Meet The Feebles (1989)

Every once and a while I need a good dose of shock, and shocking humor is usually how I go about getting it. This was the second film by Peter Jackson (yes that Peter Jackson) before he started winning Oscars and directing elves and hobbits. To those unfamiliar with his early work Dead Alive (one of goriest movies of all time AKA Braindead (1990)) Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, and Meet The Feebles are the most famous of his early works. His early movies all have shockingly grotesque cartoonish element to them, similar to the shocking films of Ralph Bakshi ( Fritz the Cat, Coonskin). Meet The Feebles is supposed to be an adult humor parody version of The Muppets. Meet The Feebles is definitely a cult classic much in the way Team America World Police (2004) is becoming a modern cult classic, both movies rely on shocking and offensive humor using puppets, but while Team America has some actual clever and hysterical moments to it, Meet the Feebles comes off as all shock and no humor. The movie has little to no plot, mainly just being about an up and coming puppet variety show where everything goes wrong during the production. I discovered this movie in a book I own called "500 Essential Cult Films" and it sounded bonkers and worth a view, and I will say the movie had potential to be funny but it has more of the "train-wreck effect" where no matter how horrible it gets you can't help but look 

away. There's multiple puppet sex scenes, including puppet rape, a puppet violently vomiting all over the stage, a vietnam vet frog with PTSD and a heroin problem (they use him to recreate the famous russian roulette scene from The Deer Hunter (1978)), multiple puppet murders (including a murder spree with an AK47), puppets melting, a puppet that supposedly has AIDS, a puppet fly eating feces, puppet porn, puppet S&M, puppet racism, a musical number about sodomy, and several other horrible sequences. When the movie was over I just sat there with my jaw dropped. Even the most simple of jokes that could have worked were overpowered by shock such as when a walrus charactertricks a fish into being eaten, but just as you're about to laugh, the walrus vomits up the fish character's

half-eaten corpse which is now begging to be killed. The puppets themselves were kind of cool but overall I enjoyed my friend's story about how he watched this movie while on absinthe (the real stuff mind you, not the kind sold here in the U.S.) much more than the actual movie. If you must witness the craziness that is this movie I highly recommend just watching the trailer. I give it a 2/5. You can watch the trailer here.

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

I recently re-watched the original Nightmare on Elm Street and was very impressed. I hadn't seen it since I was 14 and that was long before I started watching horror movies so I closed my eyes during a lot of it and missed the wonderful effects. I did remember that I enjoyed the second Nightmare film though as it was a unique take on a werewolf or vampire film (instead of turning into one of those monsters the main character is turning into Freddy Krueger). But I never cared to see anymore of a series I perceived as only continuing its existence because Hollywood executives knew how to milk a franchise and market towards teenagers. I thought the clever Psychological (and almost blood and deathless) second entry in the franchise was as good as it got for Freddy films. Then within the last year I started seeing references to the Dream Warriors sequel pop up all over the place. I heard about the song/music video that 80s hair metal band Dokken did for the film and I read all the comments on the youtube upload of the video written by devoted fans who loved the third film the most of the series. I also saw that the site where I buy my horror movie t-shirts made a couple different shirts dedicated to the film. At this point I had to at least look up the film, so I did and I was surprised to find an interesting plot involving the main character from the first film training a new group of teenagers how to control their dreams and fight back against Freddy like a horror movie version of the X-Men. I love the paranormal and movies about psychic phenomena and the like, so after hearing this description and all the praise the film got from all around the corners of the internet (as well as seeing this was Oscar winner Patricia Arquette's film debut, and features a young Lawrence Fishburne) I had to see this for myself. In this film Freddy (essentially

the boogeyman) has once again returned from beyond the grave to kill children in their dreams with his famous finger knives. For starters it was nice to see the franchise finally make a direct sequel to the first film after the second film was kind of more of a reboot than a direct sequel (it completely ignored everything about the story of the first film except for Freddy, his origin story, and the fact that murders happened). It was nice to see Heather Langenkamp return, and since I myself am a fresh out of college aspiring Counseling student, it was nice to see a character from a horror movie I like pursuing what I hope to be my future career. The movie starts with a horrific dream sequence showing that this film is not afraid to get right to the action. That being said the film has a wonderful pace, wonderful cinematography, and arguably the best effects and acting out of the entire series. Freddy personalizes his attacks on the teenagers much moreso in this film than the previous two. A former heroin addict is killed by Freddy with syringe fingers instead of knives. A mute kid has his tongue ripped out and is tied to a bed with it while Freddy quips "Feeling Tongue-tied??" It was also nice to see the franchise finally come into the humor it (like the Child's Play/Chucky series) would become famous for. Freddy has wonderful one-liners like when he kills

a girl who longs to be an actress, he transforms into a TV and tells her "This is your big break in TV Jennifer! Welcome to prime-time bitch!" as he shoves her head through the TV glass electrocuting her. As mentioned before the effects are incredible in this movie, in one scene Freddy turns into a giant worm (while still retaining his face) and attempts to gobble up one of the kids. The film also embellishes on Krueger's origin story now giving him the badass nickname "The bastard son of 1000 maniacs". My only problem with this movie is the ending. I won't give it away but like how Game of Thrones functions, you're going to be upset if you get attached to too many of the characters. The movie is definitely one of the better horror movie sequels of all time. It was so good it makes me sad to hear that none of the series' later films are supposedly anywhere near as good as this one. What I love overall about the Elm Street franchise is that the teenagers in these movies are not the mindless horny teenagers you see in most other horror films. Most of the time the kids in these movies are actually smart, and likable, which makes the villain all the more scarier for killing these kids, it makes the viewer feel like this could almost happen to anyone, even you. Also I have always loved surrealist art music and films, and Nightmare is the surrealist horror franchise, no doubt about it. For someone like myself who has some of the most effed up dreams ever, it's nice to see terrifying dreams in a movie actually reach my level of weird/terrifying.  I give the film a 4.5/5 stars. You can watch the trailer below:

Puppet Master (1989) Original

I'll just start right off the bat by saying I have no idea how this spawned so many sequels or became as famous/successful as it did. I found it incredibly mediocre and repulsing at times. I love the idea of the killer puppets, but the execution was awful. It takes like two thirds of the movie to explain what is actually going on in the film long after the puppets have already started killing people. And there is just so much about this movie that makes no sense, for example supposedly the original creator of the puppets did not intend them to be used as dangerous weapons, but if that's the case why make them with knives for hands and drill bits for heads? Plus like many movies made during the 80s the characters (the puppets) have catchy nicknames like Blade, Pinhead and Tunneler, as if these characters were designed with the purpose of selling toys based off of the film, but this is a very violent film and not a kids movie (an illogical but common trend in the 80s).  Also the twist didn't make a whole lot of sense to me (Spoiler Alert) how did the bad guy come back after he died? The answer was he used the ancient Egyptian spell he the puppet master used to bring the dolls to life sure, but how could say the spell to revive himself once he was dead? Unless he said it before he died which shouldn't work cause he wasn't inanimate at the time. Also I noticed several continuity errors and such in the film, and I can understand some people may like these movies for being "so bad they're good" but this first one didn't 

even reach that level of bad for me. It just sat at the level between good and bad reserved for the horribly mediocre film which tries to take itself seriously and be good but misses the mark. That being said I didn't hate it, but it wasn't good enough for me to like it either, though I must admit at first the plot with the psychics being in search of these puppets and psychically linked to each other did intrigue me, but it didn't develop or explain itself enough. My favorite thing about the movie was seeing veteran character actor William Hickey (MouseHunt, The Producers, Little Big Man, Prizi's Honor) cast as the Puppet Master. So I give it a 2.5/5. The full movie is available to stream (as well as all of it's 8 sequels) free on Hulu, and you can watch the trailer below:

House of the Devil (2009)

I usually stay away from anything demonic or of the like, but this is a really great psychological retro-themed horror film definitely worth a watch for any horror fan. On one level the film has a bunch of similarities to Rosemary's Baby, but at the same time it also feels like a mini version of The Shining (both in location size and film length) or a haunted house film. The plot centers around a college student hard-up for cash answering a flyer that advertised needing a baby sitter, but upon arrival to the babysitting job she finds out the couple who put out the ad are actually childless. The film is dialogue-less for most of the movie and there's a small cast of about five characters in total or so. The film is stylized after movies from the late 70s and early 80s and is set in the 80s. The fashion and cars are vintage as well as the 80s walkman the main character carries and the music she dances to while "babysitting", and the film's synth soundtrack. The film's feel is reminiscent of some of Poanski's films like The Tenant, as well as some of Dario Argento's 70s films too. All in all this movie was a great psychological thriller with some unexpected scares and it was also surprisingly fun, I found myself dancing in my seat and drumming along to the film's dance sequence set to the 80s one hit wonder The Fixx's One Thing Leads to Another. It can also get surprisingly violent  The film has a cameo by horror veteran Dee Wallce (The Howling, Critters, Cujo, The Frighteners, E.T.) and has character actor great Tom Noonan (Heat, Manhunter, Last Action Hero, Monster Squad) in a creepy role as well. This film was director Ti West's big break, he then went on to make more successful horror films like V/H/S, The Innkeepers, and his newest film produced by Eli Roth called The Sacrament which is available to stream on Netflix and was heavily promoted by them upon the film's release. House of the devil is featured in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See book, and is available to stream on Netflix as well. I give the movie a 4.5/5 and you can watch the trailer below:

Maniac Cop (1988)

I picked this one up because of its rep as a big cult classic and I heard it was a "so bad it's good" movie, but overall it treaded the line between being an actual "good" movie and a "so bad its good"  movie. So overall I would say it's just a "bad" movie, but one did have some entertainment value to it. The film is about exactly what it sounds like, a "maniac cop" that goes around killing innocent people, but what's interesting is that the killer may or may not be an undead former police officer (that is what attracted me to this film). The film has somewhat of a traditional 80s slasher feel to it, but it tries to hard to be an intelligent mystery with a twist (which it's not), the twist and overall "mystery" are pretty predictable and have easily found solutions (they actually show you the name tag on the uniform of the killer in the movie's opening sequence). Tom Atkins plays the cop who is on the trail of the maniac cop throughout most of the film, and Bruce Campbell (who appeared in this film and it's 1st sequel in between filming Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness) plays the prime suspect who claims he's innocent. I loved Tom Atkins in The Fog, Halloween III, and of course Night of the Creeps, he's still good in this film but I think the writing was a little hokey overall for everyone in this film. Bruce Campbell really shines with his typical slapstick style towards the end of the film, and that quite frankly is the best part of this movie. In the last 15-20 minutes or so is when the most action occurs, Bruce Campbell starts being Bruce Campbell, the maniac cop is revealed and all the good stuff happens, the rest of the film is not as entertaining as the ending. Also another problem with the film is when they finally do reveal the killer's face the makeup is so bad and actors face is so bizarre that all the ominous scary atmosphere of the film and persona of the killer gets washed away with the first glimpse of the killer's face, which needless to say is a big let down. The titular cop is played by cult and B-movie veteran Robert Z'dar (along with his inhumanly large jaw, which is all natural by the way), and he went on to reprise his role in the film's following two sequels. The film itself is directed by William Lustig who aside from this film and its sequels is most known for the infamously gorey 80s slasher Maniac. Overall the film was alright but it could've been so much better if it made up its mind and went with full on seriousness, or full on wackiness, it was too in-between for me so I give it a 3/5. It did have a great tag-line though: "You have the right to remain silent...forever!"  You can watch the trailer below:

Possession (1981)

Possession is one of the most bizarre films I've ever seen. It's an art house film that delves into the horror genre, but arguably is not about "possession" at all, unless you're talking about Sam Neill's character struggling with the fact he doesn't own his wife, or you argue how one's anger and fear and other emotions might "possess" someone. Because the film does not deal with demonic possession is what attracted me to the film in the first place, I must admit considering myself a religious person I do not personally handle films of that type well. This film was up for some big awards at Canne (including the Palme D'or) the year it came out and Isabelle Adjani won the best Actress prize for her role (the most powerful scene of the film is when she goes into a fit of madness, arguably "being possessed" in the U Bahn station, in which she was actually put into a state of hypnosis by the director). The synopsis of this film is that it is about a failing relationship between Adjani and Neill's characters and the love triangle that exists when Adjani starts seeing another man. She eventually stops coming home and nobody knows where she goes or what she does during the days anymore, but Adjani has a secret, she has just given birth to a Lovecraftian Cthulu type monster and hides it in an apartment. The film shows that complications can come from unexpressed feelings or unresolved emotions and issues and manifest themselves in the most horrific of ways (similar to Cronenberg's The Brood). The film takes place in Berlin before the wall fell, and having just been there for the first time this summer, it is interesting to see how things have changed, and what things have remained the same. Make no mistake this is an Art House film, much more so than it is a horror film, so be 
prepared for Bergman-esque shots and soliloquy, confusion and SO much symbolism. The 

film's symbolism is very hard to understand and is a contributing factor as to what makes this film feel exhausting to the viewer, a different review of the film had this to say about the film: " You're left feeling a bit like the characters, struggling with an experience beyond the power of language to exorcise." And I love symbolism in film and go out of my way to heavily analyze it normally, but as soon as I tried to interpret what was said a million more questions come up and ultimately I'd forget the original idea, and I have read other reviews of people saying the same thing happened to them. While the film is one of the most unique, bizarre and exhausting things I've ever seen, it is wonderfully acted and shot cinematography wise. The film is indeed a unique experience. While it may be becoming easier to find as of late (you can buy it on amazon for about $20 or so) for the longest time it was not available on any video format, but somebody uploaded a bootleg copy of it to youtube and you can see the whole film here. I give the film a 3.5/5, you can watch the trailer below:

Night of the Creeps (1986)

I had high hopes for this one because I'm a huge fan of The Monster Squad (1987) and Night of the Creeps was the first film for the Monster Squad's director Fred Dekker (House[1986], Robocop 3[1993]). Night of the Creeps is a wonderful cross genre film, with parts of it fitting into Sci-fi, horror, comedy, action, romance, slasher,  and everything in between. Night of the creeps is one part tribute to 50s Sci-Fi B films, one part teen scream (horror movie that appeals to teens), one part parasitic alien film, one part detective film, and one part crazy Animal House-esque comedy. With all those areas to cover it would be fairly easy to mess up in any one of them or have the film not feel like a whole, but Dekker wrote a phenomenal screenplay for the film and never at any point do the films different genre components take away from the strength of the plot or the film as a whole. This is as classic as 80s movies get, the movie has all the classic 80s sterotypes but at the same time it has so many things most 80s movies, or movies in general for that matter, don't have. The film's highlights include a wonderful wise cracking character who happens to be crippled (you don't so many disabled people in movies in general and this film creates a wonderful character who's strong despite his affliction), great catchy phrases from the detective character (every time he answers a phone or acknowledges someone he says "Thrill Me!"), killing zombies with Flame Throwers, explosions, lawn mowers and more, puppet aliens, great special effects and wonderful Animal House inspired Frat antics.  The plot is that parasitic aliens have gotten lose into town the night of the college's formal dance, there's a lot more to it than that but it's best to just see it. Sure there were some parts where the acting is poor or some lines that make no sense (such as the detective shouting "it's Miller time!" while killing a zombie), but overall the screenplay is absolutely wonderful, and so are the actors. The special effects were made by some of the soon to be greatest make-up and special effects artists in Hollywood. Everyone usually raves about the actor Tom Atkins and his performance as the hard boiled detective in this movie, and while I love his character and his dialogue, I don't think it's a role that couldn't have been pulled

off just as well by another actor, though this is probably his best loved role. This film is a huge cult classic and ultimately was denied success in its time like so many genre bending films because people didn't know how to market it. The film is also insanely quotable with my favorite line being the one that is echoed in the poster up there: "I've got good news and bad news girls, the good news is your dates are here" "What's the bad news?" "They're dead." The film has endured over the years because of its intense cult following, and we can only hope that they will keep it around for as long as films can be accessed on one format or another. I give it a 5/5. The movie is featured in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See book, and you can watch the trailer below:

The Stepfather (1987) original

I'd been meaning to see this one for a long time, but it's relatively hard to find. This film is amazing for several reasons: 1). It is based on the true story of this man John List, 2). It is one of the best psychological "mind of a killer"/"mind of a crazy person" movies ever made, 3). It is such an atypical "slasher" film I wouldn't even classify it as one, 4). The acting and production crew are amazing considering what a ridiculously low budget this film had, 5). It has two sequels and a remake. Though Terry O'Quinn is not a household name, most people will recognize him as John Lock from the TV series Lost, but 20 years prior Terry gave the performance of a lifetime as The Stepfather. The Stepfather is based on real life murderer John List who killed his family, disappeared only to change his identity and join another family, it is debated by some that List might have done this more than once, just as the character is portrayed in the film. The Stepfather wants the perfect 1950s TV family and will do anything to make his dream come true, but when the realities of 1980s America and family troubles rear their ugly head, it becomes too much for the Stepfather to handle. So rather than try to work out the problems his family has, he'd just assume start all over again and get a new family. This film is so effective because the character is so strong and the whole movie revolves around the character, making it possible for the

audience to at times even be sympathetic towards the psychopathic killer, making the movie much more than your average slasher flick. The plot bears some resemblance to The Shinning, but just superficially, this film is based on a true story, and it does not have Kubrick's trademark lengthy pacing. The film also boasts several great technical aspects, such as wonderful lighting and atmosphere, and overall cinematography (there are some really great camera movements and angles in this one). The director Joseph Reuben did several other films with a great atmosphere to them like Sleeping With The Enemy (1991) Dreamscape (1984, AKA as Inception 20 years before its time), and one of my favorites, The Good Son (1993). The Director of Photography went on to create the great visual look seen in movies like Field of Dreams (1989), Father of The Bride (1991), Pleasantville (1998), The Serpent and The Rainbow (1988), as well as The Good Son and Sleeping With The Enemy. The music of the film is notable for being made by Patrick Moraz, the one time keyboardist for the progressive rock band Yes. This film was not too successful on its initial release in theaters, but it did develop a big cult following and become relatively successful upon its VHS release. The film inspired two sequels and a 2009 remake, showing that the effect the film had both on the industry and on those who've seen it, is a lasting one. Also the movie does a great job of turning harmless "nice family" cliches into great horror lines, like: "You shouldn't drop by without calling first." This one is also on Bravo's list of 100 Scariest Movie Moments, and I give it a 5/5. You can view the trailer below:

John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)

I finally saw John Carpenter's version of The Thing. I was a big fan of the 50s original The Thing From Another World (1951), plus I'm not a big fan of gore and I knew this movie was very bloody and I saw some of the special effects when I was younger, and got freaked out, so that made me hesitant to watch this for a while. But I really enjoyed this version. The story of course is about a team of scientists working in Antarctica when some Norwegians and a stray dog, the one living Norwegian is killed by the scientists who mistakenly think he was shooting at them when he was actually shooting at the dog. The scientists then

 take the dog into their camp and all the trouble begins when they discover "the dog" is actually a shape-shifting alien that can take over anyone's identity, also taking over  their body while doing so. This film has marvelous pacing and only a handful of scenes with the alien so as to create maximum suspense and scares. The film also has a marvelous cast with Kurt Russell as the lead, and Wilford Brimley ( the "diabeetus," guy) Keith David and several other great character actors as well. This movie is known for having some of the greatest special effects of all time, and  more than 30 years after its release I'd say they are still impressive and very unique. The 80s were the perfect time for The Thing to be remade, for one thing they now had much more impressive effects to make the monster scary and show it more often, and also the story's use as an allegory for fear of communism and the Russians was extremely fitting for the 80s as well. The original Thing From Another World has been argued by many to be an allegory for McCarthyism, and when you think about it, it  makes sense; Senator McCarthy was accusing everyone of being communist  even if they just knew people who were communist, they were assumed to

be communist also, just like in The Thing when people are assumed to be the Thing if they were in contact with that person, and citizens were asked to keep an eye on their friends and neighbors just like the characters in both versions of The Thing were. Also the 1980s was when the U.S.'s fear of/rivalry with Russia was at its peak, so the 1980s was a very apt time for a remake of The Thing, the film even ends with an ending that is symbolically a  prediction/warning about communism similar to Dr. Seuss' Butter Battle Book (1984) (I don't want to give away the ending however so if you are unfamiliar with that story you can look it up). All in all I was very impressed with The Thing and I give it a 5/5, You can view the trailer below:

Child's Play 2 (1990)

I've been meaning to write a review of this one for quite a while, I saw it a while ago and just never got around to it because I didn't feel as strong of an urge to write about this one as I did Black Christmas, or the original Child's Play, or Fright Night, or Badlands, or any of the other movies I really loved. This one was ok, better than the average horror movie sequel, but still on par to some of the other movies I've reviewed (or have seen but have yet to write about) is just ok. I liked that they kept the kid and Chucky as the same actors from the first movie. I also liked how this one was more humorous than the first (the sequels seem to get progressively funnier as they go). The plot is that the toy company who made the Good Guy dolls rebuilt the insidious Chucky to try aid their defense in court against the mother the police officers and the child, but they realize the error of their ways too late when Chucky kills some of the workers and escapes to go back to pursuing Andy from the first movie. This one is less believable than the first, and a little less scary than the first, but this one does have its moments.

The highlight of the film for me is no question the last 20 minutes or so when Chucky is chasing the kids through the maze of Good Guy dolls in the toy factory. Nothing is quite as scary as running away from a killer through a maze that has his face all over the walls. I also liked how this movie picked up right after the first Child's Play, just like Halloween 2, so that the sequel isn't a different story with one same character, but a continuation of the first story. Overall I give this a 3.75/5, it's better than most horror sequels, but I wouldn't classify it as one of the better sequels in the horror genre either. The movie is available to be streamed on Netflix, and you can watch the trailer below (You can also listen to the cheesy novelty song  they made to promote the series "The Chucky Rap", that I recently discovered, here):

Pet Sematary (1989)

I had heard mixed reviews about this one for a long time, and I thought the story had strong ties to witchcraft or the occult ( I love horror movies but I tend to stay away from that subject matter, that's the only stuff that really spooks me too bad) so it took me a while to get around to it. That all being said though, the film deals with ancient Native American burial grounds (always a great start for a horror movie), it fits into the "killer kid" sub-genre of horror, has Stephen King appear as a priest, Fred Gwynne (the actor most known for being Herman Munster from the tv series The Munsters) is a main character, and The Ramones contribute a couple songs to the soundtrack (including the title theme which was their highest charting single ever on The Billboard charts). Also the story is based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, but it is influenced by the classic horror folk tale "The Monkey's Paw". That all should make the movie sound great because it is, I loved every minute of it. The acting was terrific by everyone involved ( I should also mention the child actor who played the son is probably best known for his roles as a friend of Michelle Tanner on the classic 90s sitcom Full House, and Kindergarten Cop[1990]), the cinematography and special effects are great, it's a terrific drama for a lot of the film, but it is also funny and definitely freaky in parts. The story is about a family moving to New England and shortly after they arrive their cat dies. The family's neighbor then shows the dad of the family a place where he can bury his cat so that it will come back to life. Shortly after tragedy strikes the family, the husband is tempted to use the magic of the secret burial ground again. There are a lot of King's trademarks here, a New England setting, a psychic connection with the young girl, and strong dramatic overtones. This is also the movie that made Mary Lambert (the director of the film whose other claim to fame is directing some of the most famous music videos of the 80s)'s career. The film is listed on Bravo's list of  100 Scariest Movie Moments, but I would advise to not watch the segment about the movie until after you see it. I give it a 5/5, you can view the trailer below:

The House by the Cemetery (1981)

I normally don't like films by Lucio Fulci, they are usually far too graphic and gory for me, and this film was no exception. Fulci's most famous film is 1979s Zombie: We're Going to Eat you! also known as "Zombi 2". Fulci's horror movies are famous for their gore (think Dario Argento's typical violence taken up a notch). Fulci also has some films famous for their Gothic imagery though, and this is one of those (the other one being The Beyond). I liked the cinematography as a whole, very similar to an Argento film, and I liked the fact that they actually filmed part/parts of this film on location in New York, because typically if foreign low budget independent movies are set in US cities, they film them in a different country and just try to get away

with it (Inferno[1980] for example). The sets and music were also really good. The adult actors were good, but the little boy annoyed me though ( they also dubbed his voice with a voice that did not seem to fit his age or looks). Plot wise I thought the story was very confusing, the boy's nanny seemed to have some sort of connection to the murders and such, but that was never really explained. The husband also had a secret and it's confusing if his secret was an affair, or something connected to the murders, not to mention the ending didn't really make much sense either (also similar to an Argento film that way). Plus I found the "monster"'s costume to be really fake, it didn't really have a face, it was horrible. And of course as I mentioned before it was far too gory for my taste, I'm talking Dead Alive (1992)[aka Braindead] levels of gore here. Too many limbs everywhere and too much bizarre mutilation, and when all that is shown, the camera sits on it for WAY too long in my opinion, a la David Cronenberg style. I give this one my lowest rating yet, a 2/5. I should also mention that like most of Dario Argento's films, and old Spaghetti Westerns, this film is dubbed in english, even though some actors and characters in it did speak english. This one is available to stream on Hulu.com, you can also view the trailer below:

The Hitcher (1986)

,

This is a film whose time has passed, in my opinion anyway. There was a time when this was scary and effective and such but I think it has lost its touch for a few reasons. To me this is just another version of Duel (1971) where you actually get to see the driver of the other car, Duel was the first of its kind and was effective because you never found out who the other driver was, or why they were chasing the main character. In the Hitcher, you know the killer's name is John Ryder, but the most effective part of this movie was you never knew why he was torturing C Thomas Howell's character so much, but since No Country for Old Men (2007) came out I don't know if this film can be as effective on people who have already seen that now. Because in NCFOM, Javier Bardem's character is basically the ultimate evil/crazy person, he kills again and again without having need to and he never explains why he does it, just like The Hitcher, but NCFOM one ups the Hitcher because The Hitcher isn't very believable at all in my opinion. After ditching the Hitcher countless times he always seems to catch back up to C thomas Howell at the most convenient times ever, I just think that it's too slim of a chance that they would keep meeting at the right times, etc. Plus this film is famous for its extreme violence, (jennifer jason leigh gets torn in half) and I'm not a big gore fan so I found the extreme violence more than a tad unnecessary. Nevertheless, this movie had a big cult following for a while and it was made into an HBO TV show, a sequel (with C Thomas Howell, and Jake Busey (son of Gary Busey)) and a remake with Sean Bean (LOTR, Game of Thrones,Black Death) as the Hitcher. Also hitch-hiking is pretty much illegal in most places around the country, and most people know how bad of an idea it is nowadays anway, so the thrill/scare in that isn't as likely anymore. Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner, Hobo with a Shotgun, Ladyhawke,) does do an excellent job as the hitcher though, I give this one a 3/5. Watch the trailer below:

The Warriors (1979)

If you were to look up an example of what a "cult" movie is I think you would first run into the Star Wars franchise, then perhaps the Evil Dead series and then The Warriors would probably be listed next. This film has maintained a strong cult following since its release 35 years ago. When I was in high school/middle school (junior high) this film had a resurgence of popularity because it had two popular video game adaptations made of it one in 2005 just called The Warriors, and one in 2009 called The Warriors:Street Brawl, and there have also been comic book adaptations of the film. The film gathered $3.5 million on its opening weekend, but was linked to acts of vandalism and violence the following weekend including 3 killings, two in southern California and one in Boston, involving movie goers heading to or from the theater. Almost all the film's advertising was severely cut to show only the title the rating of the film and theater locations, and at least 200 theaters upped security during showings of the film. Most people nowadays are not aware that the film was actually relatively successful on it's initial release ($16.4 million in its 6th week when the film was made for between $6-7 million) because of its status as a "cult" film. 

The film is about a meeting between all the gangs of New York in the late 70s coming together to hear the leader of the most feared gang in the city propose a citywide truce among all the gangs so that they can work together to better control the city, but one of the people in the crowd didn't like that idea and didn't follow the rules because he came armed, you know this because he shoots and kills the leader Cyrus during his speech. The killer then blames a rival gang called the warriors and everybody is now convinced the warriors are responsible for the killing. The rest of the film is about the warriors trying to get back across the city to their home turf of Coney Island without getting killed by every other gang in the city. This film is definitely partially about youthful angst, but it is also somewhat of an urban retelling of Homer's The Odyssey. The warriors encounter no end of trials on their way back home, from rival gangs to siren like temptations,

  the police, to being separated from each other. Now I thought I'd never be interested in this film because I've never been the type of person to like the ideas of gangs or gang related violence, but this film is a lot more than that as I just previously mentioned. In addition to the deeper side of the film it is very well done visually and is very visually appealing. Critic Pauline Kael of The New Yorker called it "visual rock". It also has somewhat of a cartoony feel to it because every gang has a different theme, there's a gang of mimes, a gang of ninjas, and a gang of face painted Jersey wearing baseball bat wielding psychopathic ballplayers no less. The director wanted to divide the film into chapters and start each section with a comic book stylized splash panel, but the studio was on a fixed schedule and limited budget so the film never fully achieved its comic book look (though you can still kind of feel it in the opening titles). The most famous scene from the movie of course is the real murderer taunting the warriors with the now famous,then improvised, cry of:  "Warriorrrrrrrrrrs, come out to plaaaaaaaaaaaaay!" 

Though visually top notch this film does seem a bit empty (like more could have been happening at times) in certain scenes, and the acting is pretty good all around but you don't really get to see too much character development throughout, and some of the acting is just plain cheesy, but in the best possible way (in the last ten minutes especially). This movie is also noted as an early appearance of future Oscar winning actress Mercedes Ruehl, and this movie features the 70s hit single "In the City" by Joe Walsh (the song was from this movie). I give this a 4.25/5 overall, a 4 for how well made it is, and a 4.5 for how much I enjoyed it, so that averages to about 4.25/5. You can view the trailer below:  

Knightriders (1981)

One might not think this would be the followup to George Romero's internationally successful genre redefining political commentary/horror flick Dawn of the Dead (1978). But in some ways it makes sense, this is Romero's most personal film. This flick follows a travelling renaissance fair troupe lead by Ed Harris (in his first lead role) that puts on dangerous stunt shows and jousts on motorcycles. Ed Harris's character has made it his life dream to make this travelling troupe based on principles similar to that of the knights of King Arthur, he and his troupe live by a code. But trouble arises when reality threatens to destroy the dream he has made in the form of corporate america destroying the little man and/or what he stands for (publicity agents want to commercialize the motor cycle shows). This is so personal for Romero because he was going through the same personal struggle when it came to film making, he had worked long and hard to make a name for himself as an independent film maker, but after the success of Dawn of the Dead he was debating whether or not to "sell out," and his decision to remain independent gave him similar results to Harris's character in the film, they both saw the people around them leave and "sell out".

All that being said this film does have some depth to it but for the majority of the film it is just plain fun. It is super laid back, you get to see all the life behind the scenes of the fair and it mostly feels like one big party, complete with a scene or two of singing around the campfire. In addition to the laid back vibe and fun feel of the film seeing a modern take on some of the legends of King Arthur are creatively re-envisioned here: Merlin is a tattooed harmonica playing wiseman/doctor, the black knight is present, what happens between Lancelot and Guinevere happens, and Harris is the well loved king. Not to mention the motorcycle jousts stunts and battles are all wonderfully choreographed and exciting (except for the final one which I actually had to fast forward through).This film has some of the most dangerous/elaborate/well performed motor cycle stunts ever filmed. Now for the negatives of the film: it did not need to be as long as it was, it's two and a half hours long, there are also some big logical fallacies/plot holes towards the second half of the movie, the ending is sad (normal for a Romero movie) but the ending could have been executed better IMO (I can't say much more about it without giving it

away). The acting is top notch though, Harris gives a wonderful performance as well as does Tom Savini the famous horror movie makeup artist (Friday the 13th series, Dawn of the Dead, and TheBurning) as Morgan the black knight. It is mentionable that Stephen King has a cameo as "hoagie man" and his real life wife plays "wife of hoagie man," you can find them in the crowd in an early scene. Cracked.com has written an article about Knightriders calling it 5 insane moments from the manliest movie ever made. It is also mentioned in a book I own called 500 Essential Cult Films: The Ultimate Guide by Jennifer Eiss. I give it a 4/5, you can view the trailer below:

Repo Man (1984)

This is a wacky cult film in the same vibe as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or the Big Lebowski. Emilio Estevez plays an angsty rebellious punk youth dissatisfied with society who finds himself on the inside of the seedy world of Repo Men. A lot of the movie is just kind of like an episode of Seinfeld or a more eventful version Dazed and Confused; The movie jumps back and forth switching its focus from Estevez to the other repo men, to a bunch of criminals. a mysterious government agency, and a strange man driving a Chevy malibu which all the character slowly become focused on and in search of. The Chevy malibu contains a strange energy source in its trunk which emits a bright light that vaporizes anyone who opens the trunk.The movie slowly becomes more and more about aliens and has an apropriately wacky climax sequence with a flying car. This film can either be taken at face value as just a fun wacky viewing, but it can be analyzed as something deeper than that too. This film contains a lot of social commentary about youth and teen angst, as well as political commentary on the US in the 80s, the economy, and a message of anti-conformity, in my mind justifying why this one's a part of the Criterion Collection. This is a good one and the director received a lot of acclaim and praise for this film in which he showed great potential of things to come, but though he did the acclaimed Sid and Nancy (1986) and Walker (1987), this director never achieved the level of fame he deserved. Cox would go on to write and direct a film called Straight to Hell (1987), which was a western starring The Irish rock legends The Pogues, Joe Strummer (lead singer of The Clash), Courtney Love, Elvis Costello, Dennis Hopper Grace Jones, and Jim Jarmusch, as well as writing an unused screenplay for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), and he was also originally considered to direct the original Robocop (see here). Even though I didn't love it and some of its logic was a bit too unbelievable, it fit with the weirdness of the film.  It also has a great punk rock soundtrack featuring the likes of Iggy Pop and The Circle Jerks. I give it a 4.5/5. P.S. you also never find out what's in the trunk, which in my mind is what I think Pulp Fiction was referencing with its briefcase, but I've heard other theories about the briefcase so it's just a hunch. You can view the trailer below:

Maximum Overdrive (1986)

There are tons of classic movies based on works by Stephen King; Carrie, Cujo, The Shining, Christine, Pet Sematary, Firestarter, Creepshow, Children of the Corn, The Dead Zone, Salem's Lot, Silver Bullet, The Green Mile, Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Hearts in Atlantis, IT, Misery, and The Running Man, to name "a few". But until 1986 Stephen King was just a writer and every movie adaptation of his work to that point had been made by other people, this movie changed all that. Now imagine you were a producer in 1986 and Stephen King came into your office saying "I'm not happy with any film versions of my work so I'd like to direct my own film, adaptations of my work have been so successful, just think how good this one'll be! And it will be starring 80s young hunk Emilio Estevez, and it will have soundtrack done by my favorite band AC/DC!" Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Well you're right, it has all those elements but Stephen King is what he is, a writer, plus he tends to prefer the worse movie

versions of his work, (He hated Kubrick's version of the Shining and prefers the made for TV Tim Roth version). This is the first and only movie King himself has ever directed. This movie has become a cult classic primarily only because of how bad it is. It does have some things going for it, the cars are cool, the special effects and explosions are cool and stuff like that. The film's plot is very confusing as the movie progresses, at first all technology on earth goes crazy because earth is passing through the tail of a very unusual comet, but as the plot goes on it becomes clear the machines have minds of their own and aliens are somehow involved, taking away most of the story's believably. Everyday objects are running on their own and they're all deadly too, this is meant to instill a fear of the stuff we take for granted, and it partially works. The trucks are scary, an electric knife/saw goes nuts, and a man is fried by a pinball machine, but it reaches a point where it all becomes laughable. A man is killed by a soda vending machine shooting him in the crotch, seen here:

 There's a killer ice cream truck, and a man is laying dead on his front lawn having been run over by his own lawnmower, and the very first scene of the movie is Stephen King himself trying to get money from an ATM and instead of giving him the money the machine calls him an asshole repeatedly, seen below:

 Plus the film is just plain gross at times, there's a scene where Emilio Estevez is talking to a man on the toilet doing "his business" which is unfortunately audible. The music is great though, the explosions and stuff are cool, the main truck has the face of the Green Goblin from Spider Man on it, but that's about it for this one. I give it a 3.25/5. I do recommend the trailer though, Stephen King is hilariously crazy in it, seen below:

Halloween III (1982)

This one was famously panned by both critics and fans. Everyone thought "where's Michael Myers?" or "What the hell are they doing getting rid of the main character?". Well what they were thinking was this: John Carpenter wanted to move the series in a new direction by making films with stories that were halloween related, one idea was to make a film of vignettes that were all centered around the idea of halloween, in other words, Trick 'R Treat (2007) 25 years ahead of its time (the film would also have an interesting new piece of theme music, though the old theme does appear via the original Halloween[1978] playing on a TV) . That would have happened had the third film been a success, but what actually happened is pretty much history. The film was a commercial and critical failure resulting in the return of the Halloween series' original premise and main villain in the fourth and later installments. This film deserves another look though, while it may not fit into the Halloween series very well, it is a GREAT halloween (holiday) film. I was a child of the early 90s but having older brothers from the 80s, tons of 80s toys and movies and products (such as our child halloween costumes and decorations) from the 80s, so this is pure nostalgia for me and I love it for that reason alone, but there are plenty of other things that are unique and good about this film. After the mysterious death of a

man clutching the newest "all the rage" halloween mask, warning "they'll kill us all!", a doctor and the man's daughter do some detective work of their own and find out the owner of mysterious Silver Shamrock mask factory has a sinister plan to unleash on halloween night involving the popular masks. It has a good "amateur detective" pace throughout the film until you learn the secret, and thrills and chills are delivered throughout. One thing that is unique about the film is that it is educational on the history of Halloween. The factory owner tells the doctor that Halloween is rooted in the Celts

(Irish/scottish)  heritage, back when they used to do pagan rituals to celebrate the harvest and scare away spirits. It's cool because it proves that halloween is actually a very Irish holiday (the town the factory is located in is SUPER Irish). The secondary title for the film is "season of the witch" but as the doctor accuses the factory owner of witchcraft the owner says "we prefer to think of it as a way of controlling our environment." So it is similar to The Wicker Man in that the people are performing pagan rituals to ensure a successful harvest, not the same thing as what witchcraft and black magic usually implies. There is a connection to Stone Henge in the story, but it is never very well explained, that is its weakest point in my opinion, the other weakest point is the romantic fling between the doctor and the main woman of the story. He is blatantly cheating on his wife, and whatever excuse he gives to his wife for being gone (on the road) is super hard to believe. But as an enjoyable interesting and somewhat fresh take on a Halloween (holiday) movie, I give it a 4.75/5. This one is also featured in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See, you can watch the trailer below:

The Beast Within (1982)

The Beast Within is part latter-day southern gothic, part monster movie, part amateur-detective film, and part coming of age film, The Beast Within is very well written and very well executed by director and cast. The film contains one of the longest and most elaborate transformation sequences of all time, which often gets it confused as a Werewolf film. While I'll say it's not a werewolf movie I won't say outright what the monster is, except that it's based on some form of insect and the writers did a wonderful job tying scientific

knowledge to the monster and the overall story of the film. Here's the plot: 17 years after a woman is raped on her wedding night by something "not human", her 17 year old son starts undergoing strange changes, so the parents go back to the scene of the crime to try to figure out what exactly happened that night, as well as what's happening to their son. This is a weird one, but it's very well acted and put together considering its low budget. This film was also directed by Philippe Mora, the director of another film I reviewed called Communion (1989), and this film was written by Tom holland, the man who wrote and directed the original Fright Night (1985) and Child's Play (1988).  Both this film and Communion happen to be in Rue Morgue Magazine's book of 200 Must-See Alternative Horror films. I give it a 4.5/5, view the trailer below:

Looker (1981)

I always enjoy Michael Crichton's films, he's one of my favorite sci-fi writers, and this film is written and directed by him. This movie stars Albert Finney (Big Fish, Murder on the Orient Express) and academy award winner James Coburn (The Great Escape, Monsters Inc.). The film is a futuristic dystopian thriller (like a lot of Crichton's work), where a plastic surgeon (Finney) learns that the last four patients he operated on have all died mysteriously, so tries to find a connection btween the deaths, and it leads him to a shady corporation.   This film deals with such

themes as the media's concept of what the perfect woman looks like, and some women's obsession with wanting to look perfect. The film also deals with the concept of computers eventually replacing people (in this film they do so just in TV commercials), hypnotism through electronic signals sent out through commercials, and a gun that causes "invisibility" with a seemingly plausible explanation (something to do with the gun shooting beams of light that are part of the light/color spectrum that we humans can't see, that block certain

receptors in your eyes for a short period of time). There is a great scene where Finney gets beat up by an invisible assailant. The film is a really great thriller with great acting, music, special effects and is marvelously well written and so believable (like all of Crichtons work) that part of it has become actuality today.The only thing that might bother people is that the aspect of the story where a computer can make a replica of a person, or measure one's exact eye movements has already come true, so that may make the film seem dated to some, but to me it's a reminder of how crazy the technology we have nowadays, and that maybe the invisibility and hypnosis aspects of the story aren't too far away from becoming reality. I give the film a 5/5 and highly recommend it. You can find the full movie on youtube here, and the trailer is below: