Unseen Terror 2023: Ich Fühle Mich Unwohl (Day 18)

 

You know, I've been doing this silly little marathon for over a decade, and it takes quite a bit for a film to truly get under my skin. More often than not, most of the pictures on here that end up with recommendations receive such accolades because they could be categorized as "fun." But then you get those flicks that truly make you feel like you need a shower and have you questioning if you really truly do love horror movies. More so, you adore them yet are afraid to actually be scared yourself. It is very rare that something genuinely disturbs me or leaves me at a loss for words. It's happened with stuff like Ken Russell's The Devils, Kim Jee-woon's I Saw the Devil, and the often-overlooked Belgian movie Man Bites Dog. Tonight's viewing, 1983's Austrian "home invasion" movie Angst, is going to be a very hard movie to talk about. The fact that this picture is loosely based on the real-life killings by Werner Kniesek only amplifies its cruelty and vile nature. It's a deeply uncomfortable watch that feels like it's punishing you for staying along for the ride.

Coincidentally, it's also a fan-FUCKING-tastically made feature with one of the best lead performances I've ever seen in a horror movie and some brilliant camera work that despite being forty years old, outshines pictures with astronomically higher budgets. The plot is very simple: we follow an unnamed psychopath (played by Erwin Leder of Das Boot and Underworld fame) as he is released from prison in what feels like "real time." From the very moment we hear his voiceovers, we ARE this character though. Every little moment feels like we have been locked into his mind and aren't sure where the key is. Starting with internal monologues about two women at a diner who he almost immediately decides that he wants to hurt (but doesn't pull the trigger) and eventually leading to him committing unspeakably evil deeds at a random house he decides to break into. It's that very rare examination of a psychotic human being that forces you to experience every awful impulse, every outburst of paranoia, and every impulsive decision of when one decides to take the life of his fellow man.

The camera work by Polish filmmaker and award winner Zbigniew Rybczynski is just in a league of its own. Pulling and twisting in a manner befitting of its very evil main character, it adds to the ice-cold nature of the picture. I truly don't think that this movie works without it. The acting, as hinted above, is perfection as well. Nothing over-the-top whatsoever, with Leder giving a performance that could shake the core of even the most hardened of veterans. None of the supporting cast are officially given names either, but it's irrelevant. After all, we're along for the (horrific) ride, and I doubt he'd even care about what their names were before he'd consider killing them. The on-screen murders, while most likely outshined over the years by the gratuitous nature of slasher pictures, are filmed in such a manner that it hurts far more seeing how they're carried out, not by how "insane" they are.

Earlier today, I wasn't sure I would even feel comfortable writing about Angst. With how awful the world has been as of late and how incredibly depressing it's been on social media, I felt like the energy has been drained from my soul. I had to tough it out though, because I did have to remind myself that this is just a movie after all. It's unlike anything I've seen recently and will likely go down as one of the most deranged, animalistic flicks I've seen in the entire history of "Unseen Terror," but simultaneously one of the best. I'd highly recommend it for those who can resist or tolerate its cruel nature, but don't say I didn't warn you. Currently, it's available for streaming on Tubi and you can even find some good rips of it on YouTube (including a Blu-Ray rip with director Gerald Kargl's commentary, whose career this likely destroyed).

Unseen Terror 2022: Day 2

Look, I'm sure that I'm bound to make a few enemies by saying this, but I have to get it off of my chest: the original Hocus Pocus from 1993, while admittedly very fun, is a tad bit on the overrated side. Mind you, I do not dislike the film at all. I've enjoyed it going back to when I first saw it at a neighbor's Halloween party in (I want to say) 1994. I think Bette Midler is absolute fantastic in it. I think Doug Jones is immensely entertaining as Billy Butcherson. Do I consider it to be a bona fide classic in the genre though? That's kind of up for debate. Still, I was morbidly curious (and fearful) when they announced that a sequel to this (now) cult classic was being filmed and set to release exclusively on the Disney+ streaming service. Often times long overdue follow-ups end up disappointing to the degree where you tend to erase them from memory as fast as you possibly can (looking right at you Zoolander 2 and Anchorman 2).

Much to my surprise however, I found Hocus Pocus 2 to be pretty gosh darn fun. The plot isn't exactly complicated: two teenagers accidentally bring the abhorrent witches known as The Sanderson Sisters into modern day Salem and have to find a way to stop them from becoming all powerful and wreaking havoc upon the world. Simplistic storyline aside, I feel as though what makes a large chunk of this work is how enjoyable the cast is. The villainous Sanderson Sisters (who admittedly seem to be a tad toned down in terms of evilness this time around) are as splendid as they were thirty years prior, with Midler in particular just writhing in ecstasy every time that she gets to be the main focus. I also found Kathy Najimy to be far less irritating than she was in the first picture. Sarah Jessica Parker is...well, she's just swell. Yeah. As for their adversaries though? They're kind of a mixed bag. Whitney Peak (of Chilling Adventures of Sabrina fame) is a decent enough protagonist, but her companions feel a bit on the cliched side. On the "adult" side of things, we are blessed with the presence of the always entertaining Sam Richardson (whom you will likely recognize from television shows such as Veep and I Think You Should Leave) and a welcomed return of the aforementioned Doug Jones. The two of them have far better chemistry than anyone could have expected.

Here's where I may bum some readers out though: yes performance-wise, Midler, Najimy, and Parker are very good. But oof do they kind of drop the ball with the writing of their characters. Comical as they may be, there was still some hint of menace and malicious intent behind those ridiculous costumes in the first feature. Building up just the comedy and downplaying the fact that they are, y'know, witches who KILL AND EAT CHILDREN was certainly a choice, but I feel as though it will affect how many times a viewer is likely to revisit it. There is also an attempt to make them more sympathetic through an opening prologue that while amusing, reminds one of how Disney seems far too keen on utilizing the "sympathetic villain" trope. It was one thing in Maleficent, but I'm still pretty appalled by the fact they tried to make the titular character in Cruella likeable. This has also been bleeding over into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I am kindly asking that you please stop this. Oh, and some of the CGI seemed rushed. There's that too.

Still, I'm legitimately shocked that I enjoyed this as much as I did. Perhaps watching with the right company can enhance one's enjoyment of this silly romp and help you ignore some of its weaknesses. Truth be told, there is a slim-to-none chance that anyone watching this hasn't seen its predecessor, but much like with this year's Clerks III, you can tell that it was made for that particular fanbase and nobody else. As it so obviously says on the poster, Hocus Pocus 2 is streaming on Disney+ and I don't see it leaving that platform anytime soon.

Tomorrow, we head to Japan for a kaiju flick unlike any other!

....no, seriously!