Auntie Aaron's Dungeon of Darkness

Howling V: The Rebirth (1989)

2011-06-11T18:14:00.000-07:00

Evil is everywhere and just keeps finding ways to come back and terrorize new victims. Usually it doesn't matter if they appeared to be absolutely dead after the last encounter. If there is a demand for more then someone out there will come up with some idea to bring the monster back. This is the game in Hollywood Horror sequels, which find both new ways to kill and resurrect the villain for another round. But eventually things can become old and tired and people want the evil laid to rest so they can move on to something else. Too bad there aren't enough people putting a stop to this, but sometimes the outcome is better than expected.

The first couple of 'Howling' sequels each tried to take the story in different directions, but then IV took a step backwards. The decade was nearing the end and the interest in Horror was waning, but that didn't stop another installment from being made. The makers of the next film were really going to have to step up to the plate if they wanted to renew interest in the series. After a film that was a more a thinly veiled remake of the first film, it was going to be interesting to see what came next. It appeared V would be another sequel in-name-only, but if the film is actually any good then that's no big deal really. The good news is that what we got is not only an improvement, but also better than all earlier sequels.

Ten people from different walks of life have all been invited to visit an old castle in Budapest. The place has been closed down for 500 years, but none of them seems to know why. Things seem innocent enough at first and as far as they know they're simply there for the reopening of a local landmark. But soon after they realize they're trapped by the snowstorm one by one they vanish. The ones who are left try to figure out just what is going on and who among them is responsible for killing the others. The answers to all their questions will be like nothing they expected.

After such a lame and forgettable third sequel, this one is truly a much needed breath of fresh air. Ok so maybe the world didn't really need a 'Howling V,' but the film is actually quite enjoyable and well made. One thing that thankfully carries over from the last one is the mystery angle, which this time is executed rather well. It is too bad there really are ties with the characters and events of I-IV, but that hardly keeps the film from being as good as it is. Like the last one, this one lacks the humor of the rest of the series, but this time it works and the film is actually pretty damn scary.

First of all, the opening sequence is really strong and something I don't think a lot of people were expecting. I won't say what happens, but it takes place in the past and is very well executed. There is a rather large cast here and for the most part everyone turns in a good performance. Phillip Davis, who plays the mysterious Count, is a particular standout and may or may not be a suspect. Also another thing that's obvious from early on is that the score is really good. It's really creepy at times and often, like in the beginning, can be very dramatic.

The bulk of the film is set in an old castle, which is a great new setting for the series. It's also appropriately spooky, being that it's so dark and full of long hallways and underground tunnels. Neal Sundstrom is a name I'm sure you've never heard of, but he really does do a great job with the film. He succeeds in creating both atmosphere and suspense, things sorely lacking in the last couple of sequels. And there are a few really good jolts sprinkled throughout the film, most set inside the castle, but there's one set outside in the blizzard that's my favorite. The effects, which are kept to a minimum this time out, are all well done and realistic enough looking.

Of course not everything works so well in 'Howling V,' so let's knock out where it falls short. The plot, which is very similar to Agatha Christie's 'Ten Little Indians,' stretches thin very quickly. Also some of the characters are way underdeveloped, making it hard to get attached to them before they meet their demise. Another fault with the characters is that some of them make some pretty dumb moves, which we know usually gets them killed. The film is strong on many fronts, which helps, but does not totally cover up the fact that not much new can be found here. The setting and murder mystery-style plot are the only things really setting this one apart from the rest of the series in terms of story.

The series was getting increasingly worse with each new installment, with the fourth feeling like the final nail in the coffin. However, this one breaks the cycle and injected some life into a dying franchise. It's not only the best of the 1980s sequels, but also the best since the first. There may be not much here we haven't seen a hundred times, but the film is well executed so it's ok. It's sequels like these that can renew people's interest in a series, so it's no surprise more have come. Where things have gone after this are interesting to say the least.

***1/2/*****

Howling IV: The Original Nightmare (1988)

2011-06-11T17:19:00.000-07:00

Over the last several years remakes have become a major trend in Hollywood. They have proved to be quite lucrative and don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. Of course this is not a new thing because it has been known to have happened a number of times in the past. 'The Fly' is an example of a remake that was not panned by the critics and moviegoers and remains a favorite. Sequels also tend to be big money makers, but they are supposed to progress the story began in the first film. However, once in a great while one comes along that is more or a less a remake of the first film.

By III, the 'Howling' series had not only become very odd, but it had also gotten way off track. The attempt at something different was alright, but the lack of ties to earlier films is unfortunate. It was good the makers of both II and III tried to not simply rehash the first film. But after the bizarre second sequel where could they possible go from there? As it turned out the makers of IV would go back to the original source material, Gary Bradner's first 'Howling' novel, and attempt a more faithful adaptation. Instead the result was the weakest in the series up to that point, but not without some merit.

Marie (Romy Windsor), a bestselling author, has started having frightening visions. Her doctor orders her to take a vacation away from the city, so she and her husband Richard (Michael T. Weiss) rent a cabin. The place is beautiful and seems to be harmless enough, but looks can be deceiving. Marie's visions continue and get worse, plus she claims to hear howling coming from the surrounding woods. Along with a new friend (Susanne Severeid) she tries to unlock the mysteries of her visions and the nearby town. What they find is more than they ever bargained for.

The film actually sounds compelling when reading a brief synopsis, but somehow it just didn't quite turn out that way. Supposedly it really is more faithful to the book than the 1981 film, but that doesn't save it from being mediocre at best. If I were to describe it in just a few words I'd say ultimately it's like an inferior remake of the original. If the people responsible actually thought they were going to top it with this unwarranted sequel-cum-remake they didn't succeed. It plays more like a made for TV movie of the week, for the most part lacking the bite of it's predecessors. There are a few things at least that keep it from drowning though.

The acting is actually pretty good all across the board, especially when talking about Romy Windsor. You actually do care about her and she comes off as really likable. It's just such a same such strong performances were wasted in such a forgettable film like this. Another area where the film shines is in the scenery, which is really beautiful. The film, which is supposed to be set in California, was shot on location in South Africa and it's pleasing to the eyes. The score for the film is decent, but what really stands out in terms of the music is the cheesy yet catchy main title song that'll likely get stuck in your head.

Though not a terrible exciting movie, 'Howling IV' does actually move along at an ok pace. One thing that elevates this film a little is the mystery angle, which was lacking in the previous sequels. Had it not been for this the films would probably be a total bore. The effects in the previous film were quite disappointing and considering this one's low budget you'd expect the same. Fortunately the effects here, minimal as they are this time, are excellent and prove that you don't need millions of dollars to create impressive effects. That is about all the positive thing I could say about this installment however.

One thing that sets this apart from the others is that unlike them IV is actually pretty tedious. There are long stretches where not much of interest happens, plus the film is talky. John Hough is known for directing films like genre favorite 'The Legend of Hell House,' so you would think he'd be able to spice things up here. Unfortunately apart from the dream sequences, his direction is actually pretty flat and more suited for small screen. He's one of the reasons that other film is scary, but this one is really lacking in that area and that's a huge blemish.

There's no doubt that II and III are not very good film, but you have to admit they are different. This one however brings absolutely nothing new to the table and that only adds to the tedium. But as if that weren't bad enough, this film barely has any werewolves in it. They don't really make a big splash until the final third and by then you'll probably be too bored to care much. I understand if they were trying to keep us in suspense and not throw everything at us too fast and too soon, but the film is just too dull until then. It's no wonder that this was the first of the series to go straight to video.

Every profitable franchise runs out of steam at some point and I guess this was it for the 'Howling' series. Not that II and III could be called great films, but at least they tried to keep things fresh. This one basically just tells the same story as the first film, but with way inferior results. They didn't even try to do it in an interesting way and instead delivered a totally unnecessary continuation of a series that started really strong. If you hadn't given up after part III then I guess you could check this one out, but don't have high expectations. It's at least not the most embarrassing installment in the series, but that's a whole other can o' worms.

**/*****

Howling III (1987)

2011-06-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

One thing we want from movies is that they entertain us, but we also like it when they take us into new and exciting places. Films are an art form, but when they started reminding us too much of other films it shows a lack of imagination. When this happens the only reason for it is to make lots of money. It's great when filmmakers experiment and attempt new things with an old concept, but nowadays the studios seem to be so afraid of this. Sure it may not always be successful, but it shows that at the people responsible had their hearts in it and were trying to hold our interest.

Sequels often times repeat what worked so well about their predecessors, but without a good result. This gives them a bad rep, which is too bad since so many are actually quite good. For instance, 'Demons 2' is pretty much the same story set in a different location and the result is a film that's not nearly as much fun. However, sometimes even sequels that don't just retread the same ground don't turn out so hot either. 'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' was laughed off the screens in 1985 and is considered to be one of the worst films of all time. Bad movie or not, you have to give them credit for trying something different.

In an attempt to try and make up for II, director Philippe Mora went on to both write and direct the next installment. Since there was a third novel it seemed only natural to make a third film, right? Mora however was not interested in adapting that book nor continuing the storyline of the first two films. In fact, what he did make was another bizarre werewolf picture that barely qualifies as a Horror film. Come to think of it there really aren't any other films like it I can think of, but whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer.

An professor (Barry Otto) is studying a possible new race of marsupials in Australia. What he doesn't know yet is that a tribe of half-human/half-marsupials lives in the Outback. A young member (Imogene Annelsey) runs away and falls in love with a young film producer (Lee Biolos) and it's not long before he finds out her secret. Now she is being chased by both her tribe and scientists who want to study her, but she wants to be able live as normal a life as possible. This leads to a conflict between the humans and human-like creatures and lives are lost.

Now the previous sequel is pretty strange, but maybe this installment takes things a bit further. What Mora has made here is something that's not uninteresting, but also that doesn't totally work. Still you have to respect the guy for trying to keep things fresh for the series. There actually is a lot of good in the film, such as the performances. Everyone in the cast, which is made up of people you probably have never heard of, actually delivers a good performance. They're in such a bizarre situation, but manage to come off genuine rather than ham it up.

The story, though pretty out there, is actually quite engrossing and ambitious. It actually sort of brings up issues touched on in the first film, but takes them a bit further. Since this was shot in Australia you can count on lots of beautiful scenery and great shots of the city of Sydney. There are several memorably weird moments throughout the film that you won't likely forget. For example, the birth of the female lead's baby has to be seen to be believed. Also some of the goofy humor is actually amusing, such as the ending which we'll get to later.

Mora's attempt at something different not only for the series, but as werewolf films in general is a respectable one. The trouble is that there are a lot of issues with the film that kind of overshadow that, but it's interesting none-the-less. Even though there is quite a bit of dialogue and not tons of werewolf action in the first half, the whole films moves at a quick enough pace. The surreal atmosphere and images alone should be enough to sustain interest through the film's 95 minutes. Speaking of which, the ending is a real hoot and kind of an homage of the original's conclusion.

One thing that can really hurt a film like this is if the effects are not up to snuff. The bad news is that nearly all of the effects are cheap looking, especially in the transformation sequences. I can understand if the budget was low, but that was the case with the first film and it's effects are amazing. One thing II was sorely lacking that this one is even more so is in the scare department. A lot of Horror films have successfully blended humor and horror, but there is not one good scare or amount of tension here. The film goes more for the yuks and honestly a lot of the humor ends up falling flat.

Philippe Mora may not be one of our greatest directors, be he actually did a pretty darn good job on part II. However, this time his direction for the most part is really bland and the film looks more like it was made for TV or video. Also disappointing is the film's score, which is totally forgettable when it should have had an impact. Now not all films made in the 80s have aged poorly, but 'Howling III' really does look like it was set in 1987. For example, the professor's apartment near the end of the film looks like a typical yuppie pad from that era.

This is a really hard movie to critique because it's a mixture of the very good and very bad. Unlike II it's a sequel in-name-only, but like it can be considered more of a camp film. There actually is a good film somewhere in here, but due to the quality of the effects and production and uneven tone it just doesn't quite work. And since it's not scary or suspenseful it also doesn't succeed as a Horror film. However, there is just something about it that keeps it from being mediocre and it's one of those films you have to see at least once. Just go in with an open mind, especially if you're a fan of the first film, and you may find something to like.

***/*****

Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf (1985)

2011-06-07T16:45:00.000-07:00

One downside to success is that things that once were fresh and exciting often get beaten to death. You can never recapture the magic of something that was done so well the first time, but some never learn. In the film industry this comes in the form of numerous sequels, some of far lesser quality than their predecessors. Though some films do warrant a sequel or two, some are films that no one asked for in the first place. If not every important loose end was tied up, then a follow up can be beneficial. One of the great things about sequels is that if done right they can take the concept in new and interesting directions.

Unfortunately some sequels fall into the wrong hands and the result is something inferior to what came before. So many in the business are far more interested and making a lot of money and could care less about the art of moviemaking. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many 'Friday the 13th' films, eight of which were released within ten years. It's a real shame when a great genre film, which leaves the door open for a part 2, is sometimes followed by something that misses what worked about it's predecessor. One thing that can make this a less painful blow is if the sequel is so bad that it's hilarious.

'The Howling' stands on it's own very well, but does end with the impression that the nightmare is not over. I'm sure this thrilled fans of the film at the time, but they would have to wait four years to see what happened next. No one involved with the first film would be returning for the sequel, which is sometimes a very bad sign. The trailer for the film didn't help it's image much either, instead making it look really goofy. However, it is a good idea to give a film a chance on the chance that it could defy expectations. I don't think anyone expected 'Howling II' to be as out there and silly and it turned out to be.

After the untimely death of Karen White (Played by a Dee Wallace look-alike here), her brother Ben (Reb Brown) is approached by a mysterious gentleman named Stefan (Christoper Lee) who knows all about Karen and what she went through. At first Ben doesn't want to hear anything the man has to say, but after he is shown proof of the existence of werewolves he joins Stefan in Transylvania. It is here that werewolves are gathering to celebrate the return of Stirba, who is their queen and she needs to regain all her power. Ben, Stefan, and Ben's girlfriend Jenny (Annie McEnroe) search the streets of the town where Stirba allegedly resides and fight for their lives against her minions. They must destroy her or else werewolves will invade the world.

The film begins innocently enough, picking up soon after the conclusion of the first film. Of course Dee Wallace does not reprise her role since all Karen gets to do is lie in a coffin and scream a couple times. However, if you go into this expecting something along the lines of the original you'll be in for quite a shock. There are a lot of really bad films that no one wants to remember, but then there are some that are impossible to forget. 'Troll 2' is considered to be the greatest bad movie of all time, but 'Howling II' really isn't too far behind. It's full of some pretty laughable elements, but if you're in the right mood you may find the film to be quite entertaining.

None of the performances in the film are very good, including the one from Christopher Lee, but everyone at least seems to be game. Sybil Danning, known for her work in b movies like this one, is obvious enjoying her role as the evil werewolf queen. It's actually kind of surreal to see her and Lee together in a scene, which is of the film's most memorable. Director Phillipe Mora is no master, but he actually does get some great shots here and uses some cool tricks. Also the cinematography is gorgeous, much better than a film of this caliber deserves. Both the production design and architecture of some locations are also really pleasing to the eyes, especially for the werewolves' lair.

The score, though not one of the best you'll ever hear, is still pretty good and the main theme song is catchy. It also plays several times throughout the film and so you may get tired of it pretty quick. The humor in the original is never over-the-top or anywhere near camp, but the opposite is the case in this one. The camp factor is quite high, so if that's something you dig then you should definitely give this film a watch. One thing that works so well in the original are the effects, and though inferior the ones here are still pretty good. And to top it all off all of this craziness happens at a really quick pace and never gets dull.

Like so many bad Horror films, this one doesn't have much in the way of a plot. It does attempt one, but I guess the filmmakers were more interested in the effects and bizarre sequences like a werewolf threesome. Though some of the humor is amusing, a lot of it falls flat like the last few moments. Here it's much broader and lacks the cleverness of the first film. Also some of the effects, mainly the visual ones, have aged very poorly and looked bad even at the time the film was made. This includes lasers of some kind coming out of Stirba's hands, which make the scenes laughable rather than scary.

Even though the first 'Howling' has humor too, it also has it's share of good chills. However, those are totally scarce in II, except for maybe perhaps a scene involving Christopher Lee and a possessed Dwarf. There is also an awful lot of padding, including many shots of the concert scene where the main song is played. In other cases this is actually really amusing, like during during the closing where some scenes like Stirba's disrobing is repeated several times. Made obvious by much of the clothing, hairstyles, and concert sequence this film has not aged well at all, which only makes look even more ridiculous compared to it's predecessor.

'Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf' is a special kind of movie, which is a movie critic's nightmare. I really shouldn't enjoy it as much as I do, but I have such a soft spot for low budget Horror schlock. Also interesting is that out of all the sequels this is only one to have any real ties with the first one, but by comparison it's just so weird. Why the people behind this film made it the way they did is a mystery, but it sure delivers the bad movie goods. Seeing Christopher Lee at a punk concert wearing 1980s shades alone makes the movie worth a look.

***1/2/*****

The Howling (1981)

2011-06-07T15:53:00.000-07:00

Werewolves made quite an impression in the early days of filmmaking when Universal released the first films to ever feature them. However, apart from that they were rarely seen in mainstream American films for quite some time. Sure they'd make an occasional film or television appearance, but were mostly played for laughs like on 'The Munsters.' There was no shortage of films about vampires and Frankenstein, which were being made all over the world. There was of course the Waldemar Daninsky series from Spain, but it was time for these hairy terrors to make a major comeback in the States.

With the Horror boom of the 80s some classic monsters and lore were brought up to date. It had been done successfully with vampires, so it was a matter of time before other beloved monsters would get the same treatment. The audiences by this point were more sophisticated, which meant that filmmakers had a real challenge on their hands. Special effects had become more advanced and moviegoers were more savvy as far the rules of Horror. Some directors, like Joe Dante, picked up on this and applied it to their work. The results are some of the greatest the genre has to offer.

Based on the novel by Gary Bradner, 'The Howling' was Dante's next feature after his cult hit 'Piranha.' The idea was to not only pay tribute to classic werewolf films and lore, but to also poke fun at them. Much as 'Scream' did years later, this film would take some of the myths and turn them on their heads. Horror and humor have to be balanced just right for both of them to work together and Dante and his team did a great job of making that happen. It's one of those films that will at one moment have you giggling and then grabbing onto your seat the next.

After a frightening encounter with a madman, reporter Karen White (Dee Wallace) is ordered by her doctor (Patrick Macnee) to take a vacation. She and her husband (Christopher Stone) join the doctor at a wilderness retreat known as The Colony. Things seems to be innocent enough, but it's not long before Karen begins suspecting something isn't right. Meanwhile, friends of hers are investigating the man who was after Karen and uncover a frightening secret. People start dying and Karen thinks she's falling apart, but she soon will learn the truth herself and be faced with a decision to "beat 'em or join 'em."

Now I've never read the novel on which this is based, so I can't compare, but as a film 'The Howling' works on many levels. It's actually one of three werewolf flicks that were released in 1981, the other two being the fabulous 'An American Werewolf in London' and the little known 'Wolfen.' This was Joe Dante's third feature film and he had proven himself a great talent by this point, so hiring him was a smart move. His cast is also in top form, everyone in the ensemble turning in an excellent performance. Dee Wallace as the lead is supposed to carry the film, which does so very well with her multi-layered performance.

The story is suspenseful and the filmmakers do a really good job of keeping us guessing until the big secret is revealed. Joe Dante, who does add humor to his work, also helps in the suspense department and gives the film a real spooky atmosphere. The score by Pino Donaggio is very effective, especially when an organ is used, and ranges from beautiful to downright eerie at times. Also the film looks gorgeous due to the great cinematography. Much of the film is set in the wilderness and so there are plenty of breathtaking shots of fog-filled woods, dilapidated cabins, and the nearby lake. In fact apart from the scenes in the studio, most of the film seems to be shot on location.

With a film like this involving humans turning into beasts you'd hope the effects would be top notch. Effects wizard Rob Bottin was brought in and what he did here is nothing short of stunning. All of the make-up and special effects are very detailed and have really stood the test of time. This also is a help in the attack sequences, all of which are pretty frightening especially the one involving Belinda Balaski's character. The werewolves themselves actually no longer look human by the end of the transformation and really stand tall over the human victims. The pacing, especially once things really get out of control, moves along nicely and the film never gets bogged down.

The last real asset the film has I'd like to mention is the humor, of which there is just enough. The makers of the film thankfully didn't go for camp, instead going for more sardonic humor. I won't spoil any of it, but the scenes involving the great Dick Miller are among the best funny bits. There are just a few things that mar an otherwise solid genre film, starting with the time it takes for things to really get rolling. The makers of the film I think were really going for suspense rather than throw a lot at us too early on, but maybe the wait is too long. Not that the film is ever boring, but by the halfway point you may be wondering where the big werewolf action is.

Another issue is that some ideas and characters could have used more fleshing out. For instance, Christopher Stone's character Bill White doesn't really get much to do and we don't really get to know him. Also the purpose of Patrick Mcnee's character, which I won't give away for those who have yet to see the film, also could have been delved into a bit more. Perhaps that was a plan for a possible sequel, but it's not really brought up again until part III. Lastly, there are at least a couple of effects that look extremely dated by today. To be fair this was before CGI and the film's budget was pretty small, but these do stand out like a sore thumb.

For the most part time has been kind to this classic. Even if you prefer one of the other two werewolf pictures from the same year, you have to admit this one holds it's own. Not even the many sequels have seemed to tarnish it, and boy are some of them pretty bad. Dracula and Frankenstein had gotten so much of the spotlight and it was time for everyone's favorite hairy man-beast to make a major big screen comeback. Thirty years later people are still talking about it and the people who made it are still in the business, so they must have done something right.

****/*****

House IV (1992)

2011-05-15T17:04:00.000-07:00

The 1990s was a different time for Horror, not so prolific as it had been in the 80s for instance. All of the major franchises seemed to have been worn out, but that didn't stop the studios from having one final go at it. Bottom line is that studios want to make money and when a title that was so lucrative in the past started drying up they want to move on. They say evil never dies, but one way they can is when they stop making a nice chunk of money at the Box Office. Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers and all the rest were becoming too familiar and it was time to lay them to rest...at least for a while.

New Line Cinema planned to end both the 'Friday the 13th' and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchises and at the time seemed to do it effectively. The same probably could have been said for the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series, which didn't see another sequel for nearly a decade. New World Pictures had gone under by this point and some of their most popular titles went elsewhere so they wouldn't die, including 'House.' Why New Line decided to pick up the rights and distribute the next installment is anyone's guess, but it happened. Since 'The Horror Show' was not really intended to be part III, it would be the first sequel to the series in five years.

Sean Cunningham, producer of the previous installments, would be on board for this one as well. Question was, would it continue what II started and involve a whole new set of people in a new house? Since it had worked out so well the first time that's exactly what went down with this installment. Now some would say that this one came too late, and the fact that none were made after means that's probably true. Plus the film was panned by critics and fans of the first two films, but is it really as bad as all that? Call me crazy, but all things considered I don't think this film is bad at all.

After losing her husband (William Katt) in a tragic car accident, Kelly Cobb (Terri Treas) moves into his family's old summer home with their now wheelchair bound daughter (Melissa Clayton). She believes it's the best thing for them and that her husband would approve, but everyone else tries to talk her out of it. The house is believed by some to be special and not just in terms of sentimentality. In fact it's not long before Kelly starts seeing and experiencing strange things. To make things worse her brother-in-law (Scott Burkholder), who is actually her husband's step brother, wants the house and will do whatever it takes to get his hands on it. Is Kelly just imagining things? Or is someone, perhaps her husband Roger, trying to contact and warn her from beyond the grave?

Out of the three official 'House' films this one is liked the least by fans and I never quite understood why. As a Horror film it may not be very scary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a good jolt or two. Actually it's very much in the spirit of the first film and like both of it's predecessors doesn't succumb to too many haunted house cliches. One thing that is really confusing though is the fact that William Katt is back and playing a character named Roger Cobb. Thing is though that he has a knew wife and teenage daughter, plus no mention of his being married before or having a son. The likely explanation is that his appearance in the film and having the same name are probably just homages to the first film.

Apart from William Katt and Denny Dillon, the rest of the cast here was mostly unknown at the time. The performances are excellent all across the board and you really do get to care about Roger and his family. First time director Lewis Abernathy more than holds his own here, which makes on wonder why he never did it again. In lesser hands this could have looked like a made for TV movie, but he gets some really great shots and infuses the film with some style. Once again Harry Manfredini was brought in to do the score and he knocks it out of the park, composing one that in some ways echoes the ones from I and II, but is still all it's own.

One thing that so many sequels lack is a good strong story, which is not the case here. This one's story is actually pretty good and does a decent job of holding interest. Also the film moves at a good pace and though it may not be one of the most thrilling movies you'll ever see it never gets dull. Once again humor is brought to the mix, though not spread on as thick as in II, and for the most part it works. The whole "Pizza Man" sequence is especially out there and hilarious. And though the film is never truly terrifying, there are a few good shocks throughout that you may not see coming.

The last really good thing I can say about this movie is that there are some genuinely touching moments. The best has got to the scene in which the projector turns on by itself and plays home movies for Kelly, who up to that point had really been feeling down. There are a few things in the film that bring it down a few notches, starting with the special effects. The first two films have some really cool effects that have aged really well, but the ones in 'House IV' are actually pretty mediocre. Plus never is film actually scary and it's not likely you'll have any sleepless nights after seeing it. Plus there's not much in the way of suspense and you'll see a lot of the plot turns coming from a mile away.

The humor doesn't always hit the mark and can be rather lame at times, which was a problem the second film had as well. This is a much maligned film, but really it's nowhere near as bad as it's reputation would suggest. Sure it's no genre classic, but it works in much of the same ways that the first two films do. There's heart in the story, direction, and performances and that's more than can be said for a lot of sequels, especially unnecessary ones. If the series had to end at number 4 then it didn't end with a whimper and a film that was an embarrassment to itself and the series as a whole.

***1/2/*****

The Horror Show (1989)

2011-05-15T16:26:00.000-07:00

Back in the day Slasher movies were all the rage, but eventually they wore out their welcome. You can only make so many films in which a masked psychopath hacks up teenagers before people get bored. It was time to add something fresh to the sub-genre if it were to stay alive. Enter Wes Craven's 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,' a film that added a while new dimension to this type of film and it was about time. One thing that was missing from these movies was the villain messing with his victims psychologically. Wes Craven knew how to tap into our worst fears and gave us more than just another routine hack 'em up.

Of course other studios and filmmakers wanted to make their own version of this story, but no one has ever matched the first 'Nightmare.' The problem with most imitations is that they copy what worked so well the first time, but much less effectively and with less of a plot. This explains the existence of 'The Horror Show,' which ultimately is a second rate 'Nightmare on Elm Street.' Even without the dream killing element it treads familiar ground and doesn't try to stand on it's own otherwise. However, that doesn't keep the film from being entertaining in it's own special way. In fact it's probably one of the cheesiest American Horror films of the 80s.

After years of chasing killer Max Jenke (Brion James), Detective Lucas McCarthy (Lance Henriksen) finally captures him. His wife and therapist try to discourage him from watching the execution, but he believes it's the only way he can get true closure. Afterward he goes back to his life, even quitting therapy and believes he can put it all behind him. However, his nightmares and hallucinations continue and get ever worse. His family thinks he's going out of his mind and when people start dying all arrows point to him. Has Jenke returned from the dead to get revenge? Or has Lucas snapped and only thinks the supposed to be dead killer is responsible?

For some reason before this film was released overseas it was decided it should be called 'House III.' Sure some of the same people are involved and there are a few scenes that you may expect to see in a 'House' movies, but this really isn't one of them. Truth is that this one has too much of a mean streak to really fit into the series, so it's best to view it on it's own. If it really were part III it would be the weakest of the set because as a whole it really doesn't work. The fact that one of the writer's wanted their name replaced with the Alan Smithee pseudonym should give you some indication of the films' quality.

One area where this film doesn't falter is in the performances, especially those of Henriksen and James. They each seem to be really into their roles despite the silly material, plus the rest of the cast does fine too. Harry Manfredini is one of the few people from the earlier 'House' films to be involved and his score is good, though very different. The effects on display here are really well done, and in some cases pretty out there. The Thanksgiving dinner scene, which I won't spoil, is a particularly bizarre part of the film. This leads to another one of the film's high points, which is that there actually are a few inspired moments throughout.

Some of the subject matter is pretty heavy and the film has a real dark and dirty feel to it. But no matter how serious this film tries to be, it can't chance the fact that it's quite cheesy at times. As I said some scenes are really out there and too silly to be scary, but they're at least fun to watch. The finale is especially interesting and where the film really delves into 'Nightmare on Elm Street ' territory. As a matter of fact most of it takes place in a boiler room kind of a place with plenty of steam and rusted metal. The negatives I'm afraid outweigh the positives, which is what makes the film no better than average.

The plot is thin as tissue paper and the film is mostly a series of set pieces loosely held together. Plus the script is a mess and filled with scenes that really add nothing important. Not that you can't make everything out, but most of the film is really badly lit. The lights in the McCarthy home alone are super dim and make it look so dreary. Director Jim Isaac, who would later do 'Jason X,' didn't exactly make a great impression with this film. For the most part it looks really bland and more suited for a made for TV movie of the week.

The film is never dull, but the pacing is still very uneven and especially in the first two thirds. Finally, things really do pick up for the finale, which really is the best section of the film. Also uneven is the tone of the film, which is a poor balance of humor and horror. The mix of both if one of things it has in common with the first two 'House' movies, but they did it more successfully. Most of the time the film is deadly serious and brings up some hard issues, but then it switches to absolute absurdity. And if it's one thing that'll bring a film down it's being derivative of better ones, in this case 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and especially Craven's 'Shocker' released the same year as this one!

'The Horror Show' is one strange little movie that just doesn't work. It gives off the feeling that it was intended to be better, but became a mess as production went along. What keeps it from being simply junk is both the cast and that it's just so entertaining for the wrong reasons. You can't have some really intense and gruesome moments like the execution and things like a laughing furnace and expect us to take the film seriously or be scared. However, that is what makes it enjoyable in a so-bad-it's-good sort of a way and that's better than nothing I guess.

**1/2/*****

House II: The Second Story (1987)

2011-05-14T17:22:00.000-07:00

One place where so many sequels go wrong is in repeating a lot from the previous film. This shows a real lack of imagination and that it was likely made more to make a quick buck. These days not much has changed and in fact Hollywood has found new ways of milking a successful property. However, occasionally there comes a sequel that surprises us and takes us to new and exciting places. Of course you still can't please everyone because if the makers of the sequel stray too far away it can be too far for some. But sometimes it can be the best thing to do for a franchise, whether it's just starting out or close to double digits.

Probably the best and most talked about example of a sequel going in a very unexpected new direction is the 1982 Box Office failure 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch.' The idea was to have each new entry take place at Halloween time, but involve new characters in a whole new situation. We all know how that went and several years later everyone's favorite killer in a white William Shatner mask was back on the silver screen. That's not to say that was a bad idea, it's just a shame that they played it safe rather than take another chance. The thing is, after 'Halloween II' there didn't seem to be anywhere else to go with the story and so if any more were to be made it seemed best to move on.

The first 'House' movie was a success financially and with audiences, not so much with critics, and so naturally a sequel would be made. Sure enough a year later 'House II: The Second Story' was unleashed, but would be quite a surprise. Instead of bringing back the same characters and putting them in a different house, the makers of the sequels took the same route as 'Halloween III' and introduced us to a new group of people and a very different house. As if that were not enough, the film would also have a somewhat different tone and almost fall into a different genre than it's predecessor. The result was met with a more mixed reaction, but some were pleasantly surprised.

Jesse McLaughlin (Ayre Gross) has just inherited an old mansion that's been in his family for generations. His girlfriend (Lar Park Lincoln) can't warm up to it, but he is completely taken by it. After some exploring, Jesse finds out a few things about his family history and along with a friend (Jonathan Stark) digs up the body of his great-great grandfather (Royal Dano) who in fact is still alive. Turns out he's protecting a mystical Aztec skull that other forces wants to get their hands on and he wants the boys to help. This leads them on a bizarre journey in which they fight various kinds of enemies trying to get the skull, including Gramps' partner (Dean Cleverdon) from the Old West.

After a slightly atmospheric opening sequence, it won't take long to realize that this film has a very different tone from the first 'House.' This sequel is more of a Comedy/Fantasy/Adventure film, which may turn some off, but personally I was a happy camper. Like the original this movie is a hell of a lot of fun, just in a goofier sort of a way. It too features an array of interesting creatures, some bent on destruction and others just along for the ride. They don't make them like this anymore, which is too bad because there is a lot more imagination in this film than many genre flicks of recent years.

Since this has a whole new bunch of characters one hopes that they'll be able to warm up to the new cast. The good news is that everyone in the bunch does a bang up job and are obviously having a ball. For instance, the late character actor Royal Dano is under a lot of make-up, but that doesn't stop him from putting on a fun performance as the fun-loving, yet no nonsense Gramps. Harry Manfredini was brought in once again to compose the score and it's just as memorable as the original's, but different with a similar flavor. One thing that especially stands out is the house itself, which is not like any you've ever seen before. It's like a combination between a European castle and an Aztec temple, and the best part is that it's real and not on a studio backlot.

Like the first film, there are a lot of effects on display here and they are all really well done and have held up well. Sure the stop-motion in the jungle scene is dated, but it adds a certain charm to the sequence. In addition to the scary looking creatures there are also some cute and endearing ones. There are also a few really fun set pieces, which are all set in different time periods and places. The longest and probably most fun is the one set in the jungle with dinosaurs and a big mean caveman. With all the silliness going on you would hope it would be fun and so it helps that all of this moves at a quick pace.

The first movie has it's share of humor, but they really cranked it up for this one and it's a bit sillier. However, for the most part it still hits the mark rather than being groan-inducing. When blending humor and horror you have to try and maintain a balance, which 'House II' usually does. And also like the first film this sequel is full of creative vitality. Little time goes by before the characters end up in another bizarre situation, which includes one where an electrician/adventurer (Played by 'Cheers' alum John Ratzenberger) helps in rescuing a damsel about to be sacrificed. The filmmakers obviously wanted to keep viewers entertained and into what was going on.

On the downside of things, there are a few things that bring the film down a few notches. The first is that there really isn't much of a plot to hold this together. The set pieces take up a lot of the running time and leave little room for much else. Second, since this is much less a Horror film than the original if you expect to be scared by this film at any time you'll be letdown. The character of Slim is intimidating, but it's doubtful you'll be having recurring nightmares about his chasing you down on his horse. Also some of the humor really is too silly and just falls flat.

The makers of this film were really smart to not repeat themselves this time. Some fans of the original may be disappointed by the drastic change in tone, but if you can get past that then you may enjoy this second chapter in the 'House' legacy. There is no lack of fun and surprises in the film's 85 minutes running time, which is more than can be said for some of the really dreary genre efforts lately. It's sad that twenty or so years ago people seemed to be more willing to take chances when making movies, but now those kind of films are harder to get made. Sure 'House II' isn't a classic, but it's an example of filmmakers having fun making something that is supposed to be fun for the audience.

***1/2/*****

House (1986)

2011-05-14T17:20:00.000-07:00

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not, haunted houses are a permanent part of our world's history. Every culture has their own interpretation of good spirits and bad spirits and how they effect the order of things. Just about every town has at least one house that people whisper about and kids go up to on a dare. Through the years countless films about homes being invaded by evil forces and they have experienced an interesting evolution. For a long time they took place in Gothic castles and mansions, but eventually made it to modern day suburbia. The idea of a house in what is supposed to be a normal and peaceful place to live is pretty scary.

In 1982 'Poltergeist' took the haunted house film to new heights and to this day is still considered to be a classic. Whereas most movies of this type showed very little of what was terrorizing the inhabitants, this film used the latest in special effects and they were and still are a knockout. It was only a matter of time before someone would take a more humorous approach to the material. One of the earliest attempts was the Roger Corman produced 'Saturday the 14th,' an entertaining though failed attempt at a spoof. Enter Sean Cunningham, creator of the original 'Friday the 13th,' who was looking to another big Horror project.

The blending of Horror and Comedy is not an easy task and the two must be carefully balanced. Genre hits like 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Return of the Living Dead' are two prime examples of this being done right. Neither is a full fledged parody, but at the same time they are also not deadly serious and overly graphic. Cunningham, along with some people fairly new to the industry, came up with what sounded like a dynamite idea. The result was one of New World Pictures' most successful films that has a loyal following to this day.

Bestselling author Roger Cobb (William Katt) has just moved into the old house where he grew up. The fact that his aunt (Susan French) committed suicide there isn't stopping him from staying there to write his next book. But if Roger thinks he's going to get the peace and quite he needs then he's got another thing coming. It doesn't take long for him to start seeing and hearing things, which then leads to attacks by some freaky looking creatures. What's more, it appears that his son who had been missing for some time may be being held hostage somewhere inside the cursed dwelling. He'll have to face his own demons if he hopes to ever save his boy and vanquish the forces in the house.

There were quite a few forgettable Horror films being churned out in the 1980s, but some stood above the rest and 'House' is one of them. It wasn't a big hit with the critics, but moviegoers must have strongly disagreed because the film was a Box Office success. One of the film's strongest points is in the performances, which are all good across the board. William Katt is impressive in the role of a father who not only fought in Vietnam, but also lost all those closest to him in one way or another. The great George Wendt is fantastic as the nosy, yet well meaning neighbor and makes a great comic relief.

Story apparently was not very important in a lot of low budget Horror in the 80s, but here it's really good and suspenseful. The filmmakers do a really good job of keeping us from figuring things out too soon and surprising us again and again. The score, by 'Friday the 13th' alum Harry Manfredini, is another memorable one from the composer and often quite chilling. Speaking of things to give one the chills, the creature effects on display here are really impressive. Even the ones that look sort of cartoonish are pretty scary and do some pretty evil things. Even better is that the majority of them have held up and still look very real, which is always nice.

Steve Miner, who was no stranger to the genre by this point, really shines here. In addition to getting some really great shots he does a really good job of creating tension and making us jump. And there really are a few good jolts throughout, taking place both during the day and night. The cinematography is also real nice, giving what is a pretty low budget effort a good polish. The film has a really good sense of humor and fortunately the balance between that and the horror is really good. In lesser hands this could have really been over-the-top and silly, which would have killed the suspense.

What is probably the biggest problem with this film is the lack of hints as to why the house is haunted. It was probably best to leave most of it a mystery, but we're given absolute zero in this department. Also some of the effects don't measure up to the rest. The best example is the two demon kids who live in the upstairs chimney, who just look like two kids in really good Halloween masks. The ending of the film also could have used a little extra something. Not that it's a real letdown or anything, but it does feel like the antagonist is taken care of a little too easily.

Blending humor and horror is not always a slam dunk, but when it works it's simply golden. So many low budget films at the time were made on the quick just to make some bucks, but 'House' is different. It's obvious while watching that this was a labor of love and it has held up really well over the years. It could have been just another haunted house film with all the usual cliches, but instead it's a fresh spin on familiar territory. They delivered something that's loaded with energy, imagination, and a few nice surprises along the way. And it's the kind of film that can be enjoyed both alone or with a group of your closest friends.

****/*****

Fright Night part 2 (1988)

2011-04-10T18:48:00.000-07:00

Most villains in any story have to get their revenge, which would explain why there are so many Horror movie sequels. The ones with supernatural powers and/or superhuman strength keep finding ways to come back and get back at their protagonist(s). Jason's mission of vengeance just goes on and on, even he's already killed at least 100 people. Freddy will keep haunting the dreams of teenagers who fear him because that is how he gets his kicks. As long as people coming back for more that is exactly what they are going to get.

However, what if the villain were to die off in the first installment for good? If a sequel is to happen, then someone will have to avenge them. This is a rare occurrence in the genre because usually when a direct sequel is made then the bad guy is the same and it's the victims who are new. Sometimes even if the villain is blown to pieces at the end of the previous film they still find some way to resurrect them. But if the intent was for them to be vanquished, then it brings forth a new challenge for the makers of the next one.

At the end of the first 'Fright Night,' (Spoiler ahead) the vampire was most certainly dead (End of spoiler), but the film was a success and left the door open for more. However, this was not something like 'Friday the 13th' that was made on a super low budget and to capitalize on the success of another film. So if there was to be a sequel then it would only make sense that at least some of the original cast and/or crew come back for another round. It took three years, but part 2 was unleashed on moviegoers and sure enough two of the original cast members reprised their roles in a film takes things a bit further. What had changed were the director and writers, which is not always a bad sign, but it does make one a bit cautious going in.

Three years after his deadly encounter, Charlie Brewster (William Ragsdale) now believes that what happened was a grand illusion brought on by hypnosis. He's now in college and has a new girlfriend (Traci Lind), but he's soon about to find that the past can come back to haunt you. A beautiful and mysterious woman (Julie Carmen) has just moved into Peter Vincent's (Roddy McDowall) building and right away he gets a strange vibe from her. He starts to see things that seem real, but people tell him it's just his imagination. Then people start to show up dead and Charlie starts thinking that maybe he had been right all along. He and Peter Vincent team up again to put a stop to Regine and her gang's lust for blood before it's too late.

Three years is a long gap between a sequel and the previous film, but it could also be a positive thing. So many Horror sequels in the 80s were rushed and out sometimes less than a year later. That doesn't mean that it will actually be as good or even better than it's predecessor, and in the case of 'Fright Night part 2' it's definitely inferior. However, this is not just some slapdash attempt to milk more money out of the franchise and is in fact a pretty solid continuation of the story that could have led to another sequel that would've taken things even further. It's been over 20 years since this film's release and it's not likely that will ever happen, so if this has to be the closing chapter of the story it's not a bad way to finish.

Each and every performance is good and that includes both the newcomers and veterans. Julie Carmen, who has a connection to Chris Sarandon's character in the original, is not only drop dead gorgeous, but also does a fantastic job at being seductive and frightening. Tommy Lee Wallace, writer and director of the underrated 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch,' does a really good job and infuses the film with some great stylish touches and does not simply copy Tom Holland. Brad Fiedel who scored the first film was brought back for the sequel and composed another solid score that mixes old themes with some tight new stuff. Speaking of music, there is a new version of the 'Fright Night' theme with lyrics added that plays over the end titles that's amazing.

The cinematography is once again fabulous and there are some really haunting shots, such as the spooky old apartment building and fog drenched college campus at night. For the most part the special effects are well done and really effective. For example we get to see Regine's true form just like Jerry Dandridge and it's pretty striking and grotesque. Plus, this one is goes a bit further in terms of gruesomeness of some of the vampire deaths. One thing the original also has that works so well is humor, which is found here as well and for the most part it works. A lot of it comes from the character John Gries plays, which is a werewolf with kind of a California surfer mentality.

The script this time is not nearly as strong as the original's, but there are still a few really good ideas. For example, in order to keep Charlie and Peter fooled for a while Regine claims to be a performance artist, which actually works for a little while. There are also some sequences that should give you the chills, including the very first attack sequence. Having multiple vampires plus other creatures of the night really helps in this respect. And all of this moves along at a good pace through the film's entire 97 minute running time. However, that does not cover up the films handful of flaws, which do keep the film from being close to as good as the original.

So many sequels repeat things from the previous one with less effective results and this is no exception. They even repeat the "relationship with a virgin" subplot of the original. This brings me to another one of the film's issues, which is the romance between Charlie and Alex that is weaker than the one between him and Amy. And like the first film this sequel is dated in some aspects, such as hairstyles and clothing. Also some of the effects, mainly the make-up, don't measure up to the rest and it makes you wonder if it was due to budget issues. The different werewolf stages especially standout and are nothing compared to the work in 'An American Werewolf in London, and 'The Howling.'

The only other real standout problem is that the story this time isn't as tight as the original's. I can't quite put my finger on why that is apart from things repeated from part 1, but it just doesn't have the same weight. However, none of these flaws are damaging enough to make the film less than above average. The original was a tough act to follow and the people behind this one at least make a sequel that is worthy. Some sequels embarrass the original, but this is one that does it's predecessor proud.

***1/2/*****

Fright Night (1985)

2011-04-09T19:55:00.000-07:00

Vampires were a big deal for a time in cinema, having been a big draw at the Box Office. Various countries had their own interpretations of the legend, primarily the US and the UK. Hammer Films is known for having made multiple films about the undead, most of which star Christopher Lee as Dracula. Universal Pictures' gave us the 1931 classic 'Dracula' and it's sequels, which inspired other filmmakers, but was itself influenced by other films. But of course with time people's tastes change, which has an impact on the type of films being made.

By the 1970s and 80s people were growing tired of vampires and looking for new things to scare the wits out of them. Films like 'The Exorcist' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' changed the face of the Horror genre forever and took moviegoers to places they never imagined to see on the silver screen. The following decade things would change again and what was hot then were masked maniacs slashing and zombies devouring living flesh. These films dominated the big screen for much of the decade, being churned out a such a fast rate. But eventually someone had to try and breathe some life into the vampire sub-genre and that time did come.

Werewolves too had declined in popularity, but thanks to films like 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Howling' they were hot again, if only for a little while. Like so many other hits films, 'The Howling' was followed by a number of sequels, some of which are dreadful and tarnish the good name of the original. What these films had done was respect the mythology while at the same time bringing it up to date and making it hip again. This was just what vampires needed and had it not been for Tom Holland who knows when it would have happened. He would do to them exactly what those two films mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph did for lycanthropes.

A clean cut high school student (William Ragsdale) is really into Horror, especially vampire movies. He never misses an episode of the hit TV series "Fright Night," which features movies about the undead every week. One night someone moves into the empty house next door and right away he starts to suspect something is not right. Beautiful women begin to show up dead and he swears he's seen a couple of them next door, but no one believes him. Convinced his neighbor (Chris Sarandon) is a bloodsucker, he eventually seeks the help of his favorite show's host (Roddy McDowall), but it does take some persuading. They'll have to act fast or else their target will transform everyone in town into a creature of the night.

Many people may not know this, but 'Fright Night' was Tom Holland's directorial debut. He'd worked as a writer on films like 'Class of 1984' and 'Psycho II,' but this was his first time directing and boy did he make a slam dunk. In lesser hands this would have just been a goofy Horror/Comedy, but without a good balance of the two. First of all, he picked an amazing cast and the performances are good all across the board. The late Roddy McDowall is fantastic as the Horror host who seems so confident on TV and in his films, but in real life is quite frightened when first faced with the danger. A lot of people rag on Amanda Bearse's performance, but personally I find her quite likable here.

Not only did Holland do a bang up job directing the film, but his script is also brilliant. He perfectly balances the humor and horror like John Landis did with 'An American Werewolf in London.' Also the cinematography is just beautiful and adds to the eerie atmosphere, like the shots of Jerry Dandridge's bedroom window from Charlie's. Speaking of which, even though the film is funny at times there are still plenty of chilling sequences and images. My personal favorite is the one in which the vampire confronts Charlie for the first time. As for the humor it all hits the mark and has held up well after all these years, including the snappy dialogue.

The score by Brad Fiedel is memorable as is the score, which is made up of some greats 80s pop songs. "Give It Up" by Evelyn "Champagne" King, which plays during the dance sequence, is especially fun and great to dance along to. Fun is also a word I would apply to this film, which moves at a swift pace all the way through and the movie never gets dull for a moment. One thing you come to expect from a 1980s Horror films is special effects, which this one has in spades. Both those and make-up effects work are very well done and still effective today, including a melting scene and one involving a backwards transformation.

Best of all, it's obvious from the get go that Tom Holland has an affection for the genre and wanted to both pay tribute to it and poke fun at it. The latter is shown in the clips from the films that Roddy McDowell's character Peter Vincent starred in, which are like Hammer's films only over-the-top. He even keeps conventions such as a fog drenched lair, a vampire vixen, giant bat, etc. Just about all the bases are covered and none of it feels forced or half-assed in any way and the film really is near perfect. Of course there are at least a couple things that don't totally work.

The biggest issue that stands out is how dated the film looks by now. Some of the hairstyles, like Amanda Bearse's for example, and fashions are very 80s and not so much in a good way. The other is that some things that happens are predictable, such as what happens to both of Charlie's friends. Of course the vampire is going to strike at his nemesis's most vulnerable points and he succeeds. Apart from that however, this film is a real classic of the genre and a must have for all lovers of it. This film was a true labor of love and stands out as one of the top vampire films ever made.

*****/*****

April Fool's Day (1986)

2011-04-02T20:15:00.000-07:00

People tend to lose interest when a formula is worn out, and history keeps repeating itself. If you use it without anything new to say, then why bother? Every year we get a string of Romantic Comedies, most of which are like so many that came before them. The Hollywood Machine is all about making lots of money and if a formula is popular at the time then it will churn out many films that use it. This can certainly be applied to Slasher films, a lot them being cliche and predictable. The concept of "bad" teens being stalked and slashed by some maniac has been done to death, no pun intended.

There are some exceptions to this rule. In other words old conventions can still work if the people in front of and behind the camera have a lot of talent and heart, the final product might be all right. Fortunately for us there are some filmmakers who don't want to lose their audience and try to keep things fresh and interesting. A film could appear to be very familiar until some unexpected twist that sends it on an interesting path. After so many Slasher films have been made, what else can be done with the concept? The 1996 hit 'Scream' pays homage to these films, but also turns the rules upside down and has fun with it. What a lot of people may not know however is that it's not the first film to attempt this.

By the mid 1980s the number of these films was pretty staggering. A lot of them turned out to be rubbish, but of course there were diamonds in the rough. Paramount Pictures may have been embarrassed by it, but their 'Friday the 13th' series was a great success for them. It's surprising that they didn't do many films of this type, but there is one that really stands out. Holidays became the theme of many Slasher films, from Halloween to Valentine's Day, even events like prom and graduation were used. So it was only a matter of time before someone made a film set on everyone's favorite day to play pranks.

Muffy St. Claire (Deborah Foreman), a college student, invites several of her friends to her parents' secluded mansion for the weekend. Right from the start things don't seem to be going right, but everyone really does want to have a good time. Each guest is the victim of a prank or two, making this little vacation unlike any other. But then people start to disappear, making the others question if something really happened to them or if they're going to pop up and get a good laugh at their friends' expense. One thing is for sure, something isn't right about this place or the hostess who may or may not have a dark secret.

This film sounds like so many others, and in some ways it is, but don't let any of that fool you. Fred Walton, writer/director of the memorable chiller 'When a Stranger Calls' and writer Danilo Bach didn't set out to make just another by-the-numbers stalk 'n' slash flick. There is much to enjoy here starting with the performances, which are all quite good. Every actor gives a natural performance and you get the feeling that these people really are friends in college. It really helps that the film is very well written, much more so than most films of this ilk. Bach peppers the film with plenty of humor, but never lets things become campy.

It doesn't take long to realize that this film is different from the others in the cycle, and that it's a fresh spin on the genre. The score, which is by 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' composer Charles Bernstein, is often eerie and sometimes playful, like during the opening titles sequence. It's really low key a lot of the time, helping make some scenes extra chilling. And there are plenty sequences throughout to give one goosebumps for days, some that even taken place during the day. And unlike most films with similar themes this one takes a less is more approach, which is very effective and appreciated.

Both Fred Walton and Danilo Bach do a bang up job of keeping this both suspenseful and unpredictable. Nothing kills a Horror film faster than telegraphed scares and kills. There are some neat surprises along the way that I wouldn't dream of even hinting at, including a finale that you will either love or hate. Plus all of this moves along at a really fast clip, never dragging or getting bogged down by anything. You can really tell that everyone had a good time making this, which should make this a really pleasant viewing experience for you the viewer. And on top of all that the film was shot in beautiful British Columbia, Canada, so there is plenty of lovely scenery to admire that is nicely photographed by cinematographer Charles Minsky.

There are really only a couple of places where 'April Fool's Day' falters and considering how much of it works, they're really not a big deal. First of all, even though all the performances are fine that doesn't mean all the characters are sympathetic. In fact, some of them are pretty irritating and you'll probably want them to vacate quickly. The other slightly annoying issue that most of the murders happen off screen. On the one hand this does make one use their imagination, but on the other it's always fun to see creative methods of death in a film. There are of course other flaws, but they are minor quibbles that don't ruin the experience or cancel out the positives.

After so much of the same old, same old this was truly a breath of fresh air. Not that there are plenty of routine Slasher films that are fun times, good and bad, but certain conventions get really old after awhile. So many lack anything new that hasn't been see in countless other films. Don't let the synopsis turn you off if you've had your fill of these kind of films because it does have some surprises. I must warn you though, do not get this mixed up with the 2008 remake, a term that should be used loosely in this case. It is the opposite of the original in that it's not fun, clever, or scary on any level.

****1/2/*****

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

2011-03-29T17:31:00.000-07:00

You just never know which films are going to be monster hits and which are going to flop. There are films that the people involved worked hard on, thinking they would only play in a few theatres, and they became a sensation before their very eyes. Things change with time, including the audience's tastes and that can have a big impact on the way films are made. Films that were very successful in their time may have come and gone had they been released later. Many films that were hits in their day have remained favorites of films lovers for generations. There are a number of Horror films considered to be classics, most of them having spawned many sequels that in many cases ran the concept into the ground, but haven't tarnished the original.

When Wes Craven shopped his script for 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' around no studio was interested. Even Paramount Pictures, owners of the hugely popular 'Friday the 13th' series, passed on it. New Line Cinema, which was more like an independent film company then, took the project on. This proved to be a very smart move because the film, which was made for little money and starring mostly unknowns, was not only a hit at the Box Office, but also responsible for transforming the company. So it was only natural that a sequel would be made and the wait would not be long.

After the first film the question was: Where to go from here? Things started off a bit rocky with a falling out between Craven and New Line, but finding a new writer and director wasn't too hard. Robert Englund would be the only cast member to return and the location would be the same. What I'm sure fans were not expecting was for the rules set up by the first film to be bent so far in the sequel. Since Wes wasn't at all tied to 2, the makers of it could take things wherever they wanted. That is the kind of thing that could make or break a sequel to a popular film, and 'Freddy's Revenge' was met with mixed emotions.

Five years have passed and a new family has moved into 1428 Elm Street. Right from the start Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) is having nightmares and wakes up from them screaming. His parents (Clu Gulager and Hope Lange) and girlfriend (Kim Myers) want to help him, but his problems are much deeper than they realize. Jesse finds out about the town's history and realizes the man in his dreams is killer Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). What's worse is that it seems Krueger wants to use Jesse to kill in the real world and he doesn't know how to stop it.

A lot of fans can't stand this entry in the series, feeling it is the or at least one of the weakest. But then there are others who think it's underrated and gets way too much flack, which is just how I feel. It's so rare for a sequel to be great, but no impossible for it to be at least worthy and for the most part this one is. The absence of Wes Craven and the other cast members of part 1 could have been a bad sign, but fortunately the people responsible for 2 also seemed to have their hearts in it. Probably the strongest asset of the film is in the casting, which is at least as good as the first.

Every actor in the film gives a solid and believable performance, particularly the two leads who you do feel sympathy for. Director Jack Shoulder, who had only directed one other film before this, doesn't copy Craven, instead putting his own spin on things and does a great job. In fact, the film looks and feels even bleaker than the first and it's no wonder he went on to direct the cult hit 'The Hidden.' Christopher Young, composer of the first two 'Hellraiser' films, does a good job on the score. It's very different from the original, but really good and effective in it's own right.

One thing that works so well in the original is the opening dream sequence. Well this time they take things even further and start with an even more frightening one that I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it. Robert Englund, who almost wasn't cast in the role again, is just as menacing as Freddy as he was in part 1. This time he gets to say more and isn't kept in the shadows quite as much, but unlike later sequels it doesn't make him less scary. And although it is over-the-top and betrays the rules of the original, the pool party scene is a lot of fun and really well executed. It includes the immortal line, "You are all my children now."

These are the kind of films that require a lot of special effects and since most of these were made on low budgets, it did limit them some. However, New Line hired the best and the effects in the film are all very good and have held up well after all this time. The only only other really positive thing I can say is that the film, which is about 82 minutes, does move at a good pace and never gets dull. Many sequels are just cashing in and yes this one did come because the first was successful, but this is a lot better than some other part 2s. This came out the same year as 'Friday the 13th part V: A New Beginning,' and is without a doubt the better film.

The makers of this sequel made a few major mistakes, which bring the film down a few notches. It's great to try new things and keep it fresh, but not all decisions are good ones. Undoubtedly the biggest issue most fans have is the breaking of the rules. All of a sudden Freddy wants to use someone to get into the real world and kill? Also a major bummer are some of the really cheesy attempts at scares, like the scene with the exploding bird. I get that it was supposed to be a warning that Freddy was coming, but the whole scene is more laughable than frightening. Another is when various kinds of athletic balls and equipment fly off the shelves to hit the victim.

Aside from the new direction for Freddy, this sequel really doesn't bring much new to the proceedings. It's a shame because with something like this that involves dreams one can really let their imagination go wild. The gay subtext that writer David Chaskin was also an interesting addition, but maybe not handled as well as it could have been. Overall though, 'Freddy's Revenge' is not at all a bad film and unlike some sequels doesn't embarrass the original. Sure after such a strong first film you'd expect something even better than this, but flaws aside it's still a fun, spooky, and well made little movie.

***1/2/*****

Trick or Treats (1982)

2011-03-26T20:08:00.000-07:00

Just because a person has a video camera and a love for film does not mean they should go out and make one. For some this is just not meant to be, but it's like there is no one there to tell them that. If more people would realize it, then we wouldn't have so many bad movies cluttering up the shelves. There is however an upside to this because some bad films are actually fun to watch and are worthy of Cult Status. The bad news though is that you have to get through some unwatchable ones to get to the gems. This is particularly true of the Horror genre, which is littered with countless bad films that deserve to sit and collect dust.

So many Horror films of the 1980s are rip-offs of better ones, showing that the filmmakers weren't very interested in using their imaginations. 'Halloween' was followed by a slew of imitators, some actually quite good and others desperate attempts to cash in. It's films like that and 'Black Christmas' that inspired directors to make other Holiday themed genre films, many of which achieved cult followings. One forgotten little film from this long gone era is stuck somewhere between being "so-bad-it's-good" and just plain bad. Don't let the involvement of Orson Welles and actors like David Carradine and Steve Railsback fool you, for this is bargain basement all the way.

Several years ago a woman (Carrie Snodgress) had her husband (Peter Jason) committed to a mental institution. She later remarried and had a child, but her past is about to come back to haunt her and her family. On Halloween night she and her new husband go to a party while their son (Chris Graver) is babysat by a friend (Jacqueline Giroux). All night the little brat plays pranks on his sitter, driving her up the wall, but she'll soon find he's the least of her troubles. The mother's ex-husband escapes and heads for the house to seek his revenge. The kid and the babysitter will have to put their differences aside if they want to survive this horror of a night.

'Trick or Treats,' not to be confused with the superior 1986 film 'Trick or Treat,' is one of those movies with really appealing artwork. It features a trick-or-treat bag with a tear on the side, a head inside, and a trail of blood running from it. However, it doesn't take long at all to figure out that this experience is going to be more of a trick than a treat. It's a wonder that director/writer Gary Graver had a career after this film because it's hardly an impressive feature film debut. He worked as a cinematographer for years before this, so you'd think he'd be able to make something decent. Believe it or not though this isn't all bad and does have a few things that keep it from being a complete washout.

The cast, made up of some familiar faces, actually does ok here and rises above the shoddy material. Even young Chris Graver, who plays an annoying little brat, does a good job. Another big plus is that the film has a great spooky Halloween atmosphere. Most of it takes place at night and there's plenty of Halloween decor and trick-or-treat scenes to add to the fun. The real humor falls flat, but the film is still unintentionally hilarious at times. For example, the killer escapes wearing a nurses uniform and a wig and is hit on a couple times.

For such an uneventful film, the pace moves along surprisingly well and the running time isn't too long. However, I must say that only the most die-hard Horror buffs will be mildly entertained by this, so everyone else avoid this like the plague. Gary Graver is no John Carpenter, but he actually does get some really good shots like when the babysitter walks up the dimly lit stairs. It's a shame he couldn't write a much better script, because the look and feel of the movie are pretty effective, but ultimately just wasted. The number of cons for this movie far outweighs the pros.

There is really no plot to speak of and most of the film consists of Chris playing pranks of the babysitter. Some of them are fun, but after a while it gets really old and you'll be longing for something different. And whoever lit this film should never work again because most of this film is too dark, sometimes making scenes near impossible to make out. One thing that can make or break a Horror film is it's score and at times the one here borders on decent. Unfortunately for the most part it's terrible and a lot of it isn't well suited for this movie. Of course it doesn't really matter since the film is neither scary nor suspenseful.

Fans of 'Halloween' will likely be pissed off by how much this film borrows from it, specifically the killer being an escaped mental patient. Hell even the main house resembles The Doyle House from the original and like it this one was shot somewhere in California. One of the biggest no nos is that the film takes what seems like an eternity to get to the point, but it gets even worse. By the time we get to the killing we find the body count is very low, too low for a Slasher film. To add insult to injury the killer is very weak and not the least bit scary. Don't get me wrong Peter Jason is a fine actor, but the script and bland direction don't help him much here.

Apparently this was intended to be a parody of Slasher films and after seeing the film it certainly seems that way. However, it fails at this too and is honestly just a film that is worth avoiding unless you want a few laughs. And if you're like me and love Holiday themed Horror then go ahead and check it out, but don't spend more than a buck on it. There are worse films than this, but that's not exactly high praise because this film is not far behind. The cast and crew probably had fun making this, but that doesn't make the movie much fun at all.

*1/2/*****

Black Sunday (1960)

2011-03-22T18:22:00.000-07:00

Long ago are the days when the Italian Horror industry was really booming. From about the early 1960s until the late 80s this was a very lucrative business. It was during this period that some of the greatest of the genre were made and it's too bad they are so few and far in between today. But just like here in the States, eventually the industry hit a wall because it was just exhausted. This is not hard to understand when you compare earlier works like 'The Bird With a Crystal Plumage' and 'Rats: Night of Terror.' Too many directors were making films that ripped off others and/or repeated formulas ad nauseum, which after a while will take a heavy toll.

These days it just isn't the same, especially compared to the industry's beginning. Sure Dario Argento is still in the game, making a new film every few years, but where is the next generation of Italian Horror directors? Sure no artist wants to be typecast, but these films deserve a real comeback already. Before Argento, Lucio Fulci, and the others there were directors like Mario Bava who changed the face of Horror in Italy forever. He influenced those other directors I mentioned and people are still inspired by Hitchcock to this day, but what about people like Bava and Argento?

After working for many years as a cinematographer, Bava finally made his directorial debut in 1960 with a film that has never been forgotten in it's native country or by fans of the genre. This was not someone looking to be rich and famous, but a man who was an artist and wanted to make great films. Instead of being another vampire film like Hammer was doing at the time, 'Black Sunday,' or 'The Mask of Satan,' instead involves witches and the living dead. However, those who have seen some of Hammer's films will definitely find some influences here. Things have changed a great deal since this film was made, but after all this time it has retained much of it's magic.

Two hundred years ago a witch (Barbara Steele) and her evil servant (Arturo Dominici) were executed. Before she died the witch, Princess Asa Vajda, laid a curse that would allow them to be resurrected. Two centuries later her tomb is desecrated, releasing her and her servant who then wreak havoc. Their goal is to possess two hosts, the female being a dead ringer for the witch, and spread misery throughout the world. But there are some who stand in their path who will do anything to protect their loved ones.

By 1960 there were already a number of films released in color, but this one was shot in black & white and it's perfect for it. It really adds to the overall Gothic look of the film, which also helps in hooking one in. The cinematography is of course absolutely breathtaking. The film has a terrific, not to mention thick, Gothic atmosphere that includes a dank crypt, foggy cemetery, and spooky old castle. I think in order to really enjoy it, it would be best to watch the film at night with the lights out.

One of the things the film is most known for is the eerie imagery, of which there is a lot. I won't spoil any of it, but it's accomplished through some really simple, but very effective tricks that have held up. The score, which can be over the top at times, is also quite chilling in places though also beautiful. In terms of the performances, everyone here does fine with Barbara Steele in her star-making debut. Her eyes are just so piercing and her features lovely, but she's also good in her dual role. The film was shot entirely at Titanus Studios in Rome, but for the most part you would never know it because the locations and architecture are exquisite.

When a director makes their debut you know they must be under a lot of pressure and it's good to watch with an open mind. Well Bava did amazing work here and it's easy to see why he influenced many others. One thing that turns a lot of people nowadays when it comes to films from this period is the pacing, which may be very slow. In this case the pace is slow, but not in the sense that it drags and it's actually right for this story. This film never once gets boring because the story, characters, and look of the film really do a good job of keeping one engaged. And last, but not least, there are a number of memorable spooky sequences throughout.

One flaw that many films of this kind have is melodrama, and this one is no exception. Though it's not a constant issue, it does rear it's head now and again. Also some aspects of the film are pretty dated by today, which fortunately isn't so glaring that it tarnishes the film. The film is not available here in the U.S. in it's original Italian audio track with English subtitles, so we have to watch it dubbed. Most of it isn't bad, like on some of the main cast, but some of it is pretty bad and stands out like a sore thumb. To this day it still boggles my mind that when a lot of these were dubbed the people responsible didn't hire better actors to do it.

There is no question about folks; had this film never been made then so many others wouldn't exist. This is not just some quickie, by-the-numbers effort like so many Italian Horror of the 80s. This is the real deal; a classy, genuinely frightening ride that stands high above even a lot of modern Horror. Studios and some directors could learn by watching films like this on how to do it right. Not all debuts are this strong and it's no wonder Bava had the career that he did afterward.

****1/2/*****

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

2011-03-17T18:13:00.000-07:00

The greatest Horror directors just love to get us at our most vulnerable points. This is a big part of why they are so much fun and can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Sometimes when they really push the envelope it sparks controversy, which only makes us want to see their films more. To the easily offended these films are a blight on humanity, to us they are a great thrill ride. The revolution of the 1960s opened up so many possibilities in the entertainment world and filmmakers were given more room to breathe, which meant films could be more true to life than ever before. Finally, films where people were killed by some monster or madman could feature blood and wounds.

If you were new to the work of Wes Craven, starting with his more recent work followed by his earlier films you'd be in for quite a shock. The 'Scream' films do have their share of brutal violence, but when he started out he introduced audiences to a different and more realistic kind of horror. Craven's debut film 'The Last House on the Left' stunned viewers with not only it's violence, but also it's brutal rape scene. Critics were not exactly kind to the film, but audiences across the globe must have loved it because it made millions at the Box Office and garnered a cult following. The film was remade 37 years later, but even though it did well Wes Craven didn't work again for about 5 years.

In the 1970s movies based on true cases became a pretty big deal in Hollywood. The 1974 classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is loosely based on the Ed Gein murders and is considered to be one of the most disturbing films of all time. In 1979 the most famous haunting of the time was adapted for the screen in 'The Amityville Horror,' which itself was a success financially. But what happened to promising new director Wes Craven during this period? Well his next picture, based on a case from Scotland involving a cannibal clan, would be another unsettling experience that feels all too real.

A family on vacation takes a detour through an old nuclear testing site and gets stranded. They set up camp for the night, hoping to get going again by morning. But from the moment they arrive there is a feeling that something isn't right about this place. They hear funny noises and see the occasional human figure watching from a distance. What they don't know is that they are trespassing on another family's land, but this isn't another ordinary family like them. These people have been living in this desert their whole lives, away from civilization, and their favorite thing to eat is living flesh.

Wes Craven is known for making some of the greatest and most influential Horror films of the last few decades. His 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' was a breath of fresh air after so many routine Slasher Films and terrified moviegoers. By comparison 'The Hills Have Eyes' doesn't hold a candle to his better efforts, but is still pretty good and worth a look. The actors, made up of mostly unknowns at the time, give good performances all across the board. These are not glamorous movie stars, but instead real actors who are convincing as everyday people and they do a fine job of making us sympathize with them.

Shot entirely in Victorville, California and it looks beautiful thanks to the fantastic cinematography. And thank goodness the film doesn't look polished like a lot of modern Horror. Instead it has a nice gritty look and feel to it, which is exactly what this kind of story needed. The score, which ranges from subtle and chilling to kind of funky, is really effective and never becomes over dramatic. Considering what the film is about you'd expect there to be some moments of utter horror and you'd be right. There are several harrowing sequences that'll stay with you long after the film is over.

In the hands of a lesser director and/or actors the desert clan could have been over the top and campy, but fortunately this is hardly the case. Instead they are a freaky bunch of people that you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley. In fact they're even more backwards than The Sawyer Family who, though this isn't saying much, are more sophisticated. Add to that a feeling of dread that hangs over the film from frame one, which is something sorely lacking in a lot of genre films. You know these poor people are in for the nightmare from hell, and it helps that you don't know who is going to get it next. The pace really picks up for the second half, which is more action-packed and involves a lot of chasing and close calls.

There is much to enjoy in this film, but it's not without it's shortcomings starting with it's plot. There really isn't much plot to speak of, and what little there is wears thin real quick. Another major issue is the pacing of the first half, which often drags. Not that there's anything wrong with a slow paced first half, a lot of great films have one, but there are stretches so slow they'll likely make you check your clock a few times. The performances are good all around, but the dialogue isn't always so great. Some of it, especially for the cannibals, could have used some polishing us.

A lack of originality doesn't always mean the film isn't any good, but it's still something that can stick out like a sore thumb. If you've other films similar to this then you will find little nothing that you haven't already seen before. The ending, which is overall pretty satisfying, does happen rather abruptly which is strange. The final shot comes and then in an instant we go to the closing credits, which are in black letters over a red background. There is much to praise here and for fans of the genre and director it's worth seeing at least once, but 'Hills' isn't one of the greatest. Perhaps it just didn't go far enough with it's concept, but it's not something I would write off.

***/*****

Mirrors 2 (2010)

2011-03-05T18:40:00.000-08:00

In 'Scream 2' the character of Randy, played by Jamie Kennedy, announces that, "Sequels suck!" and, "By definition they're inferior films." In many cases these two statements are absolutely on the mark, but sometimes sequels surprise us. Normally they aren't as good as their predecessors, but can be good films in their own right. And when they are really inferior it can be for a variety of reasons, which shows that money was probably the main guiding force. Some are made without heart, some stray too far from the story, and worse yet sometimes they follow the storyline of their predecessor too closely.

If a sequel turns out to be more like a loose remake of the first film it makes you wonder what the point was. One of the main reasons that 'Demons 2' doesn't work as well as the original is because it's basically the same thing all over again only in a different setting. The good sequels respect what came before, but they also move things forward and bring some new things to the mix. The first eight 'Friday the 13th' movies may all follow the same basic formula of horny teens killed by a masked killer, but each one at least brings something new and interesting to it. When you repeat yourself it just shows a lack of imagination and heart, making viewers feel like their time and money have been wasted.

The first 'Mirrors' was a really nice surprise and in my book one of the most underrated Horror films in the last decade. If a sequel was never made it wouldn't be the end of the world, but one was coming anyway. The following year Fox started prepping a follow up for home video, which usually is not a good sign. Once in a while though a straight to video sequel turns out better than expected. Having really enjoyed the first film and really liking both Nick Stahl and William Katt I had some hope for this film. It starts off on the right foot, but sadly in the end it's just another forgettable sequel sent right to the video shelves.

Max Matheson (Nick Stahl) is struggling to get over the auto accident that claimed the life of his fiance. His father (William Katt) offers him a job as a nightwatchman for his new department store in New Orleans. He's grateful for the opportunity, but his new found happiness will be short lived when he finds out something isn't right about this place. He starts to see things in the store's mirrors and soon people connected with the place are found dead. Max does some investigating and discovers some deep dark secrets about the store and the people who work there. If he wants to survive and stop the evil force he'll have to face it head on.

Doesn't really sound much different from the plot of the original does it? It really isn't, but that's the least of the film's problems. However, it's not one of the worst straight to video efforts out there and does have some good points. Some of the cast members turn in good performances, including ones who deserve much better than this. William Katt sadly only appears in two scenes and is given little to work with, but it's nice to see him still in the game. The score, which is quite different from the one in the original, is pretty good and effective.

Like a lot of sequels, this one has a bigger body count than the original and the good news is that the death scenes don't disappoint. They're all pretty memorable and plenty gruesome, which means lots of blood and a fair amount of gore. Plus the effects, a mix of practical and digital, are all really well done. At 83 minutes, 'Mirrors 2' moves at a really quick pace keeping things from getting boring, even though much of what's going on isn't very exciting. One major way this one differs from the original is the twist, which is actually a pretty good if disturbing one.

The bad news friends is that the bad outweighs the good in this film, making it not unwatchable, but something you'd be better off skipping. First off, the plot is essentially a reworking of the original's and the changes aren't especially interesting. Another big blow is the complete lack of suspense, which is largely due to Victor Garcia's mediocre direction. Also unless mirrors and pale faced ghosts frighten you, then you won't find this one bit scary. The main characters in the original all have depth to them, which is more than can be said for the ones here. Most of them are just window dressing, which makes it impossible to get attached to them.

The main cast does fine, but some of the supporting performances leave something to be desired. I won't spoil who it is, but the person playing the main villain wouldn't scare a two year old afraid of the dark. They come off more like a whiny little wimp than a real threat. The interesting twist is poorly executed, the last act just feeling really clumsy when it should be thrilling and revealing. And to make it worse the ending is anticlimactic, and leaves the door open for another installment. And lastly, this is a very drab looking film due to the limited and dull color palette.

It's not hard to see why this film didn't get a theatrical release like it's predecessor did. It shows so much of what's wrong with modern Horror these days never should have gotten past the idea stage. There is some good in it and it's at least not boring, but it's mired in mediocrity thanks mostly to the lukewarm script, a few off performances, and bland direction. It's as if they weren't really trying and what we get is really just a mediocre sequel-cum-remake of a much better film. Do yourself a favor and just skip this, then either watch the original again or one of the other better Horror films involving mirrors.

**/*****

Mirrors (2008)

2011-03-05T17:41:00.000-08:00

Perhaps one of the scariest devices used in Horror films is a mirror. It's been used in many, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Gary Sherman needed to give the spirits something to enter the real world through in 'Poltergeist III' and decided it should be the mirrors in a high rise building. They were also used really effectively in the first two 'Candyman' films and in one segment of the 1945 classic 'Dead of Night.' The idea of seeing something sinister in the reflection, which isn't there when you look behind you is pretty frightening. People use them every day in real life, but in the movies they can be so much more.

In modern Horror this convention is still used from time to time, in films from all over the world. Lately remakes have become a big deal in Hollywood, especially of Horror films. This includes popular ones from Asia, such as 'The Grudge' and 'The Ring,' which did well in their own right. Alexandre Aja, who updated Wes Craven's 'The Hills Have Eyes' a couple years prior, was next set to redo the 2003 Korean film 'Into the Mirror.' Having been impressed with his earlier work and liking the concept of this project I was very much looking forward to it. Sure the fact it was going to be yet another remake wasn't so appealing, but it sounded like this one was in capable hands.

Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland) is in a really dark place in his life. He's been suspended from his job on the force and has a strained relationship with his family, but things do start to look up. He gets a job as a nightwatchman at an old department store, but there's something off about the place. Ben starts to see things in the store's mirrors and soon things start happening outside of work. He believes something lurks behind the glass, but his loved ones have a hard time believing it until it starts to effect their lives as well. If he wants to save himself and his family, Ben must look into the past to find out how to stop it.

'Mirrors' did moderately well at the Box Office, but wasn't exactly the hit of the season. The reviews were mixed, much of them being very negative, and the film seemed to have been mostly forgotten. After seeing it myself I have to say I don't agree, in fact I feel just the opposite about it. In an age where a lot of the Horror films shown in theatres are hollow and forgettable this one is like a breath of fresh air. If you're tired of films like 'Saw' that pile on the carnage and are looking for something with more mystery and suspense then this is a good film to turn to.

Kiefer Sutherland, who was starring in the hit series '24' at the time, proves that he's still got it with a really strong show here. He really makes you believe this guy is going through a tough time and loves his family. The rest of the cast, especially Paula Patton as Ben's ex-wife Amy, is also excellent. After an intense opening scene, we're treated to a very cool opening titles sequence, which is something you don't see in too many genre films today. Also the score is amazing and chilling in all the right places, such as the main title theme. Being set in New York City you would hope the cinematography would be top notch and you'd be right. The film looks gorgeous and there are a lot of great shots of the city.

Though not a body count kind of film, there are some death sequences here that should make your eyes bug out. They're both painful to watch and also quite bloody and gory, the effects well done and very realistic. If you've seen Aja's first two films then be prepared for something very different this time. Whereas those were more gritty, 'Mirrors' has a more surreal and dark atmosphere that's creepy in a different way. Plus there are plenty of scenes and images that should get under your skin. Both make-up and visual effects are on display here and for the most part they're really well done, like in the final battle scene under the department store.

Aja, who also co-wrote the screenplay, does a fine job of creating and maintaining suspense. He also paces the film well, which is good considering it clocks in at about 107 minutes, which is now rare for a Horror film. Most of the time it's slow in order for viewers to get to know the characters and situation, and also to get comfortable, and then like a roller coaster it jolts you a few times. One thing that could make or break any film is it's ending, which needs to be a satisfying close after such good build up. The ending to this film may be a surprise to most and is one of those endings you'll either love or hate, but either way you will never forget it.

Though I do feel this is one of the better Horror efforts to appear in recent memory, it's not quite a masterpiece of the genre. There are a couple of big problems with it that bring it down a notch, starting with the revelation of what's in the mirrors. It's not that it's necessarily lame or ruins the movie, but they could have used a bit more imagination because it sort of feels like "been there, done that." Not that it's not ok for a Horror film to be longer than 90 minutes, just look at 'The Exorcist,' but some don't need to be as long as they are. 'Mirrors' does feel a few minutes too long and does start to lose some momentum towards the end. You may find yourself saying, "Just get on with it already!"

Flaws aside, this film really stands out as one of the best of it's kind in a long time. The sight of the ghost of a little girl, or boy, who is white as snow and makes spooky sounds was really getting tired. Plus after so many mediocre remakes and PG-13 Horror this is like a breath of fresh air. With each film Aja seems to get better and better and is a director worth keeping track of. Though it may not be as good as say 'Poltergeist,' 'Mirrors' is definitely a cut above the rest. It just may make you afraid to look in the mirrors again.

****1/2/*****

Boogeyman (2005)

2011-02-25T13:16:00.000-08:00

For centuries adults have been warning naughty children that if they don't start behaving the Boogey Man will come and take them away. This sort of thing could lead to many sleepless nights for a child, who would have to check their closet and under their bed before going to sleep. Every culture has their own version and to this day there are kids around the world who are afraid of monsters coming for them. It's one of those things that every kid, and every adult, can relate to and that's part of why it makes a great subject for a Horror movie. You would think that Hollywood would take great advantage of this particular monster, but in actuality there are few films dealing with this subject.

Stephen King is known for coming up with some of the most frightening stories and monsters. In his book Night Shift there's a story about a family terrorized by the Boogey Man that is quite chilling, and was later turned into a decent short film. In 1980 German art film director Ulli Lommel brought us 'The Boogeyman,' which involves the ghost of a madman coming back for revenge, nicknamed after said creature by some. Once in a while he would show up in an episode of a TV series or movie made for TV or video, but almost never on the big screen. Well that day would come in 2005 when Sam Raimi's Ghost House Pictures released their first original feature film and it looked promising. The idea of every child's worst fear being brought to the big screen was pretty exciting, but that feeling unfortunately didn't last for long.

Tim (Barry Watson) is still haunted by the night his father was taken by something in his bedroom closet. Things sort of fell apart after that, but eventually he did get away and create a life for himself. After finding out his mom (Lucy Lawless) took a turn for the worse he returns home for the funeral and make sense out of his past. He reconnects with family and friends, but right away he knows something isn't right. He starts having visions and hears strange noises in his old house, which makes his loved ones worry. Things get progressively worse and it looks more and more likely that what's going on isn't just a figment of Tim's imagination.

This film got off on the right foot with a very chilling opening 5 minutes. Then for the next 20 to 25 minutes it sets up the main characters and situation and does so in a somewhat compelling fashion. But just when you think it's going to get even better things start to go downhill and what we're ultimately left with is an average Horror experience. In terms of the acting, everyone here does a good job and Barry Watson succeeds in carrying the film. And first time director Stephen Kay proves himself with a stylish and moody show. Sure he may not be the next John Carpenter, but he's got the chops and should go on to bigger and better things.

The score, which is kind of unusual, is effective and really sets the tone for the film. And the film actually does an alright job in the scare department. There are a few sequences and images that are really chilling and that will probably stay with you after the film is over. The film has a really dark and spooky atmosphere that permeates the entire film and may even be more potent than in 'Darkness Falls.' The cinematography is fantastic, showcasing some great shots such as the one of Tim looking down into his mother's grave and when he walks into his old house for the first time. And all of this happens at a good steady pace, which should be so when the film clocks in at 77 minutes.

There are a number of flaws to be found, which makes one wonder if there were issues during the production of this film. It feels like maybe there were too many cooks in the kitchen, which is too bad because this really could have been something. First off, the plot is thin as tissue paper and the second half of the film mostly involves the main characters going from one location to the next, running around looking for things. Some of the scares are genuine, which is getting harder and harder to find in modern mainstream Horror, but there are a few that are cheap. Also threadbare are most of the secondary characters and relationships between just about everyone, which had it been the other way would have really helped.

None of the above flaws could top the film's biggest mistake, which is the conclusion. The whole film has been building up to a final showdown with the titular monster and saying it's disappointing is an understatement. The ending is a cop out, pure and simple and you will not likely be satisfied. To add insult to injury, the makers of the film made the fatal mistake o not only showing the monster, but creating it with some really lousy CGI. If you saw the true form of The Scorpion King in 'The Mummy Returns,' then you have an idea of how bad it looks. Word has it that the ending didn't perform well in the test screenings and was redone based on the criticism from the audience, which is hardly ever a good thing.

I for one was really pumped for this film when they announced it back in 2003. The trailer and images made it look like it could actually be something worth seeing on the big screen. The first half is so strong, but things quickly take a turn and the film becomes just another soulless Hollywood moneymaker. It's so painful when a film has a lot going for it, but doesn't deliver as much as you expect. If you're looking for some ok rainy afternoon entertainment you could do much worse, but I wouldn't advise going out of your way to see this.

**1/2/*****

Amityville: It's About Time (1992)

2011-02-20T19:31:00.000-08:00

Sequels to Horror films are without a doubt the most interesting to watch. In this genre the possibilities are endless and often times sequels go in unexpected directions. Of course this doesn't guarantee the final product will be any good, but at the filmmakers tried to keep things from getting stale. One major problem with trying something too different is that you can alienate dedicated fans, even if the series was starting to run out of steam. I'm sure making movies is a hell of a lot of fun, but by the same token it has also got to be one of the toughest jobs in the world because of trying to please viewers alone.

Fans of John Carpenter's 'Halloween' and it's sequel were baffled by the next installment, which introduced a whole new situation and set of characters. The people involved wanted to liberate the series from Michael Myers and continue it as a sort of anthology series with each new sequel relating to Halloween, but in a new way. Many fans, like myself, welcomed the idea and love the film to this day, but like they say you can't please everyone. Even franchises that maintained their main characters and storylines were given some interesting new additions. The first three 'Silent Night, Deadly Night' films are all connected by plot and characters, but once they got to part 4 it was a whole new ball game with only the smallest of ties to the earlier films.

The most famous haunted house in North America, maybe even the world, became the subject of not only a film franchise, but also a series of novels. People were divided on whether or not the events depicted in 'The Amityville Horror' really occurred, but it didn't stop the first film from being a success and leading to two theatrical sequels, one made for TV, and another for home video. The latter turned out to be by far the worst of the series, not even being entertaining due it's ineptitude. Sure the previous two entries are pretty hokey, but at least they each have some entertainment value and more class than they deserve. 'The Amityville Curse' appeared to have killed the series, which had already overstayed it's welcome, but like so many other contemporary Horror series it wouldn't stay dormant for long.

An architect (Stephen Macht) returns home to California from New York, where he was working on a new development, with a gift for his family (Shawn Weatherly, Damon Martin, Megan Ward). While on the East Coast he purchased an unusual looking, but unique antique clock that he loves, but the other don't know how they feel about it. What they don't realize yet is that he has just brought a powerful evil into their home, which begins to weasel it's way into their lives right away. It starts with small things, like a room transforming into one from a different time, and leads to bigger and more frightening incidents, like a violent dog attack. Some are skeptical, while others know that this isn't just a case of bad luck and must act fast before the ancient evil of Amityville destroys yet another innocent family.

After the dreadful 'The Amityville Curse,' things could only go up from there. The good news is that not only is this fifth sequel better than the last, but it's actually the best in the long running series. By number 6 in a series, and especially if it's straight to video, you would think that they would really be scrapping the bottom of the barrel, but instead what we get is a really pleasant surprise. On the top of the box are the words "From the Director of Hellbound: Hellraiser II," and if you are a fan of that film and feel the direction is one it's highlights, then you have reason to have hope for this. What easily could have been another forgettable b grade Horror sequel, is an unexpected treat.

None of the previous films are known for having great writing, but this one outshines them all. Christopher DeFaria and Antonio Toro, who were also hired to write the script for the next installment, are responsible for some of the best writing this series has ever seen and that's saying something. Another real strong point is the acting, which is well above average where all are concerned. Veteran actress Nita Talbot is especially wonderful as the local occult/paranormal expert, as is Jonathan Penner as the well-meaning, but pretentious psychiatrist boyfriend. The score by Daniel Licht, who kind of made a career out of scoring direct to video Horror sequels, is dynamic. At times it's bright and bouncy, and at others ominous and really setting the mood for the darker moments.

Most of the deaths in the other 'Amityville' films are simple, but still very effective. However, this time they are all quite graphic not to mention creative. I won't give any away, but let's just say Freddy Krueger would be proud. The effects work in this movie is really very good, ranging from something as simple as teeth marks to melted corpse. If you don't much care for things slimy, runny, and/or gooey then you may want to fast forward or look away during some scenes. Speaking of which, there are some sequences that are both intense and even terrifying, which is a far cry from the sometimes too subtle horror of the original.

One thing I would not call this film is predictable, which is something that plagues most sequels. Oh sure you can predict some of the deaths, but as for the rest of the incidents you will not likely see them coming. Seeing the characters squirm in uncomfortable situations is one of the best things about watching this movie. One thing I doubt anyone will see ahead of time is the twist near the end, and it's a whopper. On the downside it is one of those endings that you'll either love or hate, but if you're already a fan of the series you'll probably appreciate it. About the only other positive thing I can say about the film is that it moves at a good pace, never getting bogged down.

Tony Randel did such a fantastic job of directing 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II' that you would expect the same this time. Apart from getting a few good shots and handling the spooky goings on well, the direction is pretty plain for the most part. Not that it's bad, but it kind of lacks the punch of his previous job behind the camera. The upping the ante in terms of scares and grue is fun times and not so tame as some of the earlier films, but as the film nears the end it does become a bit over-the-top. Not that the last third of the movie isn't still a lot of fun, but if you want subtlety you won't find it. And once it really starts hitting the fan early on it happens so quickly rather than organically, which would have made for an even more suspenseful film.

Most direct to video sequels nowadays aren't the least bit watchable and you wonder who they were made for. After 'Curse' I never imagined there would be another sequel, much less a good one, but the makers of 'It's About Time' proved that you can breathe life into a dying series. It's a rare example of a later sequel that isn't just the same old same old, and instead takes the series in a new and interesting direction. The question is whether or not the individual will appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do. I never thought I would say this, but it's the best of the whole series and a solid Horror film in it's own right. But don't take my word for it, pick it up and give it a chance if you dare.

****/*****

The Ogre (1988)

2011-02-04T12:43:00.000-08:00

It's really quite fascinating that so many Italian Horror films have been labeled sequels to films they have little to nothing in common with. The only logical answer is that it's a good way of capitalizing on a successful title. Bruno Mattei's 'Shocking Dark' is known as 'Terminator 2' in some places, but we all know that the creator of that character and world made his own sequel. 'The Evil Dead' is known as 'La Casa' over seas and there are a number of "sequels" to it, but if you watch them you'll find they stand on their own. Lucio Fulci's 'Zombi 2' was made as an unauthorized sequel to George Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead,' and was itself followed by a few of it's own, again none of which were intended to be sequels. This idea appears to have worked out very well, because Horror fans still talk about these films to this day.

When there are multiple films with the same alternate title it's even more interesting. There are two films called 'Zombie 4' in some places outside the US, but only the 1988 one directed by Claudio Fragrasso feels like it could be a sequel to Fulci's cult classic. The same fate has befallen Lamberto Bava's 'Demons,' although the first sequel really does continue the story and themes of it's predecessor. Over the next several years a number of films would receive title changes to link them with this series, but none of them really have anything to do with them. Funnily enough there are three movies with the alternate title of 'Demons 3' and one of the was directed by Bava himself. Don't let that fool you however because apart from those two connections it is a completely separate film, but not one without merits of it's own.

A family is on vacation in Italy and have rented a villa for a few weeks, one that locals don't like to speak of. The wife Cheryl (Virginia Bryant) is a bestselling writer of Horror novels and gets much of her inspiration from her childhood. She too is excited about their staying in the historic dwelling, but the more she explores it the more scared she becomes. The place reminds of her of the one from her nightmares, which also involved a hideous ogre that stalked her. It also inspires her to write her next novel, but she and her family will soon learn that no good can come from it. The deeper she gets, the more real the monster of her story becomes and soon bad things start happening and Cheryl questions what's real and what's not.

When going into this film just disregard the 'Demons III' part of the title because this was never meant to be a sequel to Bava's earlier works. If you are already a fan of his movies then you may be in for a treat with this one, but be warned because it's not the roller coaster ride 'Demons' is. The acting is not going to win any accolades, but for the most part the cast members do a good job. Virginia Bryant has a lot of emotional scenes and handles them well, which makes you wonder why she left the business. This was a made for TV movie, but you'd never know it thanks to Bava's atmospheric direction. It could have been flat and unengaging, but he gave it everything he got.

The story is actually really neat and original, something sorely lacking these days. Sure there are plenty of movies about a monster in a house or castle, but this is a really fresh spin on it. Simon Boswell, who also scored 'Demons 2' and fabulously, returns to give this film a really fantastic and often Gothic sounding score. The location is also eerie, making it the perfect setting, but is also quite unique and beautiful. And there are plenty of scary sequences throughout the film, most of them taking place in the basement. It's dark, dusty, and like a labyrinth and like Cheryl should give you plenty of nightmares.

The monster in a movie is something that can make or break it, but luckily the former is the case here. The ogre of the title is really very frightening and designed well, maybe giving Freddy Krueger a run for his money. Bava has proven he can make a really fast paced film, but 'The Ogre' is a different story. The pace is slow for most of the 91 minute running time, but not in a negative way and it does really pick up in the second half. Once the monster finally materializes in reality the shit really hits the fan and it becomes a real fight for survival. This is where the positives end because there are several blemishes on 'The Ogre.'

If you're a really impatient person then this film is not for you because it takes a while to really get going. However if you like Horror that takes it's time then this may be up your alley. There really isn't much of a plot to speak of, which is too bad considering the concept is so good. The ending is actually pretty rushed and should have been a bit more drawn out. The monster is so big and menacing that you'd think he'd be difficult to defeat, but it happens to quick and easily. One last issue is that there are some pretty cheesy lines and at times they make the actors look bad, but most of the dialogue if fine.

If you dreamed of monsters coming for you as a child then it's movies like this that could invoke those memories. Most will likely be bored by this film, but if you're patient and enjoy a good old fashioned monster in a castle movie then give it a go. They certainly make them like this anymore, which is too bad, but it's nice to revisit something like this if you're tired of remakes and rehashes of the same old crap. Truthfully there is more imagination and genuine thrills in this than you find in most modern Horror films. Just goes to show how much things have changed and that current filmmakers could learn a thing or two from the greats of the genre.

***1/2/*****

The Unnamable II: The Statement of Randolph Carter (1993)

2011-02-04T11:44:00.000-08:00

True evil never really dies, it just keeps finding news ways to come back and haunt us. That's the way it usually is in the world of Horror, and is why we have so many sequels and remakes. This is a blessing and a curse, but more often the latter is the case because some people just don't get what made the original work so well. Sequels are rarely as good as their predecessors, much less better, but sometimes they surprise us. I don't think anyone expected 'Aliens' to be as amazing as it turned out to be and it's easy to see why people love it to this day. With the right team of people behind it a sequel can be better than you might expect.

The original 'Unnamable' film wasn't a sensation at the Box Office, but was a hit on home video. I won't spoil the ending, but lets just say not much room is left for a continuation of the story. This little detail hasn't stopped anyone from making sequel after sequel, for you can always find a way to bring the monster back. Jean-Paul Ouellette returned to make the sequel to his 1988 film, which alone should give one confidence in the project if you like the original. He showed that he actually had a genuine affection for H.P. Lovecraft's stories, so why not go down that path again?

What's interesting is that the demon of the title was never featured in any other work by Lovecraft, but the character of Randolph Carter appeared in several of them. So for the most part Ouellette had to come up with his own continuation of the events of the original. He did however loosely base this sequel on 'The Statement of Randolph Carter,' so it's nice that he didn't stray too far from the material. Also bringing back the two stars of the first film was a major plus because they were quite likable the first time. Never mind that this film came five years later, it picks up right where the first left off and ended up being a different kind of Horror movie.

After narrowly escaping death, Randolph Carter (Mark Kinsey Stephenson) and Howard (Charles Klausmeyer) return to Miskatonic University to try and sort everything out. While Howard recovers from his attack, Carter approaches a professor (John Rhys-Davies) with a copy of the Necronomicon from the Winthrop house. Together they explore the tunnels under the house and discover the demon still lives, but using the book they're able to separate the human half (Maria Ford) from the demon. Thinking they're out of the line of fire, Carter, Howard, Alyda, and all their friends are about to find that evil doesn't go away so easily. The monster is still on the loose and will do whatever it takes to get back together with it's human host.

It's a relief that the maker of the film didn't just repeat what happened in the first because lesser filmmakers would have done just that. Instead of being another "college students in a haunted house" story this time we're treated to a more "monster run amok" adventure and a really fun one at that. The actors playing Carter and Howard are the only ones to return and they, plus all the new comers, give solid performances. It's especially cool to see Stephenson and Rhys-Davies bounce off of each other. And with Ouellette returning you would expect him to deliver in the suspense department again and fortunately he does. He was given a bigger budget to work with and obviously used it to make this the best and most entertaining movie he could.

The score is strikingly different than the one in the first film, but still very good. Most of it sounds more suited for an adventure film, but there are still parts that should give you the chills. Once again the make-up effects are stellar, this time extending to a second monster that looks even more menacing than the original. And though this lacks the gore of the first, there are still some realistic looking scratches and gashes. The first movie has some humor, but is pretty serious for the most part and this sequel is less so. This time we're given a lot of lighter moments, but none of them feel out of place or poorly executed.

The first 'Unnamable' is pretty dark and spooky in tone, but this one doesn't have that same atmosphere. Despite this there are still plenty of moments that should give you goosebumps. There are some pretty good ideas here, such as the splitting up of the two halves and one not being able to live long without the other. Ouellette obviously wanted to build on what we saw in the original, which is always a good thing in a sequel. Another thing that is an improvement over the first is the pace, which is energetic. Not that part 1 is boring, but the lack of plot does hurt the pace some and here we don't have that problem.

This film can't be compared to the greatest of all time, but for what it is it's really very good. Of course it's not perfection and has at least a couple glaring flaws. Yes there is more a plot this time, but when you think about it that's not saying much. Ultimately this is still just a movie about a monster knocking off innocent bystanders to get to the protagonist. The other is the lack of a feeling of dread, which the original had in spades. It doesn't keep the film from being scary, but it would have helped in keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat.

This sequel was a real surprise, not just because it happened at all but also because it's better than the first. Watching them back to back may give you a bit of a shock because the tone of each is quite different. The bad news is that II lacks the eerie atmosphere of I, but that doesn't keep it from being one of the funnest monster movies in recent times. Ouellette was set to make two more installments, featuring Carter and Howard in different Lovecraft inspired situations, but for some reason these never happened. A shame really, but if the series has to end here at least it left off on a really high note.

****/*****

The Unnamable (1988)

2011-01-27T17:20:00.000-08:00

One major change in the Horror genre from 20-30 ago to today is the lack of films based on popular literature. This is really unfortunate because there are still so many great stories left that have not been brought to the screen. Nowadays you see so many remakes, sequels, and rip-offs and it makes one yearn for the days when more filmmakers were interested in adapting great Horror fiction to the screen. Not that no one is doing it anymore, but it seems to be lacking and that there's more money to gain from remakes and sequels. Another factor of course could be a decline in literacy, which in itself is regrettable.

The work of H.P. Lovecraft is not well known in the mainstream of today, but in the 1980s a slew of films based on his work were made. The trouble was that some filmmakers didn't seem to have what it took to translate the writing to film, which resulted in clunkers like 'Cthulhu Mansion.' But then there were those exceptions like 'Re-Animator,' which did an admirable job of bringing Lovecraft's work to life on the screen. You have to remember this was a decade when the genre was really hot, but that meant that every Tom, Dick, and Harry wanted to contribute and a lot of what was coming out was essentially junk. Some people just didn't get what made his stories work and would turn out something that was more about making money and less about making a successful Horror film.

Towards the end of the decade an independent filmmaker by the name of Jean-Paul Ouellette became the next in a line of men to adapt the author's work to film. He introduced movie-goers to one of Lovecraft's most popular stories, and unlike some before him stayed very true to the material. Unfortunately the film was not a big hit in theatres, but was much more lucrative on video and went on to become a minor cult classic. Some directors in Hollywood at the time didn't seem to care about things like atmosphere, suspense, or using restraint when it came to blood and gore. Well 'The Unnamable' actually mixes these things and though I wouldn't call it a classic, it's well above average.

For about 300 years in the New England town of Arkham there have been tales about a demon locked in an old house. Most don't buy into the local folklore, but some feel there is at least some truth to it. One night a group of four college students decides to spend a night in the old Winthrop house as a sort of initiation, but what begins as a night of fun becomes a fight for survival. One by one students are knocked off by some unseen force, but all hope may not be lost. As luck would have Randolph Carter (Mark Kinsey Stephenson), a Folklore major, and his friend Howard (Charles Klausmeyer) are also interested in exploring the ancient dwelling and may have the answer to solving the mystery of the house and putting an end to horror within it.

This was one of those films that you couldn't miss when walking through the Horror section at the video store, which is both a good thing and not. The biggest mistake the distributors made was in showing what the monster of the title looks like, but don't let that steer you away from it. This may not be a genre milestone, but it is well worth the price of admission. In terms of the acting, everyone involved does a pretty good job and really seem to be having a good time. Mark Kinsey Stephenson is especially good here, really sinking his teeth into the role of the overachieving, but undeniably charming Carter. You get the feeling that he, Klausmeyer, and the actress playing the titular creature all had strong theatre backgrounds because their performances are far from one dimensional.

This is a really atmospheric little film for a number of reasons, one of them being the score. It's often quite eerie and really helps in creating a feeling of dread. Also the house itself and the surrounding woods make for a really spooky location that makes the Amityville house look inviting. At 84 minutes this movie goes along at a pretty good pace, especially in the final act when the shit really hits the fan. Jean-Paul Ouellette, who wrote, directed, and co-produced the film, does a fine job of making this a suspenseful movie and not just a splatterfest. That being said though, there are some rather gory moments and the effects are amazing and realistic.

A lot of older monster movies have not held up so well and one of the reasons is because the monster isn't very convincing. A lot of times it just looks like a person in a suit and you can see the zipper and/or where pieces have been glued on. Well you can rest easy because the monster suit here is impressive, looks very real, and is also quite frightening. And again the actress inside does a fabulous job of bringing this thing to life, whereas a lesser actor or stunt person wouldn't have brought much to the table. When someone makes a film based on literature one hopes that they are a fan of it and that this is not just a job to them. Luckily Ouellette is a fan of Lovecraft and when watching this film his affection for it is obvious.

'The Unnamable' does a lot of things right and isn't a seriously flawed film, but there are a few kinks that could have been worked out. When it comes down to it, there really isn't much of a plot here and what little there is is typical "people stuck in an old house with a monster" stuff. The good news is that the first third of the film is actually very faithful to the short story, but of course they had to expand on it to make this a feature length film, but still the plot is thin. The result of this is that the pace does drags at times, but fortunately the movie never actually becomes boring. There are also quite a few cliches to be found here, such as someone checking out a strange noise. And lastly, some aspects like clothing date the film a bit, but it's not too big a deal.

In the hands of a lesser creative team this could have been a very Hollywoodized adaptation of great literature. So it's definitely a good thing that the film was made independently by people who love what they do. Sure it may not be on par with some of the other films based on Lovecraft's works, but it's got enough of the goods to be worthy of a spot in your collection. My advice to those interested in seeing it is to either read the story first, but if you don't then read it anyway. Both the story and this film would be perfect for a dark night with the lights out and no one else around.

***1/2/*****

Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991)

2011-01-12T18:07:00.000-08:00

Greed and Hollywood seem to go together so well, something that to this day has never changed. We all need money to keep a roof over our heads and food on our tables, but some people let it go to their heads. There is a lot of money to be made in sequels, which is obviously why there are so many. Of course not all sequels made out of greed are bad, but often times the opposite is the case. And when a film that was originally supposed to stand on it's is labeled a sequel then you know someone is trying to make some money.

Taking a standalone movie and slapping a new title on it to make a sequel to something is primarily done overseas, but we do it too. There are three films with the alternate title of 'Demons 3' and Bruno Mattei's 'Shocking Dark' is also known as 'Terminator 2.' The first sequel to 1987s 'The Curse' is an example of this, but like that film if not taken too seriously it can be enjoyed in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. But the truth is, did the world really need a 'Curse II'? Well it must have done pretty well on video because two years later we got another "sequel."

I, like many others, enjoy watching the first two 'Curse' movies and so you would hope that any more would be the same way. Making this straight to video sequels to popular films has been a really good way to get more money out of a successful title, and some of us just never seem to learn. To be fair though there have been a lot of these films that have turned out to be pretty decent and not just something that fills up space on the shelves. Like II, 'Curse III' was it's own film and was given a new title to capitalize on the minor success of the earlier films and if anyone enjoyed them of course they'd be back for more. Well the difference here is that no matter what frame of mind you're in while watching this film, it still kind of sucks.

In South Africa circa 1950 an American woman (Jenilee Harrison) stumbles on a ritual sacrifice with some friends. They think they're doing the victim a favor, but the witch doctor puts a curse on them. Soon people start dying at the hands of some creature from the sea and when night falls whoever is left better get out while they still can. A local doctor (Christopher Lee) tries to help, but the cursed woman for some reason doesn't trust him, sensing he's hiding something. The monster closes in and it becomes a fight to stay alive against one of nature's deadliest.

This third installment in the low budget series of unconnected films actually starts out with some promise. It actually feels like it'll be less cheesy than it's predecessors, but it doesn't take too long for mediocrity to set in. At least the other two are entertaining, but this one just takes itself far too seriously and lacks the cheap thrills that make the first two fun. The cast does it's best and at least make the characters likable, especially Harrison whom you want to see make it to the end. Christopher Lee, who really deserves better, makes the best of a pretty thin part.

Shot on location is South Africa, there is lots of beautiful scenery to admire, some of it really lush. What's surprising is that for such an uneventful movie the pace actually moves along pretty well. Doesn't make the film anymore enjoyable, but does make it less of a chore to sit through. The monster, which until near the end is kept in the shadows and off camera, is actually very cool looking. It looks kind of like an updated version of the Creature From the Black Lagoon and unlike most monsters in low budget films doesn't just look like a guy in a suit. The film however really isn't scary, but there are a few decent shocks throughout.

If you're going to sit through this whole film my advice would be to not watch it when you're tired. Even at 86 minutes it's just way too talky and uneventful to really sustain interest much. It's not even like they were trying to keep viewers in suspense because a lot of the dialogue is more like filler. Aside from the characters of Elizabeth and the doctor the rest are too underdeveloped for us to get to know or care about them. If it's one thing that can make or break a Horror film it's the score, and unfortunately the one here is bland and worse repetitive. Of course it won't really matter too much since the film is pretty forgettable anyway.

The direction, like in part II, is really pretty flat and makes the film look more like one made for TV. There's also not much of a plot to speak of and most of the second half has the characters hiding out in some dark house. Whoever made the decision to call this 'Curse III' must have known what a mediocre film this was because under it's official title few to no people would have seen it. Yes it has the great Christopher Lee, but his part is pretty small actually. I wouldn't recommend this for people who want to see every film in a series because it just isn't worth the effort. even though there are worse.

Making this a sequel to 'The Curse' was kind of smart monetarily speaking, but otherwise it was pretty stupid. Sure neither of the other two are great cinematic achievements, but at least they're not dull as dirt and they do deliver some decent thrills. This one is just so bland and uninteresting and lacking what it takes to make even an ok Horror film. If it's a sea monster terrorizing people you want then just watch the Universal classic. The highest praise I think I could give this movie is that at least it's not as bad as the next one.

**/*****

Curse II: The Bite (1989)

2011-01-12T17:08:00.000-08:00

Most would agree that one of the greatest films of all time is Steven Spielberg's 'Jaws,' a film that has stood the test of time. Like 'The Exorcist' it made people deeply afraid of something, in this case sharks and going into the water. Sure it may be slightly dated, but the film more than makes up for that and trumps all of it's sequels. One unfortunate thing it has in common with William Friedkin's film is that it inspired many rip-offs, some that are really embarrassing. But this is Hollywood we're talking about, a town that just loves to see those dollar signs. Even today there are filmmakers trying to capitalize on great films made even before they were born.

But in addition to the imitations, 'Jaws' also inspired other directors to make films about man against other forces of nature. Spiders, bears, alligators, rabbits, etc. have been used in films about people terrorized by something from the Animal Kingdom. There are people afraid of all kinds of animals, making them perfect subjects for Horror films. But even these films, like 'Kingdom of the Spiders' and 'Alligator,' have been ripped off countless times to the point where people get bored with it. Snakes have been the villain of many films, from 'Anaconda' to 'Boa vs. Python,' and their sequels. But who would have thought the 1987 low budget film 'The Curse' would have a sequel about people being terrorized by these particular reptiles?

'Curse II: The Bite' has nothing to do with the original, and there is a really good reason for that. The film is one of many that was originally not intended to be a sequel to anything, but to get more people to see it someone decided to slap a new title on it. So no it's not a similar scenario to 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch,' but just another way to make mega bucks. This is too bad really because the original actually leaves the door open for a sequel, but for whatever the reason it never happened. Instead what we get is a "killer snake" movie that isn't too different from most, but like it's alleged predecessor is good cheesy fun.

A young couple (J. Eddie Peck and Jill Schoelen) is driving through Arizona and run into some trouble. Seems the roads are overrun with snakes, but as they are going to find out these aren't ordinary snakes. The boyfriend is bitten and slowly his behavior starts to change and as they continue on their trip they get into more and more trouble. A kind, but failed salesman (Jamie Farr) has the antidote, but has to find the infected person before it's too late. He seems to be going through some sort of transformation and soon lives are lost and his girlfriend doesn't know how to help him.

Like the first 'Curse' film this sequel is a low budget effort that most people have never heard of and will really only appeal to lovers of stuff like this. That being said if you enjoy a good b grade Horror film then you should find much to enjoy here. For starters the performances are a lot better than you would expect from this kind of film. The two leads are likable and have good chemistry, which helps makes one sympathetic to their plight. And the Arizona backdrop is beautiful and they get lots of great shots of it.

You can tell by the quality of the effects that much of the budget probably went into them. Just be prepared to be grossed out because a lot of what's one display is pretty slimy and gruesome. Speaking of which there are some memorable gore gags, which are painful to watch. The makers of this film obviously wanted to make people's skin crawl, which is what you would hope for from a movie about snakes or other creepy crawlies. Also very good is the score, which is at times soft and others fast and will get the adrenaline going. And pacing wise 'Curse II' moves along with few bumps along the way, especially in the last ten minutes.

The direction this time around is nothing to write home about, and aside from some decent shots it's pretty bland. A more experienced director would have really made this a freaky movie, but there's still enough goods to keep this afloat. Also the film does drag at times and it feels like there are some scenes that really would have been better off on the cutting room floor. The sequence with the family that takes the infected person in really could have been cut down a bit. This brings me to my last real beef with the film, which is the ending. It's a bit abrupt and maybe they could have used some of that time wasted on scenes that were more like filler to punch it up a bit more.

'Curse II: The Bite' is a lot better than it has any right to be and is a good addition to the killer snake sub-genre. It would also make a pretty good double feature with the original because like it it's good cheesy Horror entertainment. Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but if you like 90+ minutes of low budget Horror entertainment you could do so much worse. It's also much better and more entertaining than the two "sequels" that followed. My advice would be to only watch the first two, which is where they should have stopped anyways.

***/*****

The Curse (1987)

2011-01-10T17:40:00.000-08:00

It's said that movies based on bestselling novels pale in comparison, which really is often the case. This can happen for a lot of different reasons and when it goes wrong it's a shame because under the right circumstances and with the right people it could be magic. Miscasting, poor choice of director, studio interference, greed, etc. are all fatal flaws for films based on beloved books. Stephen King has had many bestsellers and the majority of his works have been adapted for the screen. However fans of both his work and the genre know that more often than not these adaptations have been lackluster. So much goes into making a film and when it turns out to be a dud it's such a waste.

Adapting an entire novel to film is hard enough, but trying to do it with a short story is even more pressure. Some just aren't meant to be made into feature length films and are better off being made as shorts, but some don't realize this. 'The Mist' is an example of a short story adapted to film, in this case nearly two hours, done right. But others like Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Fall of the House of Usher' have been adapted numerous times and vary in quality. H.P. Lovecraft is another example of a writer whose work has been translated well to film by some while others just don't get it at all and never should have tried in the first place. 'The Curse,' based on his story 'The Color Out of Space,' is somewhere in the middle and all things considered is a decent little flick.

A farm community is experiencing a decline in sales of their crops and a sleazy salesman tries to seize this opportunity. But this town and it's people are about to have bigger problems after what appears to be a meteor has landed by The Hayes' farm. At first it looks like a blessing in disguise when the crops are suddenly in abundance, but looks can be deceiving. Soon anybody who has drank the water or eaten the food starts to behave strangely and then violently. Zack (Wil Wheaton) tries to warn his family, but finds it's no use and will have to seek help elsewhere. Only a local doctor and man from the water company believe him about there being something deadly in the water.

This may sound like your typical zombie/mutant film, but it doesn't take long to realize it isn't. Instead this is a bit closer to being like the Science Fiction films of the 1950s mixed with a bit of zombie movies of the 70s and 80s. This was a low budget production and the directorial debut of actor David Keith and you can tell he gave it his best shot, but ultimately this is just a really cheesy attempt at Horror. Don't let that turn you away though because if you don't go in expecting something scary or groundbreaking you may have fun with this. This was an Italian/American production and if you enjoy the kind of Italian Horror people like Bruno Mattei made then you should enjoy this.

Performance-wise the cast does a pretty good job, especially the late Claude Akins as the religious zealot patriarch. Wil Wheaton gets top billing, which makes one think he'll have a really big part, but actually his character is almost like a supporting one. The film is set and was shot in Tennessee and the scenery is really nice to look at, which also shows in the cinematography. It really helps in giving the film a more authentic feel than if it were shot in a studio. There are a lot of make-up and gross out effects here and though the budget it low they are all well done. The film isn't gory exactly, but most of the effects are gooey and slimy and so if you like that there's plenty.

This isn't one of the scariest movies you'll ever see, but that doesn't mean there aren't moments where you'll be creeped out. For example, the mother is eventually put in the storm cellar and this gives way to some of the films most effective sequences. The score is also pretty good with it's country twang and moments that get the blood boiling. If it's one thing the makers of this film really got right it's the atmosphere. Why David Keith chose this as his first directing job is beyond me, but for the most part he does fine. He handles his actors well, is a pretty good storyteller, and keeps things moving at a good pace.

'The Curse' has quite a bit going for it, enough to make it above average, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any issues. One of the biggest, and it becomes more evident in the second half, is that the script has some major plot holes. For instance, the salesman and the doctor's wife are in cahoots, but it almost comes out of nowhere. The acting is good, in some cases too good because some of the characters are really unlikable. The bad thing about this is that these characters seem to get more screen time and stuff to say than the more sympathetic ones. The film is never boring, but it does take it's sweet time getting to the really horrific stuff.

Whatever the reason(s), be it the low budget, a lack of time, or even a lack of talent, 'The Curse' is only a partially successful film. It has enough going for it to be worth the almost 90 minute running time, but it's not something you're going to watch more than once or twice a year. It'll surely liven up a dull afternoon and will likely appeal to all or most b movie connoisseurs, just don't expect to be blown away. As to whether or not it does Lovecraft's story justice, that is up to the individual. Sometimes when a film based on a story doesn't live up to it, it's still a good film and that is the case with this one.

***/*****

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

2011-01-09T17:56:00.000-08:00

Filmmakers have been paying homage to other films and filmmakers for decades, it's nothing new. The work of directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick have been paid tribute to, both seriously and in the form of parody in various mediums. Classic monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein have been brought back and updated for every generation. This can be a wonderful thing when handled by people with a real affection for what they're paying homage to, be it 1950s Science Fiction or the work of Dario Argento. There are many who have tried, but failed at this and you wonder why they even bothered in the first place.

Unlike movies about monsters and ghosts, Slasher movies have not always been around. Instead the sub-genre really came into existence in the late 1960s and early 70s, which was when Horror films started to become bloodier and gorier. Sure some like 'Halloween' may have been influenced by Hitchcock's 'Psycho,' but none were actual revivals of any genre movement. With the resurgence of Horror films after the success of 'Scream' we started seeing ones that were in the spirit of those we know and love from back in the day. Sometimes they are in the form of a new original project or a remake of one of the classics. 'My Bloody Valentine 2009' isn't simply a remake, but also a real tribute to the great Slasher films of the 1980s.

The town of Harmony is no stranger to tragedy, for years ago a miner killed several innocent people. Ten years later the murders start up again, but everyone believes Harry Warden to be dead and gone. Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles) has come back to town to settle some business and ends up staying to help find out who's responsible for the killings. As time goes on and bodies pile up fingers start getting pointed, including at Tom, and it appears no one is safe. Has Harry Warden risen from the grave or is someone out for revenge using his old M.O.?

With each new remake most go in with caution, knowing that some have been nothing more than an attempt to milk more money out of a popular title. The 1981 original, unlike 'Halloween' and 'Friday the 13th,' is not well known in the mainstream and so it was a surprise that someone wanted to do it and in 3D. Of course we all know that means slapping down some extra moola and when one has to do that they hope they get their moneys worth. Well surprise surprise this remake is actually one of the better ones of the last few years and in this fan's humble opinion better than it's predecessor. It's also an example of a throwback to 1980s Slasher movies done right.

The cast, which is made up of some veterans and novices, is game and you can tell they enjoyed the experience. It's especially cool to see Tom Atkins on the big screen again after so many years, and it's a shame he wasn't given more to do here. Being a movie of this sub-genre there is one thing fans expect to see and that's a large amount of kills, especially ones they won't forget. Well the makers of this movie deliver and then some with plenty of memorable deaths. Add to that more than enough blood and gore to satisfy those anticipating it. Patrick Lussier and Todd Farmer knew their audience and instead of holding back they just went for it.

The special effects on display here will blow you away with how realistic and gruesome they look. Also the effects done with computer are well done and pretty convincing. One thing that this and the original have in common is the fact that the villain is so terrifying. They easily could have made him like Freddy Krueger in the later 'Elm Street' movies, but he still doesn't talk and is hulking and menacing. The score is also really effective and good at getting the blood pumping during the chase sequences. But ever though this film is very gory and at times pretty scary, it doesn't take itself too seriously.

At 95 minutes the movie never drags or becomes boring, instead moving at a fast pace. We are given a chance to get to know some of the main characters a bit, which is nice and not often seen in movies of this type, but then it's right to the goods. The twist, which some may see coming and some may not, is actually pretty cool and much better than the lame one from the original film. Lussier and Farmer really did a good job in making this a fun, brutal, and even scary remake of the earlier cult favorite and you can tell they had their hearts in it. That doesn't mean that it's without flaws because it actually has quite a few.

Not that it's much of a surprise, but there isn't much of a plot to be found here. This is typical of Slasher movies, but it is always nice when they sometimes have more meat to chew on. Also no one expects great acting from these films, but there are a few moments that are particularly hard to watch. For example, there is a scene between Jensen Ackles and Jamie King's characters on a bridge and the chemistry just isn't there. Suspense is not a staple of all movies in the sub-genre though there are many that do have it, but this isn't one of them. Lastly, there is some really unnecessary padding toward the end that I won't spoil, but it really is pointless.

'My Bloody Valentine 3D' was one of the most anticipated films of 2009 for us Horror buffs and I'm happy to report that it's worth checking out. Just about everything one looks for in a Slasher film can be found here, which shows that the filmmakers know their audience. It could have been just another teenybopper kind of film like some that came out in the years following 'Scream,' but fortunately it didn't pan out that way. Instead it's a fun and gory tribute to 1980s Slashers only set in the present. Other filmmakers planning on remaking a classic Horror film should watch ones like this to see how it should be done.

****/*****

The Unholy (1988)

2011-01-04T16:40:00.000-08:00

In the 1970s Hollywood was in a devil craze because so many movies dealing with Satanism were being made, for both the big and small screen. The more respected ones like 'The Exorcist' and 'The Omen' inspired a whole generation of filmmakers to make their own movies about hell, demons, possession, etc. Some turned out to be good movies in their own right while others were just silly rip-offs that are more funny than frightening, especially when watched today. For every 'The Exorcist' there were several 'Beyond the Doors' and even a Turkish remake of William Friedkin's movie that has to be seen to be believed. Some of these films were so intense to some people that they apparently went straight from the movie theatres to churches.

With time comes change and a trend that was once a big success will eventually run out of steam. It's like the saying out with the old and in with the new, and that's just what happened to films about Old Scratch. It really was getting ridiculous with all the imitations, which were being made all over the world. The sub-genre became exhausted and it was near impossible to take it seriously anymore. Sometimes someone will try to revive a tired formula, in the case of 'The Unholy' someone took a script written in the 70s and made it in the 80s. It was of course meant to capitalize on the success of better films and before watching it you may ask yourself: Should the script have been dusted off? Or should it have been left to vanish into obscurity?

Some bizarre murders have been happening at an old church in New Orleans and no one can seem to find any good leads. It's decided that the place be shut down, but it can't stay vacant forever. A new priest (Ben Cross) is asked by the archbishop (Hal Holbrook) to take the place over and breath some new life into it. But soon unusual and unsavory things start happening and the father decides to do some of his own investigating. But the deeper he gets, the more danger he gets himself and those around him into.

After sitting through this near 100 minute movie, you may wish the script was never discovered because then you wouldn't have had to waste your time on this. This movie wishes it could be in the same league as the classics I named above, but it's not even cheesy fun like many of the rip-offs. The movie isn't a total loss however and actually isn't the worst of this type of film that you could find. The cast, made up of mostly seasoned actors, actually does a pretty job with the silly material. Ben Cross makes for a likable protagonist that we actually care about and Hal Hollbrook brings some much needed class. That's actually one of the biggest problems with this film; it has good actors, but it's basically junk.

The score is actually pretty good and at times effective. Also the cinematography is better than you would expect from this because movie this ridiculous usually looks like it was made for TV. There are some really well done gore effects and some of the kills are pretty memorable, like the first. There are some good ideas here, such as the one where the demon kills those in the act of sinning, but they should have been in a better film. Director Camilo Vila sure knows how to take a lousy script and make it look good because he actually has a good handle on this and gets some great shots. And at times 'The Unholy' is entertaining in a cheesy kind of way, especially the finale with all the theatrics and hokey effects, but more on that later.

This film is an example of a lot of talk, but little action and it makes it a chore to sit through. There's nothing wrong with keeping viewers in suspense, but there's none of that here and instead you have to sit through a lot of uninteresting dialogue. Also the pace drags most of the time, especially in the middle. The writing, for the most part, is strictly amateur hour and could have used some serious revisions. For example, there's a character who's a psychic that does a reading for someone and the scene ends up serving no real purpose other than to fill the running time. And not only is a lot of the dialogue pointless, but much of it is also really poor.

When you realize how silly all of this is, you'll probably wish the film didn't take itself so damn seriously. Instead they should have just camped it up and made it at least so-bad-it's-good, but it's too dull and talky for that. There are long stretches where nothing much happens and characters are just talking or walking around in the dark, and that's not entertainment. The thrills that you do get from this are mostly cheap and will be forgotten soon after, like the father's visions of what's to come, which are never actually talked about. The effects were done by people who worked on films like 'Aliens' and 'Day of the Dead,' but all the ones in the finale are pathetic. We finally get to see the demon's true form, but instead of being scary it just looks cheap.

'The Unholy' had the potential to either be a good, respectable Horror film or cheesy fun. It fails on both counts however and instead falls somewhere in the middle. There are much better b movies dealing the devil and his minions that you could find. This one isn't smart, scary, or the least bit entertaining and it makes you wonder who it was made for. I guess if you need a few laughs it'll do in a pinch, but otherwise you can find better ways to spend your time. This film was properly titled because it's an unholy mess of biblical proportions.

**/*****

Evilspeak (1981)

2010-12-28T17:19:00.000-08:00

We've all thought about getting revenge on someone at some point in our lives. One of the not so pleasant things in life is that we sometimes have to deal with nasty people. Even though you know it's wrong you may think of ways to get them back, but that would just be sinking down to their level. That hasn't stopped some people from doing it anyway, which has been depicted in many movies. Exacting revenge on someone isn't ok to do in real life, but watching a character in a film do things we fantasize about can be one good way to deal with these feelings.

One of the most popular and still talked about examples of this is 'Carrie,' which unsurprisingly influenced other filmmakers to try their hand at the same material. A lot of times the outcome is just a pale copy of something better, but sometimes it turns out all right. It's a concept that should be pretty difficult to screw up, but some have managed to. 'Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II' is another example of a revenge movie done right, though it does borrow a lot from other popular Horror films of the time. Most films of this type involved a female outcast getting back at her tormentors, but occasionally there would be one where it was a male.

In 1981 came the really dreadful 'Fear No Evil,' which is basically a poor man's 'The Omen,' only instead of a little boy the anti-christ is a teenager. That same year saw the release of another low budget take on the formula, also involving the devil. Clint Howard, brother of actor/director Ron Howard, had been acting since he was a kid, but this was to be one of his first lead roles and in summary the film sounds promising. It doesn't sound like anything new, but you get the impression that it could be more than just something taking up space on the shelf. There are a lot of Horror films forgotten by all but the most dedicated, many of which are hidden gems, and as much as I'd hoped it would be this isn't one of them.

After his parents were killed in an auto accident, Stanley Coopersmith (Clint Howard) was shipped off to a prestigious military academy. Being kind of nerdy and klutzy, he doesn't exactly fit in and is picked on by some of the other guys. He does have a lot going for him like intelligence and determination, but no matter how hard he tries he just can't seem to get a break. One afternoon he comes across a secret room and a book about harnessing power and being able to use it against your enemies. What Stanley doesn't realize is just how dangerous this book really is and the harm it could do if he uses it.

'Evilspeak' actually shows promise in the first few minutes, starting with the opening sequence set in the past. Then when we move ahead the present it still holds interest, but it's not long before things start to unravel and the flaws become obvious. The performances, for the most part, are actually pretty considering the material the actors had to work with. Clint Howard does a great job of making us sympathetic toward his character and the actors playing the bullies are good at making us love to hate them. Another thing that works really well is the score, which is both memorable and quite eerie. At times it may remind you of the score to 'The Omen,' but that doesn't keep it from being effective.

One thing you probably expect to find in this type of film is a lot of gruesome deaths and there is no shortage of them here and they are all pretty creative and gory. There's one involving pigs and a bathtub that is especially uncomfortable to watch, so if you have a pig phobia beware. For the most part the film lacks atmosphere, but the secret room set is really ominous. The stone walls, lit candles, cobwebs, and altar all add to the spooky atmosphere of the room. And when the film finally reaches the final act it becomes pretty exciting and over-the-top with the theatrics and pyrotechnics. It's like they wanted to save the best for last, which actually is one of the film's biggest downfalls.

After an interesting start it doesn't take too long for boredom to set in, which starts with the really slow pace. Some films are slow for a good reason, but in this case it's a drag and it doesn't pick up too often. It doesn't help that it takes what seems like forever to get to the point and when it does you might not care anymore. And if you hate it when films are a lot of talk, but little action then you'll probably want to avoid this one all together. A film doesn't have to have almost non-stop action to hold one's interest, but long stretches of talk and little else does not a good movie make. And by the time this is all over you won't likely remember too much because most of what happens is forgettable.

Apart from Clint Howard's character all the others are one dimensional and in some cases played by actors who can't give them more dimension. Characters like the colonel and the snobby professor are more like characitures and feel out of place compared to the others. A lot of low budget Horror films from the 1980s have effects that haven't stood the test of time, and this one is no exception. For example, for all the decapitations it's too obvious that dummies are used when they should have looked more life like. Even for the time this movie was made they look phony and it hurts the impact of some scenes.

Sometimes movies borrow from others and it actually works out, but here it usually doesn't. In addition to lifting things from 'Carrie,' even a shower scene, you'll find similarities to 'The Exorcist' and 'The Omen.' And probably one of the worst things they could have done with this film was have it take itself too seriously. Not that they should have made it tongue it cheek necessarily, but because this is all pretty silly it could have been handled more lightly. They had a lot of the right ingredients, but when they were put together instead of getting a satisfying meal it's more like when you get more sauce than there is meat.

Look I wasn't expecting greatness here, but no one likes ninety minutes of their time wasted by something mediocre. And that's exactly what this movie is and because of that it should be forgotten. It's really just a big tease and when you get to the payoff it's not good enough to make up for what's lacking. Even '976-Evil' is more fun and it's not all that good of a movie either. If you want to see Clint Howard in a Horror movie you're better off watching 'The Ice Cream Man,' 'Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation,' or 'Ticks.' They may not be great cinematic achievements either, but you get more for your buck.

**/*****

Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation (1990)

2010-12-12T19:29:00.000-08:00

Change can really be good when things become too familiar. In order to keep people interested you've got to keep things fresh and interesting. Nobody likes to sit through something that's too much like something they've seen before a hundred times, which is what a lot of sequels are like. A lot of times a sequel rehashes things that worked so well in it's predecessor(s), but much less effectively. This is nothing more than a lack of creativity, which is a sign that the film was made for the money instead of respecting the fans and the creators of the characters. But this isn't the case all the time because there are quite a few sequels that take things in a really unexpected direction, sometimes one that's welcome and sometimes not.

Many fans were none to pleased with 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch,' a film that introduced us to a whole new set of characters in a completely different situation. But that film does have it's admirers and you can't deny that they used their imaginations and had their hearts in that one. Of course it was the only time in that series where that happened, but it wouldn't be the last time it would happen for any successful film franchise. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out!' brought the "Santa Claus Killer" storyline to a close and could have been a good wrap up for the trilogy. But it didn't take long for another installment to hit the video store shelves, only this time it would be an entirely new can of worms.

Aspiring reporter Kim (Neith Hunter) investigates an incident in which a burning woman fell from a building. She's frustrated at her work because of a chauvinistic boss (Reggie Bannister) and co-workers who keep her down, but she's determined to prove herself. She becomes acquainted with an unusual group of people who run the local bookstore and who could be of help to her. But soon she starts having bizarre visions and her whole life is turned upside down. It seems these people want to use in her in some ritual, which must be completed on Christmas Eve and will unfortunately result in the deaths of loved ones.

The makers of this film could have easily given us another film involving a killer dressed as Santa Claus, but this is not so. Slasher films were no longer very popular by this time and the filmmakers knew it, so they gave us something totally different and that is, for the most part, quite good. This time we're treated to something more supernatural and surreal, but also something not for everyone because there are some gross out moments that may turn some off. And yes this one is set around Christmas time, but that's not as big an aspect of this film as it was in the others. In fact it's possible this was one of those cases where they took a script that was called 'Initiation,' added some references to Christmas and made it part of the series. Whatever the case, this is actually a lot better than you may expect.

For a third sequel to a controversial movie that went straight to video, this film is quite intelligently written. The story is interesting, you can tell the writers did their research, and it's suspenseful. Also strong is the performances, especially those by Neith Hunter, Maud Adams, and Clint Howard who plays a really creepy guy. And though is part is pretty small, it's cool to see Reggie Bannister playing such a slime ball this time. Now this film was obviously low budget based on the locations alone, but the effects by Screaming Mad George are excellent. The goal was to gross us out and I think they succeeded in doing that.

As I said this is a pretty surreal experience, so expect a lot of interesting imagery. There are also plenty of really creepy sequences throughout the film, especially the one set in a meat locker. One thing that was very smart of the makers of this film was the addition of some humor. It keeps things from getting deadly serious and may help you recover a little from the slimy stuff. The score is pretty good and gets the job done, but can't quite compare with the music in the earlier three. And for a straight to video sequel this one is pretty damn ambitious, which is always appreciated and it's also engrossing right from the start, and this movie starts with a bang.

This is a pretty high concept film, which isn't always so compatible with a low budget and short shooting schedule. The whole thing does have a rushed sort of feeling and as a result of that somethings, like the actions of the coven, don't make complete sense and may be a bit too out there at times. Plus things end up becoming really convoluted in the second half when things really kick into gear. With more time they could have worked out these kinks. Also some things that were effective the first couple of times aren't so much after being repeated so many times. Insects play a big part in this film, but they're perhaps overused.

This is definitely a film that when it's over you'll say to yourself, "What the hell did I just watch?" If you are having a 'Silent Night, Deadly Night' marathon the difference between this film and the three before it is really jarring. Some, like myself, welcomed the change and others rejected it and moved on. Like it or not, the makers of this film didn't play it safe and give is the same old crap and instead messed with our minds a bit and I for one am glad they did. Yeah it didn't work out as well as it could have, but you can tell they sure tried to make something worth watching and for the must part mission accomplished. One thing's for sure there are images in this film you won't be able to forget.

***1/2/*****

Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out! (1989)

2010-12-09T19:01:00.000-08:00

It feels pretty good knowing that the efforts of those who oppose violent films, especially Horror' don't always have the results they hoped for. When are they going to learn that violence in the media is not what creates serial killers? Now I agree wholeheartedly that movies involving people being killed or at least badly injured in maybe a fight are not the kind children should be watching and the solution is simple: Monitor what your kids watch! But then there's the argument that these movies are detrimental to society as a whole, which again is a fallacy. The truth of the matter is a person has to already be messed up and lacking in the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. Many still believe them harmful, but they haven't managed to eliminate violent films from existence and should just accept the responsibility of protecting their own children.

The people who boycotted 'Silent Night, Deadly Night' and got it pulled from theatres all those years ago couldn't stop the film from becoming a hit on video. The film is considered to be a cult classic by genre fanatics, which too helped in keeping the story alive. A sequel came three years later, consisting of nearly forty minutes of footage from the original mixed with about forty minutes of new material, which too didn't skimp on the violence. It too became a cult hit in it's own right, but since it was such a dud at the Box Office I'm sure no one imagined another sequel would ever come to fruition. Well it may not have received a theatrical release like it's predecessors, but a second sequel was made and continued the storyline of the first two and also brought it to an end.

While 1 & 2 are known for their grisly violence, 3 is actually a different story. Though not lacking in dead bodies and the red stuff, this installment turned out to be more of a surreal, psychological Horror film. Those expecting more of the same were disappointed while others, like myself, welcomed the change. These films may not be on par with the all time classics, one thing you have to give the filmmakers is that they didn't simply copy what their predecessors did. Each film has a different feel and what transpires is not a repeat of what happened before. So far the score is Santa Slasher 3, Pissed Off Parents 0.

For six years Ricky Caldwell (Bill Moseley) has been in a coma and under observation. Dr. Newbury (Richard Beymer) is performing an experiment in which a young blind woman named Laura (Samantha Scully) is put into a deep sleep to try and get into the killer's mind. It's Christmas Eve and Laura is off to her grandmother's (Elizabeth Hoffman) with her brother (Eric DaRe) and his new girlfriend (Laura Harring). Ricky comes out of his comatose state and follows them, leaving behind a trail of dead bodies. Laura must use her gift if she hopes to come out of this alive and save the ones she loves.

Before watching this film, after having seen part 2, you might ask yourself "Where do you go from there?" They could have just started with a whole new story and set of characters, but the writers managed to find a way to resurrect the previous film's killer and it sure is interesting. The opening sequence is actually pretty trippy and creepy, setting the mood for the rest of the film. The whole things has a kind of surreal vibe to it, which is a nice change of pace from the first two. One thing that helps that along is the score, which is pretty good especially the main theme. Bells are used quite often and help in making the film feel Christmasy.

The acting, for the most part, is above average and each of the speaking characters is likable. Both Samantha Scully and the late Robert Culp are especially good and provide a lot of the film's black humor. Bill Moseley portrays Ricky in a completely different way that Eric Freeman, which makes sense considering what he's been through and it's effective. The initial premise of the film is interesting and has some potential. Instead of being just another stalk and slash flick, this one has a mild supernatural element to it. Pacing wise the movie is slow, but moves along steadily without dragging and after the first two it's kind of refreshing.

Though not drenched in it, there is still plenty of blood splattered and a little bit of gore here and there. The best involves a bitchy receptionist at the hospital at the beginning of the film. The earlier films took place in various locations, but most of the action here is in an isolated setting. This is actually a welcome change and adds a real feeling of danger for Laura and the others. Director Monte Hellman may not have made magic here, but he did a fine job of making an above average entry in this series. It very well could have been something better off in the trash, but surprisingly it's better than expected, even better than the completely unnecessary yet campy fun part 2.

One of the film's biggest issues is that a lot of the kills are off screen. This is pretty disappointing considering the body count is pretty high. And not that Bill Moseley doesn't do a good job, he just isn't nearly as fun to watch as Eric Freeman was. This time around Ricky is more zombie-like in how he walks and talks, which does make him creepy, but not as lively and if you watch the two in a double bill it's quite a shock. But the biggest misstep I think is the telepathic subplot, which like I said was an interesting new angle. The trouble is not enough is really done with it and instead the film ends up being more of "being chased through the house" type of film in the final third.

It's all right if Horror films are not your cup of tea and we can all agree that they are not for the kiddies, but some people out there have to try and ruin it for the rest of us. Well in this case it didn't quite work out the way those picketers had anticipated. It was amazing that part 2 came along and even more so that we got this one considering how thin the plot of the last one was. But the makers of this film surprised me and actually came up with something better than expected and frankly better than it has any right to be. Maybe not the finale to the "Santa Claus Killer" storyline most weren't hoping for, but personally I was more than pleased. But don't take my word for it, get yourself a cup of egg nog, stoke that fire, and pop this bloody little Yuletide treat in and see what you think.

***1/2/*****

Bad Dreams (1988)

2010-11-22T16:08:00.000-08:00

When a film has a lot of potential it's so frustrating if it doesn't live up to that. There is so much that goes into the making of a film and all too often it ends up being wasted. This could be due to a lack of budget, time, talent or all of the above. The 1980s was a particularly prolific time for the Horror genre, which was both a blessing and a curse. One the one hand there was no shortage of films for fans of the genre to watch, but on the other so many of them were quickies made to cash in on more successful titles. But even some of the really low budget efforts that were basically copies of better films had some good ideas sometimes and therein lies the waste.

At this time movies were sequelized to death and concepts and conventions were repeated ad nauseum. Of course copying other films or filmmakers was nothing new by this point and didn't always guarantee the film would be a failure. Filmmakers from across the globe made their own George Romero-inspired walking dead films, sometimes coming up with something interesting and others something that would be great to start a fire with. Any film that was popular and made lots of dough was copied in some form or another, including the wildly popular 'Nightmare on Elm Street Series'. The third installment redeemed the series after the polarizing first sequel, after watching this film it's easy to see where the inspiration came from.

Thirteen years after the fire that killed off everyone she knew, Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) comes out of her coma. She finds herself in a mental hospital and doesn't remember what happened, at least not yet. While trying to get settled and beginning her treatment she starts to have visions of the cult leader (Richard Lynch) who tried to kill her. Her therapist tries to convince her they're hallucinations, but then other patients start dying and people start getting suspicious. Whoever is responsible they want Cynthia and they'll do whatever it takes to get her.

This was one of the movies I'd see at the video store and wondered about, but never got around to seeing. Now that I have I can say that I wasn't sorry I invested the time because even though this isn't a perfect film, it is something of a minor gem. The strongest element of this film is the performances. Every member of the cast, main and supporting, does a really good job and makes their character memorable. You actually get to care about some of these people and when they start dying you feel afraid for the others. This was Andrew Fleming's debut and it's a strong one, like in terms of building suspense for example.

The score is nice and eerie and there are some really good song choices, like Guns n' Roses' 'Sweet Child of Mine.' There are also several chilling sequences throughout the film with my personal favorite is a scene early on inside an elevator, but that's all I'll give away there. The levels of gore and especially blood are both pretty high and so those who like these with their Horror should be pleased. The pace, from beginning to end, just zips right along and the film never gets bogged down or dull. The film's short length is also one of the film's issues, but more on that in a bit. This film has one of those twists that you either love or hate and personally I dig it.

This movie is without a doubt better than most low budget Horrors of the decade, but it's certainly not perfect. First of all, the plot wears thin very quickly and in the second half the film becomes a sequential slaughter of the characters. If you're expecting any new ground to be broken here you can forget that. With the film being 79 minutes, there are some characters and subplots that didn't get as much attention as they deserved. For instance, there seemed to be a romance blooming between Jennifer Rubin and Bruce Abbott's characters, but it never goes anywhere.

If you've seen a lot of Horror films before watching this one then you'll pick up on somethings obviously lifted from other movies. Jennifer Rubin was one of the stars of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors' and this film has some definite similarities like the setting, the killer, and the subject of suicide. Though this does bring the film down a notch it's not as if they makers of this movie just blatantly stole specific moments, characters, or lines of dialogue from that film or any other. Otherwise this is a very entertaining and well made picture that has held up pretty well over these last 20+ years. Unlike so many other rip-offs this one isn't a waste of time because you can tell some effort was put into this.

There are so many films that borrow from others and fail to stand on their own two feet. This one is hardly original, but it's not lackluster either. Sure you can find scarier and more inventive movies out there, but this one has enough goodies to be better than average. That's more than can be said of so many other films from the same time that it's not even funny. The ingredients were combined well and the people in front of and behind the camera had enough talent to make a decent movie.

***1/2/*****

Waxwork II: Lost in Time (1991)

2010-11-11T18:11:00.000-08:00

Normally sequels to successful films come out a year or two after because the studio views the title as a franchise. Plus if the previous film left the door open for more then audiences are going to want to know what comes next and soon. Then if that sequel does well more will come until they stop making good numbers at the Box Office and people have moved on. The first seven 'Friday the 13th' sequels all came out between the years of 1981 and 1989, which has got to be some kind of record. But if a sequel comes more than a couple years later, which is treading on shaky ground because by then people may have lost interest.

The first 'Unnamable' movie was a hit on home video, but really didn't warrant a second part. However, four years later it got one and it surprisingly turned out to be as good if not better than it's predecessor. Recently there have been many sequels made to films that came out twenty or so years ago, leaving room for little doubt they're being made to milk more money out of the name. I mean how many 'Children of the Corn' sequels does the world really need? To be fair though those of us who keep renting or going to see these films out of curiosity are partly to blame. If the last sequel wasn't any good, what are the odds the next one will be any different?

Now most sequels are made without the involvement of the creators of the original film, which can go either way. But sometimes they come back to the series either because they were asked or because they already had some ideas for continuing the story. Such is the case with Anthony Hickox, who's 'Waxwork' was a hit with Horror lovers and four years after it's release he decided to pick up where he left off. Pretty risky if you ask me considering the time that had passed and the fact that the film was not the hit ones like 'Halloween,' 'The Return of the Living Dead,' or 'Hellraiser," were, but he took the chance and turned out another good genre flick. It's one of the rare part 2s that picks up immediately where the first one ended and takes place over the next few days and for the most part it works.

After escaping the burning waxwork, Mark and Sarah (Zach Galligan and Monika Schnarre) are relieved that the nightmare is over. However they will find this couldn't be further from the truth and after a tragic accident that looks like a murder, both are thrust into another adventure where they must battle evil in order to save themselves and mankind. With the help of an old friend the two kids travel through time and fight their way through various periods and are faced with many obstacles. They must find some kind of evidence that can prove Sarah innocent and actually make it back alive. They must remember who they are and that what's in front of them isn't real if they ever want to escape.

Many sequels are just a rerun of most of what happened in the previous installment, but this is not the case here. Instead of introducing a new set of characters and a rebuilt or entirely new waxwork the survivors of the previous adventure enter a new one. The cast does an excellent job and like the first film it looks like everyone really wanted to be there. Some may be disappointed that Deborah Foreman didn't reprise the role of Sarah, but Monika Schnarre does a fine job of filling the role. The score is completely different from the one in the original, but is still fabulous.

The original did have some amazing sets and a few that looked like they were from a high school play. In this film all the production design is top notch, especially in the haunted house and medieval sequences. Also the make-up and special effects are really cool and in many cases quite gruesome. Though not overly bloody and gory there are a few moments that are especially graphic, including one impressive effect involving cult favorite Bruce Campbell. One thing that is very much present in the original is humor, and though there isn't as much here there is still some and it adds to the fun. And at 100 minutes the pace moves pretty well and the film never gets boring.

This sequel continues the tradition of paying homage to the classics and again it's done so brilliantly. Among the films being tributed are 'Dawn of the Dead' and 'Nosferatu,' the latter which has a surprising cameo by Drew Barrymore. Also all the sequences in the film are memorable and really well done. In fact this movie has stronger production values than the earlier one and only really feels cheap every time we see an exterior shot of the castle, which is obviously a painting. The people behind this film really pulled out all the stops this time and for the most part it payed off, but the film isn't without flaws.

The plot of this one when you think about is actually really flimsy. Kids escape, one gets wrongly accused of murder, they go through time to get evidence, the end. Not that the first film had much more meat to it, but it felt like there was more to grab on to somehow. And like the first movie you're not likely to find anything in this sequel the least bit scary. All sorts of monsters pop up this time, but again we're talking more of a fun Horror film. The pace is uneven at times, especially during the final third of the film. That brings me to my last beef with the film, which is the fact that some segments perhaps went on longer than they should have, like the one that's a tribute to 'Alien.'

There really wasn't any need for a sequel to the 1988 original, which didn't really leave many if any loose ends. But Hickox came up with one anyway and for the most part it stays afloat and is a pleasure to watch. It does take the story in an interesting direction and also does a good job of giving it closure. Just don't expect this to be on par with part 1 and you shouldn't be letdown. In fact, the best way to watch it is right after the first one since it picks up the second after it ends. Do yourself a favor and shut this one off right before the closing credits though, that way you can spare yourself the torture of hearing the lousy Hip Hop song that plays over the credits.

***1/2/*****

Waxwork (1988)

2010-11-10T17:43:00.000-08:00

Who doesn't love a good monster movie? Nowadays they seem to be fewer in numbers and the ones that do involve them are aimed more at the tween crowd. Back in the day they were the kings and queens of the genre and appeared in many incarnations and in every medium. They always make a comeback, for example the recent update of Universal's 'The Wolf Man.' Despite being a really troubled production the film was a modest success and has sparked some interest in further lycanthrope projects. Yes monster movies still have what it takes to fill up seats and thrill moviegoers.

One thing that has been done again and again when people start to tire of these monsters is attempts at crossover movies. This started back in the days of Universal's monster flicks, but hasn't also been successful and often a poor attempt to milk more money out of the title. Some exceptions are 'The Monster Squad' and 'The Midnight Hour,' both of which have cult followings to this day. Of course when Halloween time rolls around these guys get plenty of light shone on them to reach new generations and put smiles on the faces of those who remember them fondly. In 1988 director Anthony Hickox came up with his own take on this little slice of the genre and even blended in the old evil wax museum plot.

Coming at the tail of end of the decade, 'Waxwork' was a true throwback to the great monster movies of yesteryear while also a pretty good update of them. Instead of crumbling under the pressure of studio Horror, Hickox made this one independently and it was released through long gone Vestron Pictures. The makers of this picture set out to give fans something fun and something that would make them remember the classics fondly. Unlike most Horror films of the time this one doesn't pile on the gore or bombard us with cliches that were already well worn by that point. The result is a really entertaining romp that overcomes it's flaws and is a well above average experience.

A group of college friends are invited to a private showing at a new waxworks. After a couple of them mysteriously disappear, Mark (Zach Galligan) suspects something funny is going on in that place and plans to investigate. The police are no help and his gal pal Sarah (Deborah Foreman) thinks he's imagining things. The more people that vanish the more convinced Mark becomes and soon he and Sarah are sucked into a world of evil and stumble onto a plot to bring about the end of the world. Now they must destroy the monsters before any of them get out and infect mankind.

This was without a doubt one my favorites as a kid and one of those movies I hoped would stand the test of time. Despite some minor things it really has held up quite well and is really one of the best of it's kind. The cast here is made up of mostly unknowns, but they and all the familiar faces do a great job and seem to be really be having a great time. The story, though somewhat familiar, is a good one and Hickox does a really good job of updating it. You can tell he has a great affection for the genre and each classic monster is portrayed really well here, particularly Dracula (Miles O'Keefe).

The effects on display are all top notch and really effective. This was a high concept movie with a a limited budget and the effects could have easily been middle of the road, but fortunately they're just the opposite. The score is also really nice and really memorable, especially the main theme, which has sort of a medieval feel to it. The use of the song 'It's My Party (and I'll Cry if I Want To)' is also really cool. One thing that a lot of Horror films had in the last few years of the decade was humor, but a lot of times it was more miss than hit. In the case of this film most of works and adds to the fun.

The production design, for the most part, is fabulous and often makes one feel like they're really in that location. Dracula's castle and the tomb of the mummy are the most impressive of the sets. Also the overall set pieces throughout the film are awesome and loads of fun. Each of them is also quite mean spirited and features a generous helping of blood and some gore. The makers of this film really went all out for these sequences when lesser filmmakers would have just thrown them together without any imagination or effort. And lastly, the movie is paced very well and there is never a dull moment during it's 93 minutes.

Though they don't stand out too much, some aspects of the film are dated, mainly in terms of the clothes and some of the dialogue. The film already doesn't take itself very seriously and this makes it even more difficult for us to. You can tell this was intended to be more of a fun, popcorn sort of a Horror movie and that's fine and all. However, it would have been nice if there were a few good jolts here and there to give the film some extra oomph. Basically when going into this film don't expect to be kept on the edge of your seat or made to jump at certain points and just kick back and enjoy it. Another thing that really stands out is that a few of the sets look really cheap and like they could easily be knocked over.

They don't make movies like this anymore and that's too bad. There's truly much more imagination and goodies in this film than you'll find in most mainstream genre flicks these days. Today few studios want to take a chance and make something like this, thinking it won't appeal enough to the masses. It seemed to have no problem doing that in it's day, so where's the harm in trying something like this now? A really good example of a film made with heart and for people with an appreciation for the great monsters that have haunted our dreams for decades.

****/*****

Night of the Demons (2009)

2010-10-19T18:16:00.000-07:00

Remakes of popular titles have become a hot commodity these days and the studios know this. Remakes of Horror films have done really well at the Box Office and despite the harsh words of most critics and hardcore genre buffs they keep getting made. The majority of them are made by the major studios, not always with heart in it. The upside to this is that some have turned out to be good flicks in their own right and haven't tarnished the memories of the originals. Then of course there are those that make you wonder why they even bothered because the lack of effort and creativity shows through so clearly.

There have been a few of these made for television and done independently, the latter being more likely to be labors of love than those more mainstream. One exception is the new 'April Fool's Day,' a film that is the exact opposite of it's excellent predecessor, in other words it's dull, lacking in people to root for, and having little of what makes a successful scary movie. The original film is not considered to be one of the classics like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' but that didn't stop it from being remade. The studios had already gone through most of the all time greats, so now they're digging through the underground cult Horror movies. It was only a matter of time before someone redid Kevin S. Tenney's 1988 film about demons in a haunted house on Halloween night.

Shot in New Orleans in late 2008, 'Night of the Demons '09' was in limbo for a while and went through a few different possible release dates. It was also originally supposed to get a theatrical release, but this too fell through. Now sometimes when this happens it can mean trouble and that perhaps the film is better off going straight to DVD. The film premiered at the U.K.'s Film4 Frightfest in 2009 and was well received. Then what sounded to be the official release date was announced turned out to be not the case and it was decided the film would debut on DVD in mid-October of this year. Based on the trailers, photos, and enthusiasm of the people involved with the film I was looking forward to this and now that I've seen it, did it disappoint?

Decades after a tragedy occurred there, Angela Feld (Shannon Elizabeth) is hosting a massive Halloween bash at Broussard Mansion. Just when things really heat up the police crash the party, but seven people manage to get themselves locked inside the property for the night. Trying to find something to do, they discover a secret room in the basement and six dead bodies on the floor. After Angela gets cut on one of them, she soon is taken over by one of the seven demons haunting the house and it's not long before a few of the others become demonized themselves. The remaining party guests fight for their lives, trying to hold out until morning so they can prevent the demons from getting released into the world.

Director/co-writer said he wanted to make a fun, 1980s style Horror flick and boy did he ever deliver on that promise. Fortunately this is one of those remakes that's faithful enough to the earlier movie while being able to stand on it's own two feet and not be a carbon copy. It's obvious from the beginning this is not a run-of-the-mill remake because the director adds some really stylish touches here and there and infuses the film with so much energy. The cast assembled here also does a good job, everyone really into their roles. Most of the characters are not based on ones from the original, but the ones that are are played by actors with enough talent to make them memorable.

The score is pretty good, but even better is the soundtrack made up of punk rock songs. 'Black No. 1' by Type O Negative is especially used well in one scene you won't soon forget. This film was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek, though never does get so over-the-top it's cartoonish. Worked out well for the 'Evil Dead' films and Peter Jackson's earlier work, but here it would have not been a plus. The make-up, gore, and visual effects are all amazing and are another thing making this stand out amongst other recent remakes. The demons this time have their own individual looks and they're quite startling.

The film won't win any awards for best screenplay, but it is pretty well written and filled with some pretty cool ideas. This is much appreciated because some remakes are mostly a rerun of the original without bringing anything new and interesting to the table. The original doesn't have much in the way of gore, and this film is no exception, but there are a couple moments that should please gorehounds. I won't spoil them, but let's just say they'll likely leave your jaw hanging on the floor. One flaw the original has that this one fortunately doesn't is the pacing, which is a bit uneven. Here it charges right along and never drags and the film never gets dull even during the quieter stretches.

There are a few problems with this movie, none of which keep the film from being the blast that it is. First of all, like the 1988 version it takes a really long time for the really horror to begin. Not that there isn't enough to sustain interest until then, but you may start asking, "Where are the demons already?" The characters in Tenney's film didn't have much meat to them either, but a lot of the ones here are really underdeveloped making it hard to get attached. Fortunately there are a few that stand out enough for us to care about what happens to them. Lastly, the very end of the film is really ambiguous and it's a little frustrating to be honest.

The wait for this film was excruciating as far as I'm concerned and when you have to wait so long you hope it'll be worth it. Well this fan is a happy camper because the people responsible for this film accomplished what they set out to do. This is not some slapdash waste of time that was made to get paychecks, but rather a labor of love made for those of us who want to have a good time at the movies. Sure it doesn't re-invent the wheel and doesn't bring much new to the table, but it's so much fun and so well done that's easily forgiven. It may not be exactly on par with the original and may not achieve the same cult status, but it has what it takes to have a following of it's own.

****/*****

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

2010-10-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

Horror films competing with each other is nothing new. In the 1980s studios were cashing in on hit films by making sequel after sequel, some not so good and others good films in their own right. The competition wasn't always intentional, but often times it was. For instance, in 1988 and 1989 sequels to 'Halloween,' 'Friday the 13th,' and 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,' all came out within months of each other. Most of them were rushed into production since their predecessors had been so successful and in most cases the result was not pretty. There was another form of this, which was films of the same sub-genre coming out the same year like 1981, a year that saw the release of three films involving werewolves.

Werewolf movies had been a big deal back in the day thanks to films like Universal's 'The Wolf Man,' and the Spanish Waldemar Daninsky series starring the late Paul Naschy. By the 1980s a lot of the great monsters were getting updated for the new generation of Horror fans and so it was about time the lycanthropes joined the fun. In 1981 three pictures about said monster were released, but only two them achieved cult status. One was 'The Howling,' based on the novel by Gary Bradner and the other 'An American Werewolf in London,' the brainchild of filmmaker John Landis. Both are similar in that they blend horror and humor and feature state of the art special effects, but as to which is the better movie is up to the viewer.

While backpacking through rural England, two friends (David Naughton and Griffin Dunne) are attacked by a large beast. Only one survives and is whisked off to the hospital. He soon starts having nightmares and is visited by his friend who warns him that by the next full moon he'll change. Believing he's just hallucinating, the man ignores the warning at first, but soon people start dying and he begins questioning his sanity. A nurse (Jenny Agutter) falls for him and tries to help, but will learn she's dealing with a lost cause.

Lately werewolves in the movies have been less menacing than before thanks to certain films aimed at teens. Don't get me wrong I'm all for trying new things with old concepts, but when you strip something of what made it so powerful in the first place or at least diminish it some then what's the point? This one reminds us of just how scary these creatures can be and how exciting a film about them can be. John Landis both wrote and directed this and did an excellent job on both fronts. He also does a fine job of balancing the horror and humor.

The performances are all excellent and you really care about the main characters. It also helps that both Naughton and Agutter have chemistry because otherwise the film wouldn't be as good. There's not much score, mostly transitional music, but what there is is really good and so is the soundtrack. Every song features the word moon in the title, which is just perfect. The humor works really well and is never over-the-top or flat. The sequence in the zoo is especially hilarious and one of the best scenes in the film.

Few Horror films are nominated for an Oscar, much less win one. However this is one of the exceptions because effects wizard Rick Baker won one for his work on this film and it is stunning. The transformation sequence and various make-ups on Griffin Dunne's character are amazing and very effective. Also effective are the attack scenes, including the extremely violent dream sequence involving Naughton's character's family. There are also a lot of other memorable sequences that'll stay with you.

Shot all over England and Wales, the film features some really lovely scenery. The green hills covered in fog are nice to look at and provide great atmosphere for the film. From beginning to end the pace moves along without a hitch, which is an area where 'The Howling' isn't so successful. What Landis and everyone else involved with this picture accomplished is not only a great blend of Horror and Comedy, but also a fantastic werewolf movie and update of the sub-genre. Even the sixteen years later sequel hasn't diminished it's power as others have done to their predecessors. There are only a couple of minor issues with this movie.

The biggest flaw is that somethings could have used more development. Not much, but it feels like something is missing or not finished. The other problem is the ending, which is rather abrupt. I won't spoil it, but let's just that though it's not exactly unsatisfying in terms of what happens at the end, but it just seems too rushed and could have been a bit more drawn out. These are small prices to pay however because otherwise this is brilliant movie that has fortunately stood the test of time and never stops being a pleasure to watch. It pays homage to the classics, while also having some new and exciting things up it's sleeve.

****1/2/*****

Jack-O (1995)

2010-10-16T17:21:00.000-07:00

Bad is a relative term, especially when it comes to movies. Horror films have always been dismissed by many as being nothing but junk, but that's not fair. There have been plenty of genre flicks of high quality that are about more than just a bunch of people being slaughtered and their blood spilled. Sure there have been countless films where those are some of the highlights, but that doesn't mean you won't find Horror films that are a cut above that. The former are the kind of films that give the genre a bad name, but on the other hand they can also be a lot of fun if not taken seriously. Some filmmakers, like Roger Corman and Fred Olen Ray, knew this and have made a living out of it.

The 1970s and 80s were filled with b grade Horror films that were especially fun to see at the drive-in. However the 1990s had it's share of them too, making going to the video store a great experience for many a young movie buff. Yes some directors truly are hacks, but a lot of times their films are fun to watch because of how incompetent they are. So bad they're good films don't get made on purpose, they have to happen by accident. Apparently Claudio Fragrasso believes his films, including 'Troll 2' and 'Zombie 4: After Death,' are good instead of hilariously awful trash like we fans see them as, which is the best kind of accident. Probably one of the most popular b Horror films on Fred Olen Ray's resume is this 1995 Florida shot "masterpiece," which is kind of a poor man's 'Pumpkinhead.'

Nearly a century ago a warlock (John Carradine) put a curse on the town of Oakmoor Crossing, which is about to come true. It's Halloween and the Kelly family is getting ready for the festivities by putting on their own little haunted house. Sean (Ryan Latshaw) has started having some strange dreams that seem like flashbacks to his family's past. In them he is also chased by a pumpkin-headed monster that the local kids have created nursery rhymes about over the years. While trick-or-treating with his babysitter Carolyn (Linnea Quigley), Sean is stalked by the monster who kills anyone who gets in his path. A strange woman has appeared to help the family put an end to the curse once and for all.

The original artwork for this film is really pretty creepy and makes the film look like it could be pretty neat. The monster on the cover looks more menacing than he does in the film, which you'll find is pretty campy and not at all scary. If you go in expecting that then you may find yourself enjoying this on some level. Some of the actors, particularly Linnea Quigley and the ones playing the parents, actually do a good job with the silly material. You get the feeling the latter too had acting experience before making this movie.

The story is actually pretty good and has potential. It's not likely to happen, but in the right hands and with the right amount of money this could be really benefit from a remake and be made into a really effective Horror film. The score, though repetitive at times, is pretty good and will stay with you. The film was shot in Florida in the late winter/early spring of 1995, but the filmmakers still managed to give it a really great and spooky Halloween atmosphere. The use of fog and shadows really helps in setting the mood.

Be ready to laugh because there is plenty of campy humor here, some intentional and some not. For example, in one scene a small gang approaches a house, but instead of vandalizing it one of them takes a hubcap off the car and throws it at a tree. Did the writers even research gangs or vandalism before they got involved? You can tell though that this film was made with great affection for b movies. The appearances of the late John Carrdine and Cameron Mitchell in the form of archive footage and scream queens Brinke Stevens and Linnea Quigley is some good evidence of that. One thing that isn't very funny, thank goodness, is the look of the Jack-O himself who could have been made to look scarier, but he's still pretty freaky.

The whole thing moves at a good steady pace and never drags during it's 84 minutes. That's pretty much where the positives end though. A lot of the performances here are amateurish, including that of Ryan Latshaw. To be fair he probably had no experience before this, but since his character is the monster's target you'd think they would have hired someone with slightly better chops. There are also a number of disposable characters that don't leave a lasting impression except for perhaps the mean grocery store owner and his wife. Both actors really ham it up and are fun to watch, but also unlikable enough that you'll want them to bite the dust.

The majority of the effects are very cheap looking and are more likely to induce laughter rather than chills or wonder. It doesn't take long to realize there isn't much of a plot here and that sequences like the one with the teens in the graveyard are mostly just filler. Some of the dialogue is really quite amusing and makes the actors look silly at times. A couple gems are, "If she were a dog, I'd have her spayed," and, "You're a little old for trick-or-treating, aren't you buck-o?" You can tell some of the actors knew they how silly this movie was and just had fun with it. You won't find anything new or groundbreaking in this film, which is kind of a mishmash of other, better films.

If you go into this film expecting to be scared or to find a hidden treasure you're in for quite the letdown. But if you are looking for something to make you laugh and entertain you for about an hour and a half then give this a whirl. Allegedly the director, Steve Latshaw, believes he made a really good movie here. I wouldn't say I disagree with him, but if by good he means competent I couldn't disagree more. He actually does have a good handle on this and gets some good shots, but the writing, acting, and effects all overpower that and make this bad movie fun. Worth a viewing if that's what you're looking for and captures the spirit of Halloween nicely.

***1/2/*****

Hack-o-lantern (1988)

2010-10-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

Sometimes bad movies can really be good. Of course in order to find them you have to go through the torture of movies that are just bad. It really takes a special sort of movie to fall under the "so-bad-it's-good" category. It has to be so awe-inspiringly bad that it's comical, and not intentionally so. A lot of Horror films fall under this category, mostly very low budget films that few people saw when they first came out. Probably the most famous of these is 'Troll 2,' a hilariously awful film that was apparently intended to be a good film, but after seeing it you'll wonder how that could possibly be.

The 1980s gave us many really cheaply made and amateurish Horror films that are like a critic's worst nightmare, but campy fun for the rest of us. There's nothing like sitting down to 90 minutes of filmmaking so incompetent it'll have you rolling on the floor just as much as a good Comedy. And if this is your cup of tea you'll find there is no shortage of movies like this. If a movie has to be bad, it should at least provide entertainment value because of how bad it is. During the Horror boom of the 1980s a lot of people were inspired to make a genre flick of their own, some of which are great fun to watch, but for all the wrong reasons.

One way to find one of these films is to look and see what else the cast and crew have done and if this is their only credit or one of a few credits then it could be golden. Another good sign is if the artwork on the front of the box is really elaborate and promises a lot of goodies. Of course this is also characteristic of films that are trying to look more interesting than they really are, but keep looking. And if the film is available in the same country under two different titles and with two different artworks then it must be something really special. Known as both 'Halloween Night' and 'Hack-o-lantern,' a title I personally think is much cooler, this little known straight to video cheapie taunts you with it's lurid artworks. But is it worth your time and dime?

Tommy and his grandfather (Hy Pyke) have always had a special bond. The boy's parents don't trust the old man, but the kids loves him. Unbeknownst to all of them this seemingly kind old gentleman is actually the leader of a Satanic cult. Thirteen years after the death of his father, Tommy (Gregory Scott Cummins) has grown apart from the rest of his family. It's Halloween and the young man is preparing for his initiation into his grandfather's cult. Meanwhile people he knows are being murdered by a masked stranger.

Halloween has always been my most favorite day of the year so any Horror film related to it is something I've got to see. I never expected this film to be a forgotten classic, but hoped it would have enough of the goods to not be a total waste of time. None of the actors were going to win an award for their performance, but a few of them actually do a pretty good job. The standout is Patricia Christie who is just so natural and likable. The score is a tad over dramatic at times, but overall is fabulous especially the title theme.

Though it does take a while for the really horrific stuff to begin the film moves at a good pace all the way through. Plus there's enough cheesy goodness to keep you entertained until then. For example, the overacting by Hy Pyke and Katina Garner is a hoot. The body count is very high, but there are a few murders and all of them good and bloody. The effects of a sharp implements embedded in human flesh are actually pretty convincing for such a low budget project. Shot somewhere in Los Angeles, probably during the summer since all the trees are green, the scenery is really nice to look at.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, which provides some of the fun, but also makes the movie a piece of junk. First of all most of the acting is poor and not even high school play quality. Of course the script they had to work with probably didn't help, but I doubt a good one would have much difference. I'm sure the flat direction didn't help either and it's a wonder director Jag Mundhra is still working. The script is a mess, with a lot of loose ends, and dialogue that'll make you giggle. The amount of talent in this movie couldn't fill a thimble.

There is quite a bit of padding here, most notably the really lame and dated rock music video dream sequence. Your fast forward button will really come in handy during this and also another scene involving a "comedian" entertaining guests at the Halloween party. This is a film that for many reasons has aged very badly and not just because of the musical sequence, which alone makes the film look dated. The visual effects are laughable and don't even look good for the time. I know the budget was miniscule, but by the time this film was made effects had gotten pretty advanced.

The plot, or lack there of, is thin as rice paper and barely holds all this together. Not that adding more layers would have made the plot any better or more interesting, but at least there would be more to chew on during this film's 83 minutes. Also thin are the characters, none of which are developed. This is really where you can tell the writer didn't know what they were doing because considering the circumstances these people are in the characters should have have had more dimension. Without this it's also hard to get attached to anyone and want to see them make it until the end.

This isn't an example in great or even good movie making by any stretch of the imagination, but as low budget trashy entertainment you could find worse. If the people behind this set out to make a great Horror film they failed on a big scale, but they didn't fail in making something that's entertaining if watched with a certain frame of mind. Will never achieve the cult status of films like 'Troll 2' and 'Bad Taste,' and is not something I'd go out of my way to get my hands on. But if you're like me and you love Halloween and have a soft spot for cheaply made Horror movies from the 80s then you probably won't hate yourself for having watched this. Besides, a movie with a scene where a character looks into the camera with a forced evil expression can't be all bad.

**1/2/*****

Trick or Treat (1986)

2010-10-02T18:59:00.000-07:00

Metal and Horror have been like two peas in a pod for quite some time now. There are untold thousands of people, including yours truly, who are fans of both. But on the other end of the spectrum are those who believe these are two things corrupting the young and bringing down society. To get a really good look into the alleged negative effects of Metal watch Penelope Spheeris' documentary 'The Decline of Western Civilization part II: The Metal Years,' which has interviews with people on both sides of the issue. Of course some things never die because even today there are people who are so afraid these things are warping their child's mind.

Truth be told, there are so few cases where a violent film or a song with vulgar lyrics influenced someone to commit some heinous act. In the mid to late 1980s some filmmakers caught onto this and decided to combine the two. Trouble is that in most cases the final product, like 'Slaughterhouse Rock' for instance, turned out to be really cheesy. The concept of music turning influencing someone to inflict pain on others is great for a Horror film and a breath of fresh air after so many predictable Slasher movies. One film would take the myth about there being satanic messages on records when played backwards and both realize what the conservatives feared and poke fun at it at the same time.

A teenage outcast (Marc Price) is constantly picked on by the popular guys and has just about had enough of it. One day word gets out that his hero, Metal singer Sammi Curr, died in a fire and he's crushed. A good friend and fellow Metal-head gives him a copy of the late rocker's last album, which of course the boy cherishes. But then he starts receiving messages from it telling him to get even, and of course he goes along with it. When it starts going too far he changes his mind, which unleashes the dead rock star who then goes on a murderous rampage on Halloween night.

Unlike other films of this ilk, 'Trick or Treat' doesn't pile on the goofy humor or elaborate effects to cover up a messy script or bad acting. Instead it's a high concept film that for the most part succeeds in what it set out to do. The concept is golden and pretty darn clever, again a breath of fresh air for the genre. All of the performances are solid and some of the characters actually likable and worth rooting for. The others do a good job of making us love to hate them and want them to bite the dust. The late Tony Fields made the most of the part and makes Sammi Curr one creepy as hell villain.

All the songs on the soundtrack were done by a band called Fastway and are all quite good. Had the music not been any good it could have really brought the movie down. The film has a deliciously wicked sense of humor so that it's not deadly serious. From start to finish the pace moves right along and the film never gets boring. This isn't a special effects showcase, but what effects are on display here are all well done, including the gargoyle-looking creature that appears in one scene. Also the methods of killing are pretty creative and executed well.

Had the film not had any it would have been a real missed opportunity, but fortunately there is a bit of satire here. This includes amusing cameos by rock legends Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne, the latter of which plays a preacher against Metal music. The ridiculousness of both the supposed negative effects on the young and hidden Satanic messages on records needed making fun of and it's done so here pretty well. There are a few kinks in the machine though that keep this film from being all it could be. Unfortunately this is one of those films where the concept has loads of potential, but it's not quite taken as far as it could or should have been.

The buildup of the first hour is so strong that expectations are going to be high for the rest of the film. So my advice to those seeing this for the first time is don't expect to be blown away and you should still have a good time. I won't give too much away, but in a nutshell once Sammi is resurrected he doesn't do nearly as much damage as you may want to see him do and it's much tamer than you might expect. Speaking of tame, the lack of blood and gore is really unfortunate and would have really been appreciated here. Sure you don't need these to make a great Horror film, but this is one of those exceptions where it could have helped a little. Also disappointing is how quick and easily the villain is defeated, making one crave more.

Despite not delivering as much as it could have once things really kicked into gear, 'Trick or Treat' is still a really fun and well made Horror flick. The people behind this obviously worked really hard to make the best movie they could and that has to count for something. This film has style and panache to burn and stands out from a lot of other genre films that came out the same year. May very well be the best film from this short-lived sub-genre. And though the whole film isn't set on Halloween, it figures into the story enough that this should be viewed around that time of year and especially by fans of Metal and Horror.

****/*****

Cutting Class (1989)

2010-09-30T18:51:00.000-07:00

The evolution of the Slasher Film is really very fascinating, but also kind of sad at times. From classics like 'Psycho,' 'Black Christmas,' and 'Halloween,' to duds like 'Hollow Gate,' and the 1981 film called 'Scream,' the sub-genre has had some major ups and downs through the years. For a while it experienced quite a dry spell, but never truly died off. The 1980s was the decade of excess and many Horror films were put out each year of it, some very good and others that deserve to be forgotten. This was one of the main killers of the genre, but the addition of humor into the mix factored into it as well.

If you're going to blend Horror and Comedy in a film there has to be a good balance between the two. The humor also has to actually be funny, even if sometimes it's quite silly and juvenile. Films like 'House' and 'The Return of Living Dead' are two examples of a successful marriage between the two genres, but others just couldn't seem to get it right. It's really no surprise that the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series was making less money with each sequel as the humor got more cartoonish and over-the-top. Then there were some movies that feel somewhere in the middle and managed to have enough merit to keep them from being bombs.

The last year of the decade saw the release of Slasher sequels like 'Halloween 5' and 'Friday the 13th part VIII,' both of which didn't do so hot with critics, audiences, or at the Box Office. But some filmmakers still wanted to leave their own mark on the by then very tired sub-genre. One really amusing thing about a lot of low budget Horror films of the time is that they sometimes featured actors who would go on to have fabulous movie careers and once that happened many wanted to forget they were ever in these films. This little known late Slasher flick's main claim to fame is that it was the first lead role Brad Pitt got in a feature film. Considering his body of work since this film really does look like a joke by comparison, but on it's own it's actually pretty damn enjoyable. Films like this one are responsible for killing off Slasher Films for a while, but that doesn't mean it's without merit.

Paula, a beautiful high school student (Jill Schoelen), appears to be the object of two boys' affections. One is her boyfriend Dwight (Brad Pitt), a cocky basketball player who doesn't take anything very seriously and the other is his ex-best friend Brian (Donovan Leitch), who was just released from a mental institution. Teachers and students begin to disappear or be found dead and most are pointing fingers at Brian. Soon Paula doesn't know whom to trust and must search for clues to help her find the real killer. Tension mounts and the body count rises as Paula gets closer to the truth.

This is actually a very strange film that mixes Horror and humor, but isn't a total success. You kind of get the feeling that the script went through some changes as the filming went on because the balance is off. But this is one of those movies that can be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure and has quite a bit going for it. The cast, which consists of up-and-comers and a few veterans, does an excellent job particularly Donovan Leitch. He's just so natural and does a great job of making it hard to figure out whether or not he's a psycho. One thing this film is not is boring because a). the pace moves right along and b). there's plenty of stuff going on.

There are red herrings galore in this film, which is much appreciated and it's a pretty decent whodunit. Most of the death scenes are inventive and pretty bloody. Some are also quite painful to watch, but I won't give anymore details than that. Also the script, which is a bit of a mess, is actually pretty clever at times. It almost feels like this was meant to be a satire or parody of the genre, but if so mission wasn't quite accomplished. Though nothing to write home about, the score is pretty good and effective in some scenes.

There's quite a bit of humor on display here, some of which hits the mark pretty hard. Most of it is pretty silly however, so don't expect it to be real mature. At least it's not at the same level as the humor in 'Return of the Living Dead part II,' which too is a fun movie, but pales in comparison to it's predecessor. One thing that a Horror film really needs to be successful is a strong finish. Fortunately the finale in this film is both fun and filled with tension. The latter is surprising considering tension is absent from the rest of the film.

The script definitely could have used some serious polishing. There are a few gaping holes and again the tone is uneven. The direction is actually quite bland and more suited for a made for TV movie. Sure this didn't need lots of style, but more variation would have been nice. A lot of Horror films from the 80s are dated, but this is one that is very much so due to the soundtrack, clothes, and hairstyles. There's a lot of humor that flops, such as the stuff going on with Martin Mull's character.

One of the biggest sins committed in this film is the wasting of great comedic actors Martin Mull and Roddy McDowall. Both are given little to work with here and deserved much better. This is another thing you see in a lot of Horror films of the 1970s and 80s, but some actors have managed to come out of these movies unscathed. 'Cutting Class' is not nearly as clever or hip as it tries to be, but is such a deliriously entertaining slice of late 1980s Horror cheese anyway. Just don't get your expectations too high and watch when in the mood for something kind of silly and quirky. You could do so much worse than this movie.

***1/2/*****

The Convent (2000)

2010-09-27T19:49:00.000-07:00

Sometimes low budget Horror films is where it's at. Mainstream big budget genre films a lot of times are hollow, cliche-ridden, and not particularly scary. The ones made independently are labors of love in most cases, and have more imagination than many mainstream Horror films combined. With low budget straight to video films it can go either way though. They're either very well done and impressive considering how little the budget and amount of shooting time were or complete wastes of celluloid, which unfortunately is far too often these days. Just because you love filmmaking and have a camera doesn't mean you're meant to make them for a living.

Some of the greatest of the genre were made on a very small budget. 'Halloween' is one of the most beloved independent Horror films of all time and paved the way for others like 'The Blair Witch Project.' A low budget is a double edged sword, because on the one hand it limits what filmmakers can do while on the other it brings out their creativity. What's really disheartening is the fact that the next generation of great Horror directors are given a chance like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Clive Barker, and Wes Craven were back in the day. A person could only take so many 'Scream' clones before they ran out of the room screaming.

If one grew tired of big screen Horror movies that just didn't deliver, they could turn to the more obscure stuff coming out. In recent years some of the most critically acclaimed movies from the genre were made with little money and not with the backing of a major studio. One really promising up and comer was Mike Mendez, an aspiring filmmaker and longtime Horror fan. In 2000 came the release of the film he's most known for, which was well received by the Horror community and became a cult favorite. The film is sort of a blend of modern Horror with splatter flicks of the 1980s, and for the most part it succeeds.

In 1959 the nuns of a convent were murdered and ever since the place has been believed to be haunted. Forty one years later people are still talking about it and venturing out there to see for themselves. A group of college friends decides to explore the rundown convent, all for different reasons. Meanwhile a group of alleged devil worshipers are performing a sacrifice and the demonic spirits are awakened and wreak all sorts of havoc. Those who become possessed kill, which creates even more demons and the ones left seek the help of Christine (Adrienne Barbeau), the woman responsible for the massacre all those years ago.

Essentially this is 'Night of the Demons' for the 21st Century and it's one fun 71 minutes. The cast, made up of unknowns and some genre veterans, is game and are obviously having a great time. It's especially cool to see Adrienne Barbeau blowing away demonic nuns and riding a motorcycle. The score is pretty creepy and better than you'd expect for such a low budget effort. Also the choice of songs is really good and they're well utilized. It doesn't take long to tell that the people behind this film really worked hard to make this the best film possible.

If it's gore you want, then you'll find plenty of that here. Both the gore and make-up effects are really well done. This film, like 'Evil Dead' and 'Dead Alive,' was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The filmmakers just really went nuts with the film and it's mostly a good thing. From start to finish the film moves at a swift pace that never lets up and there is plenty going on to keep us engaged. This is a film that promises a lot and thankfully delivers on it.

A lot of really low budget Horror films look really flat and it's wonder if the director never works again. This easily could have been a very point and shoot kind of film, but this is not the case. Mike Mendez does a bang up job and infuses a lot of style into the film. You'll definitely want to see more from him, but unfortunately he hasn't directed a whole lot since. This film won't win any awards for best writing or originality, but like other films of this type it's so much fun that you won't care. The makers of the movie knew what they were making and accomplished what they set out to do.

One thing you'll pick up on early on is the fact that just about every character is a stereotype. There's the nice girl, the cheerleader, the nerd, the goth girl, etc. There is nothing in this film that you will not have seen in dozens of others. Not that exact scenes or lines are just stolen, but this film was obviously heavily influenced by ones like 'Night of the Demons' and 'Evil Dead 2.' A lot of the humor hits the mark, but some of it also misses. One thing meant to be that you may be glad was cut is a scene involving a mentally challenged teenager, which is just embarrassing. I understand that this was made with little money, but the CGI is really cheap looking especially at the end.

This isn't Shakespeare folks, but it has just about everything one could ask for from a film of this ilk. Demons, blood, drugs, sexuality, pseudo devil worship, and Adrienne Barbeau are some of the things on the menu here and combined these ingredients makes for a really good time. This film was clearly made by people with much affection for the genre and b Horror movies in general. This is pure, dumb, gory, unpretentious fun that's far more satisfying than a lot of other Horror movies released at the time. People like Michael Bay could learn from people who make films like this.

***1/2/*****

The Phantom of the Opera (1998)

2010-09-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

When a great director hits they soar, and when they miss they do so by a mile. Sometimes it's just not meant to be and it makes you wonder what happened. There are many cases where a critically acclaimed director adapted a classic novel for the screen and it was a perfect match. In 1976 Brian De Palma made 'Carrie,' based on the bestselling Stephen King novel, and it turned out to be one of the greatest Horror films of the 1970s. You could say the same of Roman Polanski's adaptation of Ira Levin's 'Rosemary's Baby,' a well crafted film that slowly builds to a frightening finish. On the other end of the spectrum however are cases where the two are not such a great match and the final product is below expectations.

Dario Argento had already proven himself a force both behind the camera and in the Horror genre with films like 'Suspiria' and 'Phenomena.' In 1987 he did another Phantom-inspired film with 'Opera,' which many fans feel was his last really good film. The idea of him making his own version of Gaston Leroux's novel sounds like a dream come true doesn't it? I remember being quite excited about this coming out, but then the reviews came in and they were not kind. It sounded like Argento had made his first real flop and I was less thrilled to see it. But like so many others I had to see because I'd been a fan already for so long.

A Paris opera house is in rehearsals for a production on 'Faust' and all seems to be going according to plan. A young aspiring opera singer named Christine (Asia Argento) is the understudy for the female lead. Everyone knows the legends of the phantom (Julian Sands) who allegedly has been living under the opera house for years, but until now no one really believed it. People begin to disappear and are later found dead and Christine finds herself being stalked by the phantom himself. He wants her to be the lead and will do whatever it takes to make that happen.

For the most part the story is the same, but that are some tweaks here and there. For example, the biggest difference is the fact that this phantom isn't disfigured, at least not on the outside. The idea was to make him a mess on the inside, which is actually an interesting approach. It's also not the only thing about this film that works, but all the good in this film unfortunately can't save it from being average. The performances by the main cast, especially Asia Argento, Julian Sands, and Andrea Di Stefano, are quite good. It also helps that Argento and Sands have chemistry because otherwise the film would really have fallen apart.

All of the singing, which in this case is not dubbed, is lovely and if you're already a fan of Ms. Argento this will only make you love her more. Speaking of music, the score by the great Ennio Morricone is amazing and never too over dramatic. The opera house itself is great eye candy due to it's architecture and decor. You can tell they really worked hard in making the place look so good instead of building some cheap looking sets. Sergio Stivaletti, known for his work in films like 'Demons,' and 'Cemetery Man,' doesn't disappoint here with the gore effects, which are all nice and gruesome.

Known for his stylish touches and unique camera angles, Dario Argento is surprisingly restrained here. That being said he still gets some great shots and has a good handle on all of this. But by the end of the film you can't help but feel that this could have been so much better. The only other thing that really works in the film are some sequences that are pretty powerful. The most notable is the final moments in the catacombs, which are better than a lot of scenes in the rest of the film. This is a frustrating experience really because there is much to like, but on the other hand much that will leave you disappointed and scratching your head.

Argento isn't always involved with the scripts for his film, but this one he co-wrote with Gerard Brach. I don't know how much of what's on the screen came from Argento's mind or from Brach's, but a lot of it is pretty bad. The structure of the script is awkward when it should have been more focused. Also a lot of the dialogue is poor, which often hurts the performances of the secondary cast. There are some really odd elements here and some that are actually laughable. For example, all the stuff with the two rat killers and their contraption is played for laughs, but instead it's actually embarrassing.

A lot of the actors in the supporting roles are pretty bad here. Many of them overdo it and comes off more like cartoon characters than real people. The poor dubbing for some of them probably doesn't help, but you can still see it in their facial expressions and body language. One thing that you can find in all of Argento's films before this one that's lacking here is suspense. This could have given the film an extra push, but it just isn't there. There are some things that get a lot of attention that shouldn't have, like the rat catchers for instance, while other things like the relationship between Christine and Raoul don't get enough.

One thing I would like to know is, who was this film even made for? It barely qualifies as a Horror film and tries to be an art film, but doesn't succeed there either. Every great director is entitled to a flop, but this shouldn't have been one. Argento definitely has what it takes to make a fantastic adaptation of this novel that is both faithful to it while also making it his own. There are several aspects that work, but they're outdone by what doesn't. See it only if you're a devoted fan of the director's work and/or of 'The Phantom of the Opera.'

**1/2/*****

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

2010-09-15T17:13:00.000-07:00

When a film has little substance style can only take it so far. If that is all it has to offer then holding the viewers interest will be difficult, even if they love things pleasing to the eyes. It is possible to have both, but so often style ends up taking the lead. There a lot of films that feel like little more than feature length music videos. These are the kind that will be quickly forgotten and only remembered as films that had little to hold on to. This was certainly the case with a lot of movies in the 1980s, including Horror.

The 1988 sequel 'A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master,' without the doubt the flashiest film in the franchise, isn't a bad film, but the director was much more interested in aesthetics than scaring people and telling a good story. For some of their remakes, Platinum Dunes hired directors who only had experience in making music videos, which really shows in the final products. One major exception is David Fincher who did a fantastic job with 'Alien 3,' despite all the behind-the-scenes drama, and just look at where his career went. Trouble is this is a trend that never really died, but to be fair it isn't always such a bad thing, which is evident in this adaptation of Gaston Leroux's novel.

Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) has just found the perfect piece to audition with. During that audition she is nearly killed in an accident and when she comes to finds her self in London circa 1881. She is the understudy for the female lead in a production of Faust and it looks like she may be about to get her big break. The bad news is that someone may have to die at the hands of a mysterious stranger for her to get it. Accidents start happening and Christine sees the Phantom at almost every turn. The police are hot on his bloody trail, but he's the sort that'll do whatever it takes to get what he wants.

You take 'The Phantom of the Opera,' the legend of Jack the Ripper, and some Slasher Film conventions, put them all in a blender and this is basically what you get. This is in no way a remarkable film or even among the greatest film adaptations of the story, but there's enough merit here to make this an above average viewing experience. For the most part the performances are solid, especially that of the lovely Jill Schoelen as the aspiring young singer. Robert Englund does go a bit over-the-top at times, but shows that he can do much more than play Freddy Krueger. Also the singing is really beautiful, but there's not very much of it unfortunately.

The score, which won an award, is fabulous and one of the things helping keep this film from being just another Slasher. The budget doesn't seem to have been very high on this one, but that really doesn't show. Both the costumes and production design are amazing and make the film appear more lavish. Some have complained that this film is too slow paced, but apart from a slow start it moves along quite nicely. There is plenty going on here to hold one's interest, but the lack of a falling chandelier scene is unfortunate. One area where this does not fail is in make-up and gore effects, which are all top notch and plenty gruesome.

Having done such an impressive job on 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers' the previous year, Dwight Little proves here that he is no one hit wonder. He makes the film a feast for the eyes with some grand shots and stylish touches here and there. This 'Phantom' really isn't perfectly balanced in terms of style vs. substance, which is why it's not a better film. One major issue is the lack of emotional intensity, which is exactly what this film should have considering the story. I don't blame the director or cast for this, but rather the script, which focuses more on elaborate kills and set pieces than the characters and their relationships.

The kills are plenty bloody and vicious, but are also very predictable. Pretty much every one of them is telegraphed when they should have been a surprise. The main cast does fine performance-wise, but some of the supporting players don't fare as well. Is it just me or do their performances feel forced and lack nuance? In what was probably a way to update the story, the filmmakers begin and end the film in present day New York. Not that these scenes are badly done, but the whole wraparound just feels unnecessary and maybe it would have worked better if the whole film were set in 1800's London.

Though a very handsome and entertaining film, this 'Phantom' was a flop at the Box Office. It isn't hard to see why considering that a). the musical version was so popular and b). the Horror genre had been so exhausted by that point. But you can tell the people in front of an behind the camera had their hearts in it and it really is a decent film. Had it been made at a different time and with a more polished script this could have been a pretty strong update of the novel. Won't set the world on fire that's for sure, has enough to like to not be a waste of your time.

***1/2/*****

The Ghost Galleon (1974)

2010-09-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

Where are the people to tell directors when to quit when you need them? Some stories aren't meant to go beyond a certain point. This is why we have so many unnecessary sequels that are totally worthless and without merit. When you've reached the point where there is nowhere left to go that's usually a good sign that it's time to jump ship (Pun intended), but some just never learn. What makes this even suckier is when the sequel is made by the same person responsible for it's superior predecessor(s) and you wonder what happened. This is still an issue today, which proves this is just a vicious cycle that'll probably never stop.

Amando de Ossorio made his genre debut with 'Fangs of the Living Dead,' which I personally kind of like. His talents definitely showed through and probably prepared him for his next project, 'Tombs of the Blind Dead.' Based on the real life Templar Knights, the film is more than a Spanish take on 'Night of the Living Dead,' and was a success. This led to a sequel, which too was successful and so being drunk with that Ossorio didn't let the series end there. At first it looks like we're in for another solid entry in the series, but mediocrity sets in and the film quickly takes a dive.

Two models are stranded on a boat out in the ocean, surrounded by a dense fog. They're able to keep in contact with their employers, but things are about to go from bad to worse. An old galleon appears and the girls board it without giving it a second thought. When they aren't heard from again their employers and a friend of one of the two girls sail out to where they were and come across the same ship, which is said to be cursed. It's not long before the Templar Knights rise from their coffins to attack and kill any who trespass.

I just can't believe this was written and directed by the same man who gave us the first two 'Blind Dead,' films. But unfortunately it was and nothing can be done to change that, so here we go. The cast actually does a pretty good job when taking into account the bad script they had to work with. The most entertaining performance is by Carlos Lemos, the professor, who just hams it up. The score is not one to get too excited about, but it's pretty good. The Templar Knights' theme makes a comeback and adds to the spooky atmosphere.

The ship of the title is actually a cool new setting and nice change of pace. It's also very creepy and the heavy use of the fog machine really helps. One thing that remains constant through this series is the Knights themselves, who never stop being frightening. Even the silly beards they have this time around don't diminish their power to give one the chills. And though for the most part the direction is nothing special, Ossorio does get some great shots of his monsters, the best probably being the ones of them coming out of the water and closing in on victims. That's about all there is in the pleasantries department because there is a lot wrong with this film.

The first two films don't have very complicated plots either, but unlike this sequel they did have a bit more meat to them. This time there's almost no plot to hold all this stuff together. The pace of this movie is painfully slow almost all the way through. To add insult to injury it takes what seems like forever for anything interesting or scary to happen and when it does you probably won't care. The first two films were larger in scope, but this one feels like it had a smaller budget and it shows. The whole film has a real cheap look and feel to it, which shows in the obvious model ship used in shots of it from a distance.

It's really too bad this film is such a dud because the setting is really good and so is the atmosphere. But instead those things are wasted in this dull and forgettable film. At 88 minutes this film is a real chore to sit through and one of those cases where the fast forward button can be really helpful. The only way I can recommend this is if you just have to see the whole 'Blind Dead' series. If you need some extra help getting through this a few alcoholic drinks of your choice may make it less painful and maybe a bit comical. Oh how the mighty have the fallen.

*1/2/*****

The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)

2010-09-09T13:17:00.000-07:00

You really don't need much to make a good Slasher movie. You just take a few ingredients like a killer, a group of teenagers in a house or some isolated setting, a bucket or two of blood, etc. and you're good to go. It's something that's pretty hard to mess up, but some have and badly. You also don't need a large budget or really well known actors to make a successful Horror film, but it couldn't hurt as shown by films like 'Scream.' The Slasher Film has been around for a few decades now and it's interesting to see how it's evolved since the days of 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Saw.' In between we've been given some of the genre's finest and worst.

'Halloween' featured little blood and nudity, but these became staples of films to come such as 'Friday the 13th' and 'Hell Night.' Usually the term Slasher Film refers to a movies considered to be of lesser quality by the critics and compared to the classics they are. However they doesn't change the fact that they have their own charms and plenty to offer those who enjoy them. Without them we wouldn't have things like people screaming at the screen whenever someone goes into a dark room. They're the kind of films that can make going to the movies a lot of fun and get the audience involved.

Roger Corman, the "King of B-Movies," too wanted to contribute to this somewhat fresh sub-genre. Like so many others before him, Corman's entry into the genre would feature things teenagers of the day were familiar with so that the film was more relatable. Instead of taking place on a holiday, the film would be mostly set at a girls' slumber party in suburban Venice, California. Originally called 'Sleepless Nights,' the title ended up being 'The Slumber Party Massacre' and the film to this day still has a pretty good following. What it lacks in originality and production values it makes up for in competent acting, atmosphere, and pure schlocky fun.

Before they finish their senior year, Trish (Michele Michaels) are her three best girlfriends decide to have a slumber party for old times sake. They've got all they need to have a great time, but something is coming that will crash their little shindig. It turns out that a maniac responsible for several deaths many years earlier has escaped and returned to the community. He wastes no time in offing anyone in his line of vision and makes it to the party. The girls and a couple guy friends of theirs have their fun, but when things go awry it's a good old fashioned battle of good vs. evil.

'The Slumber Party Massacre' is probably one of the cheapest looking films of it's kind and you certainly won't much, if anything you haven't seen before, but somehow it just works. First of all the cast does a pretty good job and each character is likable. The actor playing the killer is one creepy dude that'll make you squirm when he corners his victims and tells them "You're so pretty. I love you." The score is pretty dated, but also quite eerie at times. At 74 minutes you'd hope the film would be well-paced and it is. Sure it gets a little tedious in the mid-section with all the silly goings on, but it's no big deal.

Rumor has it this was originally meant to be a spoof of Slasher Films, but it really isn't. However, there is a fair amount of good humor here to make you giggle. Doesn't exactly pile them on, but there is a reasonable amount of blood and gore on display here, especially towards the end. The killer's weapon of choice is a large drill so you get ready to see plenty of holes getting bored into screaming victims. This isn't exactly a very scary film, but there are at least a couple moments that should make you jump. And as I said there is a spooky atmosphere that hangs over the film once it turns to night.

The biggest issue most seem to have with this film is the fact that it's no mystery who the killer is. Instead of having them wear or mask or keeping them in the dark we see him quite clearly. Doesn't keep him from being scary, but it would have added a little extra something to the film. Also you won't find anything here you can't find in dozens of other films. Also many cliches abound here, including everybody's favorite where someone is scared by a cat jumping down from somewhere. What's funny is that one is still used to this day.

I'm probably being a bit too generous with this film, but it really is a lot of fun. It's not one of the best of it's kind, but for a film with such a low budget and cast of virtual unknowns it's pretty damn good. It features pretty much everything a person could ask for from a film like this and is definitely a film to watch with some friends while chugging beer and wolfing down pizza. Better yet have a slumber party and watch it with the lights out. Then just before bed take a peek out the window and listen for a drilling sound.

***1/2/*****

Demons 2 (1986)

2010-08-30T18:53:00.000-07:00

So many films end with really amazing cliffhangers and we hope that the sequel will live up to it. Sequels are already tricky business so this only makes it more of a challenge to meet people's expectations. When they end up being underwhelming we wonder why they even bothered. Often sequels are made to milk more money out of the concept when really there's no more story to tell. One sign that a sequel could be inferior is if it's made by a whole new group of people. Now this alone doesn't guarantee the film won't work, but there have been times when a sequel was made without the original creators and the result left a lot to be desired.

Having the same people make sounds like a great idea and sometimes is, but what if the film didn't turn out so great? You'd think that since the first one was so well done that they could do it again, but like they say lightening doesn't strike twice. There are those great exceptions like the 'Star Wars' franchise, each film being hugely successful and made by most of the same people. Wes Craven directed all three 'Scream' films and Kevin Williamson wrote the first two and came up with the story for the third and this worked out very well. Sometimes it's just seems right and things work out in the end, but then reality sets in.

The 1985 Italian Horror film 'Demons,' which was big in both Europe and the US, left the door wide open for a part 2. It actually leaves us with the impression that next time the demons will have taken over a la George Romero's 'Living Dead' series. Released a year later, the only official sequel to the first film ended up not going in such a direction and really is more like a thinly disguised remake of it's predecessor. Perhaps they didn't have enough money to make it a bigger scale film, but that still shouldn't have stopped them from trying something different. Watching them back to back you may be disappointed once you get to 2, but on it's own there's enough goodies to make it worthwhile.

Sometime after the outbreak inside the Metropol the nightmare is about to happen again. This time the setting is a high rise in Rome where a big birthday bash for Sally (Coralina Cataldi Tossini), one of the tenants, is in full swing. Meanwhile a film about the aftermath of the earlier outbreak is playing and people watch, having no idea of what's about to happen. The evil somehow comes out of the TV and claims Sally as it's first victim. It's not long before the contagion spreads and people transform into demons. To make matters worse the power is knocked out and no one can leave the building unless help comes.

From the very beginning it's not hard to see that this sequel greatly pales in comparison to the original, but as I said it's not at all without merit. The story is pretty much the same with some tweaks and it at least acknowledges the events of the first film in a brief narration. None of the performances are perfect, but everyone does ok even Tossoni who plays a spoiled whiny bitch. The really standout is Nancy Brilli who plays Hannah, the most sympathetic character in the film. One thing in the film that is really well done is the make-up and special effects, which are at least good if not better than those in the original.

The score and soundtrack are done by composer Simon Boswell and a whole new group of bands. The score is pretty good and a couple songs, especially The Cult's 'Rain' are quite good and used wisely. Director Lamberto Bava honestly did a much more impressive job on the first film, but there are still some hints of style here and there in this sequel. For example, the sequence of demons running down a hallway as a group makes a comeback and is still effective. The pacing also isn't as quick or as tight this time, but it still moves along pretty well and the film never becomes dull.

There are a few really neat and memorable sequences throughout the film. I won't give any details, but the party scene is pretty wicked and fun as is the one in the parking garage. One of the best things about the film is that the stakes are higher this time. For example, a child was added to the mix, which adds some extra edge to the proceedings. Plus the character of Hannah is pregnant, but unfortunately this isn't quite taken to it's full potential. That's just one out of several problems this film has.

This film just recycles way too much stuff from the film, including recreating some key sequences. The trouble is they're nowhere near as effective and one sequence in particular is more silly when it should have been terrifying. Also the energy level here is much lower, making the film not nearly as much fun. You just get the feeling that the filmmakers just didn't have their hearts in it as much this time. Another area where this one is really lacking is in the scare department. There are maybe some brief moments that will creep you out, but it won't likely leave much of an impression.

Apart from a couple songs the rest of the soundtrack is totally forgettable. This is really disappointing considering how cool the soundtrack in the first film was. And though a lot of the effects are really good, there are a couple big ones that haven't held up well at all. The makers of the film used animatronics, but two of them just don't look convincing enough and that lessens the impact of those scenes. The truth is that this sequel is inferior to the original in nearly every aspect. Maybe it's not fair to compare the two, but considering they're made by the same people it's hard not to.

Even on it's own merits without a comparison 'Demons 2' isn't something to write home about. Perhaps they didn't have the budget to make something on a larger scale that would have done the original's ending justice. Also this sequel, like many others in the 1980s coming after successful films, was rushed and released about a year later. I think Bava, Argento, Sachetti, and everyone else had the best of intentions and tried to make the best movie they could. If you just go in with an open mind and don't expect something as good or almost as good as the first on then you may get some pleasure out of this. It has enough going for it to be worth around 90 minutes of one's time.

***/*****

Demons (1985)

2010-08-28T12:25:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or is there a serious lack of fun factor in Horror movies today? Sure not all the greats are meant to be "fun," but today it's as if most genre films coming out take themselves way too seriously. A person can only take so much of films like 'Saw,' 'Hostel,' and 'Final Destination,' before they scream bloody murder. The 1980s was a particularly good time for the genre and was a time when filmmakers were really imaginative. Sure there were plenty of rip-offs and a fair share of losers coming out at that time too, but most have since been forgotten while the classics stand tall.

Some really amazing Horror films were coming out of Europe, especially Italy. A lot of films by directors such as Dario Argento, Mario Bava, and Lucio Fulci gained fans abroad and some saw this as a chance to reach out to other markets. One of the most popular examples of this is a 1985 collaboration between Argento, Bava, and several other great talents. The film is a combination of good old fashioned popcorn movie fun, but is also really scary and stylish like most Italian Horror is. This attempt to appeal to a wider audience was really successful and the film still has a devoted following all these years later.

After receiving free passes, a couple of female college students (Natasha Hovey and Paola Cozzo) check out a new movie theatre, where a new film is premiering. The patrons are excited about the experience and admire the design of the theatre and what's on display in the lobby. The film turns out to be a Horror film about a premonition made by Nostradamus that's about to come true. It's not long before an unsuspecting victim transforms into a bile-drooling, fanged, clawed demon and begins attacking and killing others. The others discover what's going on, but are trapped inside and have to find a way out before they too join this legion of the undead.

When I was about four years old I caught a glimpse of this film, but of course my parents wouldn't let me see the rest of it until much later. I never forgot what I saw however and the film ended up being very much worth the wait. The concept itself is pure gold and is executed very well. The monsters in this film would give George Romero's living dead a run for their money that's for sure. Speaking of the creatures of the title, the make-up on them is fantastic and has held up really well. Also the rest of the effects, which includes animatronics in one sequence, are very impressive and far more real looking than CGI.

This is not a film that will be remembered for great acting, but the cast is game. Everyone gives a lively performance and you can tell they were having the time of their lives making this movie. Bobby Rhodes as Tony, the pimp, is especially fun to watch chew the scenery and kick ass. The score is excellent, ranging from adrenaline pumping to downright chilling. Plus the film is filled with some great rock songs by the likes of Billy Idol and Motley Crue. Many feel a heavy metal soundtrack can ruin a Horror film, but personally I think it works really well here, but judge for yourselves.

From frame one this movie moves along at an exciting pace and never drags or gets dull. The makers of the film really know how to keep an audience entertained and on the edge of their seats. Another crowd-pleaser you'll find is some really great gory bits. I won't give anything away, but let's just say what happens looks might painful. It's not often that a Horror film that's really bloody and gory is also scary and atmospheric, but that is certainly the case here. There are some moments and images that will haunt your dreams.

Lamberto Bava, son of the late and great Mario Bava, gets some great shots and infuses the film with quite a bit of style. One of my favorite bits that looks especially eerie is the scene in which the first demon is chasing someone down a long and dimly lit hallway with curtains being blown back and forth. And to top it all off the finale is really exciting and full of some really cool and inventive moments and ideas. The fun really does never stop in this film, but it's not quite perfection. There are a few faults that hurt the film just a bit, but fortunately not enough to ruin your viewing pleasure.

The script is riddled with plot holes and we are left with so many questions. For example, who built the theatre and just who is that guy wearing a sort of futuristic looking Phantom of the Opera mask? Also this film is pretty dated in some aspects, such as hairstyles like the one on the young punk chick and fashion like Tony the pimp's 1970s leisure suit. The flaw that probably stands out the most however is the subplot about a gang of punk rockers driving through town. It has it's moments, but ultimately goes nowhere and really just takes us out of the main action.

If you want to watch a really fun movie with friends one night then I strongly recommend this fine example of good scary and frothy fun. They just don't make them quite like this anymore, which is a real shame. Films like 'The Exorcist' and 'Night of the Living Dead,' are some of the genre's greatest efforts, but it's nice to have something like this when you're in the mood for something a little more energetic and that doesn't hold back. Some Horror directors today could really learn something from a film like this, which isn't so deadly serious or predictable as many today seem to be. A true party movie in every sense of the word!

****1/2/*****

Hell Night (1981)

2010-08-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

It must have been so much fun being on the set of a Horror film in the 1980s. Most of them, especially Slasher films, involved teenagers so you know there must have been quite a bit of partying going on after work. Unfortunately this doesn't always translate to the film itself, which can sometimes be pretty banal and forgettable. But more often then not the final product does end up being really enjoyable. Sure these aren't some the best films cinema has to offer, but they have an undeniable charm that goes on. They still influence Horror movie makers today, all over the world.

It was at this time these films could be made fast and cheap, and they were. Most were made by directors and actors who were just starting out and really Horror is a pretty good starting place when you think about it. Wes Craven started in this genre as did George Romero and both went on to have pretty decent careers and are still in the game. But then so many were really just in it for fame and fortune, which would show in their work. Most films would involve a group of teenagers in some isolated place where they'd be knocked off by someone, or sometimes something. Usually they would feature lots of bloodletting and a bit of T 'n A, but there are a few exceptions.

During the first Slasher cycle after 'Halloween,' came some of the most well known of these films, most of which have been remade in the last few years. Irwin Yablans, executive producer of 'Halloween' went on to produce a number of Horror titles including 'Tourist Trap' and 'Fade to Black.' Then in 1981 he and independent director Tom de Simone made a film that would distinguish itself from other Slasher films to an extent. Instead of being simply 90 minutes of teens being slaughtered in the most brutal ways imaginable, the filmmakers tried to make something that was actually scary, but still used some of the same conventions people were used to. Having such a large cast of young talent I can imagine much fun was had by all, and the film itself is fun to watch.

Twelve years ago The Garth Family was brutally slain by one of their own and ever since the local college kids have used the property as a place of initiation. On this night two sorority (Linda Blair and Suki Goodwin) and two fraternity (Peter Barton and Vincent Van Patten) pledges must spend the night in the old mansion. Legend has it that one of the children is still lurking around, waiting to strike against any who trespass. To the pledges this is all pretty silly, but to the rest of their peers it's a tradition they go all out for. While the four students are in the house, some of their so-called friends play some tricks to keep them on their toes, but they're about to learn they're not alone.

This movies always puts a smile on my face because it is one of the best and most entertaining of it's kind. Starting literally with a scream and a big college party, you know you're in for something good. The cast assembled here is really game and you can tell they were having the time of their lives making this. We're not talking Oscar-winning performances here folks, but everyone does pretty well and make their characters pretty likable. Linda Blair was nominated for a Razzie for her performance, but she does fine to me.

The score is really eerie and totally sets the mood. It helps that the location is so scary looking, like a place out of a Hammer Horror film. This is perfect because had it been some old rundown Hollywood mansion it wouldn't be nearly as effective. And so that things don't get too serious all the time, there is plenty of humor here and there to add to the fun, the college hijinks being especially amusing. Though there is some blood, the film really emphasizes atmosphere and tension, of which there is plenty. That is something really lacking in most Slasher films and it's nice to see here.

Many have complained that the pace of this film is too slow. Sure it's slower than most of these type of films, but it really moves along quite nicely and you'll never be bored. And there are quite a few good scares that are perfectly placed. My personal fave involves a rug, and that's all I'm going to say. Director Tom de Simone is no Alfred Hitchcock, but he does a fine job of creating suspense and gets a few really good shots. Apparently a sequel was in mind, but for whatever reason it just didn't happen and it's too bad he didn't go ahead with it.

Of course this film is far from perfect, but there's really not too many things wrong with it. It doesn't take long to realize there isn't much of a plot holding all this together. Luckily there's enough here to hold our interest so that it doesn't become too much of a bother. And of course no Slasher movie can escape having a cliche or two. Some characters of course do really stupid things they shouldn't do, sometimes narrowly escaping and others not. Of course there wouldn't be a movie if this didn't happen, but you'll still shout things at the screen.

I was about 10 years old the first time I saw this and it's been a favorite ever since. It's got just about everything a person could want in a good 80s Horror film. And yeah it looks a bit dated today, but it has enough going for it to overcome that and still be a treat to watch. This film stands out as being one of the best of it's kind and is interestingly one of the few to never spawn a sequel, although apparently some have tried. That's ok though because it stands on it's own very well and is a must see if this is your cup of tea.

****/*****

Snow White: A Tale of Terror (1997)

2010-08-22T14:45:00.000-07:00

In their day, Fairy Tales were quite dark and at times graphic. But Hollywood took these stories and sanitized them for decades. Disney is known for doing this and has been from the beginning. This however doesn't mean that the films aren't any good, far from it actually. Disney's 'Sleeping Beauty' and 'Cinderella' are both delightful films that have held up beautifully. The thing it is that it was so rare that anyone would make an adaptation that was much more in the spirit of the original stories.

It became so familiar that perhaps many forgot what the original tales were like. Now of course no one is going to want their children to see a dark and bloody version of 'Pinocchio' or 'Hansel and Gretel,' but maybe filmmakers had been playing it safe for too long. It was about time someone made a more adult and horrific version of one of these stories that didn't shy away from being too dark. It's a wonder none of the greatest Horror directors, like Dario Argento and John Carpenter for instance, never tackled one of these because I imagine their versions would really be something. There had to be someone with the guts to do it.

'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' is one of the most well known and beloved Fairy Tales and Walt Disney's film is magical and has never lost it. In 1995 production began on a live action version of the tale that would be anything but cheery. This was to be a real Horror movie that would lay on the atmosphere pretty thick. Originally it was intended for a theatrical release, but for whatever reason aired on Cable TV instead. The title, which isn't even the original one, makes the film sound like some run-of-the-mill Horror flick, but this is not the case at all.

A few years after the death of his wife, Frederic Hoffman (Sam Neill) has found a new wife and mother for his daughter, Lilliana (Monica Keena). The two women don't hit it off as he'd hoped, which only gets worse as the years go by. When Claudia (Sigourney Weaver) starts feeling like Lilliana is in the way she does whatever she can to get rid of her, with the help of her wicked enchanted mirror. The girl runs away and stumbles onto the home of seven miners, each with some kind of deformity. Together they will fight the evil queen and save her home.

With such a strong cast and dynamite idea I expected this to be a pretty darn good film. The film ended up exceeding expectations and is in my opinion one of the best Horror films of the 1990s and very underrated. The actors all do a fine job, but the stand out is Sigourney Weaver as the villain, which she always plays so
well. Here you can tell she was having a ball and making the most of the part. John Ottman, a very underappreciated film score composer, does a very nice job here. The score is at times soft and beautiful and at others very dramatic, but not too over-the-top.

The film is a real treat for the eyes for a number of reasons, beginning with the scenery. The film was shot in the Czech Republic during the fall and winter and the landscape is breathtaking. Equally lovely is the cinematography. This was not a really big budgeted film, but it doesn't show at all in things like the costumes and production design. Both are very well done, rich, and authentic looking, which is crucial to a period film. Weaver's clothes are especially beautiful and elaborate.

This isn't a big effects movie, but the make-up effects work is amazing. The most deformed of the miners are very nicely made up as is Sigourney Weaver in one really chilling sequence. Speaking of such things, there are some scenes in the film that are pretty creepy. This is especially the case in the second half of the film when things at the castle have fallen apart and the place has become so dark and quiet. Michael Cohn, who's only directed a few films, did such an impressive job here that it's a wonder he didn't make it big. He has a great handle on things and the film just looks great.

One thing you may be wondering when started this film is whether or not it's an interesting adaptation of the story. The truth is it's a very imaginative one, which makes it even more frustrating that the film didn't get a wide release. And though this isn't a fast-paced roller coaster ride kind of a movie, the pace is good and steady and the film never gets boring. Every great film has a few tiny flaws, and this one is no exception, but the only one that's really that big of a deal is the fact that the film really isn't very scary. Sure it's creepy at times, but is not likely to keep you up at night.

Coming out after 'Scream,' this film was like a breath of fresh air at a time when many Horror films were really quite bland and failed to leave much of a mark. It's a really twisted masterpiece that should be sought up by everyone who loves the genre and anyone who would love to see a darker version of a classic Fairy Tale. It's right on the line between more suspenseful, atmospheric Horror and Horror that's more about the blood and guts and never crosses it. If you grew up on the 1937 version watching both back to back would be quite an experience. You'll find no sweetness here, but you'll find plenty of goodies.

*****/*****

Friday the 13th (1980)

2010-08-14T23:06:00.000-07:00

Horror films come in many different kinds and vary in quality. The genre is written off as trash by many people, but those who know better see it in a different light. Sure there are many films you could call such names, but not all are made for the bucks. Some like 'The Exorcist' and 'Hellraiser' were made by people who were serious about making great movies and in these cases ones that also scared the wits out of people. It seems that whenever the genre is brought up on TV it's dumped on and the fact that it has generated many classics is overlooked. Sometimes this is because of people's personal religious views, but is also because of the quality of many Horror movies.

'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' set the standards for the Slasher Film, but feature little blood and onscreen violence. By the early 1980s this would change greatly for the ante would be upped in terms of blood and guts. This sure packed the theatres in and led to a slew of low budget quickie Horror films over the entire decade, not all without merit though. Quite a few have their charms and are not worthy of being cast aside and forgotten, but many others shouldn't have seen the light of day to begin with. Critics would certainly say that about one series of films in particular, which took the Slasher sub-genre to the next level.

One really important thing a Horror movie needs to be successful is a great location. 'Dracula' has the spooky old castle by the sea while 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' takes place in a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. Before Cult Classics like 'The Burning' and 'Sleepaway Camp,' Paramount Pictures unleashed the first ever Slasher Film to be set at a campground. This proved to work out very well because the film was a huge hit and spawned one of the largest and most financially successful film franchises in history. Is 'Friday the 13th' one of the films responsible for making the genre look like junk compared to others? Perhaps it is, but it's one of the most satisfying of it's kind and has held up quite well.

After years of one tragedy after another, a summer camp is about to reopened once again. A group of young counselors are fixing it up over a weekend and to them it's all good times. But someone is watching from the woods waiting for any of them to be alone. Soon people start to disappear and no one knows what's going on. Is it all some big joke or is someone killing them off one by one? Perhaps they should have just left well enough alone and heeded the warnings of the locals.

This film is certainly not for everyone, including the critics. It does borrow quite heavily from John Carpenter's classic 1978 film, but doesn't just blatantly steal scenes, characters, or kills and does have it's own story to tell. It's the most well known of the 'Halloween' clones and may very well be the best of the bunch. The location, which here is New Jersey, is just breathtaking. The campgrounds and surrounding woods are picturesque and a perfect setting for this story. Also adding to atmosphere is Harry Manfredini's score, which is at times subtle, other times chilling, and even beautiful in one case.

The cast is made up of almost all unknowns and everyone does a pretty good job. None of the performances were going to win any awards, but everyone comes off natural and likable enough. Another area where the film works well is in the effects, which are all by Tom Savini of 'Dawn of the Dead' fame. There aren't as many effects on display here as in some of his other works, but what is here is really well done. Also some of the kills are creative and some quite bloody. It also helps that most of them are not off screen.

The makers of the film do an adequate job of creating mood and suspense. The camp and cabins are not too brightly lit and most of the film takes place at night during the rain, so we're kept on the edge of our seats. And just so things don't get too deadly serious there are some splashes of humor here and there. Most of it comes from one particular camper who is a total goofball, but in a lovable kind of way. Pacing-wise the film moves along pretty well, starting slow and picking up not too far in.

The finale is undoubtedly the best section of the film and there are some scenes in it that'll have your jaw on the floor. It's always nice when the filmmakers don't just give us a bland ending and leave with something shocking. But not everything in this film works so well and it's far from being a masterpiece like some of it's competition. For one thing, this film is really lacking in originality. Don't get me wrong there are some surprises here, but they're few and far in between. The story is identical to 'Halloween' in a lot of ways, such as opening several years before the main action.

Sean Cunningham didn't have much directing experience before this film and it shows. He gets a few nice shots and keeps the pace moving ok, but otherwise the film looks pretty flat. The final battle between the antagonist and protagonist is exciting and all, but goes on longer than it needed to. It's one of those cases where the good guy whacks the bad guy and gets away thinking they're safe, but the villain pops up to fight some more. This happens a few times and gets tiresome, but it does end up being worth it.

There are no pretensions about 'Friday the 13th' being a really great movie or one that would stand up to intense scrutiny, but all things considered it's great for what it is. The makers of the film have openly admitted they were capitalizing on the success of 'Halloween,' but also that they do love what they do and it shows in the film. It has the look of a Grindhouse film, but overall doesn't quite feel like it and does have some mainstream appeal. The film is just good scary fun and that's all it ever will be. Now roast some marshmallows and listen to this ghost story in the dark if you can.

****/*****

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973)

2010-08-05T12:53:00.000-07:00

As children we would let our imaginations run wild and would come up with some pretty fantastic things sometimes. We could imagine ourselves as knights slaying a dragon to save the princess, as pirates looking for buried treasure, or as astronauts exploring the universe. But there was of course another side to our imagination, a darker one where all manner of ghoulish things dwelled. Noises in the night would frighten us and make us think some otherworldly thing was after us. Then there was that monster under the bed who waited for us to go to sleep. But of course then people grow up and their imaginations aren't exactly the same, but then there are movies that remind us of those times.

During the 1970s a number of made for TV Horror movies were made and have enjoyed a long cult following. Sure they were made on low budgets, but what they lacked in that they made up for with strong casts and scares. They are filled with the kinds of things that scared us as children and thanks to VHS and now DVD they can be seen a new generation of thrill seekers. It's a shame they don't make movies like these for TV much anymore because they are a real treat. In an age of remakes and Horror films that pile on the gore and star Hollywood's beautiful people it's nice to go back and watch films made by people who not only cared about the work, but also knew how to scare their audience.

One of the most popular of these is the 1973 film about a woman terrorized by creatures in a house. It left quite an impression on youngsters and the time and has even led to a feature film remake with the, due out in 2011, and with the involvement of the super talented Guillermo del Torro. The sad things about some of these films is that some times they don't hold up so well after all those years and people who wanted to see them are disappointed. After seeing this one for myself I must say it wasn't as good as the hype, but is still deserved of a viewing by anyone who likes to be scared. It may not be as powerful today, but the amount of good outweighs the bad.

A young couple (Kim Darby and Jim Hutton) has just moved into a house that was in Sally's family for generations. It's like a dream come true and only needs a few minor repairs and they can call it a home. But Sally is about to discover that this is no ordinary house and that there are certain things she shouldn't tamper with. Ignoring the warnings of the handyman, Sally does some exploring and unleashes something sinister. She hears voices at night and sees faces in the dark, but only she believes these things are happening. Is Sally losing her mind or is there really something after her?

This film really is good old fashioned spooky fun and proves you can do a lot with very little. We have a spooky old mansion, a nervous woman with a skeptical husband, a cranky old handyman who warns the couple about the back room, creepy voices in the night, and minimal effects and that's enough. The performances are all fine and you really do feel for Sally, not only because of what's in the house but also because her husband is such a jerk. The house itself is like a character, and not only is it a great location for a Horror movie it's also quite beautiful. The film has a very eerie and downbeat atmosphere, especially during the nighttime scenes when things really go bump in the night.

The score is also really good and effective, which is key when trying to make a good scary movie. There are plenty of moments that'll make your hair stand on end. And keeping the monster in the dark really helps here because too often we get to see them in full and the mystery is gone. And there is some suspense here, which is also important when making a film in this genre and is sorely lacking in many today. In this film they use things like shadows, whispering, lights going out, etc. to creep viewers out. And at 71 minutes the pace moves right along.

There are a few minor quibbles I have with this film, which is far from being a masterpiece. First off, the material is very familiar territory and has been used in dozens of movies. This leads me to the next issue, which is that the film can be predictable. For example, the couple has a dinner party and the husband wants so much for things to go well, but of course something has to break it up. And lastly, the film really isn't nearly as scary as it could have been. The concept is great and could have made for a really spine-tingling experience, but it's not quite scary enough.

As I said, this one has a lot of hype around it and though in my useless opinion it doesn't satisfy as much as I'd hoped, it's still a really good little movie. The idea of things waiting in the dark has always been a frightening idea and still works to this day. This is one of those films that makes you use your imagination rather than show everything. We can come up with some pretty terrible things when we have to think about it and that's part of the fun of Horror movies. If only more directors today would learn early on that less really is more.

***1/2/*****

Season of the Witch (1972)

2010-08-02T19:36:00.000-07:00

Directors who really care about the art of making films a lot of times get the short end of the stick in Hollywood. This is especially the case with directors who want to make primarily independent films and do a bigger budgeted Hollywood film. John Carpenter's last film 'Ghosts of Mars' was a studio film and he didn't return to the director's chair until several years later. Jeff Burr, director of the third 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' film, has endured the pain of making a film that because of interference didn't resemble his vision. Why can't executives have faith in the people they hire? They are the artists while the execs should just focus mainly on the business side.

This has led to things like directors wanting to replace their name with a pseudonym because of what was done to the film. When a film is completed shouldn't that be the end of it? Sounds logical enough, but sometimes people who think they know what's best have to get in there and make changes that often make little to no sense. One of the most famous stories about this is the behind the scenes drama on 'Hellraiser: Bloodline.' This was Kevin Yaegher's directorial debut and instead of letting him get final cut people were brought in to rewrite and reshoot scenes without him there.

This is really frustrating if the film we're shown has a lot of great stuff in it, but because of reshoots and cutting it doesn't all work. Sometimes these films perform poorly and does the studio take the blame? Of course not, but film connoisseurs know better than to place the blame on the directors. Doesn't mean they are never at fault for this, but most of the time the project is taken from them and tinkered with by people who have no idea what works about the film. One of the most revered low budget Horror directors is George Romero, who has made mostly independent films. In 1972 he made a film really different than his earlier ones and it sadly fell victim to heavy editing, and it wasn't even a studio film!

Joan (Jan White) is a bored and frustrated housewife looking for a change of pace. To her husband she's just someone to be there when he comes home and to go to parties with him. Her life has become routine, but all that is about to change. A visit to the local witch awakens something in her and she starts doing things she never thought she would do. But she also finds that there's a dark side and if she isn't careful it could destroy her. The line between reality and fantasy is blurred and there may be no turning back.

This is a really interesting piece of experimental filmmaking, very different than Romero's other works. It's not a traditional Horror film, which may turn some of his fans off. There are currently two versions available, one that's 89 minutes and one that's 104. Supposedly the film was cut down, after performing poorly, from 130 minutes and it's unlikely this cut will see the light of day. If this is really true it definitely shows in this film, which is not without merit, but is really lacking in some areas. I wouldn't go into this with really high expectations, especially if you've seen Romero's 'Dead' series, but if you go in with an open mind you may derive some pleasure from this.

Performance-wise most of the cast does fine, most of all Jan White. She has really expressive eyes and is quite captivating. It's a shame she didn't do much more after this because she really had it. Another really strong aspect is the story, which has great potential. This was made at the beginning of the 1970s when the Women's Movement was going strong and there is some interesting social commentary here. Where it does really succeed in this area is in conveying Joan's plight, which we learn of at the very beginning.

The film doesn't quite work as a whole, but there are some sequences that are really quite good. The scene where Joan goes to visit Sylvia, the town witch, and the one where an uninhibited school teacher messes with the mind of one of Joan's friends are especially effective. The dream sequences, of which there are many, also work very well and are all pretty out there. Some are also really creepy and provide most of the film's chills. But don't be fooled by the title or the artwork, this is not just a straightforward Horror film. It's really more of a drama with a supernatural twist.

In addition to being a really good director, Romero is also a pretty darn good writer and this film is no exception. The script is infused with much intelligence and the film is not mere schlock, but one that has a message. Romero really had something here and the parts that work really work and so it's a shame the film isn't better than it is. If the film really was cut from 130 minutes that would explain the gaps that need filling, but if one were to see it would it also smooth over the flaws? Since we can't view this cut it's not fair to make a comparison, so I'm afraid we have to critique what we do have.

At 89 minutes the film feels much longer than that. The pace is about as also as molasses most of the way through and it's a good thing there are some things here to hold interest. A slow pace isn't often a bad thing, but sometimes a pace is so slow that it's mind-numbing and makes it difficult to sustain interest. The film due to the clothes, to the music, and the commentary is very dated by today's standards. It would be interesting to see the concept taken to it's full potential with a bigger budget and more time, but the question is should it be set today or in the same time?

A few of the performances are quite good, but some are not so much. For example, the actor playing the husband is not very natural most of the time and his delivery is forced. The actress playing the daughter is also fairly bland, and so it's a good thing she's not around much. The concept of a suburban housewife changing her life through witchcraft during maybe the most dynamic years for Feminism is really interesting, but it doesn't feel quite fleshed out enough. In fact a lot of things don't feel developed enough, which again may be due to the shortened running time. What we're left with is an interesting film that doesn't make a slam dunk, but is mildly interesting viewing for those looking for something unusual and actually might make a good watch for Halloween.

**1/2/*****

Mutant (1984)

2010-07-31T16:57:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of movies that would qualify as Cult Films. Fans of such films are a special breed that will watch films that many wouldn't give the time of day. Without these fans they would otherwise rot and be lost forever. Of course which of these films are worth saving and which aren't isn't easy to answer since not all are universally cherished. Some scratch their heads when they think about the love films like 'The Rock Horror Picture Show' get year after year, with each new generation. Cult Films vary in quality and aren't always low budget movies so bad they're a hoot to watch.

If you're a b-movie junkie like me then you know there is no shortage of these films, not only because there are so many from the past, but also because they are still made today. They're not made on purpose you see, but have to earn their status over time. In the early days films made by Troma may have gotten wider releases than they do today, but ones like 'The Toxic Avenger' didn't become hits over night. Word of mouth has to figure into it and if it's mostly good then the film will get recognized. They're not meant for everybody of course and it's always interesting to hear opinions from the other side.

There are many directors, living and dead, who are known for great Cult Films. John 'Bud' Cardos directed only ten films, all low budget independents, but a few of them left a big impression. His 1977 sleeper 'Kingdom of the Spiders' is not only one of his most popular movies, but also with fans of star William Shatner and still creeps people out to this day. Since George Romero revolutionized the zombie film a lot of directors wanted to cash in and Cardos was one of them. He took a crack at it with this 1984 picture about zombie-like creatures taking over a small Southern town. It has it's fans, but after seeing it for myself I can't say I was wowed by it.

Josh and Mike (Wings Howser and Lee Montgomery) are driving through the country when they have a run in with some locals. Their car is wrecked and so they walk to the nearest town for some help. Things seem a little suspicious, especially to Mike, but the brothers decide to stay overnight and get back on the road in the morning. After Mike disappears Josh starts to feel like his brother was on to something and tries to get some help. He and a schoolteacher (Jody Medford) stumble onto something involving a chemical, which has some strange effect on people who get infected.

This is pretty standard fare and there's little to distinguish it from other movies with similar themes. Some people built it up to be a great little movie, while others warned people it's not worth their time. After sitting through it I'm kind of stuck in the middle on this one. The film actually has quite a bit going for it, which makes you wonder why it didn't all quite gel. Some films have the potential to be pretty great, having a lot of the right ingredients. But with all that works in this film there is a lot that doesn't.

The cast is made up of veterans and unknowns and everyone does a pretty good job. Bo Hopkins is especially good as the no nonsense, yet kind sheriff. A lot of the actors in the smaller roles seem to really be into it and you'll enjoy watching them enjoy it. Right from the start the film has a really spooky atmosphere. The nighttime scenes are all effectively creepy and it helps that the lighting is minimal, but still bright enough that we can see what's going on. The score is quite eerie as well and compliments the scarier moments well.

Some of the greatest Horror films take their time getting to the really horrific stuff and it works. That's just what you get with this film and for the most part it works. Cardos does a pretty good job of creating suspense and some good scares along the way. He also keeps things moving at a fairly good pace, though at times it is pretty uneven. Things really pick up in the last third of the film, which is the most exciting and tension filled portion. This film may be lacking in several areas, but one where it's not is in it's ability to keep viewers on the edge of their seats.

The effects are minimal, which is to be expected in a such a low budget flick. However they're all very well done and pretty gross at times. The infected people look pretty scary once they come back to life. Yes this film has a lot of goodies for genre buffs, but all is not entirely well. The biggest problem is the writing, which is rough around the edges. You get the feeling this was a rather rushed production where they had little or no time to polish up the script.

There are some subplots introduced, but they end up going nowhere. For example, the sheriff and local doctor appear to have a past together and still have feelings for each other, but this is eventually dropped. This kind of leads me with my next beef with the film, which is it's length. Clocking in at approximately 96 minutes, 'Mutant' really could have been cut down by a few minutes because there are a number of scenes that feel unnecessary. There are also a number of plot holes, which could have easily been remedied had the makers of the film spent more time working on the script. These issues really just make the film collapse under it's own weight by the end and it's a shame because this is otherwise an enjoyable and pretty effective shocker.

Just an FYI, the artwork on the case is misleading as is the title. They make it look like it's Science Fiction, but that's far from the truth. It was a good try, but just too problematic to be better than average I'm afraid. There are many notable zombie and zombie-like films to be seen and this just isn't one of them. You can do much worse, but unless you're a nut for cult and/or zombie films then you're better off looking elsewhere.

**1/2/*****

The Church (1989)

2010-07-25T12:35:00.000-07:00

It takes a special type of film lover to enjoy Italian Horror films. They are not for everyone, especially those who want something more conventional and not too out there. It's pretty obvious after watching a few of these films that the directors and writers are not that interested in the ordinary or reality when making their movies. In most cases Italian Horror films are like nightmares brought to life on the screen and logic is mostly thrown out the window. They push the envelope and some have even been banned in various countries due to their graphic violence and sex. These are the kinds of films that would make Fundamentalists faint, the squeamish cringe, and that would bore casual moviegoers.

Successful in their native Italy, the films of directors such as Mario Bava and Dario Argento have fans all over the world and their films are still held in high regard today. Even schlockier movies by the likes of Bruno Mattei and Umberto Lenzi have appreciators. They have influenced many current filmmakers who too have had their share of success. One in particular started as an actor and eventually got behind the camera and directed several memorable entries into the genre. A protege of Argento, Michele Soavi really made a name for himself and it's a wonder why he doesn't work more often now. His debut 'Stage Fright' is a giallo, and the only one he's ever made, but his next film would be something very different.

Originally conceived as the third and final installment in the 'Demons' series, 'The Church' was fashioned into more of a standalone film. The film still has some similarities to Lamberto Bava's films, such as a demonic contagion spreading in a single location, but is more of a Gothic supernatural tale than an action-packed gore fest. This is not typical fare here, but instead a series of bizarre occurrences and images that'll rock your imagination. This film doesn't play it safe and is likely to stick with you long after it's over. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer, but you have to admit it's far more interesting than a lot of Horror coming out right now.

Centuries after slayed villagers were buried beneath it, a cathedral is undergoing serious renovations. A new librarian (Tomas Arana) has come to catalogue the books and becomes involved with a female worker (Barbara Cupisti) who discovers something down below. They try to uncover the secrets of this place, not realizing how dangerous it may be. The forces beneath the church are accidentally released and cause all kinds of havoc. Many people end up trapped inside and unless someone finds a way out it could mean the end of humanity.

When I first picked this up the back of the box gave the impression this was 'Demons 3' and being the fan of the first two films that I was I was looking forward to another installment. It was a shock to me and I imagine many others that this was not a part of any series, which isn't a bad thing. In an interview Michele Soavi refers to films like 'Demons 1 & 2' as "spaghetti horror" and I can't say I disagree, though that doesn't mean I don't enjoy a bit of that. 'The Church' is a film that takes it's time and doesn't pile on the blood and guts, but rather has a pretty interesting story to tell and wants to pull us in with it's mystery and brooding atmosphere. Think movies like 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Exorcist' on acid and that's sort of what you get here.

The story is pretty cool and for the most part is executed well. It blends fact and fiction to create a story of evil trying to invade the world and those trying to stop it while fighting for their own souls. Soavi did a fine job with his first feature, but here he really shines. He obviously learned a lot from Argento and made a really visually compelling movie here. The score, which is made of pieces by various artists including Goblin and Phillip Glass, is really powerful and haunting. Sure it gets a bit repetitive at times, but it's just so effective.

There are quite a few effects on display here and the majority of them are impressive. They range from creatures like the goat demon to some really grotesque old age make-up. Plus there's some gobs of gore here and there, but fortunately it never goes too over the top. And the imagery in the film is really very striking and a lot of it will make you do a double take. Like 'Hellraiser' what's on display is both beautiful and revolting, in some cases at the same time. Also the cathedral itself is very pleasing to the eyes in terms of the architecture, painting, and decor and on top of that it can be pretty spooky.

Pacing wise the film moves at one that is slow, but steady. This was not meant to be a roller coaster ride, but rather something that slowly unfolds and gets under your skin. As far as the acting goes, everyone here does a pretty good job. The performances are far from stellar, but everyone gives their 100% and some of the characters, such as Asia Argento's, are really likable. The two main characters appear to be the central ones and we do become pretty attached to them, but by the second half of the film the focus kind of shifts. This is one of the film's biggest issues and why it's not as great as it could have been.

It's never really made clear who the protagonist is because there are so many characters that have the potential to be. The focus shifts, especially in the second half when all those people get trapped inside the church. It doesn't make the film less interesting, but it will leave you scratching your head and wondering if it was intentional and why. The romance between the two leads is basically dropped and then we're supposed to go along with whoever isn't possessed. It's a shame the DVD doesn't have a commentary because it would be interesting to know why this decision was made.

The only other glaring flaw is the pacing, which does tend to drag in spots. It's actually good that it's slow rather than zipping along, but at times it could have used a little tightening. But when weighing the pros and cons of this film the good outweighs the bad and is enough to make this a very good and interesting film. Watching it now after the Italian Horror industry mostly dried up by the end of the 1980s makes one wish more films like it were made today. A real gem of a movie that is begging to be discovered and if religious Horror is your cup of tea then you should seek it out.

****/*****

Prince of Darkness (1987)

2010-07-18T16:07:00.000-07:00

The Horror genre is like the black sheep of the family, the one that seems to get the least amount of respect out of all them. Critics are hard on these movies, labeling many of them trash and some even blaming them for the decline of good cinema and civilization. There's no denying that a lot of Horror films are of really low quality, but should the genre as a whole suffer for that? Sure the 'Friday the 13th' films aren't the kind of films that people are going to want to pick apart and have long debates about afterward, but that doesn't mean you couldn't find any worthy of this. We Horror buffs like a good 90 minutes of mindless, cheesy, hack 'n slash entertainment now and again, but after a while we crave something more.

A killer in a hockey mask can only be scary for so long before we start to laugh at him, but what about something that's more beyond our control? Eventually someone defeats the maniac, but if up against something that isn't tangible then the characters have a whole different set of problems. When Reagan became possessed in 'The Exorcist,' it took more than saying a prayer and sprinkling some holy water on her to free her soul. Horror films don't have to be just one gory set piece after another with little plot to string them together. They can have subtext and characters with personalities who are in some real danger. John Carpenter has proven time and time again that he's really good at this.

His 'Halloween' may have led to a string of imitators with increased levels of blood and nudity, but the film itself is a much more tastefully done and suspenseful film. Most of his films are also very political and a commentary on culture at the time. This is very evident in the 1988 film 'They Live,' which satirizes the political climate during the Reagan years. The year before that saw the release of his film 'Prince of Darkness,' which like 'The Thing' did not perform well at the Box Office, but by now has a nice little cult following. This too is more than just blood and guts and uses Quantum Physics to tell the story of an Anti-God coming to Earth.

Following the death of the last remaining member of a centuries old religious order, a priest (Donald Pleasence) discovers the secret they've been hiding. He seeks the aide of a professor friend of his (Victor Wong) who convinces some of his students to join them in examining this discovery. The object is a canister containing a strange green liquid and since this all began things have been changing. The students are all suspicious and don't quite know yet what to make of this. This becomes irrelevant once the contents of the container leak out and wreak havoc, which supposedly will lead to the coming of the Anti-God. Those who remain must fight for their lives and try to stop this from taking place or else all is lost.

The film begins with a long prologue that ends when the opening titles do. This is an example of Carpenter's ability to create suspense and hook us in. And right from the start the film has an air of impending doom, which is helped by the ominous score. The music is another collaboration between Carpenter and Alan Howarth, and it's without a doubt one of their best and most unnerving. The story is a really good one and quite original. It makes one wish that Carpenter would direct films he's written more often these days.

The cast is made of mostly unknowns with the only familiar faces been Pleasence and Wong. The performances here are not Oscar worthy, but everyone does more than fine and the actors with little to do breathe life into their roles. One thing that was crucial in terms of performances was the chemistry between the characters of Brian (Jameson Parker) and Catherine (Lisa Blount), who become romantically involved, and it's good. As with his other great works, Carpenter does a top notch job of creating suspense and an atmosphere that'll give the strongest of wills goosebumps. Sure there's a bit of humor here and there, but this is not a bright movie and when the shit hits the fan it's not pretty.

The script is one of Carpenter's most intelligent, and there are some really interesting ideas here. Apparently he studied Quantum Physics before writing this and what he came up with is pretty cool. What's presented makes what religion has taught us seem so stale and archaic. Another notable thing about this movie is the moments that will send shivers down your spine. I won't spoil any of them, but we're not talking the usual supernatural hokum found in movies dealing with Old Scratch. The horrific things that go on start small and grow as the film progresses and it's really effective.

The film's budget was around $3 million and you can tell it was used wisely. The effects, make-up and otherwise, are all quite good and have held up well. Especially impressive is the job done on Susan Blanchard's character Kelly towards the end of the film. So many Horror films now move at such a fast pace that nothing is really given a chance to develop nor is the audience allowed to breathe. This one starts slow and steady and picks up a little once in a while until an exciting finale. That's exactly as it should be in a film on this subject.

The flaws in this film are minimal and do little harm to the film. The finale does border on being cheesy at times, but it never becomes laughable. The only really annoying flaw is the fact that things become muddled a bit. All the scientific talk gets laid on pretty thick and will leave you scratching your head some. 'Prince of Darkness' was a disappointment at the Box Office and some critics were merciless in their reviews, but that hasn't stopped the film from having a small, but very loyal following. This is one the director's greatest and most underrated efforts and it makes most genre films today seem like a walk in the park by comparison.

****1/2/*****

The Amityville Horror (2005)

2010-07-06T21:51:00.000-07:00

Some stories just never die and keep getting told and retold. Storytelling is one of our greatest time honored traditions and can be done in so many different ways and forms. First they were just spoken at gatherings, then you have the written word, and then of course there is visual storytelling, which comes in many forms. Motion pictures was a revolutionary way of bringing stories to life and just look at how far we've come. It's amazing what can be done with film, considering how advanced technology has become. But of course there's a downside to it as well and the art of telling a story is abused.

Hollywood has put out countless great films, but also a huge amount of not so great ones. Not everyone in the industry has their hearts in it and one of the most important things in making a movie is the collaboration, which needs to be strong. So many people in the business care about little else than money and seasoned moviegoers pick up on this quickly. Some people involved in the film must care, but often they are the ones not making the decisions. It's a shame when the concept has such great potential and if the film is based on a beloved book. As we all know films based on books are not so easy to pull off, especially if it's a big Hollywood one.

The 1979 film adaptation of 'The Amityville Horror' was a success and led to a franchise that spanned decades. But just how faithful to the book and what the Lutz family experienced is it? Granted it's difficult to cram everything from a book of a few hundred pages or more into a feature film, but then why not turn it into a mini-series? This was something Hollywood was not going to pass on and so what we got was a film that was only fairly faithful to Jay Anson's novel. When the movie was made some things were added that were not in the book to spice things up, which has become typical of Hollywood.

The remake craze started just a few years ago and so many recognizable Horror titles have been given this treatment. Many fans were upset about this and wondered why filmmakers weren't just remaking films with potential that ended up not meeting it? The truth is remakes in general are big money makers and so remaking a film that is well known appears to be the way to go. Though I've always liked the original 'Amityville' film I've always wanted to see someone redo it and make it closer to the novel. In about late 2004, early 2005 there was a lot of talk about a new 'Amityville' film, but the trouble was that there were two different projects at two separate studios. The two eventually merged and it was decided to remake the 1979 film and the people involved claimed it would be closer to the book, but is it?

George and Kathy Lutz (Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George) have just gotten married and are looking for a new house for their large family. They find one that seems perfect, but there's just one catch. It appears that a year before a family was murdered there by one of their own and some people believe the house is haunted. The Lutzes laugh this off, but will find there is much truth to the suspicions. Strange noises are heard, shadows are everywhere, and tensions build between members of the family. These people will have to seek help soon before whatever is in the house tears them apart.

I was pretty excited about this film and the release date couldn't come soon enough. The producers said it would be more like the book than the original and being such a fan of the novel of course I wanted to believe this. Many who had the same feelings felt cheated after seeing the film, and I can't say I don't feel that way myself. Does that mean this film is a no good waste of time? The acting in this film is really very good and you'll find this to be a very likable family. It helps that everyone has great chemistry, despite a script that doesn't have as much meat as if should have.

Andrew Douglas, like most directors of Platinum Dunes remakes, started in music videos and made his debut with this film. He's no master at it, but his direction is both slick and stylish. His work, combined with cinematography, help make this film look and feel pretty bleak. Most of the effects on display here are CGI, but they are very nicely done. What practical effects are here are also very good and at times pretty gruesome. One way in which this version differs from the other is that there is more blood and gore, which should satiate those who want it.

Like with the original film, the makers of this one took a house and built a facade to make it look more like the actual house. The one here may actually be more frightening and at the same time even more beautiful than the other. For a polished Hollywood remake this one does have a few really effective shocks scattered throughout. Fortunately they're not all recycled from the original film. The pace of the film is quick and without any bumps along the way, which at 81 minutes is as it should be. There is enough going for this film to make it decent and worth a viewing, but it's far from perfect and not really a must see.

Instead of making this more like the novel, the filmmakers borrow from other films such as 'The Shining' and 'The Ring.' This is pretty frustrating and just shows a lack of imagination. Though occasionally chilling, the film really lacks in great scares. In fact, in terms of scares this movie isn't much more scary than the original. The short running time is also frustrating and prevents a lot of things from be allowed to develop and instead they feel rushed. One of the biggest and likely the most insulting issue with this film are some of the liberties taken here.

It's one thing to leave some things out, change names, and/or combine some things together, but it's another to just twist facts for pure shock value. For example, instead of Jodie being a demonic pig spirit like in the book and 1979 film here it's the ghost of Ronald DeFeo's little sister who's name wasn't even Jodie! How about having some respect for the dead guys? As if that wasn't bad enough they have George Lutz go even more psycho than in the original and he ends up killing the family dog, which again was not in the book or the earlier movie. The last major flaw is the last third of the film, which just relishes in Hollywood Horror movie hokum. John Ketchum, who supposedly lived on the land where 112 Ocean Avenue stands, is made more involved in the story and what's going on in the house and it just feels silly.

It's a shame this film turned out the way it did when it could have been one of the best Horror films in quite some time. The potential was there, but some people only saw dollar signs and believed they knew what was best. It's no big secret this is mostly just another big budget Horror remake with little of the heart and soul that should be there. As a popcorn movie it does it's job and boring is not a word I would use to describe it. If you're a fan of any of the actors, the legacy of Amityville, or are bored and need something to watch then give it a go. Otherwise this is just another missed opportunity.

***/*****

The Amityville Curse (1990)

2010-07-04T19:09:00.000-07:00

Nowadays sequels only get a theatrical release when a film is a Box Office smash. Otherwise they either never happen or go straight to DVD. When this happens to a once successful franchise it's a shame because if one goes on we want the quality to remain on a high don't we? But once the sequels start showing up on DVD it's like the kiss of death. And it's rare that they're any good and tough as it may be it's probably for the best that we move on to something else and just stick with the parts of the series that we love. There are those rare exceptions, but to find them we must travel through the muck.

One example of this is the 'Hellraiser' series, which started out so strong and then slowly but surely began to decline in quality for various reasons and by the fifth installment would no longer be seen on the big screen. In some cases a series goes on even if there's nothing left to do with it and it's for the sake of making lots of money, no matter the quality. Other times this happens because the people involved in the sequels don't have their hearts in it and/or understand what makes the series work. It's pretty obvious that some people involved in the 'Hellraiser' films from 'Bloodline' on just simply didn't care about the fans or the roots of the series. At times like this someone needs to say, "Ok guys, time to throw in the towel."

The same happened to the 'Amityville' film series, which went from showing on numerous big screens across the country, to showing on millions of TV screens in people's living rooms. The first four movies at least had some ties, including the infamous house, but they were becoming more and more unnecessary. What's interesting is that by the time 'Amityville: The Evil Escapes' aired there were more 'Amityville' books than movies, and three out of the four films were based on one, but loosely of course. This would be the case with the next chapter, which would be the only film in the series not filmed in the US and would also be the first to not feature the house. They say change can be good, but in this case perhaps they changed far too much.

Twelve years after a tragedy, five friends move into an old house that could use some fixing up. Debbie (Dawna Wightman) has been having dreams and visions, which she believes are premonitions and they've gotten stronger since they moved into the house. Her friends assure her everything is fine and try to make the best of the situation, but something is lurking around. Some unusual things do happen and soon some of others are beginning to wonder if Debbie is right about the house being haunted. This house hides many secrets, which are about to be revealed.

The previous two installments are not great art, but both are competently directed and acted, entertaining, and have a certain cheesy but endearing charm. This film is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. From beginning to end this movie is extremely dull and lacking what a good Horror movies needs to be successful. Does that mean there is nothing good to be found? Well first of all, the acting is pretty decent considering the lousy script, which gives the actors little to work with. Helen Hughes and Kim Coates are especially good here and you can tell they're pros.

The score, though not mind-shattering, is pretty decent and works well during the creepy scenes. And the filmmakers do manage a few of those, mainly during the dream sequences, which is another sign of how crappy this film is. Like I said, this film is painful to sit through, but it does finally come to life in the finale. I won't spoil it, but there's a lot of chasing and fighting involved and the film literally ends with a bang. None of these though are enough to make this film rise above being a worthless drag of a movie that will make you want to slit your wrists before it's over. The series truly hit rock bottom with this one.

Again the pacing is just awful, sluggish all the way through. It doesn't help that there are long stretches where nothing interesting happens. And most of the stuff that does happen is a pathetic excuse for action, if you can even call it that. Don't expect to find a plot, because there really isn't one to be found. There's a murder, the friends move into the house, weird shit happens, the end. And after the end you surely won't remember a whole lot because nothing that happens in this film is worth remembering.

One of the biggest sins this flick commits is that it's not scary, at all! It attempts this, but fails miserably every single time. Tom Berry's direction is some of the blandest I think I've ever seen, and only adds to the torture of this experience. It's of the point-and-shoot school and you'll be waiting for it to be anything but until the very end. And could this film be any more drab looking? The house is kept so dark and the film was shot during either the fall or winter and it won't be long before the film makes you feel as bad as it looks.

There are many plot holes to be found and by the end none of them are filled. When the big reveal happens there are some things that just don't seem to fit and you're left wondering why they were there or if maybe it's because of the editing, but believe me by the end you won't care. This film makes an attempt at mystery, but it's not at all a successful one. Whoever wrote this should never be allowed to do so again because they simply don't know how to create good story structure or characters. To add insult to injury, this film is barely connected to the rest of the series.Oh sure it's set in Amityville and makes a quick reference to the DeFeo murders, but unlike Hanz Holzer's novel it's set in a different house with a different history.

'The Amityville Curse' is appropriately titled, because a curse is exactly what it is. It's mind-numbingly boring, stupid, and unscary. It's also a gigantic waste of one's precious time and for those who want to see the 'Amityville' series who liked any of the previous four, do yourself a favor and skip this one and go straight to 'Amityville 1992: It's About Time.' Who was this movie even made for anyway? It offers nothing that makes it worth sitting through and deserves to be forgotten.

*1/2/*****

Amityville 4: The Evil Escapes (1989)

2010-07-02T19:25:00.000-07:00

When a film franchise gets to a point where there's little to no story left to tell you'd think that it would just end there, right? I mean if the conflict is resolved and the characters appear to be safe and sound and can go on with their lives then there's no really need to continue the story, is there? Sometimes this is the case, but when it comes to Hollywood movies that are successful anything can and often will happen. When it looks as if a story has come to an end someone will find a way to revive it and then we must ask the question: Are they doing this because they have come up with an interesting way to continue and breathe new life into a series or because they just want a paycheck?

This will depend on the quality of the sequel/prequel/spin-off/remake or whatever the continuation is. Often times if the film is rushed, made for video, or for TV when this was not the case for the predecessors it could turn out to be of not such great quality. Horror movie sequels tend to be like this especially in a series that has gone on for many sequels. Once things have gotten stale and more sequels are still being made then you know it's no longer a labor of love. And when the latest sequel is made for the small screen rather than the large one, what are the chances it would be worth the effort?

The first three 'Amityville' pictures all got theatrical releases, with the first two doing rather well. The last one made less and looked to be the finale of the series. But six years later the franchise would be brought back from the dead by some of the creators of the first film, only this time it would show on TV. One thing it would have in common with the previous installment is that it would not be based on any facts. I'm sure those who saw 3 wondered just how they would continue the series considering what happened at the end of that film.

After the passing of her husband, Nancy Evans (Patty Duke) and her three children (Aron Eisenberg, Geri Betzler, and Brandy Gold) are looking for a fresh start. Her mother (Jane Wyatt) has invited them to come live with her and when they arrive so does a large package from a relative on the East Coast. It turns out to be an antique lamp that turns off some members of the family. A priest (Frederic Lehne) from Amityville, Long Island is concerned about whoever now owns the item since it came from the town haunted house and it doesn't take long for the evil force to cause misery and destruction. It manipulates Nancy's youngest daughter and tries to tear the family apart, which is when the priest comes to help them overcome the evil.

First of all if you're confused about how the house could be fully intact in this film don't be. This film, originally aired as 'Amityville Horror: The Evil Escapes,' and was never intended to pick up after part 3.With that out of the way, this is another unneeded sequel that does at least take the story to a new setting and attempts to do something interesting with it. The idea of the evil finding a new home is at least a change of pace. And though the plot for this film is pretty ridiculous, the acting is actually quite good with everyone giving it their 100%. The adult actors are especially good here, except for perhaps Norman Lloyd who gives kind of a soap opera type performance and is the least natural of the cast.

The score is pretty good and creepy and also better than you'd expect from this film. Also it's never boring and like the previous film can be enjoyed if not taken too seriously. One thing that really helps this film rise above mediocrity is some of it's subplots, which bring some realism to the proceedings. And luckily they aren't overpowered by special effects, of which there are quite a few. For the most part the effects are actually quite decent, except for the ridiculous image of the Devil's face that appears in the lamp. There are quite a few cliches to be found, but they kind of add to the cheesy fun of this film rather than hurt it.

The film ends with an eerie final shot, which I won't give away, but it does leave the door open for another sequel. Now even though the film does produce a few decent chills, it's never very scary. This was an issue with both the previous film and also the original, which has the same writer as this film. The film is also really lacking in suspense and is pretty predictable when it comes to the deaths. Sandor Stern, who wrote the original and both wrote and directed this sequel, does an ok directing job, but really doesn't do much to make this look like more than a made for TV movie. Like the face of the Devil, the finale of this film is really quite hokey and will probably make you laugh a few times.

I have to admit I watched this movie many times growing up, why I couldn't say. I must have really liked it and after all these years it still has a special place in my heart, but is far from being a great film. There was really no need for it to be made and it doesn't add much to the series. However the competent acting and directing, quick pacing, and cheap thrills make it worth a watch if you like the first three. Also if you want to see Jane Wyatt act tough and swear then that alone makes the film a must see.

***/*****

Amityville 3-D (1983)

2010-07-02T18:44:00.000-07:00

Hollywood is notorious for messing with the facts when making films based on actual events and people. It can be as small as changing someone's name out of respect or as big as creating things that never happened just to spice things up. It's as if they're saying that the real story isn't interesting enough as it is and needs some extra oomph. Not that films that stay very close to the facts never get made, but they don't seem to bring in the big Box Office that others do. There aren't too many Horror films based on true stories, but most of the ones that are are quite different than what really took place.

'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' is loosely based on serial killer Ed Gein, only using some elements of the true story and adding in some others. This however is a case where the film turned out to be really powerful and one of the best of the genre. 'The Exorcist' is another example of a film based somewhat on an alleged true case, here an exorcism of a boy whereas in the film it's a girl. This film too proved to be a major success and is to this today considered by many to be the scariest movie ever made. Then there's the so often talked about case of a house in the coastal town of Amityville, Long Island believed to be haunted, which too was the basis of a film.

Like those earlier examples, the film 'The Amityville Horror' is based on real events only in this case a lot of those events are believed to have been made up to sell books and make a fortune. The film was a hit at the Box Office and the book sold millions of copies, but if you read the book first then you would know that the film takes a ton of liberties. Over thirty years later the film doesn't hold up as well as similar movies such as 'Poltergeist,' but it's a pretty decent little chiller. It's success led to a prequel in 1982, which also made a heap of dough and is based on facts to a certain degree. The Lutzes claimed that the evil in the house followed them and two more books were written, but neither were adapted into films as originally planned, but II would not be the last.

By the early 1980s the 3-D craze really took off and many Hollywood producers wanted to cash in. The first two 'Amityville' films aren't among the greatest of the genre, but both have enough going for them to be at least above average. But the series looked like it was about to take a different turn with the next installment, which would take advantage of the current gimmick. Even more interesting is that this film, unlike the first two, would not be based on any facts whatsoever and would instead use the name and the house as a jumping off point. The plan however backfired since the movie wasn't so successful and would also be the last film in the series until the remake to get a theatrical release.

John Baxter (Tony Roberts), a journalist, has decided to move into the infamous Amityville house after exposing a couple as fake mediums. He and his partner Melanie (Candy Clark) are skeptics and are more interested in debunking the haunting than trying to prove it. But soon after Baxter moves in horrible things happen to him and anyone else who enters the house. The evil claims a few lives and tries to scare it's new tenant into leaving. But with the help of a team of parapsychologists he will try to get to the bottom of this before the force in the house does more harm.

After watching this film there is little doubt it was made mainly for the money. This is a completely unnecessary sequel that adds nothing new to the story, but does provide an effective conclusion to it (Of course we know how long that lasted). Does that mean it's a complete dud? Not at all if you just want to sit back and be entertained, and that's really all the film is good for is some silly entertainment. The film moves at a good pace and never gets boring as long as you don't take it too seriously. And surprisingly most of the cast members manage to give engaging performances despite the mediocre script. Tess Harper is the only actor who seems uncomfortable here and she comes off really stiff most of the time.

Howard Blake scored this one and though it's no match for the ones in the previous entries, it's still a decent and spooky score. The opening theme is particularly effective in giving one goosebumps. Late director Richard Fleischer does get some really good shots and makes the film look better than one made for TV. The shots he gets of the house at night are really eerie. Also there are quite a few moments throughout that are quite chilling, especially those set in the house's basement. The effects this time aren't as many as in the previous film, but they are all pretty good and have held up well and the creature seen at the end of II even makes an appearance.

The last really good things about this sequel is the finale, which is a knockout. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say it's the most exciting part of the film and does a good job of giving the series closure. But all is not sunshine and roses for this film for there are quite a few cons to go with the pros, starting with a paper thin plot. This film really is more about the special effects and of course the 3-D, though unfortunately for those interested the film has yet to be released on DVD in this format officially. There is also a really lack of great scares here, which isn't surprising considering that this film is rated PG (!). You'll be able to point out many haunted house cliches in this one, such as characters investigating strange noises.

Let's face it folks, this second sequel to the 1979 hit is superfluous and can only really be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure. Take out the two or three swear words and this would be almost as tame as an episode of 'Scooby Doo.' When the name Dino De Laurentis pops up in the opening credits you know you're probably not in for great art. Just put on some popcorn, invite a few friends over, and get ready to laugh at 90 minutes of haunted house hokum. What's surprising is that this is far from being the worst film in the series and if not compared to classics of the genre it's really not a terrible film.

***/*****

Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

2010-07-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years in additions to remakes another type of film has become pretty popular: the prequel. In 1999 George Lucas gave us the first in a new 'Star Wars' trilogy, which is set sometime before the earlier one. This example was a massive success showed fans just where their favorite characters started and how they ended up where they are in the later films. Another example is the two adaptations of Thomas Harris's novel 'Red Dragon,' which is set before 'The Silence of the Lambs,' which was later followed by another prequel set even further back. Where a prequel is concerned the big question that must be asked is: When is one necessary?

Sometimes enough about the past of the character's is revealed in the first film to satisfy viewers, but lately it's like Hollywood has this idea that we need to know everything. Many say that if we know too much it could eliminate the mystery and people might lose interest. For years there was talk of prequels to both the 'Halloween' and 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' franchises that would have given us more insight into the monsters, but these never came to fruition. Most fans would say we know just enough about these characters and knowing more just eliminates the fun of using our imagination. However some prequels instead of telling us the origins of the story and characters in the first film, simply want to tell us a story that happened earlier that just happens to have some ties with what we already know.

Everyone knows that The Lutzes were not the only family to experience something evil in the house at 112 Ocean Avenue. A year before they moved in another family named the The Defeos lived there only most of them never made it out alive. The only survivor, Ronald DeFeo, was charged with the murders of his two parents and all his siblings and claimed it was because he was possessed. After the first film was such a success it was not a shocker that the studio wanted to milk some more money out of this cash cow and this time they would tell the story of the previous family, so in this light it wasn't an origin story. It would also turn out to be more of a dramatization of what happened because the names would be changed and the events altered slightly.

The Montelli Family is looking for a fresh start and have found what they feel is the perfect new home for them. It's big, beautiful, and right next to the river. However this isn't a picture perfect family, which is clearly seen in the way Anthony Montelli (Burt Montelli) disciplines his children. It doesn't take long for strange and obscene things to start happening to them and soon the oldest boy Sonny (Jack Magner) starts to exhibit strange and even scary behavior. As the family slowly falls apart, Sonny kind of keeps to himself and his sister (Diane Franklin) and a priest (Andrew Prine) try to find out what's troubling him. Whatever they do they better do it fast before something really tragic happens.

The first 'Amityville' film is no great genre classic, but is an above average shocker that made lots of money in it's day. This next installment, a prequel of sorts, actually had the potential to be even better and comes very close, but due to a flawed final third it's about as good as it's predecessor. Again a strong cast was assembled and everyone gives it their all. Newcomer Jack Magner is especially impressive and it makes you wonder why he chose to leave the profession. Lalo Schifrin was brought back as composer and creates another haunting score that is reminiscent of the one in the original, but not a rehash.

The cinematography is crispy and beautiful, again doing an excellent job of capturing the lovely New England scenery. There are some especially spooky shots of the house during the day and night. The pace of this film is quicker and tighter than that of the first movie and the film never gets dull for more than a couple seconds maybe. From the very start this film has a feeling of doom hanging over it, which is maintained for about two thirds of the running time. The special effects this time out are more elaborate than in the original and are all well done. The ones at the end are especially spectacular and some are actually pretty gross.

The film has many moments that'll give you the creeps, particularly the ones when Sonny is by himself in the house. You'll really feel for him and his family once the evil takes over. Director Damiano Damiani does an excellent job here, getting some really impressive shots and handling the fright sequences like a champ. Yes for the first two thirds this film is actually pretty entertaining, creepy, and compelling stuff. Usually sequels don't outdo the first movie, but some have accomplished this. However, this film doesn't quite make it there due to a few boo boos.

Soon after the great tragedy, the film really runs out of steam and becomes less interesting. The stuff following that sequence really could have been good had the writing been punched up. In the original movie the filmmakers didn't just jump right into the big shocks right away, but this time the subtlety is absent and instead we're bombarded with Hollywood theatrics, which are only sometimes effective. The biggest problem though is the finale, which is pretty underwhelming after all that's come down. Ultimately what it becomes is a poor man's 'The Exorcist,' even lifting things from that film such as words appearing on the possessed person's body.

There's been so much speculation about whether or not the story told in 'The Amityville Horror' is true, but there is no doubt that the murders really happened. The film based on them is not entirely accurate and is also not a perfect film. However it too is an enjoyable and mostly effective genre flick that is still fun to watch all these years later. It is also without a doubt one of the best films in the franchise, which continued for six more films before the original was remade in 2005. It's one of the few prequels to not demystify the story told in the original film and isn't an embarrassment for a series that's gone on longer than it should have.

***1/2/*****

The Amityville Horror (1979)

2010-07-01T18:49:00.000-07:00

It's just so much darned fun telling ghost stories isn't it? Sitting around a campfire or any dark place and trying to scare each other with tales of the unknown. Storytelling has been around for who knows exactly how long and it's a tradition that will continue until the end of time. There are of course two kinds of stories: ones based on fact and ones on fiction. Many have claimed to have seen a ghost or to have lived in a haunted house and their stories of what happened are usually pretty entertaining and sometimes quite chilling, but are they really telling the truth?

I'm not gonna sit here and try to persuade you to either side, but you have to admit there are some ghost stories that after being studied carefully and thoroughly have very little credibility. What is undoubtedly the most famous is the story about a house in Long Island bought by a family who fled claiming it was haunted. This was over thirty years ago now and people are still talking about this extraordinary case. This led to a book, which was a bestseller and put the town of Amityville on the map. Soon every tourist, psychic, medium, etc. came to the town to check out the house for themselves.

The story became huge and both George and Kathy Lutz, both of which have passed by now, appeared on TV numerous times to discuss their ordeal. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood came a callin' to get the movie rights. Four years after the family left the house a film based on Jay Anson's novel was released and ended up being one of the most successful independent films ever made. It wasn't long before people started calling the story a hoax and experts such as the late Dr. Stephen Kaplan, author of The Amityville Horror Conspiracy, publicly denounced it as one as well. In this reviewer's opinion whether or not the story is true doesn't change the fact that the novel is scary and well written, but how does the film hold up after all this time?

One year after a family was brutally murdered there, George and Kathy Lutz (James Brolin and Margot Kidder) move into what they think is their dream home. They move in with Kathy's three children from a previous marriage and it looks like they're in for some good times. Since the murders there has been speculation that something is wrong with the house, which the Lutzes are about to discover the hard way. Slowly but surely the force in the house tries to drive the family apart by terrorizing them first in a subtle way and then become more violent. They seek the help of friends and a priest (Rod Steiger), but the evil is strong and won't be done in so easily.

As with so many other films based on books, 'The Amityville Horror' only touches on some of the novel and leaves quite a bit out. If you've read the book first then you'll probably be disappointed, but if you view the film on it's own merits it's actually pretty good. For starters, the cast in the film is universally strong except for maybe Rod Steiger who tends to over do it most of the time. Don't get me wrong he was a great actor, but there are a couple times where he just yells at the top of his lungs and takes the part too seriously. This is one of the few films to get an Academy Award nomination and in this case it's for the score. Lalo Schifrin composes a score that is both elegant and eerie.

Director Stuart Rosenberg does a great job of creating a feeling of dread that is maintained throughout. He also keeps the house good and dark to make it seem less inviting. The film moves at a slow, but steady pace that is for the best because it allows the story to build instead of just jumping right into the major shocks. Speaking of shocks, viewers will find plenty of scenes and images that'll send shivers down their spine. My personal favorite is one involving a window, but that's all I'll give away. One things that really helps is the fact that instead of using a lot of big effects to get a reaction the filmmakers use more subtlety and atmosphere.

The film was shot in Tom's River, New Jersey during the fall and both it and the cinematography are just stunning. Now the film does lose points for a few flaws, including Rod Steiger's scenery chewing, but there are a couple others that really stand out. For example, there are some subplots that are introduced and then dropped before much can be done with them. There's a detective character who shows up a few times, but he doesn't really get to do much except snoop around the house. Another big fault is the fact that though the film can be creepy, the scary stuff never really reaches a point of scaring us out of our wits. The book is far more terrifying and with the film they really should have the ante.

To this day there are people who still believe that what Lutzes say happened to them is true, but many are skeptical. They claimed the spirits even followed them over the next several years, which led to two more books about the family. Whether or not you believe it really happened is up to you, but don't let it ruin your enjoyment of the book or the film. The film version of 'The Amityville Horror' is not a Horror classic by any stretch of the imagination, but it is one of the best examples of the Haunted House sub-genre out there. It may be tame by today's standards, but unlike recent films that are similar it isn't merely a soulless exercise in greed.

***1/2/*****

Scream (1981)

2010-06-21T20:06:00.000-07:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because a person has a video camera and a love for Horror movies doesn't mean they have the talent to make a good one. It's one thing to make a movie just for you and your friends, but when you unleash it on the public and it's of that home made movie quality then you're inflicting pain on those people. Now I'm a huge supporter of independent filmmakers and filmmaking, but unless you have the know how and what it takes to make a movie people would actually want to see then stick to what you're good at. I guess no one was around to tell the directors of the crappiest of the low budget Horror films of the 1980s to quit while they were ahead. If they had then maybe viewers could have been saved a lot of time and energy instead of having to sit through 90 or so minutes of a so-called film.

The 1980s was the decade of the Slasher and movies about them were produced at a fast rate, most made for very cheap. This didn't always guarantee the film would be a failure, but if the budget is too low it sure limits the makers of the film. If you're a Horror junkie like me then you've rented many low budget genre films that few people have seen, sometimes for good reason. It sure can be a lot of fun, but you have to be prepared to be bored out of your skull and/or taken aback by how painfully some movies can be. With the Internet we can see what else the makers of the film and the cast have done and if it's little to nothing that's usually not a good sign.

One of the most infamous low budget Slasher flicks is this really hard to find little number (Now on DVD!). The film promises to be a scary good time and judging by the simple yet creepy artwork it looks like it could be worth the while. But believe me dear readers, if you have any urge to see this film you should suppress it because you'd have more fun getting your teeth drilled. This is one of those films made by a group of people who were probably doing this as a once-in-a-lifetime kind of experience, but instead of keeping it for themselves they just had to share it with the world. Like many others before me I wish I had just passed this one by.

A group of friends are rafting and find an old ghost town on the other side of the lake. They decide to spend the weekend there to relax, but there's no one else around for miles. When night falls strange things begin to happen and one of the group is found dead. Since it's too far to walk and their rafts won't float anymore, the friends stay waiting for help to arrive. But someone or something is lurking about, watching their every move. They better get out quick of they'll be struck down one by one.

Sounds like a decent enough plot for a Horror movie right? Could be some good spooky fun to watch with the lights off right? Wrong. Instead what we have here is an example of how not to make a Horror movie. Anyone wanting to make one should watch this and take plenty of notes. There are so many things wrong with this "movie" I don't know where to begin, but it's not completely devoid of anything good. The ghost town is actually the perfect setting for a Horror film. It's run down, dirty, and totally isolated for society.

Now I wouldn't go as far as saying the acting here is good, but considering how bad this film is it's not too bad. Everyone in the cast seems to really be enjoying themselves and the lines roll of their tongues naturally enough. It also helps that none of them are really irritating, but there is one member of the group who is a jerk the whole time and you may be wishing for him to meet an early demise. Also surprising is how good the score is, and better than this film deserves. What's even more interesting is that the composer, Joseph Conlan, is one of the few people involved with this project to still have a career.

Now there is some intentional humor to be found, but there is also some that is unintentional. Some really stupid things happen in this movie that will make you roll on the floor with laughter, many involving the guy everyone picks on. That's the last positive thing I can say about this movie, so let's movie on to the negative. First off, there is pretty much no plot to speak of here. A bunch of people end up in a ghost town and are killed by an unseen psycho, end of story. As if that wasn't bad enough, the minimal story is completely lacking in logic and you'll be scratching your head and shouting at the screen from time to time.

One of the biggest sins a film can commit is being dull and for the most part that's what this film is. The pace just drags and drags and there are some long stretches where nothing much happens, and this movie is 75 minutes long! Also a big no no for a Slasher film is a lack of blood and also off screen kills, which is what you'll find here. There's no one to root for either since we don't get to know anyone well enough to care about their plight. When you give your actors little dialogue and direction it's kind of difficult to create a character that viewers can identify with. And boy does writer/director Byron Quisenberry not know how to make a competent or satisfying Horror film.

His direction is completely flat and dull and his writing is of grade school quality. Here's a sample of dialogue: "Next thing you know you'll tell me you believe in the Easter Bunny." As I said before there is no logic to this film and the whole time you're left wondering just what the hell is going on and where this is all going to end up. But if you think you're going to get answers to any of your questions at the end then you're in for quite the disappointment. The ending is just as nonsensical as the opening and we're left with far more questions than answers. I'm not gonna waste anymore time on this turkey, so I'll leave you with a warning to steer clear unless you need something to laugh at because that's all this is good for.

*1/2/*****