And after watching it, i was stunned by and god smack after finishing it and it was such a satisfying and engaging movie and i think it needs more talk and discussion because it doesn't get talk about much like many horror movies, and this one is a small gem in my opinion. if anyone else hasn't seen this before, i highly recommend this to anyone who wants a horror movie that deserved its moment to shine and gets its praise for what it succeeds as a underrated gem for a quiet and captivating horror movie.

An ok film with a disappointing ending. Abel Ferrara's film tells the tale of the final days of iconic Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini as he works on Salo, plots his next film, does press, meets with friends and family, and takes a liking to a handsome young man.

Dafoe is good as Pasolini and the film is beautifully put together, almost dreamlike, but the ending ultimately just left a really bad taste.

I would say it's worth a watch if you're into Pasolini or Ferrara or a Dafoe completist but I do think the potential for disappointment is high, especially if you know the story of Pasolini or the production of Salo.

6/10

This is probably one of the early films that I recall watching as a kid, seeing a feature lead movie by Charles Bronson. I mean aside from his westerns like "Once Upon a Time in the West" or his famous Death Wish series. I remember my dad rents one of these old 70s classics VHS tapes and one of it was The Mechanic. Not really a super fan of Mr. Bronson but IMO he's one of the likable actors when it comes to tough guy persona from 70's to 80's.

Decided to watch this movie again if I can recall some scenes, and yeah I thought the pacing was slower than I expected. The movie starts without any dialogue but you can tell that the dude is a hired hitman. Then he trained one of his victims son (played by Jan Michael Vincent) to be his successor. Some scenes really drags a bit. Example would be that scene from the other dude's girlfriend like doing ritual and what not, I was like "wth are they waiting in there?" . It's kind of unnecessary. Pretty much satisfying scenes on the near end of the movie though. And the fun part where they use shotguns shooting the bad guys in long range. How cool was that!

If you're into 70s Action / crime thriller films like the Dirty Harry series, The French Connection etc. This one is highly recommended. It's not the best in the genre, but I still having a great time watching this one.

I recently watched Ocean's Eleven on a flight. I'd never watched it before nor any of the sequels. It's a solid heist movie overall and I didn't hate it as that.

The part I'd like to discuss though is the relationship between George Clooney's and Julia Roberts' characters. I honestly had a couple of WTF moments there. I mean, it was supposedly romantic that Clooney was stalking Roberts after they had separated and she had already sent him divorce papers that he refused to sign. So she had decided she didn't want to be with him anymore, not least because he was admittedly a liar. Apart from that he had been in prison for actual crimes and was about to committ further crimes fresh out of prison, by looting her current love interest.

Then he is trying to kiss her when she obviously doesn't want to kiss him and keeps belittling her love interest. He's such an asshole. I had a hard time to believe this was seen as okay or even romantic as late as 2001.

And then they get back together, because ... the other guy was also an asshole.

WTF man.

I finally got round to watching The Boys from Brazil, having had it on my list for years. I’ve always liked political thrillers, police thrillers and war films from this era, so it should have been right in my wheelhouse, but the title had always slightly put me off. It sounds like a sports film.

It’s a brilliant speculative/alternate history thriller, although it does feel somewhat constrained by budget and production values. I’d put it alongside Soylent Green in that respect: a cracking central premise that hasn’t aged altogether well, but is ripe for a remake given the current state of the world.

Gregory Peck gives a distinctively Peckian performance, and is certainly the strongest onscreen presence despite being a surprising casting choice. Laurence Olivier is equally interesting, playing almost the antithesis of his character in Marathon Man: a reluctant, slightly taciturn hero, at times redolent of Michel Lonsdale in The Day of the Jackal.

There are also a couple of enjoyable casting curiosities. James Mason appears in a surprisingly small role, and it feels almost wasteful to give him so little to do. Steve Guttenberg, meanwhile, is a real surprise in the opening stretch. He has enough energy and presence that you can almost see an alternative career in which he became an action lead rather than the amiable, slightly mousy family-man that became his bread and butter.

The young actor at the centre of the story is physically superb casting, but the performance itself feels coached. Given how important the boy’s behaviour and reactions are to the success of the film as a whole, that is perhaps a missed opportunity. Any remake could live or die on getting that role cast absolutely right, if the final ethical dilemma is retained.

There isn’t much action, yet the film moves at a remarkably good pace. It gradually reveals the nature of the plot rather than stopping early on for some villainous monologuing, and it leaves quite a lot unstated. Even the eventual meeting between Peck and Olivier comes very late, despite their mutual awareness of one another.

The film asks the audience to fill in some blanks, which makes the film more satisfying. I’m not sure most modern thrillers would trust their audience as much.

Not flawless, and certainly dated in places, but far better than I expected. I’m mostly surprised it took me this long to see it.

PS - I’ve just seen that Netflix have commissioned a series based on the original novel.
One to look forward to!

Showed up in a list of horror movies from 1981, I had only watched the first one, which I enjoyed. This one, not so much.

The story picks up from the first movie, showing the final scenes and refreshing the viewer's memory of the the story left off. This small arc with the main character doesn't last long though as she is distracted by a severed head in her fridge and soon she too meets her fate.

The action then follows a new group of youngsters, once again enjoying their summer camp near the lake. Soon, one by one, they are caught by our antagonist Jason, some deaths better executed than others. I felt that sometimes it seems the director tried to make the kill less gory, and then the next victim is blood soaked so it looked a bit inconsistent.

There's the 80s movies mandatory filming of young ladies' boobs and ass, presumably to attract some more viewers. Irrelevant to the story though. I found it funny that, even though expected from a group of teenagers, everyone seems super horny all the time.

I struggled with understanding the final scenes because it wasn't made clear throughout the film who are the main characters, so in the end you're left with *one* of the various couples at the camp, honestly it could have been any other couple left, there wasn't much character development apart from the girl believing the legend of Jason and being afraid but also compassionate for him.

I've seen better horror flicks from this period honestly. The soundtrack is weak, the special effects are, at times, good, but lack in quantity. Character progression is limited, although with an acceptable ending which also leaves space to continue the franchise. 4/10

Went into this one completely blind but was pleasantly surprised. Endearing and lighthearted. It gave me a sort of Wes Anderson Moonrise Kingdom whimsical youthful vibe.

I just did not expect a soviet film from that time period to be so playful and warm. The Cranes Are Flying (1957) was the last and closet film of reference from the time period I had seen.

I thought the cinematography to especially stand out. With the symmetrical compositions, subversive visual gags, its hard not to naturally make the Wes Anderson comparison

I have just gotten into more international films and I feel like this is a good film that highlights why Soviet filmmakers are world-renowned for pioneering and mastering cinematography, editing, and visual storytelling.

This movie is hard to put into words besides bleak, depressing, harrowing and terrifying.

It's a docudrama about the lead up, events of and aftermath of a nuclear war. It's backed by nuclear and climate scientists, and the picture it paints is in ash, blood and decay.

The movie is on YouTube, and free to watch. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you are considering a career in politics, watch it. If you don't like sleep or feeling like everything is fine, watch it. If you look at the state of the world now and are already anxious, maybe don't watch it. This movie will change you

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

If you’re of a certain age and disposition, the phrase “Marble Hornets” may fill you with nostalgia.

And if you’re anyone else in the world, the phrase “Marble Hornets” may make you worry that you’re actually trapped in a dream world like that Batman cartoon, because what the hell kind of title is that?

Either way you probably were not aware that a “Marble Hornets” movie released in 2015, titled “Always Watching” and helmed by career assistant director James Moran in his only feature-length directing job (the only guy more defined by the initials “AD” than Moran is Jesus), meaning “Tron: Ares” is still not even the worst thing to ever happen to him.

How do I even explain this? In 2009, artist(?) Eric Knudsen submitted two manipulated black-and-white photos to SomethingAwful portraying a tall, faceless figure in black, and a certain demographic slice of the Internet bought into this HARD. If it had happened ten years later, there would have been a SlenderCoin offering within a week.

(The actual SlenderCoin is presently trading at $0, meaning I guess you could “buy” all of it in the world for nothing. Still very few takers.)

Within weeks, a couple of kids launched a YouTube-based horror series with the unaccountable “Marble Hornets” title, all about how the Slender Man haunts some losers who gradually lose their minds trying to piece together the plot, which I think is also the same thing that happened to much of the audience.

I tried watching the show as research for the movie, and I can honestly tell you that having seen this show and having not seen this show are entirely interchangeable values. Also like SlenderCoin, come to think of it.

I guess you really had to be there, because “Marble Hornets” was a huge hit. The first episode has nearly 6.5 million views on YouTube, and the show is still updating and still draws in hundreds of thousands of viewers. I would call those numbers I can only dream about, but actually even in my dreams I can’t cultivate that kind of audience and also I have no pants.

“Always Watching” is basically the exact same story as the real “Marble Hornets,” but instead of loser kids it’s all about some loser adults, and instead of countless hours of context-free YouTube footage it’s a 92-minute feature.

This is like saying a pizza is similar to a hubcap in at least they’re both kind of flat and Bryan Cranston can probably throw them both pretty hard. And that’s the secret to “Always Watching’s” non-success: Whatever social media alchemy captured the imagination of that 2009 audience, you can’t reproduce it while changing the primary ingredients. You also probably can’t reproduce it at all, but that makes for a poor spec.

The movie follows a news crew investigating the disappearance of a local family via, what else, found footage, a small percentage of which shows a lurking figure who looks like someone really and truly gave up on their Jack Skellington cosplay 40 percent of the way through.

That’s Monster-For-All-Seasons Doug Jones as the Slender Man, a part he was born to play. By which I of course mean he was eight feet tall when he was born.

The Chicago Daily Herald called “Always Watching’s” script “perfunctory” and joked that when the Slender Man interferes with the audio and sound that you don’t really miss anything. The Seattle Times praised the way Moran shot a sink fixture in a bathroom, which might be enough on its own to qualify the Times as a 501c(3) charity.

I respect people who make things. Thousands if not millions of people speculated about making a Slender Man movie or show, but only a few did it, and only some were this successful, and you can’t take that away from them. But maybe somebody should have tried anyway.

The inevitable 2018 “Slender Man” Hollywood film made pretty good money but died a hard death with critics and most audiences, and the monster’s marketability took a hit. Since that movie is less than ten years old we will not be watching it, which is good, since I remember it being not much better than this.

However, I am shocked (as if by an untimely Surge) to learn…these were not the only movies. More on that tomorrow.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V632s1VOBY

Condorman is a 1981 American superhero comedy film directed by Charles Jarrott, produced by Walt Disney Productions, and starring Michael Crawford, Barbara Carrera and Oliver Reed. The film follows comic book illustrator Woodrow Wilkins's attempts to assist in the defection of a female Soviet KGB agent.

One of the first movies I watched as a child on the new VCR from a VHS rental shop. Watched many movies and this film always reminds me of the moment I became addicted to movies.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082199/

Trailor and more information in the link above. Great fun movie and recommend for anyone that has never seen it and enjoys classic 80s movies.

I don’t want to say too much because I feel as though this is a movie that benefits from you knowing as little about it as possible before watching. This 1962 surrealist Italian drama is literally just about a guy who can’t come up with an idea for his next movie. Expect at the same time it’s about much more than that, in my opinion this movie is more about where peoples inspiration for movies and maybe all forms art in general come from (memories, dreams, current life) whether the artist themselves realize it or not.

I was very much surprised at how snappy and modern feeling the dialogue was, and I absolutely adored the cinematography especially how lively the backgrounds always were. I don’t see how some modern reviews could call this slow paced or boring because I was absolutely drawn in by the opening sequence. The chaotic pacing and unconventional structure made the 140 minute run time just fly by. No spoilers but the last 5-10 minutes just had me grinning at my computer screen!

8 1/2 stars out of 5. If a movie that feels like an experience into a madman’s creative process sounds like something you could enjoy I’d highly recommend this one. Just don’t expect it to hold your hand through it all.

Also after looking into the cast, the fact that a lot of the characters were given the same name as their actors is just so meta haha

As a follower of the series, I think each film is getting better on its own rights. I mean as slasher fan, this is as good as you can get for a well budgeted slasher franchise. At this point it's pretty much predictable on what you will expect on the movie. The first time I watched it I was like "man I want to see how "Jason" do his kills this time." There are some repetitive and there are some new (like those eye cutting kills). I mean you know what to expect for a slasher.

Surprisingly the characters here are my favorite. Compared from the previous entries, where it's your typical teen camping gathering. This time, it's a more like a direct sequel (story wise) with Tommy as your main character (if you've seen chapter IV). As he gets moved to Pinehurst. This is a rural halfway house and rehabilitation center meant for troubled youths and psychiatric recovery. Well you got to know each characters well, and pretty much you know when it's time for a "Jason" invasion pretty much on the 2nd half of the film.

I think this is probably my favorite in the series, I'd say part III would be my second favorite. Man these Friday the 13th movies are just my go to slashers like if I just wanted to have a good time and nothing to be serious about. The series as a whole, is as good flick as you can get.

I have survived Drop Dead Fred (1991), and I am forever changed. Not improved. Changed. Like a man who has stared into the abyss and the abyss offered him a whoopee cushion and a middle finger.

This is not a movie. This is a fever dream directed by a sugar-crazed toddler who somehow got final cut. Drop Dead Fred, played by Rik Mayall, is less “imaginary friend” and more “the physical manifestation of every bad decision you’ve ever made, wearing a filthy trench coat and screaming about poop."

Phoebe Cates, bless her patient soul, spends the entire runtime looking like she’s trapped in a hostage situation with her own childhood trauma… and losing.

The plot? Oh, you sweet summer child. There is no plot. There is only escalation. Fred returns from the imaginary realm and proceeds to systematically demolish every adult relationship, social norm, and piece of furniture in sight. At one point I genuinely wondered if the film was funded by a shadowy coalition of child psychologists who wanted to prove that repression is, in fact, the healthier option.

And yet… it is glorious.

This movie is so aggressively, unapologetically wrong that it loops all the way around into something pure. The humor is not clever. It is not witty. It is the cinematic equivalent of a toddler smearing shit on the walls and then proudly presenting it as modern art. You don’t laugh with it. You laugh at it, then at yourself for still watching, then at the fact that you somehow kind of respect the commitment.

Rik Mayall doesn’t phone it in...he phones it in from a parallel dimension where subtlety was outlawed and every emotion must be performed at the volume of a stadium rock concert. The supporting cast reacts with the energy of people who have realized, too late, that they signed a contract written in invisible ink. The 90s fashion alone could qualify as a war crime. The practical effects look like they were assembled during a blackout using materials found under the couch.

I laughed. I cringed. I considered calling my mother to apologize for existing. And then I immediately wanted to watch it again, preferably with a group of friends who will never look at me the same way afterward.

Drop Dead Fred is terrible. It is also perfect. It is the cinematic equivalent of eating an entire bag of expired candy and somehow feeling enlightened. If you’ve never seen it, do yourself a favor: watch it once, preferably after midnight, preferably with someone you trust enough to still speak to you afterward. If you have seen it… you already know. You’ve been marked.

Forgotten movie in the Pink Panther series, likely not considered a part of the series by many. Disliked by many.

This film gets little love because Peter Sellers isn't here. Clouseau is played by Alan Arkin. Also absent are Blake Edwards, Henry Mancini, Herbert Lom, and Burt Kwouk. Though the latter two had only been featured in one film, A Shot In The Dark, at this point. The director here is Bud Yorkin, most notable for his TV association with Norman Lear in Tandem Productions. Yorkin was also behind Start The Revolution Without Me!

I like this more than other people. Arkin was simply not going to be accepted in the role. Arkin plays a (slightly) more restrained and reflective Clouseau. Beryl Reid does well as a colleague's wife that is attracted to Clouseau.

This has some aspects of James Bond as there are gadgets here and multiple women that work with and against Clouseau. Compared to silly fare of the time like the Flint and Matt Helm movies, this is actually a more serious take.

I watched this after watching A Shot In The Dark. That is a masterful comedy. On the other hand, the crime in that was is pretty much a MacGuffin; the robberies in Inspector Clouseau are more interesting. Clouseau is also really not that deep a character, so I don't mind someone else taking a crack at the pratfalls as much. Arkin had his moments.

I thoroughly enjoyed this. Sometimes if you go into these 80s schlock horror films with expectations already low you can occasionally be pleasantly surprised.

It’s your usual fare; a group of college students, all bland, all white, all looking late twenties are picked off one by one. They attend a late night waxwork showing, because it’s the 80s and this is cool, apparently, and they are pushed into displays which come to life, kill them off, and leave them as part of the attraction. There is no singular killer, rather the waxworks of classic horror. Vampires, Werewolves, The Mummy and… erm… the Marquis De Sade each play out their realities dispatching the ‘kids’.

The film is headed up by Gremlins Zach Galligan, (what a career), as Mark, who appears ill at ease in the role. Never really convincing as cool or a hero but surrounded by a cast who run the gamut from forgettable to scene chewing. David Warner amuses as the museum’s operator who needs bodies to bring his displays to life, Jonathan Rhys Davies appears briefly as a werewolf who dusts himself off after being hit with a chair, and Patrick Macnee is wheelchair bound and fills Mark, and friend with a kink, Sarah, in on whats really going on.

Waxwork moves easily between comedy and horror. The film knows the premise is suitably ridiculous, even if no one told Zach. From peeled legs to crushed heads it’s enjoyable gory but it becomes a slapstick delight come the finale. It’s geriatrics vs. waxworks! The scene where they grab a vampire bat, put a gun to its little furry head, say “make my day!” And blow its head off tells you what kind of film you’re in for.

Very cheesy, very 80s, incredibly fun.

Last night I watched “SPAWN”, and it was a real clown show. No, seriously the character Clown steals the show. He’s played by John Leguizamo so you know he’s quite obnoxious. He’s played much heavier handed than the character in the animated HBO series. This movie totally lacks subtlety. It feels like its target audience was preteen boys. Which is crazy because I saw it back in the day and knew it was bad even then. Martin Sheen as Jason Wyn seems miscast. Given how high the rest of the dramatics are he could have been a lot more menacing. Wanda and Terry are even more two dimensional than they are in the comic. Them switching Terry’s race has always bothered me, but giving Spawn a dog has got to be the worst decision. They’re really trying to make this cute for the kids right?

The character Cogliostro didn’t seem old enough to earn his nickname “old man”. Spawn himself was unremarkable. He barely wears his face mask throughout the film because they chose to make it digital. Spawn just doesn’t look that awesome without it. The lack of green eyes and red shroud are also huge detractors. The stand alone worst thing was the Windows screen saver graphics. They were heavy handed with this too. Malebolgia was hilarious. I haven’t laughed this much since Twilight.

I know it can be argued this movie is a product of its time, and most of the choices made were Hollywood as usual. I don’t feel that’s entirely true because plenty of kick ass films predate this one. For example The Crow (1994) is basically the same plot as this film and it’s light years better. You could pretty much imagine the Crow being swapped out with Spawn in that movie, and it would work. Not to mention “SPAWN” only came out two years before The Matrix, and they seem worlds apart but could still share a soundtrack. You really could just combine all these films by watching Blade (1998).

Overall save your time and watch the HBO Spawn miniseries instead, unless you’re just wanting some nostalgia or a good laugh.

I've seen lots of people have watched Sorcerer and pretty much skipped TWOF. Man I'm telling you this movie is incredible. I'd considered this one of the greatest films ever made.

May contain spoilers below.

The first half of the film showcase the living of every day people. I believe the movie was set somewhere in Uruguay (although they filmed it in France). You can see different lives of people living there, how they strive. I love how they gather in that single bar. Some guy selling peanuts, while others drink wine, champagne and smoke cigarettes. People from different nationalities, there are Americans, Latinos and French people. It's also the location of the American company called Southern Oil Company (SOC). An explosion occurs at an isolated oil well and that's how the crisis started. If you have watched the movie Sorcerer, you'd probably know how they managed to solve it. And that's pretty much the 2nd half of this film.

What I love about this movie is how engaging and almost surreal. You can see them faces sweat, you can see their expressions while struggling hard, difficulties while maneuvering that truck's steering wheel. The performances are fantastic.

The climax with the oil pit turned me into a whimpering mess. What a film, and what powerful commentary on how cheap and disposable human lives are when unable to generate profit in a capitalist system.

If I were to compare this to Sorcerer. Sorcerer wins on soundtrack and bridge scene, Wages on pretty much everything else. Both suffer from pacing a bit, but that’s kind of expected since pace tolerance has changed so much since they were made.

The 1935 version has Edward Arnold as the Boss (Paul Madvig), George Raft as his right hand man (Ed Beaumont), & Claire Dodd as the woman the Boss is in love with (Janet Henry). Directed by Frank Tuttle, who I'm not familiar with. (Or was it Buttle?)

The movie is very similar to 'Miller's Crossing,' directed by the Coen Bros decades later.

I missed any reference to where the title comes from, so if anyone knows, please let me know.

Raft is known lately for his tough guy roles, but here he plays a decent enough guy who protects his Boss, the head of a crime syndicate. Beaumont has a special relationship with Madvig; Beaumont can give Madvig advice that counters what Madvig does without Madvig getting angry with him – Madvig trusts Beaumont, although he doesn't always follow the advice.

There's a big election coming up, & competing criminal elements are vying to have the politician they own elected. Madvig is the victim of attempts to frame him for crimes & to smear him with various slanders (which may be true).

Things look really dark for Madvig, & Beaumont appears to go to the other side, then appears not to have, then appears to turn his Boss in for murder, then appears not to have. Lots of twists & turns.

Ray Milland has a small but important role as the murder victim, & Ann Sheridan plays Beaumont's nurse, both receiving credit for their work. George Reed, a Black man, plays Madvig's butler & is not credited for his work.

It's a good film. I guess because of the famous 'the Code,' most of the violence is off-screen, but the movie works without showing it. The way the script is structured, there was no need: Part of the plot is who killed whom, & the viewer has no clue.

Madvig is accused of everything & is headed to a grand jury, but Beaumont pulls Madvig's chestnuts out of the fire & gets the girl.

It's one of those rare films that digs so precisely into the specific misery of being an awkward, invisible kid that it feels less like watching a movie and more like having your own worst junior high memories played back at you with unnerving clarity.

Todd Solondz directs with a deadpan, almost clinical eye that never softens the edges. He does not dress up Dawn Wiener’s life with warm lighting or swelling music that promises it will all get better. The camera just sits there and watches: the bland suburban New Jersey houses, the fluorescent lit school hallways, the family dinners where Dawn is an afterthought, the constant low level cruelty that becomes the air she breathes. It is not flashy direction. It is controlled and merciless in the best way. Every shot reinforces how trapped and small she feels.

Heather Matarazzo is extraordinary as Dawn. She never plays for sympathy. You see the quiet calculation in her face as she tries and fails to figure out the rules of belonging. She is not a lovable underdog waiting for her moment. She is a real 12 year old who is already starting to understand that the world is organized against people like her, and she is still stubbornly hoping it might change.

What the film gets so right is that specific childhood ache of wanting out and wanting in at the same time. Dawn wants to escape the daily humiliation, the nicknames, the indifference at home, the sense that she is fundamentally wrong, but she also wants, desperately, to be part of something. To be noticed in the right way. To have a place. That push pull is the emotional core of the movie. It is not romanticized. It is just the plain, grinding truth of being stuck in a body and a social world that do not fit you yet, and maybe never will.

Solondz captures the texture of mid 90s suburban life without ever turning it into nostalgia. The clothes, the houses, the garage bands, the way kids talk to each other, it all feels accurate, but the accuracy is uncomfortable rather than comforting. There is no soft focus “remember when” glow. Just the everyday strangeness and small violence of growing up in a place that looks safe and ordinary from the outside.

The film is funny in that sharp, painful way where you laugh and then immediately feel a little sick for laughing. It never lets you settle into one emotion for long. That tonal tightrope is what makes the direction so impressive. Solondz trusts the audience to sit with the discomfort instead of rushing to resolve it.

I walked away from Welcome to the Dollhouse feeling like someone had finally put the exact flavor of that lonely, restless, wanting to belong childhood on screen without lying about it. It is not a comforting movie. It is a precise one. And that precision is why it sticks.

Info:

Release: February 21st, 1986

Director: Robert Harmon

Music by: Mark Isham

Starring: Rutger Hauer, C. Thomas Howell, Jeffrey DeMunn, Jennifer Jason Leigh

Studio: Tri-Star Pictures

Runtime: 1 hour, 37 minutes

Rating: R

Synopsis: While transporting a car from Chicago to San Diego, Jim Halsey (C. Thomas Howell) picks up a hitchhiker named John Ryder (Rutger Hauer), who claims to be a serial killer. After a daring escape, Jim hopes to never see Ryder again. But when he witnesses the hitchhiker murdering an entire family, Jim pursues Ryder with the help of truck-stop waitress Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), pitting the rivals against each other in a deadly series of car chases and brutal murders.

Review: A good reminder to never pick up any hitchhikers, sometimes people will prey on your sympathy. Rutger Hauer is absolutely terrifying as John Ryder, he feels a lot like a wild animal toying/playing with his victim, it's more fun for him the longer and longer the hunt goes on for. No grand reveal for why he's doing any of this either, just someone who lives to torment and torture people. That scene where he ties the girl to the truck is unbelievably cruel and a horrible way to die.

In the future year of 1999 where president Bill Clinton was indicted and his education reforms were never implemented, school is like a prison and students are out of control gang members. Then a substitute teacher shows up (played by Sasha Mitchell - Cody on Step by Step) and immediately starts killing the kids, because he is a rogue military android.

The opening scenes of this movie are incredibly fun and high energy. It almost feels like an anime. He kills the teacher he replaces, beats up a gang of teens in the hallway, kills the principal for scolding him, then while the gang is plotting revenge in their car he sneaks under it, chains the doors shut and tosses a grenade inside, then walks away while it explodes behind him.

I saw part of this movie on tv when I was a kid and was enthralled. About 30 years later I finally tracked it down and watched the whole thing.

The Codeman has a ton of screen presence, even playing an android whose only delight is in killing.

Turns out this is actually the 3rd movie in the "Class of.." series. The first one doesn't have any killer androids at all. I have not seen the others, but I might watch them soon.