In Hollywood most actors director and writers start out in horror (or depending on how well their career went, end in horror). Prison is an early film for action film director Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger, DIe Hard 2, Long Kiss Goodnight) Aragorn himself Viggo Mortenson. Prison is a supernatural horror film about an old defunct prison from the 1930s-60s being opened again to house inmates while the new prison facility is being constructed/renovated. However in reopening the old prison, the spirits of many a former inmate come back to cause mayhem particularly for the staff of the "new" prison. The best way for me to describe this movie is to call it a mix between the Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile and
Hellraiser. The movie is also similar in style to Michael Mann's The Keep. The effects are done very well and there are some gruesome death scenes in this one, but in my opinion they're just gruesome enough to be frightening without be being over the top or disgustingly unwatchable. The other things that make this film so good are it's cinematography (lots of atmospheric lighting shots/effects), it's tense musical score, the screenplay, and surprisingly great performances from everybody too.When I first heard of this movie and read the existing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes about it, I did not think I would like it so much. I have to say other than The Long Kiss Goodnight this is my favorite Renny Harlin movie. Viggo Mortenson is really good in it as a strong but mostly silent highly intelligent prisoner. The movie was previously unreleased on DVD and had a very limited VHS release so it was fairly hard to find until recently when Shoutfactory recently released it on Blu-ray and DVD. I give Prison a 4.5/5 and highly recommend this underrated and lesser know horror gem. You can watch the trailer here.
On paper this movie is amazing, in execution, not so much. I must say I love anthology TV series' (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Night Gallery, Tales From The Crypt, Tales From the Darkside) and I wish there were more of them still around nowadays, because I love short singular stories, and it's a big time saver too to not have to watch a full season of a TV show and follow a story arc. But when it comes to movies, there are very few really good anthology movies out there (tying the short stories together in one coherent movie. Some of the best anthology movies (horror related) are Dead of Night (1945), Tales From the Crypt (1972), Stephen King's Cat's Eye (1985), The Twilight Zone Movie (1983), and Trick 'r Treat (2007). Other anthology movies such as VHS (2012, which I haven't seen) and Creepshow (1982, which I didn't like) are also some of the more famous anthology movies. Now Quicksilver Highway is a great premise: get two stories by two of the greatest minds in horror ever (Clive Barker, and Stephen King), and piece them together by a mysterious traveling character who lives in an undisclosed location (and in a trailer similar to Doctor Who's Tardis, bigger on the inside than the outside) in the american southwest to tell the tales and have arguably the greatest horror director from the TV world, Mick Garris (The Stand (1994) mini series, and Masters of Horror (2005-2007)), to direct and cinema legend Christopher Lloyd to star. However like other anthology movies
that boast stories from great authors ( I'm looking at you Creepshow's 1&2) the stories they pick are some of the weakest of the authors' careers. The set locations in the U.S. southwest are great and creepy on their own (reminiscent of Near Dark (1987) and The Hitcher (1986)) but the rest of the movie is weak. Some of the actors are decent in here but there are more bad actors and over actors than good ones here, and I'm tempted to blame Garris's direction because I saw similar effects in Masters of Horror episodes. Christopher Lloyd's character is the narrator and he supposedly makes a living collecting rare objects and travelling the back roads of america taking a good look at the country's seedy underbelly. For anybody out there who has ever listened to any old radio shows, this premise might seem familiar. The 1930s and 40s radio shows The Whistler and The Mystrerious Traveler were also about mysterious travelers roaming the country telling and witnessing stories. Though I like the premise of the character (I loved the Whistler and Mysterious Traveler radio shows), the execution was lacking to me and you could tell this movie was put together after a failed attempt at a TV pilot was made. Lloyd's character first off looks more like a weird hobo than he does scary or even intriguing. Lloyd's costume has a cape and lace similar to Rutger Hauer's in The Hitcher. Plus Lloyd is also wearing a dog collar-esque ladies choker around his neck with symbols representing his
stories decorated on it. Lloyd also sports a bizarre bowl-cut moptop hairdo. As for the stories themselves the first is called "The Chattery Teeth" by Stephen King and is about a man who picks up a murderous hitch hiker and is saved by a sentient pair of novelty toy wind up teeth. The second story Clive Barker's 'The Body Politic," and is about a man's hands becoming sentient and separating themselves from the man's body and starting a war between mankind and "hand-kind." First of all as I said before the acting is poor for the most part but it's the worst in the Barker story. In the hands (no pun intended) of the right writers and directors the whole "possessed hand" story can be good, but it always runs the risk of becoming way too campy and almost always succumbs to that fate. Some titles that execute the "possessed hand" story well are The Beast with Five Fingers (1946) starring Peter Lorre, and Body Parts (1991). The actor in this film with the possessed hands is ridiculous looking and super hammy. However the other redeeming quality of this movie is the special effects. Special effects wise, the teeth and the hands (when severed) are well done and some of the best sentient objects moving on their own scenes put to film. The other thing that I didn't like about this movie was that apart from the stories shared sentient object theme, the stories have nothing in common and they don't even bother to connect the narrator from point "a" to point "b," or have anything to do with the "dark side of america". There is one other cool thing about this movie though, Clive Barker and acclaimed director John Landis (Blues Brothers, American Werewolf in London, Animal House) have cameos in the second segement of this made for TV movie. Overall I have to give this movie a 2/5, and you can watch the trailer here.
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:
I can honestly say the quality of this cover art is better than the whole film.
I usually review good movies here on my blog but lately I saw gem so horrible it deserves to be as beloved as other horrible films like The Room, Birdemic or Troll 2. This is basically people fooling around with a camcorder with spectacularly horrible results. Every possible error you could ever have in a film is present in this. And every time you think something clever might happen in this film it shatters all hopes and expectations. The movie is about Big Foot causing a ruckus in suburbia. The plot is so poorly constructed though that stuff just sort of happens and there is no real flow to this movie, most of the characters don't even have names. The Sasquatch costume is very clearly a cheap Halloween costume, and all other props were very clearly bought from a Halloween store as well (severed limbs and whatnot). Pretty much whenever there isn't a bat-shit insane sasquatch attack happening there is horrible boring dialogue that makes no sense that sounds like the stupid crap people think sounds super intelligent when they're stoned out of their minds. There are some fantastic lines in this film though like a child's mother trying to reassure him that bigfoot isn't real: "He's not real timmy that's why he's never around, like the Boogeyman or your father." Also the sasquatch somehow has supernatural powers and can teleport anywhere (and apparently he can grow taller for some reason?). The hilariousness of how horrible this film is cannot be underestimated: during driving sequences character very clearly drive around in circles, in certain scenes they reuse the same shot five times, there is a fabulous attack scene
"I don't believe, I sell!" actual line from this man.
where the sasquatch attacks a stopped car and during the scene the editor mixes shots of both the car moving and stopped, the sasquatch's growl sounds like an upset stomach, there are many scenes of the sasquatch goofily flailing his arms around, the "cave" where the sasquatch lives is very clearly someone's garage or basement with a black garbage bag draped on the wall, and the film's racist stereotype of a Native American woman who is supposed to be a mystical archery expert hits the sasquatch fifty times
throughout the film (sometimes with Nerf arrows, sometimes with horrible CG arrows) and they never have any affect. Also this movie has continuity and editing errors up the wazoo, most of the time you can tell they just used the camera's external microphone. The movie also has atrocious CG effects. The police officers have worse costumes than the cops in Scooby Doo, and most of the time they never drive a cop car, not to mention they talk directly into a fax machine because somehow the makers of this piece of shit couldn't even afford a damn Walkie Talkie! Not to mention the Newspaper office and the Police Office are very clearly shot inside of an elementary school building. The movie does have some amazing death scenes though. There is one scene where the yeti rips out a man's own intestines and feeds them to him! This is the perfect movie to rip apart and do commentary on with a group of friends. The worst kind of movie is one that is so horrible that there is nothing entertaining or enjoyable about it what so ever, and there are a lot of movies that fall into that category that actually have decent production values and actually follow the rules of cinema 101 very well. There are also movies that are designed to intentionally be horrible. And then there is the best kind of horrible movie, the one that is so bad it is unintentionally hilarious like the play "Springtime for Hitler" from The Producers. Suburban sasquatch falls into the latter category and for that reason it cannot be judged or evaluated in the same sense that one uses for "good" movies. Therefore as a "So-bad-it's-good" movie I give Suburban Sasquatch a 5/5, but in a traditional sense I give it a -9001/5. Here is a video review and some clips of the movie's best moments.
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:
This is not the Disney movie folks, this is about as far as you can get from it actually. This film is a survival horror/thriller about three friends getting abandoned in a chairlift high in the mountains of a ski resort as a snow storm approaches and no one will be back to the resort for at least a week. This movie is amazing for many reasons, and first and foremost I'd say its most amazing feature is its realism. The film uses practical effects which means they actually put three actors in a real chairlift that high up in the air, a lot of the severe weather filmed is authentic, two of the main actors were life long friends so the chemistry between them is real, the wolves are real, most of the stunts actually happened, and so on and so forth. To me that really puts me in favor of this film without even having watched one second of it, but there's much more to love for when you actually do watch the film. The actors are so good, they tell each others life stories throughout the course of the film, and while many writers/actors/directors wouldn't have been able to pull that off without being horribly cheesy, the cast and crew of Frozen make it work, and really make you feel the pain and fear and everything else the characters feel. The film also
delivers phenomenal thrills and scares without being super violent, dealing with the supernatural, or the slightly implausible but still possible all too commonly filmed scenario of the serial killer. What makes this film scary is nature itself. Humans have been battling nature for as long as we've been on earth, and this film pokes at all the things we have to fear about nature. This film is like Jaws for skiers, I daresay you won't want to hurry up a chairlift after you see this movie. The film did have some moments that were a little cheesy, but overall it could have been so much worse. The movie is a non-stop thrill ride that will make you feel like you just got off the best roller-coaster at your local theme park. The ending is a tad vague for me, but I kind of like it that way because it can be up to interpretation a little bit then, and that's nice because I know there are probably a lot of people who will interpret the ending negatively, but I feel there's room for it to be interpreted positively. I should also probably mention this film was written and directed by Adam Green, the creative force behind the Hatchet movies. Overall I loved this movie and I give it a 5/5; You can watch the trailer below:
There's really no other way to say it, this movie was disappointing. The plot sounded very intriguing and like a film version of an X-Files episode: Fashion Photographer Laura Mars has psychic powers beyond her control that allow her to see through the eyes of a psychopathic killer that's on the loose. This was an early project for legendary horror director John Carpenter who wrote the film's screenplay. The movie stars Faye Dunaway, a young Tommy Lee Jones, and one of my favorite character actors Brad Dourif, the great character actor Rene Auberjonois is also in he film (playing quite possibly the funniest/best character of the film). The film has a good 1970s vibe present throughout the majority of
the film (the cars, the fashion, the architecture) and the film has good cinematography (a bit like some of the Giallo greats), but there is a large portion of this film that is really boring, and a lot of it probably could have been cut out. I fell asleep in the middle of the movie, woke up and finished it without missing a beat (the same thing happened when I watched Heat [1995]), I feel like if you're doing you're job of making the movie correctly then I should have had to re-watch what I slept through. Also this movie's plot has been done many times before, so I wasn't too surprised when the twist was revealed at the end because for a seasoned movie buff like myself, it was pretty easy to figure out (for lesser film buffs though it might be more difficult). The other notable thing about this movie is the theme song by Barbara Streisand "Prisoner," which I guess was somewhat of a hit for her. Overall though this was a mediocre movie and I give it a 3/5; You can Watch the Trailer below:
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:
Every summer I like to watch a summer camp movie, I always like watching movies during the season in which they take place. This movie is famous for its "twist" ending, and it spawned several sequels. This movie is similar to the first two Friday the 13th films and The Burning, and in my opinion is better than the Friday films, but not as good as The Burning. The acting is pretty bad at parts, what makes this film interesting is its exploration of sexuality that you normally didn't see in films much around this time, let alone low budget teen horror movies (I speak of sexuality here as more of a gender/sexuality issue than just showing everybody sleeping around, which is what is more usually common in these types of films). All this being said the "twist" at the end while interesting and different, didn't really affect or change the incidents that occurred during the plot, in other words it's not hard to figure out who the killer is and the whole film makes you think the mystery and "twist" will change who you think it is, it doesn't and is a let down because of it. I give the film a 3/5; You can watch the whole film on Youtube here, and you can watch the trailer below:
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:
Every review I could find about this movie mentioned its over the top gore, and while I usually have the same policy towards gore as CGI (only use it when absolutely necessary) and thought I could just ignore it and make my review focus on the deeper meaning of the film, I find that the goriness of the film is all I can think about after watching this one. I absolutely loved the first Pet Sematary by Stephen King (as you can see in my review of the film at the link) but this one just isn't the same. Now that being said I still think the film is decent if you're a fan of the first because there are a lot of similarities: the evil pet, pretty much everyone dying, several references to the events of the first film, similar sets used, and of course a great Ramones song playing at the credits. The sheer amount of gore is the film's main weakness, but other weaknesses include its trying to hard to be a teen movie. There are all sorts of angsty "teens have problems" scenes, but in the grand scheme of the film they are totally irrelevant to rest of the events in the film, except that they help to emphasize that the main [teen] characters of the film are outcasts whose only true friends have died (the main boy's mom, and the fat boy's dog). This movie has an unlikely hodgepodge of B celebrities: Anthony Edwards (Goose from Top Gun), Edward Furlong (the boy from Terminator 2), Lisa Waltz (Brighton Beach Memoirs, Starry Night), Jared Rushton (Tom Hanks's friend from Big, Honey I Shrunk the Kids) and Clancy Brown (Shawshank Redemption, Highlander, and the voice of Mr. Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants). The movie also has some unexpected black humor in it, most of which comes from Clancy Brown's character (the dinner table scene, and the teen with motorcycle scene). As with the first movie when people or animals die the characters then bury them in the special Native American burial ground behind the Pet Cemetery and they come back to life, but usually
with a murderous streak in them. Furlong's character is obviously messed up psychologically after the death of his mom at the beginning of the film, and he only continues to get more messed up as the film goes on and more people die. But at one point he becomes so messed up (as does his world around him) that this weird synergy is created and it's almost as if his misfit character has found a place he belongs (albeit among the dead/undead), and that is probably one of the best/weirdest and most unique moments of the film, because you don't really know what will happen next (except that he will resurrect his mother). The only other thing worth mentioning about this one is that it has one of the most realistic looking car wrecks I've ever seen in the movies, and I have no idea how they could have damaged the car the way they did without the people inside actually getting killed. And there's a crazy scene where a guy pops the eyes out of a
taxidermied pug dog (who you think is alive at first). Also I liked the dog in this movie. In my opinion the dog is much scarier than the cat from the first movie. I should also mention this movie is pretty hard to find at the moment, except if you have Xfinity on demand with Comcast it is currently available there. I give the film a 3.25/5, and you can view the trailer below:
I've been told to see this one for years, and I'm glad I finally did. It's one of the most influential horror films ever made, and for good reasons. The bizarre and haunting score for the film was composed by legendary Oscar winning film composer Maurice Jarre (Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago), the screenplay was written by the team of Boileau-Narcejac who are known for such film legends as Diabolique (1955), and Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958). The cinematography by Eugen Schufftan (Port of Shadows [1938], The Hustler [1961]) blends the styles of Jean Cocteau (Beauty and the Beast [1946]) with F.W. Murnau (Nosferatu [1922]). John Carpenter has even hinted that the famous Michael Myers' mask was inspired by the woman's mask in Eyes Without a Face, and let's not forget the Billy Idol hit song of the same name that was inspired by the film. Eyes is a french horror film about a doctor who is constantly trying to find a way to restore his daughter's face after she was disfigured in a car accident that he caused. As a result of the accident and her disfigurement, the daughter wears an eerie lifeless doll-like mask. In his search to repair her face however he has sought out experimental alternative methods that science and the medical profession would normally shun, he robs women of their faces in order to transplant them onto his daughter. Although the film's director insists the film's doctor is not a "mad doctor" this film influenced countless mad doctor/scientist movies that came after it. The doctor who at first sees normal turns out to be a cold emotionless sociopath, with no concern
of his victims. Along with the splendid music and cinematography, the acting is also flawless here. Although the film may seem a little dated (but in a way I can't quite put my finger on) it still stands the test of time feels less dated than some other films of a similar style from its era (Carnival of Souls [1962] for example). The only flaw I could see in this film was that the daughter's mask while great in its effect, was not actually a mask as you could see her lips move whenever she was "wearing" the mask and tried to speak. There were also some times when the film felt a little slow, but I feel as with many art house films, that was intentional and actually added to the unsettling feeling of the film. I give it a 5/5. The film is on the Criterion collection, and thus available on Hulu Plus. The film is also featured in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See. Here's a link to a trailer someone constructed for the film.
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:
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the 80s cult classic Fright Night (1985) and its sequels and remakes, I advise reading about it here before continuing to read this review.This sequel came out three years after the original, and it has William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall reprise their roles as Charlie Brewster and Peter Vincent respectively. This film is just as fun as the first and just as well acted and the cinematography and music are just as great as the first film as well. The only areas where this film really lacks are in its special effects and writing. The writing is still pretty good overall, but there are points in the film where certain things (although may be cool) don't make a whole lot of sense (I'd give the specific example but I don't want to give the surprise away). The special effects however are really where this film suffered, specifically the effects with the vampires. The vampire effects are much different from the first film, (which is too bad because the vampires in the first Fright Night are some of the most unique and coolest looking vampires in the history of film) here they sometimes come off as fake and hokey. The plot of the film is that it is years after the events in the first film, and Charley is now a young college student who has undergone years of therapy that has convinced him that the events in the first film never happened and that vampires don't exist. He also has a new girlfriend, on the anniversary of the events of the first film, and sort of to show himself that he has been cured of his delusional beliefs about vampires, Charley decides to reconnect with the washed up horror movie actor turned TV host, Peter Vincent. Upon visiting Vincent's apartment building though, Charley once again sees someone carrying a coffin into the building, just like the beginning of the last film. Shortly after seeing the coffin and those carrying it, Charley becomes stalked by a beautiful woman, who as you find out later is actually Jerry Dandridge (the vampire from the first film)'s sister bent on getting revenge on Peter Vincent and Charley. The actress who plays the vampire in this film does a wonderful job of being very hypnotic and exotic. The sets are great in this film too, some return from the last movie, and others are very appropriately 80s gothic. This film was not as big of a success as the first film, due partially to the fact that it had a limited theater release, and it's almost impossible tofind on any form of home video.
The VHS release of the film came in a coffin shaped box and is now a collectors item, the DVD went out of print very shortly after it was first released (plus the DVD is a horrible fuzzy Pan-and-Scan transfer) so it's hard to find, and it is still not yet known if the film will be released on Blu-Ray, although if amazon is correct you can buy a copy on Blu-Ray for $400. I enjoyed the film despite its flaws and not being as good as the first, I give it a 4/5. You can view the trailer below:
Event Horizon is essentially a haunted house movie in outer
space. The spaceship is creepy, full of creepy noises, ghosts/hallucinations,
and other blinking lights and other standard fare in haunted house movies. A
lot of people either love or hate this movie, it was panned by most critics but
it has a strong fan following. The film is set in the future and is about an innovative
spaceship that went through a black hole and disappeared, only to reappear
years later with its crew missing. A team of astronauts are sent to figure out
what happened to the crew and salvage what they can from the ship, the ship's
creator (Sam Neill's character) is
among the salvage team. The new crew starts
experiencing strange things on board the ship and they come to a dark conclusion
on where the ship might have gone on its initial trip through the black hole
(hell). The acting is what ties this movie together, both Sam Neill (Jurassic
Park) and Laurence Fishburne (pre-Matrix) give wonderful performances, but the supporting cast although full of relatively unknown faces is also great featuring: Joely
Richardson (Natasha Richardson's sister, and Vanessa Redgrave's daughter), Sean
Pertwee (Equilibrium, and Dog Soldiers), and Jason Isaacs (The Patriot and
Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter series). As the film progresses it gets
progressively gory (they had to cut back in order to get an R rating). I
absolutely love haunted house movies though and pretty much any twist on them,
so this was interesting and enjoyable even if a tad too gory for my liking
at times. The pacing was wonderful, the film had a natural progression leading up to its climax at the very end of the film. The ending was similar to that of
Carrie (1976), or Dressed to Kill (1980), or The Fury (1978). The CG is
impressive by 1997 standards, but a bit dated by today's standards. It is also
notable that the film has a similar feel to the first Alien (1979) film. I give
it a 4.25/5; The film is featured in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See. The film is also available to stream on Netflix.
You can view the trailer below:
I've
seen a lot of movies lately that have been based around the famous horror short
story by English author W.W. Jacobs, The Monkey's Paw. In The Monkey's Paw a
mother wishes that her recently deceased son would come back to life, but when
he does he's not the same way she wished he was. The Monkey's Paw is a "be
careful what you wish for" story, and so is Deathdream. Deathdream is
about a family whose son goes to fight in Vietnam and gets killed, and the
mother in her deep grief and denial about her son's death, somehow manages to
bring him back home from the dead. Upon the son's arrival back home the family is
immediately aware that something is different with Andy and he is completely
different from how he was before the war, he becomes increasingly violent and
he seems more dead than alive. The film is also a less than subtle look at the
issue of how war changes people and a look at the baggage they bring home with
them (primarily PTSD). The film covers troubled relationships the soldiers had
with family and friends upon coming home, but also their romantic relationships
and how difficult that could be, and the film also symbolically looks at soldiers
and the drug addictions they would come home with (primarily Morphine because
of its use as a pain medication), even though the main character needs blood to survive instead of actual drugs.
The movie is a good "be careful what you wish for" story, as well as a unique zombie and vampire story. This was one of director Bob Clark(Black Christmas, Porky's, and A Christmas Story)'s
first films, and for famous horror movie make-up artist and actor Tom Savini
(original Dawn of the Dead, Friday the 13th, Creepshow, The Burning, Martin,
and Knightriders)'s first film. I love Bob Clark and his style and
cinematography that he brings to each of his films, and that style is still present
even this early on in his career, and the special effects are of course great
(of course because they're by Savini) as well. The acting is great too by the
whole cast which includes John Marley (The Godfather)as the father and Oscar
nominated actress Lynn Carlin (nominated for Faces[1969] in which she also
starred with Marley) as the mother. Deathdream is marvelously creepy and lots
of fun because of it and it's message, be it metaphorical or not is much like
the message of another film I reviewed recently
(The Walking Dead[1936]), which is "let the dead stay dead." That
message of course can also be reinterpreted to apply more directly to one's
life as "let the past stay in the past." I loved the film and I give
it a 5/5. The film is mentioned in Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to See. You can view the trailer below:
I'd been meaning to see this one for a long time, but just never got around to it like so many other movies on my "to see" list.I had heard basically nothing but good things about this one, though my main hesitation to see it was because I'm not a fan of zombie movies, and yet that's why I liked this one, because it stops being a zombie movie at some point. I had always heard that 28 Days Later was a very non traditional zombie movie, but I was thinking that meant because it was the first film to feature running zombies (lots of movies have used them since though) and other unique qualities that would still make the zombies the key focal point of the movie, while this is true for a while, the film does change at a certain point. At a certain point about a third of the way through the movie, the two main characters meet up with a man and his daughter and flee to the countryside in his taxi cab. Once they leave London, the movie becomes more of an experimental/art film than a zombie film, and zombies won't even be seen again in the film until very close to the end. The
cinematography, countryside and music are all gorgeous at this point in the movie, and the characters are all relieved to be safe and among friends, so their happiness rubs off on the viewer and makes the film just that much more enjoyable. And with the exception of some of the earliest scenes of the movie, even when the zombies are around, the movie is much more about survival and figuring out how to continue/rebuild civilization as we know it than it is about just killing/escaping from zombies. In case you do not know the story, the film is about a zombie apocalypse in London brought on by bacteria found in monkeys. The story really begins though when a man (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma to a completely deserted hospital. The man finds other survivors in the city and the film follows his adventures from there on. The director Danny Boyle is known for using a guerrilla film style with all of his movies ( In Slumdog Millionaire he used cell phone cameras in the alleys of India, Trainspotting uses very fast shaky shots throughout, etc.) and this one
is no exception. Arguably the most impressive part of this film are its scenes where Murphy walks through a completely deserted London, and that's all real. In order to get the shots of a deserted London, Boyle and his crew filmed early in the morning when there was hardly anyone around and then they used handheld cameras to quickly capture the shots they needed before cars and people would begin to invade their shots. I liked the film and its unwillingness to be confined to the traditions of one specific genre. The ending didn't really sit all that well with me though (it didn't feel like there was any resolution much at all), and I'm still not a big fan of post apocalyptic zombie movies of any kind so I give it a 4.25/5. You can view the trailer below:
Although universally thought of as a classic, today it is often overlooked and forgotten about in favor of other classic 60s horror flicks like Night Of The Living Dead (1968) or other classic Sci-Fis like Invasion of The Body Snatchers(1956), but this film should still be just as talked about and beloved as it once was for it holds up remarkably well almost 55 years later. Imagine The Omen (1976) except instead of one evil kid running around destroying things with his mind, you get 12 of them in this movie. The children are born when (after a mysterious sleeping spell overtakes a whole town) all the women in a town become pregnant. Oscar winning actor George Sanders (who is known for his cold calculative and often slimy characters, to which this film's no exception) does a wonderful job as the scientist who wants to keep the children alive for the sake of studying even after they begin to commit unspeakable crimes. The special effects done to the children's eyes are still spooky even by today's standards. The film also builds marvelously until the very end (some older films can really lag, but this is well paced for the time it was made). The film does have at least one sequel (Children of The Damned, which is also acclaimed, and Iron Maiden did a saong of the same name about that film) and the honor of being remade 35 years later by horror legend John Carpenter, but from what I have read there seems to be no doubt that the original is the best. I give it a 5/5, and you can view the trailer below:
This is a very obscure cult classic, but unlike many obscure classics that are good and have seemingly no reason to be (no famous or noteworthy names attached to the project) Tourist Trap has people that add to its unique eccentric style. Most notably Robert A. Burns, the art director from the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, was involved with Tourist Trap designing the creepiest mannequins I have ever seen, and being responsible for the also very effective special effects that made them come alive. Composer Pino Donaggio, most remembered for his scores for several Brian De Palma films, Carrie (1976) Dressed to Kill
(1980), Blowout (1981), as well as Jo Dante's Piranha (1978) and Howling (1981) and Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now (1973), did a very bizarre carnival-esque score for the film. The plot of the film centers around these college aged kids going on a road trip who decide to stop at a tourist trap along the way; Slausen's Wax Museum. Unfortunately for the kids this is a real tourist trap, and the museum's owner and his crazy "brother" are turning the tourists into mannequins. It is also worth mentioning that the lead character/killer is played by the former star of the 50s TV series The Rifleman: Chuck Conners. As mentioned before the film has several unique quirks about it (the score, the lifelike mannequins, main actor cast against type) and my favorite is the fact that the killer also has telekinetic powers, forget the predictable plot twist, now that's truly
unexpected. Like many great horror flicks from the 70s and 80s this was not a success on its initial release, but it found an audience when it was aired on cable TV in the 80s, garnering none other than Stephen King as one of its many fans. King praises it in his Danse Macabre book as an obscure classic saying that the film "“wields an eerie spooky power, as wax figures begin to move and come to life in a ruined, out-of-the-way tourist resort.” The film was recently released on Blu-ray so it is now more accessible than its ever been. It is truly a unique take on the slasher film, considering it has no blood (there is a little actually, but basically none) or nudity in it and is rated PG, but just like Texas Chainsaw, it feels a whole lot more graphic than it is. The film is featured on Rue Morgue Magazine's 200 Alternative Horror Films You Need to see list/book. I give it a 4.5/5, you can view the trailer below:
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:
