Dellamorte_Dellamore07 Reviews

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

An honest attempt at a sequel. TheFlaws are not its fault.

[24 April 2008]

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 (1990)

Director: Jeff Burr (Stepfather 2)

**1/2outof****

Review

Man, I really wanted to like this movie. I probably should give the movie a less then favorable review, but after the special features and commentaries, I feel compelled to stick with it. A step up from the previous entry, there isn't a comedic aspect in sight. Some morbid humor here and there, but ultimately this sequel attempts to go the serious route, and for me that's good.

The original movie was the landmark classic, one of the only movies that I admit actually scares me on a visceral and psychological level. The sequel wasn't warranted but since the greed of the eighties thought otherwise, we have a franchise. This sequel is more of a refined version of the original that hints at being a sequel while at the same time is more of just a semi-remake. We have a bickering couple Michelle (Hidden 2's Kate Hodge) and Ryan (Friday the 13th part 7's Bill Butler) traveling across Texas, they eventually succumb to the dirty and desolate gas station, where foul play and misguided directions leads them to the clutches of Leatherface and his demented family. They are aided by survivalist Benny (Dawn of the Dead's Ken Foree). Thankfully he has a semi automatic and knows a thing or two about being hunted. There's also a backwoods girl running away, but she is marked as expired food, and we shouldn't invest too much in her.

The movie has a nice music video look to it, it has no grittiness like 1, but isn't overwhelming with colors like 2. It's polished, bleak, and has that hopeless feeling down pat. Jeff Burr actually succeeds with some tension and suspense. Just watch the changing flat tire scene alone at night by yourself, and you certainly feel your adrenaline pumping. Leatherface's new look is also quite menacing, and his leg brace is responsible fro some tense scenes. The family is also quite effective. I liked the chemistry, and Tex (Viggo Mortenson) stole the show as the stylish weasel like brother. The little girl was also disturbing and ambiguous. I enjoyed grandpa's cameo.

The gore in this movie is also quite effective, but has the MPAA hovering over the entire show. Lot's of cuts and murky darkness hides what are obviously sick and twisted gore bits. Like the bisection of the backwoods girl or the sledge hammer to head bit. As Jeff Burr stated, "If your making a sequel to Texas Chainsaw, you better believe it's going to be gory". Indeed. The ending is the biggest cheat I've seen from MPAA.

The music by Burr regular Manzie was also a nice touch. It was a mix of action and creepiness (with a dash of Metal as well) that made the movie move along nicely. I especially liked the music while Benny is trying to get bullets with "Tink" waiting to attack. The music was also used (less effectively) in Burr's Pumpkinhead 2.

This leaves us to the script, which received the most butchering of anything involved with this production. David Schow, he penned the 2005 remake and some unaccredited work for Nightmare 5: Dream Child as well. His ear for dialog is awful, most of the time our couple in peril usually had to spit out some crappy lines that were laugh out loud funny, why did Ryan feel the need to say things that were happening out loud? Like the "Oh my god, there coming from behind us" or the "Oh my god, what do they want from us", or Michelle's "Violence is no answer to Violence" made my ears bleed and took me out of the movie, since I doubt no tolerable human being would speak in such a contrived way.

Also, why do the events seem a bit underwhelming and uneventful? After it was over, my friends in attendance were like "That's it?" I feel a lot more could have happened, like some decent background info on the family of loons, or some more brutal events in our finale. It feels a tad flimsy.

The movie alas still has an anchor and that's its good intentions from all those involved. I feel that Texas chainsaw never needed sequels, they aren't as endearing as Nightmares or Friday the 13ths, its story was told in one, and that's that. Thankfully though, the effort has a touch or horror class, which makes it all the more acceptable, while still being a problematic production.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is the best sequel out there.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (1987)

Certainly no worse then 1.

[17 April 2008]

Prom Night 2: Hello Mary Lou (1987)

Director: Bruce Pittman

**out of****

Review

This is an obvious cash in on the eighties sequel craze. This movie has virtually nothing to do with Prom Night one, besides the fact it's produced by the same producers and takes place at the same high school. It's also Canadian.

On Mary Lou Maloney's (Lisa Schrage) Prom Night in 1957, she not only reveals what a money grubbing tramp she is, but also really wants to be Prom Queen. Her jilted date tries and humiliates her but it ends in a fiery death for Miss Maloney. Cut to 30 years later, and we have Vicki Carpenter, a shy and sheltered wallflower who has to put up with her one dimensional hag of a mother, and gets picked on by the school tramp. Thankfully for her (and us) she accidentally releases Mary Lou's soul and is now host for Mary Lou, who will do anything to become queen, like murder and mayhem.

This movie is kind of like "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 meets Carrie, while discussing The Exorcist while in disguise as characters and settings very akin to another Canadian opus, Degrassi High". So obviously this is a rip-off intended offering, but much like it's proceeded, I find it overwhelming cheesy, which inspires me to go back to it, time and time again.

It's no better then 1, and much like 1, I found it taking itself way to serious, which makes it become comical to say the least. Certainly no one would really be scared of such images of chalk board turned pool with zombie arms coming out, Mannequin like faces popping out of chicken noodle soup, Demon rocking horse with slimy tongue (actually one of the most coolest images, I might add), lockers spewing what looks like yogurt, computers melting faces, volley ball nets turned spider web, and latex masked zombies coming from beyond the grave. If this movie is approached in more comical aspect, it may be less disappointing.

If you're a fan of eighties culture (especially in Horror movies), then look no further to see it running rampant. The clothes and music have that special eighties charm, and really were nostalgic. I remember seeing this on HBO in the late eighties, and reviewing it certainly was a nice trip down memory lane. Just seeing the fashion in here was laugh out loud funny. Nice "afro" on the art chick.

The acting is actually quite tolerable considering the material. Wendy Lyon was a nice anchor through out, and Lisa Schrage was steamy and seemed to love the role. Everyone else was basically just there, and I actually feel Michael Ironside was out of place, and seemed like he didn't want to be there. The sensible friend and nice, but very dumb boyfriend were adequate. The movie alas, has too many plot holes to be really credible (what's the deal with that trunk!?), and the deaths are too few (and never reach there full potential…paper cutter?). One thing that really bothered me was the token bitch character that really got on my nerves (good job), but then the movie seems to forget her and then quickly throws her in at the end, she deserved way worse and was on the screen far too much. The ending is also quite trite, although after reading an interview with Peter Simpson, the producer, (at Terrortrap.com) he stated that the director quit half way through the shoot, and he had to shoot whatever he could to patch things up, I most certainly could tell.

The gore in here was also not all that, and the movie has a prom scene very akin to the one in Carrie, but here (most likely budget restraints) it was such a bore.

Some scenes do stick out though, like the mother/daughter confrontation scene, or the best one, the locker stalk scene (with full female frontal nudity), and the rocking horse was a nice touch. The soundtrack also served it's part, making the proceedings once again, very eighties. You have to love the synthesizer. Go Eighties!

Unfortunately, the movie is forgettable, and very fromage inspired, it's no better or worse then 1, and certainly a step up from the rest of sequels, but the pace is on and off, and the scares aren't that scary.

To feel better about wanting to see it, just write off as a guilty pleasure. A wop baba looa wop bam-bo.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

An exercise in style over substance (and producers thinking they know something)

[5/10 · 10 April 2008]

Halloween 6: The Curse of Micheal Myers (1996)

Director: Joe Chapelle (Phantoms)

**out of****

Review

After the 6 year wait from the ambiguous, hated by most, loved by some ending of 5 I finally got to see it, being I was only 11 at the time I unfortunately did not take the pen to paper for my first impression (which was positive if I remember correctly), but alas, I'm now 22 and I can clearly see the movies flaws, as well as good intentions and the bad (producers?).

The movie opens with 15 year old Jamie (now played by the 25 year old looking J.C. Brandy) screaming in labor while a MTV like montage of blood soaked carnage is shown and the soundtrack is filmed with screamed filled horrors of the past. We then have a pointless narration by Paul Rudd, who more or less solemnly describes the events of the franchise till now. It seems Jamie was kidnapped and kept hidden underground (or something, the movie is to breathless to ever tell us what this place is) and is now in the Man in Black's evil scheme of world domination or something crappy like that. She is rescued by a nurse (who is rewarded with a spike in the head) and runs screaming into the night in the hopes of finding help.

I must state, that the first 20 or so minutes of the this movie are really well done, the suspense was high and a sense of nihilistic dread was rampant, the movie was fast paced and the Bus Depot and Barn sequences were awesome highlights for me. The Farm Machine death was grisly and down well (considering whom it happens to) and I felt that the movie was quite entertaining up until the point when it is day. Title inserted, "Halloween" "Haddonfeild".

The movie then proceeds to slowly (but surely) downhill from here on as, we are introduced to a despicable batch of characters with the least appealing types of conflicts. Angry dad is mad at moody daughter, while weepy mom sits about, awful child actor tries and acts and the son/brother makes an ass of himself, by trying to be "hip': I lost all investment in the characters (I will mention the likable and competent Marianne Hagen though) so suspense was cut short. The movie is another one of those 90ies flicks that constantly has mundane objects or people usually being the cause of the false jump scare, accompanied by a loud "DUUUNT" noise on the soundtrack, followed by the person out of frame usually saying "sorry" or "it's only me". Urban Legend did it, Candy Man: Farewell to the flesh did it as well as all the Screams. So if jump scares are your thing, you wont be displeased, as for me, I turned it into a drinking game, take a shot every time you here "DUUNT" and you will be nice and sauced after wards.

The plot is such a god awful confusing mess that it leaves a lot to be desired after the final frame. I could go into specifics, but it won't matter, NOTHING will ever help to explain weird druid cult nonsense that inhabits this movie. I mean NOTHING. So try and ignore the mumbo jumbo and you can just see the movie for its slasher tendencies. The kills in here were far more violent then 4-5, so I guess it served some redeeming qualities. Snapped neck, a spike in head, farm machinery, axe fun, exploding head(!?!), and a brutal machete killing spree (Jason would be proud) abound, so I was pleased to see Micheal being so po'd in this one. Still, the lackluster plot still got in the way time to time.

Although nothing to write home about, Chapelle injecting a very kinetic and vibrant look to this movie that will have MTV purists taken a back. Compared to any of the other Halloweens, this is the most visually appealing. Horror Candy for the fans. It's bleak and flashy and quite colorful, think "Nightmare 4: Dream Master" and you'll get the idea. It's too bad the director gave up on suspense the 20 mark in.

It also seems pointless to mention Dr.Loomis this time around as he was brutally wasted. A shame, that Loomis was so arbitrary to the plot. Apparently his plight is far more better handled in the producers cut, but since I cant see me seeing that any time soon, it doesn't help me change my mind that the movie was a disservice to Pleasance.

The guitars twang revamping of Carpenters score was actually quite good, and really upped the suspense in scenes that though they were far scarier then they appeared to be. I dug it.

After waiting six years, I also though that the revealing of the man in black was sooooo lame, and quite boring, should have just stuck with him being Micheals brother as opposed to the stupid character this time.

I really wanted to like this movie, I like its look, sound and gore, but content wise it's an embarrassment to the series and in film-making in general. Producers, screw off, you have no linear thought o fans of the genre, and you certainly ruined what could have been a awesome sequel. Micheal and the Druids? What's next, Freddy and Scientologists?

This movie is only slightly acceptable because it eons ahead of H20 and Resurrection, which are insults to any fan of this weirdly made series.

Watch to see style over substance at it's best, but unfortunately it doesn't follow up to 5 even!!!. That must be all the advice you need.

Flesh (1968)

Perhps only for purists?

[5/10 · 10 April 2008]

Flesh (1968) Director: Paul Morrissey **1/2outof**** Review After just reading "The Andy Warhol Diaries", I then proceeded to seek out his films, and apparently all he did was fund this and raise its publicity. So I shall leave out my interest in Warhol for the sake of this review. I watched this twice just to see how I really felt (the first time I felt nothing towards it). I felt the second time that the movie has an indistinct quality that makes you want to keep watching, I can't deny that. The movie is virtually plot less and really is a camera put on actors while they most likely improvise most of their lines. At least it really felt that way.

The movie is choppily edited, the lighting is murky, the film is grainy, and the sound is horrendous. The actors are the main joy in this movie (well actually only a few). Seeing Joe, Geri, the awesome Candy, and funny Jackie all hanging out and talking was the main highlight for me. I found Candy simply endearing, and the characters were all comfortable together (like Joe nonchalantly putting his arm over Jackie) and it made it an effortless watch.

From reading some IMDb reviews about this, it seems that a lot of the stuff went over my head in this movie, as I rarely picked up on of the undercurrents of deeper meanings. Nothing really clicked, it wasn't that I didn't get it, I mean mostly it was people standing around and talking, what's the "meaning" towards that? The scenes of ambient design were the films main flaw. Too much of nothing, I know this is underground art house stuff, but seeing long shots of people sleeping, simply staring, or stretches of no plot or dialog is extremely hard to sit through for me. If I want art, I'll watch Argento or David Lynch. The "art" here was curiously out of my grasp. More just like a flimsy documentary (as maybe that's what it really is). So investment in visual design is out of luck for me. Still, the movie has a compelling current about it.

From the plot I picked up, it's basically Joe trying to make 200 dollars to save up for his girlfriend's lesbian lover's abortion. We get to see him wake up and then the film ends with him sleeping. So basically a day in the life of Joe, the hustler and the people he encounters.

As expected with a Morrissey/Warhol/Dallesendro production, I expected nudity and got it. The movie loves Joe's body, but from my perspective, the male and female nudity was somewhat…clinical to make it fully erotic. Usually full frontal nudity will make people uncomfortable for some reason, but I watched this with 3 teens and none of them were annoyed by it, signs of a good approach or self confident teens? Some people will write this off as art house porn, but there's something about it that wasn't raunchy like most porn's tend to be. It didn't come off as art either. So I'm not sure what I would label this as. Is it simply underground or experimental film making? I first discovered Warhol at the age of 13, were I watched Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", the movie was a pure gem, and quite authentic, from the research I did about the factory. I'd prefer watching that movie countless times then the actually Warhol deals. All these movies are somewhat forgettable, but that's' just my opinion. Obviously this will appeal to the real purists (who probably were aghast when reading my preference to Warhol) and not for someone born right before Warhol passed away. Still, I gave it a chance and still found it quite original in places.

Praise must go to Candy Darling. She had me sold, she seemed so nice and warm, a easy going person, and it's a shame she passed away. She was simply awesome! I also found Joe's performance quite interesting, he seemed naive, sardonic, and withdrawn all at the same time, his facial acting really told me what he was thinking (or not thinking) all the time.

The movie didn't change my world, and definitely is more Morrissey's work then Warhol. So take it in stride and see if you like it. On to Heat and Trash I go.

Demons 2 (1986)

Somewhat Underwhelming, but still the only "real" sequel to Demons.

[9 April 2008]

DEMONS 2 (1986) Director: Lamberto Bava (Demons) **out of**** This is definitely a step down from the original. After doing some research, I found out that this was a "Made-for-TV" sequel, and that actually helped me digest it's a flaws a little easier. What flaws you may ask? Well the film disregards the previous movie; it's actually pretty damn confusing. Either it goes the "New Nightmare" reality way or the events from 1 were taken care of (?) route. The movie opens with a dimly lit room and a bulky unseen man entering it, he's covered in what, oh no, oh my god, IT'S BLOOD! He must be a mad man. HELP! POLICE!, O wait, it's only the baker of a bakery preparing birthday girl Sally her cake. Cut to the "TOWER", a chic hotel looking complex, with various briefly sketched tenants. Its Sally's birthday and her annoying guests are on arrival. Hannah, the friendly pregnant women converses with her boyfriend, George. Random tenants also are seen watching a movie on TV. Peculiar, how so many of the characters would be watching a low grade horror flick. Well, I'm not sure how, but a Demon comes out of the TV, where it infects Sally, who then proceeds to attack her guests, who go on to attack the neighbors, who go etc, etc. That's the plot. Quite complex isn't it? The previous movie was made by the same team as the first, made virtually right after the first, so maybe that would explain the less then enthusiastic second entry. The movie has a terminally dull pace (once again compared to the first), the plot is less ambitious then the first, and the gore is severely underwhelming to say the least. I was aware of the major plot holes in the previous one but I was having to much fun being entertained to really care, but this time, the first 30 minutes are so was a total bore and wasted to much time on that damn movie everyone was watching. So hence, I was more conscious of the flaws this time. Especially the building and it's apparent shutdown, not only do bars magically appear but every window is bullet proof and the phones don't work cause of a couple drops of demon acid blood. What kind of building is this? I was able to give the previous movie the benefit of the doubt that maybe indeed the old Berlin theatre was possessed, therefore given the power to create brick walls at will, there certainly was a ambiguous demeanor concerning the logic in the first. Since this movie opens with the building being a thriving establishment from the get go, it made little sense that the demons suddenly had control over the building.

The editing is also a distraction. Was their one? Did he read the script? Collaborate with the director? See Storyboards? The movie has a helter skelter narrative towards half way, as characters disappear and re appear at will, characters plights are cut short, and the scenes lack severe momentum. The acting and dubbing are also quite inept, and really gave me no anchor, the best was Tony the Pimp, only this time its Tony the Gym Instructor. I also somewhat appreciated the pregnant Hannah. There was just something likable about her. Everyone else though were even less distinguished then the theatre patrons in Demons 1.

The movie does however, entertain, but unlike the first (I laughed with it), I more or less laugh at it. Lot's of unintentional gags throughout. Like when Sally becomes a moaning demon, or the demon dog with the demon head coming out, or the line "Nothing, Nothing in Peculiar", or the insane kid demon on rampage scene, it has lot's of scenes that are cheesy and over the top that I couldn't help but laugh out loud I'm afraid.

The soundtrack is another saving Grace, Not as cool and tacky as the first, it's by Simon Boswell (STAGEFRIGHT!) and it was more subdued and ominous, quite soothing actually.. The selected songs by Gene Loves Jezebel, Dead Can Dance, and The Cult to name a few were all nicely selected as well.

The eighties charm runs rampant in this flick as well. Man I wish I lived through the eighties instead of being born in 85, only to miss most of it. The fashion, music, acting, furniture, and product placements were are very nostalgic, and I like the movie for this main reason. OK, not merely like, but tolerate.

The directing is polished, but lacks the energy and nihilism the first one had. The lighting was quite moody, and the angles were quite inventive, but still, perhaps filming sequels back to back can tire you out? Something was stopping Lamberto from totally pulling through. He might have just called in from time to time.

The Gore in this is also rather tame considering it's creators, but after reading a interview with Dario Argento, he stated that the censors wouldn't allow to much, as it was going tot be T.V. broad-casted and all that, should have went for the theatre release Dario, the sequel needed better gore, it could have been a awesome companion piece to 1, instead of a inferior but still tolerable eighties kitsch dish.

I also consider this the last of this "series" as all those other apparent sequels are nothing like this, so please consider that.

Bad Dreams (1988)

Perhaps overlooked?

[31 March 2008]

Bad Dreams (1988) Director: Andrew Fleming (The Craft) ***out of**** Review After barely escaping crazy cult guru's (able Richard Lynch) fiery suicide pact, Cynthia (the very gorgeous and likable Jennifer Rubin) finds herself awaking 13 years later, in year 1988. Trying to get on with her life, she starts to realize that her fellow patients in the mental hospital start dying in brutal ways, and start seeing hallucinations/dreams/visions of Harris, the burnt up cult leader. Is he back from the grave, vowing revenge for Cynthia's survival, or is something more sinister going on? Rather then going the cliché way in my review and bashing this movie for its direct influences from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3, I'll just say that they never got in the way of my enjoyment of this film. A lot of movies rip off others all the time, so I don't seem to ever get annoyed by these.

The film has top notch production values, a very entertaining cast, and some warped out death scenes. You can see how the movie just wants to be a good thriller and does so almost effortlessly. I remember my dad buying a old VHS copy when I was 9 or so and not really liking it's cover, but since I didn't want to hurt my dad's feelings I stuck it up and pretended to be excited, and watched it, and ever since then I have a place in my (movie watching) heart for this, perhaps just based on that back story alone.

One thing that I really enjoy is the actors. Lot's of familiar and likable faces in the house. I invested more into the movie by that way. I do admit the characters of the mental patients aren't fully developed enough though, I wanted to know more and see more about them, like the very sympathetic Lana (played quite well by Elizabeth Daily). She has a scene where she opens up her heart and I started liking her, but the movie is quick to get to the gore and kills and her plight is cut way to short. Same could be said for Dean Cameron and Susan Barnes.

The directing by Andrew Fleming is basically there to serve the story, nothing to stand out. I would have preferred to see a director with a more unique visual voice (all of the Flemings movies never have stand out visuals) it would have made the movie more stand out, and his angles are pretty bland. Good scene transitions though.

The soundtrack by Jay Ferguson was much appreciated and quite dreamy. Far better then his over the top attempt with Nightmare 5: Dream Child.

The kills and gore are very queasy, and people who have dealt with a suicide or (god forbid) seen a suicide will surly be offended by this movie, but since I'm a avid horror fan I was never offended, but they certainly had cruel streak.

Some flaws that hurt the movie are the lack of character development (as stated) and the movie's ending felt rushed, forced, and cut short. What happened to our survivors? I hate endings that never show the characters reactions after the events are over. One thing I will compare to Nightmare 3 is the ending, which was done there was well. Please take at least 4 or so minutes to better resolve our characters. The "surprise" in the end wasn't fully explored either, it somewhat didn't make much sense to me. What is this persons final goal when he succeeds? So maybe because I didn't want to hurt my dad's feelings at an early age, makes me warm up to this easier, or maybe it is just decent effort that can be watched from time to time. But be warned, this movie deals with suicide in a crude manner and surely will offend some.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)

A illustrated example of blatant commercialism at it's worst.

[19 March 2008]

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: Dream Child (1989) Director: Stephen Hopkins (Predator 2)

**out of****

Review

"Dream Child", the next Freddy adventure, wants to perfectly illustrate commercialism and do it without any contempt for its audience. The previous movie Had sealed Freddy's fame and this movie more or less wants to suck the money from you and hopes its faults will be forgiven. Not so.

The movie easily can be spotted as having potential. Stephen Hopkins is aboard this time around and as Robert Englund once stated, what made him continue with the series was the directors and their creative juices flowing. The same can be said for me (at least up until this point). The movie looks quite Gothic and polished; the audio once again delivers, the lighting and SFX look stunning, and the angles are kinetic. The film also has the respect of continuing off of 4 and returning the Dream Master, Alice. Thanks for the small favors.

The mythology (which is given the once over) has potential as well, and still somewhat makes sense if you think about it. It seems Freddy lost all of his souls and was powerless, but is reborn in a dream and instead of using Alice, he's using her unborn fetus (?!) as the new bearer of souls for Freddy.

The movie could have been done quite well, but the movie has only one interest, to make money. The production was given 6 weeks of shooting, and 6 weeks of editing, the script was the least of anyone's concerns as constant rewrites were done, but as long as there was deaths and SFX, hopefully it won't show. Despite our heroine returning, the movie adds a bad contrivance that Alice has made a batch of new friends that aren't even half as endearing as the ones in 3-4. The movie knows the characters fates and sleepwalks them to their destinies without a seconds thought. So much for suspense. The death toll is three this time around though, and besides the motor bike death (one kick ass scene), the creative flow was on a low burner. The comic book world was abysmally lame, and the model overeating scene was cut short. So what are we paying to see exactly?

Freddy is another awful disservice, his demeanor is to uneven, he wants to be the jokester but the script gives him the worst lines of the movie. Once again he was more tolerable in 3-4, if he's not scary (like 1), mean (like 3) or funny (like 4), then what do we have? A curiosity I'm afraid.

The score by Jay Ferguson was to overbearing as well, at times when it was low key and dreamy it worked, but then it got to loud and theatrical, it didn't support then images to well. Where's Angelo (from 3) when you need him?

The movie also has a mess of an ending where you can see the rewrites quite clearly, No momentum, and it seems like no one had any ideas left by that point in the movie. I'm sorry, but tarantulas and spiked baby carriages aren't my idea of conflict of good and evil. The ending also confirmed my suspicions that the movie had no desire to be original, and recycled in a cheap way the ending of 4. Freddy's death was all ready done like that in 4, and quite better.

We then cut to credits and have to endure one lame rap song, which just seals the fate of the movie for me

If it wasn't for Stephen Hopkins and Alice, the movie is just a big mess of a painting, with no thought to texture, idea, feelings, purpose, or respect. It's by the numbers film making, and certainly is pivotal low for the series. I still watch it here and there, but for me the party ended with 4. The movie shouldn't have been rushed, it's that simple. I certainly want to like any horror sequel, as I'm a big fan, but when the intent on the filmmaker's part is to simply take your money it unfortunately rubs off on me, making the obvious contrivances more insulting and the resolution of a horror icon a tedious joke.

Robert Shaye said the reason they make the movies one after another is for the fans. So Why the hackneyed production wasting good talents and losing the fan base? If I have to answer that question once again in my review, you deserve this as well as Freddy's dead.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Freddy goes POP!!!

[18 March 2008]

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master Director: Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight)

***out of****

Review

Freddy is at the top of his game. After the immensely popular "Dream Warriors", Freddy had reached his peak of pop culture. This movie brashly illustrates the pop culture, with Freddy being less scary, and more of an icon. I admit once again of seeing all the horror franchises at a (very) young age and I don't think I was alone as by this point in the franchise as there was a wave of Freddy toys, sheets, lunch boxes, posters, etc. Basically the statistics were rolled in, and marketing knew its age group. So yes, before I start this review, I'll say that Freddy isn't scary, the movie doesn't even try to scare you, but alas, it wants to entertain, and boy does it ever.

The movie continues on from 3, with the survivors trying to get on with their lives (Kristen, Joe, Kincaid) and the beginning has Kristen (now played by the less competent Tuesday Knight) having the dream at the Elm street house (which is EVEN more pimping then 3). She gets frightened and pulls the other two in, but they get angry and don't believe her (after everything they went through together you'd think they wouldn't give it a second thought, but never mind). We then go into the now familiar territory of the introduction of our new batch of teens since the Elm street children are near extinct. Alice is the only one we should really invest in since she eventually is going to take the lead as Freddie's new opponent. Anyways, Freddy indeed does resurrect (in one kick ass surreal "regeneration" scene which is started by flaming dog urine!?!) and continues to dispatch our reaming survivors. The mythology for this sequel indeed makes sense and tries to expand off 3. It seems if Freddy kills all the final Elm street children he will forever be trapped in the dream world with no more victims so he now must find someone he can use to bring new victims, and he finds that in the very shy and insecure Alice, who inherits Kristen's gift (after her grisly "furnace" death). One thing Freddy didn't count on is that every time he kills someone, she inherits their special power, and gets stronger and stronger, but when Freddy kills a very close family member, Alice must use everything she's got in a final kick ass showdown.

Although many people feel this movie is a cheat and that the series should have ended after 3, I beg to differ and felt that the closure for 3 was to poorly done, making the ending very underwhelming, I WANTED MORE! So the sequel is a somewhat decent companion piece to 3. Bringing back the warriors was genius, and I enjoyed the continuity. Sure, I can make a stink about them getting killed, but personally since I cared so much about them from 3, their deaths upped the stakes for me. Also the new characters, although noting that layered, the actors portraying them were competent and very likable none the less, like three, I cared about the kids. Also Lisa Wilcox is a revelation, making the most interesting Elm Street character ever. I was rooting for her all the way.

Another pro for this sequel is Renny Harlin in the directing seat. Not only did he create the most visually appealing sequel of the entire series, he made the movie and extremely effortless watch as well. This movie ahs flaws, but boring us is not one of the them. It's so fast paced, you feel like you need to stop for a breath of air. The camera is very fluid and I loved the style. The colors are also very vibrant, lot's of green and red lighting. Thank you Mr. Harlin, you certainly can punch a wallop with your scenes.

As with 3, there is so much scenes that stand out in my mind with picture clarity, the Junkyard scene, the watered scene, the beach scene, the classroom scene, the elevator scene, the movie theater, Freddy eating the Pizza, Alice and Dan spinning through the tunnel, Roach motel scene, Freddy's death, all classic scenes and after watching them you can see why the movie made the most money in the entire series (ex Freddy Vs Jason).

Some flaws I have with the movie are 1) Although the deaths had good SFX, the gore and mean streak so prominent in previous sequels was seriously lacking, Should have made Freddy mean like 3 did, 2) the movie's narrative gets a little shaky in places, making some dream sequences not following up with logic, comes off as a tad distracting, and 3) the movie does get a little heavy handed making some scenes very cheesy (you'll probably groan) like Alice gearing up to go into hand and hand combat. To much man, I ended up laughing at it.

Overall though, this is the last decent hurrah for Freddy. The movie sells his soul but at least it's still quite fun watching it go down, swinging. It only gets lesser and lesser after this one, and Robert Englund has even admitted he felt strongly about this movie ending the series, as Freddy's death certainly makes sense and is a fitting touch. What a kick ass scene too. This is where Elm street ends for me, even though I still watch 5, I consider this to be Freddy's final "adventure".

Of course, commercialism and the mighty buck thought otherwise, but you can still consider this the final Freddy, and should wisely do so.

Nightwatch (1997)

Apparently wants to be more then it is.

[6/10 · 14 March 2008]

Nightwatch (1997)

Director: Ole Bornedal (Nattevagten)

**1/2out of****

Review

"Nightwatch" is the virtual remake of the Danish film "Nattevagten", helmed by the same Danish director as well (this was also done with the ring and grudge movies). I haven't seen the Danish version yet, but from some research this north American version is basically a shot by shot remake, with more conventional actors.

The movie wants to come off as an intelligent, dreary, nihilistic thriller in hopes of obtaining the "Seven" visceral experiences. The plot consists of a man named Martin (Ewen McGregor) who is hired as the new security guard for the graveyard shift at some depressing morgue. He then realizes that someone is watching, waiting, plotting and scheming to eventually frame Martin for his murderous crimes. That's basically it.

The movie succeeds in creating a sense of foreboding doom early in the movie. This is some morgue. With dimly lit hallways, main entrance blocked by blowing garbage bag covered trees, creaky doors, moth filled lights, etc. The movie works more with more simple methods of chills; I was surprised how effective some work. There's a certain photo posted on the wall in the office of the morgue, quite simple, very effective, something about that photo just gave me the freaking creeps. The suspense is high the first 45 minutes or so.

Then the movie began to lose its grasp. For starters, the characters are never fully developed, actually who the hell are these people? The movie tries to make some red herrings, but if you have the minimal of brain cells it shouldn't be too hard to guess this IS NOT the killer. The Brolin character is also a bit shaky. He's going through some mid life crisis but it made little sense to me. It certainly didn't make me think he was the killer. We never get to fully know Patricia Arquettes character either, she's just there.

The killer's motivations are bit weak as well, and I found his reasons very far fetched. For a thriller about a serial killer, I found the kills and killer quite tame. It was not only too predictable who it was, but also quite boring, the killer was too ho hum.

The movie is a "Dimensions" production, and I think it hurt the movies nihilistic demeanor. It seems to hold back a lot of the times, and seems very Scream oriented. Yes, we have another movie trying to suck of the fame of Scream (made one year prior). The movie appears to be smart, but once you stand back you realize its just a front.

The movie works when using simple effective tools, they have been done before, but I was surprised how effective they were. It's when the movie settles into basic hero in peril type flick that has been done better (and more memorable) before.

The movie has a decent soundtrack and the directing is polished. The actors all do fine with the thin material and the three or so kills were quite vicious if not cut short.

Though, the movie loses steam, and eventually you seem to feel a bit under whelmed? Un phased? The movie wants to be a genre classic, but its substance never fully measures up.

So then we have a movie as an experience in chilling, but quickly fading nightmare.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

Not only a cool sequel, but a really good movie as well!

[8/10 · 12 March 2008]

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors(1987) Director: Chuck Russell (The Blob remake)

***1/2outof****

Review

Arguably considered the best of the entire series (excluding one), Dream Warriors takes the series into a more fantasy oriented extravaganza. It's loaded with bigger budget, more characters, more of everything actually. The Nightmare series was on the brink of its multi-.million dollar fame and before Freddy got watered down and basically shifted into his comedian phase we had this movie.

The movie has no seemingly apparent interest in part 2 and could easily be the 2 of the series since it expands from 1's origins and never once mentions the events in 2. So this could actually be the REAL sequel to 1, I think 2 was to ahead of the mythology of the series and should have been made after Dream Child (5 in the series).

The plot focuses on the remaining "Elm Street" children all rounded up in the local mental hospital, where the skeptical staff tends to them. It seems Freddy has been alive and kicking and has been still terrorizing dreams. The movie opens with one of the children Kristen (Patricia Arquette) trying desperately to stay awake (by spooning down coffee mix) and making models of the house she's been dreaming of. Well efforts aside, she has a dream and we are basically thrown into a much different approach then the proceeded. The movie is bombarded with SFX, the Elm street house is pimped up to one spooky setting, and the first stalk sequence is a good example of what's instore for the audience. Anyway, after barely getting killed by the Fredster, Kristen joins her fellow survivors in the asylum where quite conveniently joined up by part one's heroine Nancy. She is now a dream doctor (or something) and once realizing what the kids are up against she embarks them on a mission to fight back. It is discovered that Kristen also has a gift of pulling in people to her …consciousness…in order for everyone to dream the same dream. Alas, when doing this Nancy is able to have every dreamer obtain a certain power, which they use to battle Freddy. That is basically the premise as the last half of the movie is a series of event showing some do battle and fail, and some warriors team up to use their efforts while the only kind doctor tries to bury the bones of Freddy in order to stop his reign of terror.

I admit I saw this movie at a young age, and doing so I easily invested a lot into the well rounded group of troubled teens. We have the easily likable Kristen, the uber cool tough Chick Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), the endearing mute guy Joey, the sympathetic chubby girl in hopes of seeking fame, the nerdy (but cool) War craft/fantasy obsessed Will(who looks like Waldo from Where's Waldo), and the bad ass Kincaid (who more or less spends most of the movie yelling), I'm missing some of the others but you get the idea. Ebert said in his review that he felt the movie gave him no sympathy for the characters and that was its biggest flaw, well I take that in stride. I had no trouble and it actually hurt when some of the kids died. Having that investment surly made the movie a much more personnel viewing. I cared.

The movie also runs rampant with SFX, imagination, cool visuals, slick audio and some whacked out death scenes (with a bitter cruel streak). So many of the movies scenes stick out for me, the Freddy snake, the Freddy puppet, the Freddy TV., the Freddy needle scene, the hallway of mirrors, Freddy's basement and boiler room scenes, the Freddy demise. Any video game fanatic would appreciate the action that goes down (dreamers using skills to combat Freddy), and the mythology laid down in this entry certainly is very video game like. The mythology of Freddy is also more sketched out this time as we learn more of his origins and also discover what happens to the souls of the kids he kills (they are trapped in his chest and appear as a tormented screaming face).It seems the more souls Freddy obtains, the stronger he gets.

Angelo Badalmenti (Mullholland Drive, Twin Peaks) is the composer this time around brings one of the most unique scores of the entire series. It's quirky and quite pleasing to the ears. I want it. It brings a touch of class to the movie and compliments the imagery quite nicely.

The directing is quite inspiring (considering it's his first movie) and he succeeds in balancing the cheesy jokes with the movies menacing sense of hopelessness almost effortlessly. You can tell the makers must have had a blast with this. I know I would have. The movie has a hopeless and nihilistic vibe that makes the jokes more passable.

Some flaws that I have to mention is that the warriors aren't never fully able to use their skills towards the end, whether this was time restraints, money, or intentional it's never clear, but it seems they could have had a bigger fight with Freddy, also after Freddy's eventual demise the movie basically ends to quickly, since I was 98% invested with the characters, I wanted to know the outcomes of all the survivors. It didn't happen, making the last frame somewhat tedious.

All in all though, I consider this movie to be quite bad ass, and can proudly hold it's head up as not only a worthy sequel, but a highly entertainment movie in general. This is the sequel I show to unfamiliar Elm Street fans, and on that note dare I say we have a "classic" on our hands?

I do.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Should have been made after Dream Child.

[12 March 2008]

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge(1985) Director: Jack Sholder (the Hidden)

**1/2outof****

Review

I've been seeing a lot of hate over the years towards this sequel, and I must state that although it can't spit shine part one's shoes it certainly isn't the worst sequel (I guess these people haven't seen Freddy's Dead).

For starters, this sequel decently succeeds in having the nightmarish quality that the parts following lacked. Freddy has no one liners, seems peed off, and has no problem killing someone brutally. So horror buffs rejoice. Freddy also has a certain look towards him that makes him scary to look at in this one.

This sequels mythology also is pretty decent. It tries to set up a whole new agenda for Freddy and it actually makes sense. If you ask me this sequel's story could have been told AFTER Dream Child, it would have given the series the horror jolt it needed. It seems Freddy is trapped in Dream World and a new family has moved into the "Freddy house" (actually Nancy's house, how it became Freddy's house is beyond me). It seems Freddy can't kill anymore so he's using the son Jesse's (Mark Patton) body as sort of a vessel so he can kill in the real world instead of Dreams. See, it defiantly would have been better if this concept was used after Dream Child.

That's basically the plot this time around, as indeed Freddy systematically takes over Jesse, and continues to kill, while Jesse may or may not take the blame. The Director shows competence (check out the school bus dream), and definitely brought a lot of style to this nightmare, I dug it the most.

Christopher young's score is also on the ball, elevating the movie to a more scary level. I love this guys stuff, and the movie wouldn't be half as scary without it. At times it sounds like whales moaning in pain or something, pretty creepy.

The problems that this movie has (for me) is our main lead Jesse. Not only was the actor a whiny suck, he also screamed like a girl, dressed like crap, and basically turned down all the help that was offer. How can anyone incest in someone like that? It certainly hurt the scare factor for since, since he was to despicable. This would lead to another "controversial" aspect this sequel has. Many tend to see it as a metaphor for a homosexual coming to terms with his sexuality. Take the scene where Jesse walk into the living room and says "My god, it is hot as an oven in here", or the one night where for no reason out "hero" walks into a queer S&M establishment and gets picked up by the sadist gym instructor. Huh? Or the scene where the lead tries to have sex with the female lead(a very Meryl Streepish look alike) only to re think it and then decides he rather spend the night at his male buddies place. Scenes like this are all over the place to poke fun at if that's your thing,

I also think the ending of this movie is underwhelming to say the least, and has a love conquers all attitude. Basically saying "I LOVE YOU" can defeat Freddy this time around? Not only does that seem a feeble attempt, but it also has no real purpose since the last frame has signs that Freddy is still kicking.

Freddy also crashes a pool party this time but I found it to be cut to short to really leave an impression. Why was everyone so scared anyways?

The winks to part one were appreciated, and the gore and SFX are quite icky, and some scenes stand out with picture clarity, Rottweilers with disfigured baby faces, Freddy ripping off his scalp, a mutant cat eating a rat, Freddy coming out of our hero's body, the scenes of Freddy lurking about, all done with a creepy excellence, this sequel succeeds in giving me some BRRRRRS.

So, no I'm not going to complain about this sequel being straight up awful, it has it's flaws, but I can see a decent effort on the filmmakers part to make Freddy and elm street scary, so for the most part (excluding out feminine lead) the movie succeeds.

"Your our all my Children Now"

Hellgate (1989)

Surly the type of "Anti Depressent" filmaking we aspire to.

[11 March 2008]

Hellgate(1989) Director: William A. Levey

***out*****

Review

I seem to have to always justify my reasons to people as to how I can watch, buy, and even spend endless hours seeking the most wretchedly awful movies known to man. With eBay receipts reaching the hundreds, I confess I am guilty of that enjoyment. I also Confess that this world we live in doesn't let you choose your daily outcomes, and any honest person will admit that some of those outcomes can leaving feeling depressed, stressed, mad, bored, what have you. After watching some of these movies when in Those emotions, it's very hard to find myself not laughing.

How anybody could take the world and its petty problems serious after viewing a flick Like this seem to be as alien to me as I to them. Sure, there are obnoxiously bad movies That do nothing bet aggravate the senses, those movies reach the pits of banality and surly wont help with anyone's all ready shaky mentality. Then we have the obscure flicks That goes beyond the pits of movie making and seems to reach a point that deserves its own plateau. At the start of this movie ominous music plays, lightning crashes, and we are introduced to 2 females and 1 male all telling ghost stories. The ages of these people is never declared, although at one point a university is mentioned so for the movies sake, instead of 35ish (which indeed they appear to be), we'll call them 20somethings. They Are waiting for another friend, to kill time one female decides to tell of the urban legend of the old ghost town up the road. It seems in the fifties a biker gang kidnapped and killed The mayor or something of the town's daughter, and the mayor vows revenge, and wouldn't you have the mayor (or something) finds a blue crystal which can reanimate the Dead with its fantastical Tron like blue beam that it shoots itself from. We know this from a scene involving a goldfish and a sea turtle (which bites the mayor's face). Well Anyways, it appears the legend is really true and the ghost of the girl (with quite the rack) haunts the roads of the South African outback (although the movie says it's set in California) seeking revenge against the gang who killed her, and strangers in general I Guess. Well the guest drives by her, enters the town, and is seduced by ghoul girl, Revengeful mayor finds out, declares death, guest dude runs away, seeks his friends, And declares to save ghoul girl, which leads the 20somethings to the ghost town, only To fall prey to zombies, slashers, constant one liners, and the suspense of watching a snail move.

I feel compelled by the approach to this material. Is it satire? Black Comedy? An honest approach to horror? Because of this uncertain demeanor the movie Has a certain trashy charm. The writer seems to be inspired by sitcoms or something as the screenplay has these "witty" lines that think this is Seinfeld or something. During the most suspenseful of scenes the characters have no problem taking a break to make a joke. Also the laws of movie logic are also at best, helter skelter. Not only do characters have Scotty beaming them, we also have scenes of zombies or something prowling the town, but it seems the director didn't tell them their purpose as they seem to walk about, stare at the camera and then- that's it! We also have ghoul girl laying in a bed which would seem to be the entire half while enchanting "Matt, Darlin Matt" while her bosom camera mugs. Also the movie breaks the rule of every character having a purpose. Who is the man burning at the end? Why would the mayor (or something) bring back the ghost of the biker gang who started everything in the first place? Is the black waitress a subtle clue to indicate our society's acceptance of BLACK culture (as the fifties flashback indeed shows as an all white establishment) Where exactly do all the "diners" occupants live? And so forth, the movie is so obscure I found myself thinking, thinking, THINKING of all the answers.

The movie has some funny scenes to be sure. Also what is with the director himself? He has a cameo as a head in a fridge, and seems to have a grasp on making banal Indeed banal. Take two murder scenes, one dude has his head chopped off and the body running down the road, or a female, after watching the beheading screams and then calmly sits in a saloon smoking & drinking, while ghost cabaret dancers dance a way, she is then strangled while blood spurts, in the most tackiness of slow motion. They ghost's motivations are a little shaky: Are they all bad? Why some only human while others are rotting? What about the reanimated bat on a string? The box cover has the toggling "From the SFX people who did Hellraiser 1&2", perhaps they quit after day 1 of shooting.

And so forth.

There are plenty of bad movies, even movies that are considered "good", this one seems to go beyond the realms of bad film-making, it's so abysmal that it really made my day, and that's all that should matter right? Enjoy.

Pet Sematary II (1992)

I have the balls to admit I LIKE THIS ONE!

[7/10 · 11 March 2008]

Pet Sematary two(1992) Director: Mary Lambert (Pet Sematary)

***out of****

The Review

Did we really need a sequel to Pet Sematary? The answer by any serious movie buff will most likely be no, and from IMDb.com it would seem that this sequel is held in low regards. So why do I enjoy this sequel and continue to watch it? Well I'm a horror buff and hold PS1 in my top ten movies of all time (that I've ever seen). So any sequel To any horror movie I have high praise for should at least be watched. Alas I watched, and liked it.

If you ask me no sequel that came after one would top it off, that story had been told and The Creed's were basically out of the picture and any attempt to continue their plight is just asking for failure, if you attempt this sequel in that light, you will probably feel less cheated.

Surely anyone attempting to go into a movie with "Two" in the title will be expecting the likes of its proceeded companion so that is understandable. That is to say, a weakness I do admit of this movie (compared to the first) is the fact its script has no regards for anything to be groundbreaking or new. Very ho hum to say the least. We have the animal coming back (this time it's a husky), we have the main protagonist losing a loved one (this time the tables have turned and it's a child losing a parent), and indeed the deaths are even more so grisly then before (lot's of icky and disturbing bits) and the characters are all thinly sketched (unlike before).

One aspect that makes the sequel a decent companion would most likely have to be the return of Mary Lambert. I admit I'm a fan of her style and she doesn't hold back this time around. I'm under the impression that Mary knew what a flimsy script she was about to helm and decided to go haywire with a slick polished look (this flicks look is so on), groovy death scenarios (some of them took me by surprise), tacky but somewhat suited rock/pop songs, and to top it all off we have a super fast pace. If she wasn't back this time around I think maybe I'd be inclined to hate this as much as others surly have. The movie has a surreal and colorful aspect about it that definitely sticks out for me.

Another aspect that is in the same spirit of one is the messed up and seriously warped gore and a meaner sense of humor that came with it. The mean spiritedness that one had is back with vengeance and I have to say some scenes in here were uncomfortable but in a good horror movie way. Yes, I like being disgusted and I love it when movies push the envelope (wait till you see the demise of the token bully). Lot's of plasma, ripped throats, open wounds, dead kittens, half mutilated faces, ripped open chests, skinned rabbits, gouged out eyes, pus, scabs. The movie just reeks of death and fans of gore should enjoy. I know I did. The movie also has a mean streak that was in one as well (lots of innocent animals and kids getting killed). A very exciting kill scene involving a potato truck is also quite well done with a awesome pay off (great directing in that scene).

I just have to mention the character of Gus (played by Clancy Brown). He's basically a side character whose sub plot was the most interesting aspect. Since the main protagonist's plight is telegraphed for us from the first 10 minutes (kid loses mom, moves right by the Indian burial ground right afterwards) I was grateful for eventual outcome of Gus, his fat step son and his hot wife's (basically one of the only sympathetic characters in the movie) eventual demise. No one plays crazy loon better then Mr. Brown. The movie wouldn't be half as interesting with ought him, so props.

So if there's anyone to blame for this movie the only one to blame would have to be The screen writer who has no grasp on character development (no one has a second layer to them), un likely plot twists that made no sense (your telling me they carried that body that far?) and no attempt at scares.

The actors are actually quite competent despite the script they work with. If you get over Edward Furlong's subdued and sedated performance you can actually see some decent actors at play. I've all ready mentioned Clancy Brown, but Anthony Edwards, Sara Trigger, Lisa Waltz, Jared Rushton, and Jared Macguire all do well taking into account most are thin sheets of paper, assholes, or easily spotted "I'm here to basically die" characters.

Overall though, this is an effortless watch and has a high entertainment value for the likes of trashy, gory, well directed campy sequels. I'm glad it's around and feel compelled to watch it right after one. That is a compliment in itself.

Bring on Pet Sematary Three.

Needful Things (1993)

What a bad movie. Hardly any redeeming qualities.

[4/10 · 20 March 2007]

After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.

Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had "Victim" or "Asshole" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.

This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?

The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable.

The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.

I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.

I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign.

I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer.

** out of ****

The House by the Cemetery (1981)

Distracting plot holes ruin what could have been awesome Fulci!

[3/10 · 3 September 2006]

This was my third Lucio Fulci flick, I saw Zombie and The Beyond and thought they were well made, if not incompetent at times.

But where the hell do I even begin with this? I guess first things first...the plot. It was one big mess, if you ask me. A family of three (which includes the most annoying kid in movie history, you really really will hate him) move into some house, where a girl was killed in the opening of the movie. Now for the first act of the movie nothing much happens as there is no character development for this family, for the most part its just a bunch of boring dialog. Some subplot with the annoying loser kid getting visits from some ghost girl is also brought up, but so poorly written that you will be scratching your head in wonder as to what the hell is the point? The ghost girl warns the boy, but he is so pathetic that nothing comes of it. The family live in the house for a bit, strange things happen, bats on strings attack, and the wife freaks out all the time and screams (like in a terrible scene where the kitchen i dunno, flips out on her), and the little boy still just hangs out with the ghost girl, who he starts to refer her as his "new girlfriend" Out of the blue appears some babysitter chick, and something that Demoni did four years later is done here too. you might recall that in Demoni...there was a Usherette who worked at the theater that was possessed and for the first half of the movie it really tries to empathizes that she is evil, but then when the demons attack..SHE IS JUST A VICTIM like everyone else. No point in her character what so ever..well the same could be said about our babysitter, as the camera always does extreme close ups of her eyes as if to make us think "Oh shes up to something", it even has a scene where she is cleaning up blood from a murder scene and the housewife calmly asks her what shes doing and TAKES NO NOTICE THAT There's BLOOD TO BEGIN WITH! After all of this though, the babysitter is just another victim and everything she brought to the story is never once explained.

Elaborate Lucio Fulci deaths are here yes, and some are quite good, but they seem like thats all that Lucio knew how to do, as the story seems more just like a bulletin board where all the deaths were posted on various parts. Many people on this site have praised the movie as "suspensful", well please don't listen. I'm telling you now, that there was ZERO suspense all the way through, once the killer that lives in the basement of the house is revealed, it looks like a cheap zombie recycled badly from ZOMBIE and is a huge letdown for all that time wasted.

So far I've noticed my review is all over the place and really hasn't explained much, because that's the way this movie is. You spend more time on the plot then the filmmakers obviously did, only to have to he movie end and realize you've been making theories and assumptions all for nothing, because the movie tries to be a mystery, but completely abandons it's audience with the ending.

The ending is ambiguous and lame. Why have the gimmick ending of what some people call symbolism. The ending didn't seem like symbolism to me, it felt more like a easy way out of a ludicrous story to begin with.

Not only is this movie horribly dated, has that awful kid, makes no sense, has no nudity, and plods along like it had all the time in the world, but it also really likes to repeat the scenes over and over...like when the mother and son kept taking turns and going down the basement. The writers can't think of anything better for them to do? The movie asks way too many questions that never even tries to hint at the answers, the family is also very underdeveloped..why didn't anyone realize the son was always hanging in a graveyard? as far as I could see they didn't even notice. After many violent accidents and such, the family still calmly gos about their business, just waiting for the screenplays next death, which are all over the top I'm assuming to make us scared. The movie also doesn't take advantage of what could be cool scenes...like the one scene where the killer is holding the kids head against the door while his dad pounds away at the other side with an Axe, I was so happy for brief seconds as I though the Axe would chop into the annoying kids head, but nope..nadda, and the part where they stab the killer in the stomach and worms fall out but nothing comes of it? I tried my best to describe to you this movie, I think it would be best to avoid it, unless you just need to see all of Lucio's work. It has too many plot holes, where it gets to the point of utter madness on screen as you see nothing makes sense. What was the deal with all of the close ups of the characters eyes, trying to communicate with each other, it was done a lot but never given a clear purpose, just confusion.

I give this movie *1/2 out ****.

Pet Sematary (1989)

The Best Stephen King Adaption. **** out ****

[10/10 · 11 August 2006]

What a grim and mean spirited movie!!! A horror movie with nothing good to come of it are usually my favorite types, when the harm that is caused is more or less from the characters own doings (Another flick that does this expertly is Requiem for a Dream),that the characters refuse to accept what their reality is and only make things worse by doing so. Requiem for a Dream had Drug Addiction over Delusion and here we have Grief over Resurrection.

At first George A . Romero was suppose to direct but backed out, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing and MAry Lambert took over. Many seem to dislike Mary Lambert's direction for the story, but I think the fact she directed "Siesta"(1987) in which a female dare devil had to accept reality before she could go on, was a given that Ms. Lambert had experience at working with "the necessity for accepting change" as she puts it.

The plot is genius from the get go. The Creed Family move into their perfect country home in Ludlow, Maine accept for two flaws,1) the huge Semis that storm by day and night (perhaps hinting at Symbolism that death and destruction are always near by and can strike at any moment) and 2) a Spooky Pet sematary with a secret (resurrection of loved ones, but there's a brutal price to pay). These two flaws make them selves known to the family, and the plot unfolds these secrets until the films brutal climax.

The acting is a bit off at times sure, and the pace is a little rushed towards the end, but I was too engaged to let those things really bother me. What the movie was asking and saying outweighed those flaws. Death is something EVERYONE has to relate too, and it's something that probably millions fear, but as the movie states "Sometimes DEad is better" which is quite obvious, you have to accept whats what, it's something you have to face and accept no matter how cray or sad it may seem, otherwise it will make things worse. Dale Midkiff was the perfect Louis Creed, and Fred Gymne was the best performance in the whole movie, make Jud Crandall one likable character. Denise Crosby did what she had to do quite well, even though she appeared one dimensional at times. Miko Hughes is my favorite child actor.

This is Mary Lambert's greatest achievement so far. She gives the film a very spooky absorbing look, stylish but not too over the top (she waited till PS2 but it actually worked to help its offbeat screenplay). I mean, she was responsible for Madonna Music videos. She smartly pays more attention to the story though and handles everything quite well. The use of the semi trucks and some scenes with them were genius. The Suspense was high and she gave the film the mean streak that stayed true to the book.

The biggest fault though is by King himself (Go figure). His Screenpaly was quite rushed, as if he feared the audience wouldn't like a layered movie. At times he skips all times for character development in favor of all the spooky happenings. The slow but well made evolution to the resurrection in the book is lacking in the movie. One minute its the funeral and then its up to the burial ground. More grief and sorrow would have upped the stakes. The walk up to the pet sematary was expertly done with the cat's resurrection (all about that freaky noise) but the second time it was so rushed, in the book it was one of the most terrifying things, but in the movie it happens too quickly.

The music by Elliot Goldenthal is freaky and sad at the same time and suits the movie perfectly. I especially liked the opening credit theme.

The movie is very mean spirited and gory. Very much so. It doesn't apologize for the gruesome sights it shows and maybe why a dimwitted hack named Leonard Maltin gave it a BOMB rating. What a moron. The movie has much to serve in the gore department. Thank you MAry Lambert. We have a dude with a smashed in head and you can see his brains, a frozen dead cat, mutilated rats, a kids chewed off leg in a flashback, a resurrected dog with that was killed by rusty barb wire,a sick and ugly deformed bed ridden sister in flashback, semi running over a kid (though just the thought is enough and we don't see the aftermath), but once a scalpel is brought out it got INTENSE, swipings, eyes gouged out, Achilles tendons cut, mouth slashed, half eaten faces, the grisly works that makes 3 Friday the 13ths gore to shame.

Overall a rare horror treat, one that is somewhat of a classic to some, and an awful movie to others (but you can probably imagine why) **** out **** PS. I actually dig the sequel which if in the wrong hands it could have been as bad as people say, but it's Mary Lambert in the directing chair again and she makes it work.

Prom Night (1980)

Horribly dated slasher with tacky disco music...but

[5/10 · 13 June 2006]

It's still got a small unique charm that makes me watch it here and there.

Made by the people responsible for "Curtains" (1983) It was actually a big money earner and in my opinion Curtains is far better film and much more appealing. It amazes me how Prom Night was watched by a lot more.

The plot is nothing spectacular and it involves 4 dumb kids accidentally killing some mousy little girl who was one of the only sympathetic characters in the whole movie (and she dies like 5 minutes in!!!). Well these 4 kids don't need any convincing at all to keep the murder a secret and jump 6 years later and all the kids are somehow still all hanging around together, hell two of the girls are best friends with the little victims older sister, Thee Jamie Lee Curtis, and the only boy of the four is dating her as well, maybe they really despise Jamie lee? and are being nice to her because they have guilt. Jamie Lee was overrated in this and her character was really obnoxious, spoiled, and self proclaimed. I really wanted her to bite the big one. Well anyways, the day of the prom and all four teenagers start getting telephone calls by an unseen prowler with his yearbook and pencil. "Tonight it's your turn" or "Do you still like to play games"...the plot plods along by giving us red herrings left and right...everyone and their dead aunt was a suspect...you be the judge on how easy it was to spot the killer or how difficult it was..I had the killer revealed by my sister who saw the movie first. The big night arrives FINALLY and we have some nice kills and good stalk sequences firmly directed by Paul Lynch and accompanied by Paul Zanza's creepy score. Axe and ski mask in tow, the killer reveals his big bloodshed of a night...which was alright..under circumstances..meaning the tacky and horrible disco dance sequence.

The acting in this movie was credible and watchable, but it was kind of hard to warm up to a lot of the characters because they all looked 30 and acted as if they were 12...did teenagers really act this way? The only character that was interesting was the one hated by everyone, the likable bitch "Wendy"...not only did she make fun of like everyone, she drove a corvette, looked sexy in that red dress, hated Jamie Lee as much as I did, and treated her house maid like yesterdays garbage. My kind of women! Why no one liked this dame was beyond me...she also had a 10 minute stalk scene sequence which was right up there with the "Prop Room" stalk in "Curtains". Stylish and fun.

Leslie Neilson has nothing to do but say his lines and sulk here and there. Not much of a role. As for the rest of the cast...ACT YOUR AGE!!

Note: I should mention the horny, geeky, drug induced fat couple that gets it on in a Van...they had me laughing my ass off.

The directing was nice to look at but someone should have sacrificed those bottles of whiskey and lines off set and invested in some lights for the lighting. Was this movie shot with just a camera? I honestly believe this to be WORST MOVIE FOR LIGHTING! I couldn't see much at times and that really made me uninvolved. Why should I have to always have my flashlight in hand to watch this because someone partied to hard in 1980?

For what it's worth, it's not that terrible or that great either..it's just a fun slasher that is horribly dated and has Jamie Lee Curtis camera mugging and some killer that would be a better tap dancer then a prowler.Clumsy moron! I expected him to start doing one of those slapstick tap routines at any moment...

Paul Lynch later directed the abysmal and boring "Humongous" which also lost budget for lighting because someone liked to party...it was the early eighties so I guess you can't really blame them. The producers later helmed all 3 unrelated Prom Night sequels and of course the great "Curtains".

** out of ****

The Pool (2001)

Uneven and predictable...but still worth a watch or two.

[11 June 2006]

I just finished watching and I get the impression I will not watch it again, or intend to rent it. Not's not saying it was awful. I'll start with the plot which isn't that layered and has all the clichés you'd expect. Typical opening credits that rip off the Drew Barrymore scene in Scream...then we are introduced the the cannon fodder at the local university. All of them brag and act arrogant, which wasn't exactly annoying...kind of fun because you know the majority if not all will meet their just desserts.

Well anyways it's the night of the grad and all these yuppies want to throw a unique party so they get some dude who looks like the older brother in Adventures in Baby Sitting to break into a huge pool/resort type health spa thingy and they of course all get access to the free booze and are all supplied with swim wear. While this is going on some angry bimbo who dumps her one dimensional boring boyfreind gets sliced and diced...for some apparent reason she was walking in the thick of the night in deep forest for no apparent reason...

After montages and constant unlikely dialouge of the partying teens the killer has made his presence apparent by slicing some ditzy couple in a water slide scene that was one of the best things in this movie. (Reminded me of the ice stalking scene in "Curtains" and the swimming scene in "The Prowler") the group all split up and we are in 80ies land as the plot drops everything but a a very uneven pace and a positive body count. A big peeve with this movie is that there was far too many characters, where you stopped even trying to keep track of names. Just wait until each die in brutal and unrelenting glee. Then you find out who the killer is by a boring and pointless sub plot involving some fat cop who gets all these back ground stories from various moronic bland characters.

The revealing of the killer was dumb and predictable, and he had a very tedious monologue like all those Scream/Urban Legend type killers and his costume was far from interesting or inventive.

Though for its awesome high body count, very visually appealing and stylish directing that set ups all the kills nicely and has a take no prisoners mean spiritedness streak to it, and some tension at certain stalk scenes, it wasn't a total waste of time.

Whoever was responsible for the soundtrack should wait till there at least 20 before composing and selecting songs for movies. It reeked of cheese and was lamer then the soundtrack of hmm..save the last putrid dance? I give this movie **out of **** You'll watch it it and most likely just forget about it it shortly afterwards.

Pumpkinhead (1988)

Well Made Horror with Soul!

[16 January 2006]

This film is pretty classy for a horror film. Everything about this movie has such simplicity, the plot deals with themes of "KARMA" and "VENGANCE", as the movie opens with A family locking themselves in their cabin while a man is stalked and killed outside, the little boy of the family peeks outside and sees the man being killed by a monster in the shadows. It's now the present and the little boy is a grown man ED HARLEY (THE GREAT LANCE) who is a widower and has a small boy. All is fine and dandy until a group of city kids, a motor bike accident, a creepy witch, and a demon that is resurrected and called "PUMPKINHEAD" changes all that, ED and the teens find out the hard way that "WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND".

Great Monster...I remember the design for Pumpkinhead gave me the creeps..especially the far shots of it hiding in trees, the first opening chase scene is creepy because you don't understand what is going on. The witch scenes are also done with so much dread...I love it.

Stan Winston is a very talented director giving the simple monster after teens story more depth and soul. I really felt for Ed and his Grief. How many horror movies do you know that do that?...The blue and orange filters really give the film a nice look. A forest never seemed creepy.

The soundtrack hits all the right notes and elevates the movie to more creepy level.

Some minor complaints would have to be the teens don't get enough screen time..I liked the majority of them but they get killed way too soon (you'll see)...more range and development would have been nice...but on a whole..this movie is all good...nice direction..and themes. Creepy Ending

*** out of ****

StageFright (1987)

***1/2 out of ****...A unique and off the wall classic!!!

[10/10 · 28 November 2005]

Thank you Michele Soavi!!! Regardless of lot's of people's negative reviews of this movie...there still is interest and I'm one of them!...

I love this movie!!! Sure the plot ain't nothing spectacular and the acting is so bad it's bad (main reasons it gets ***1/2 instead of ****) but unpredictable deaths, consistent pace, effective Simon Boswell score(Demons 2), awe inspiring Direction, and a LAUGH RIOT ending sure make up for those two flaws.

I really liked Michele Soavis "fish in an aquarium" approach to the film. The whole idea of getting trapped in a small building without a clue where the key is was freaking nerve wracking!!!...Let's just say that my first film is definitely going to be inspired by this bad boy and it's great set up.

The direction in this movie is the main reason for seeing this. I mean..the predictable plot could have really been done wrong thus leaving a pretty awful movie...but not Mr. Soavi!!...So much creative angles, great use of color, and so much artsy imagery you'l forget your watching a "slasher"..it's rare that you would get a flick that has a bunch of ANNOYING morons getting offed one by one by a psycho while they look for a key and to have the whole direction feel "ARGENTO/KUBRICK/HITCHCOCK" inspired aura coming from it. NICE!!! So many scenes to love in this movie...The nurse feeding the fish...the scene where you can see the killer "Irving Wallace" run across the screen in the distance in the pouring rain...the stalk sequence with the "SNOBBY" actress in the wardrobe room...the infamous "Directing the REAL killer" scene...the scene with Irving Wallce finding all the power tools...the scene where the film's Heroine wakes up and looks for everyone (very Kubrick Inspired)...and last but not least THe "Getting the key" scene..that's all I'll say ...WOW!...very effective.

THe kills are also very impressionable. The flick starts on the right foot by the first victim getting a ice pick in the mouth...which is followed by bloody stabbings, stomachs getting drilled, pregnant chick gets cut in half, chainsaw action, impaling's, and some Axe fun. All the kills are done with brutal and unapologetic fun...I almost felt bad for these morons (I said Almost)...the scene where the killer stabs the actress on stage is a rare treat and the whole set up for the "Shower" scene is very creepy and nerve wracking..you know a horror flick is doing something right when there's suspense and you DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CHARACTERS!!!...YIPPEE!!! THe mask is also a fine choice. Makes the Shapes mask look like FREd Flinstone. I LOVED THE OWL!!! Some pet peeves are the characters (SHUT UP ALL READY), some major plot points that obviously don't have "LOGIC" in there purpose, and NOT ONE hot chick...come on.

But overall...it's a great slasher!!! ***1/2 out of ****

Jason Goes to Hell (1993)

The Ambiguous Friday.

[5/10 · 3 November 2005]

Perfect example of being "Too" creative.

I loved Friday's 1-7...they were basic and always delivered the goods. Friday 8 tried to be simple and different all at the same time and that really hurt the film. Maybe that's why I hate it the most.

Jason goes to Hell takes that "different" path and steroids it. I guess maybe New Line were either scared no one would want to see the same old thing or thought that all the aspects they brought up would seem "cool".

*** Spoilers***

The plot of this movie is polar opposite to the basic Stock Teens introduced, Jason is around, They all die. That's what I was hoping for with this entry..only this time Jason somehow goes to hell. This time around Jason is somehow still alive (dispite melting into a pile of sludge from Friday 8) and still lives in the woods of Crystal Lake. The movie starts of old school with some random chick going to some random cabin and doing typical random things (like walking in the dark and getting naked almost instantly)...I had a good vibe coming from all this. THEN the chick reveals her self to be an FBI agent and lures Jason to his "Just Desserts". Heres where the movie shifts into Bulls*** mode. It seems Jason's heart still has his soul and if you eat the heart Jason can possess you and make you kill. One unfortunate dude does just that (WHA???)and starts the killing spree. Just don't expect all the teenage traits in the house.No this time the characters are mostly residents of the town "Crystal Lake". The actors are surprisingly credible and likable, but i don't want these types in a Friday Flick I'd rather see them in a actually "scary" horror flick.

Some other bad script choices are Jason now has a Sister and a Niece (HALLOWEEN anyone?), Jason has a house/ mansion (A Nightmare on elm street Anyone?) and Jason can body hop whenever he wants to (THE HIDDEN anyone?). None of these are appealing, especially for Jason. What's going on here? Also Jason's physical appearance is really absent. I DON'T WANT TO SEE JASON AS A BLACK DUDE!...no I'm not racist but seeing Jason as a Black dude or some Newscaster sucks big time. Even when Jason does look like his old self, the make up is to over the top and fake looking.

Some good things about this flick are it's GORE and DEATHS. I laughed out loud so many times when a lot of these mooks died (bashed in mouth!!!) and the humour is nice too. This also looks like one of the best Friday Films out there...as Halloween 6 and Nightmare 4, this is definitely the MTV Jason. Nice Direction!!!

The Duke was also a good character with a good actor. There's also a blast from the past when Jason dispatches 3 unlucky campers (FUN STUFF!) and the pace is super fast.

It's just too bad the screenplay and producers are trying to be too out there with there choices. THIS IS A Friday FLICK! not TWIN PEAKS!

**1/2 out of ****

Dolls (1986)

Mediocre Filmaking with not much going for it.

[3/10 · 21 August 2005]

I wanted to like this movie because I am a huge fan of the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna and watch this back to back with the rare gem "Dagon". After the brief interesting introduction the film begin to lose it's grasp and bores us with predictability and nerve testing characters. The plot consists of a family of three, two trashy punk thieves, and an over weight 30 year old kid type guy get stranded in a isolated mansion with an odd elderly couple while it storms. There's also psycho living dolls running around with various stabbing objects just waiting to hack our candidates to bits.

That's where I'll begin, is with the characters. Besdies the little girl as the lead (Such a cutie) I had a hard time finding any comic relier or interest in the supporting victims, or characters take your pick. The bickering, abusive parents weren't funny or even attractive. I just wanted to see them die after hearing them bicker in the car. The most despicable characters to grace a screen in the eighties also exist in the movie (Yes, I'm talking about the two "Madonna wannabes") If you want to get super annoyed..just check out those two's acting. Example when they are in the room listening to music...excruciating. The old couple weren't annoying just really boring, the movie doesn't really give them much to do except talk as if they were in a fairy tale. I guess they served their parts well, none the less. The fat guy was also boring and most of his antics failed.

the movie at least is graceful enough to start killing the majority of these people off quickly, but the gore is very poor and not done all that well, kind of is a let down. COME ON...THIS IS A GORDON FILM. The direction is moody and competent all the way through, but the tension is non existent and the pace lags at time. Even though still the movie is only an hour and ten minutes..it still dragged on at times.

The dialog was inept and I found my self reading a book here and there.

This movie is weaker then Puppet Master by far, due to the fact PM gave it's little killers personality. The special effects are decent in this though, for it's time. There's just something likable about it at times, it suited the movie.

Only see this movie for a cheap and (QUICK) little thrill, it will happen so fast you won't really remember much about it. Except for the "killer" teddy bear bit at the beginning.

Stuart Gordon isn't a bad film maker because of this either. Obviously.

*1/2 out of ****

Cheerleader Camp (1988)

Funny and moronic little slasher.

[5/10 · 21 July 2005]

This movie is so funny. I don't even know where to begin...maybe with a laugh then a groan.

The plot is rather predictable and you don't need psychic vision to know what it's about after seeing the box cover and title. I'm actually going a long way by saying this movie has a plot. After a group of the latest pin up..I mean college cheerleaders (must have all waited quite awhile they looked a day no older then 30) and the token fat guy and Leif Garret (who looks like he spent those paychecks are the nearest bottle of whiskey) get to a camp to compete for some dumb queen thing or blah blah blah, the plot begins to thicken. LOL! Leif Garret instantly starts womanizing RIGHT IN FRONT OF Betsy Russle who is so pilled out and delusional she spends most of her time dreaming utter nonsense of her falling in puddles of mud and mascots dancing around her while you hear "DO IT AGAIN, DO IT AGAIN, HARDER, HARDER", and do'not let me forget the scene where she sees blood on her face and starts crying "NO, MAKE IT STOP", and the next shot it shows her calmly doing a cheer to what appears to be one of the most lamest rap songs I've ever heard. As this is going on, the cannon fodder or Cheerleaders (take ur pick) back stab, try and act, go topless on many occasions, spit "Hip" one liners left and right "Honey on her muffin", and also see random shots of them putting make up and clothes on. They all sure want that crown. There's also a very trampy camp leader who makes it her duty to constantly put these broads down. If the attendance call at the beginning won't make you laugh, then the scenes where she gets loaded sure will. There's also other eighties b-movie trade marks such as Buck Flower and raunchy sex humor sleazing the place up.

Eventually the film makers remember their making a slasher and some of the chicks begin to die. One girl is set up to look as if it's suicide and for the rest of the movie all they recall her as is "that suicide girl", one bimbo after a side splitting scene of "But do you really care about me" monologue gets garden shears in the mouth, another gets run down with a van, and the token fat guy literally gets his gut torn open with a scythe. After all of this Betsy Russel and Leif Garret decide to have champagne by the fire side and talk about their relationship. WTF is going here?...hilarious.

The gore is pretty basic, though at times will give the awesome goods, like the after effects of the van victim, the guts falling out of the fat guy, the bear trap in the face. It's all done so random and spuratic, this isn't a screenplay. More like stoners trying to write and they keep forgetting what their doing. The soundtrack is about as eighties as you can get (You know those little beats that the characters INSIST ON LISTENING TO OVER AND OVER), and the acting is like a high school drama chick play, hammy and cheesy.

This movie isn't annoying, it' just pretty stupid but in the good way. It's a movie you watch at a party and watch all the party goers reactions to it, though I couldn't see anyone actually watching this alone.

** out of ****

The Deadly Spawn (1983)

You'll have more fun watching old ladies converse...o wait this movie all ready has that.

[1/10 · 20 July 2005]

Pure garbage. After watching this garbage I couldn't wait to see how much bashing it got on this site. I was wrong...most people actually praise this movie...why?

The plot is so random and small (alien mother and her offspring invade a farm house) that it constantly has characters talking about nothing just to fill time. I mean what was the scene with the uncle and nephew about? why was the uncle such a loser? they didn't even show him get killed. What was the point of adding that blond fat bimbo into the plot ten minutes before the movie ended? She didn't even look attractive. The effects are so bad, there not fun gory, just groan gory. The acting is irritating, I wanted everyone to die in this movie quickly.

The editing and direction in this movie are non existent..as for example whenever it wants it will show random shots of hands moving things and random shots of characters faces for no reason. Wait, I did see a quick sense of style which was one quick zoom in shot of wall socket..wow that's exciting as it gets.

The only cool deaths in this movie are the farm wife getting her face much-ed on and head chomping that will make u burst with laughter. Didn't see that one coming, I'll give it credit for that.

The score is so low key and generic that I really can't remember much about it...not very effective...even for a ludicrous b-movie like this. The dialog is so moronic and the actors are all un attractive.

I'm a huge fan of really bad movies (HellGate, Texas Chiansaw massacre the next generation, Troll 2, and Slumber Party massacre 2 have all made it to my collection and i love watching them) but this movie is too boring..maybe if it was a 15 min short it wouldn't be so bad...not a movie that trys to stretch itself for an hour and 20 mins...the ending was a crap fest also. Nice effects on that one.

zero stars out of ****

Curtains (1983)

Any fan of really stylish slashers should give this a try!

[10/10 · 18 July 2005]

This movie, plain and simple rocks on every level of slasher film making. The plot consists of Actress Samantha Sherwood ( Samantha Eggar) committing herself to an asylum to research a role for a flick she bought the rights too for her lover at the time Jonathan Stryker ( john Vernon). After she is committed Stryker leaves her there and takes off to a remote isolated cabin in the Ontario wilderness (great setting) in the winter time to audition six gorgeous chicks for the role of "Audra"...when Samantha finds out she high tales it out of there and before you can say "I'm an actress", a killer with a old hag mask (one creepy looking mask...loved it so much) and a sad eye doll begin popping around the actresses and killing them off one by one.

The slickest thing to come out of this is the direction. Secondly is Paul Zazna's music score. The two give off such an ambient feel that no other flick has ever given off. The ice skating stalk, the dream sequence, the prop room stalk and the killer in action are all examples of this. Awesome lighting, suspense is high in some scenes, and guessing who the killer is not very easy which of course is a good thing. I also liked the characters, despite at times they really over act (all of them), I still really liked seeing all the chemistry they had together but you may find yourself not getting to know as much of the characters as you would like to, I don't know if it was the production problems to blame ( apparently this movie was in the deep end with production problems)or maybe just the script but half of the six chicks Arne't given barely any screen time after awhile and the movie gives them absolutely nothing to do. It was at times to confusing when it showed them all together...i kept forgetting who was who.

Now my only real complaints are first The disjointed uneven feel at times this movie gives off. There's some scenes in here that you'll probably notice don't really gel together. Like the off beat scenes of the killer hiding in a wood shed or the character of "Mathew"'s dead body in a hot tub and the ending. I would probably lay the blame on the producers. I don't know,the heavily deleted scenes (rumour has it there were)or maybe it was just sloppy script. The film has a real mystery to it as to what the director originally intended and at times will distract you. Secondly, Two of the main characters are killed off way too quickly and are strangely not even involved with the killer, I wanted them to both come to meet the killer, though sadly it never happens, making the body count less interesting. The kills also din't have as much gore as I would like but I have an imagination so it doesn't really matter.

So overall, this movie has flaws but it's still too unique and well done too let those get in the way. It's like a Canadian Argento flick if anything, lots of style, great stalk sequences, giallo like plot, a blacked glove killer, and one mask that will definitely will stick in ur head for days after. GREAT! If you like stage fright for the aesthetic reason and direction, check this out. You'll get lots out of it.

Curtains gets ***1/2 out ****