Jiggy's Horror Corner

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Directed by Andrew Douglas [Other horror films: N/A]

I won’t pretend to remember much about the original The Amityville Horror (it’s been quite some time since I’ve seen it), but this remake, which I’ve also seen before, strikes me as almost entirely pedestrian despite a few solid sequences.

The movie’s certainly tense, no doubt about it. But movies before did it better (such as the classic Burnt Offerings), and this really adds nothing to the table, which is a shame, as there was a pretty good atmosphere perforating much of the movie.

However, it was held back by it’s utterly Hollywood style. The jump scares, the ghosts no one but the audience can see, the idiotic conclusion, the hideous flashes of ‘scary’ stuff, I hate that type of movie-making. Kids may eat it up, and it may sell tickets, but I’ve no interest in it.

There were some good scenes, though, such as the sequences that took place atop the house. The opening to the film, a flashback of an earlier slaughter, was moderately welcomed also. But then most of the other scares aren’t worth much, and good tension doesn’t erase the taste of an otherwise stale film.

If this remake has anything really going for it, I think it’s the decent acting of the lead, Ryan Reynolds. Throughout the film, he grows more and more unstable, culminating in a blood-less potential carnage. Jesse James (who I know best from 2003’s Fear of the Dark, a long-time favorite of mine) was also noticeable, but I don’t know if he, or really any of the kids, were that crucial to the story.

Honestly, while I really liked some of the scenes and ideas this was going for, it felt incredibly Hollywood, both tame and wrought with unnecessary jump scares meant purely for the audience. I don’t remember if I liked this when I first saw it, but I definitely see it as below average now.

5.5/10

What Keeps You Alive (2018)

Directed by Colin Minihan [Other horror films: Grave Encounters (2011), Extraterrestrial (2014), It Stains the Sands Red (2016)]

With potential to be more, unfortunately What Keeps You Alive both goes on too long and possesses quite a few bad choices on the parts of the characters, making the movie all the more forgettable, though perhaps still worth at least one go.

It starts out pretty well, with a likable couple played by Hannah Emily Anderson and Brittany Allen (yes, they’re a lesbian couple, so should you be a piece of homophobic trash, this may not be for you) spending their one-year anniversary at a secluded cabin. It’s hard to tell where the movie’s going from the beginning, but come a shocking scene about twenty minutes in or so, from that point on, most can probably guess what’s coming up.

As it is, the story is pretty decent, despite a few small elements I don’t care for. The problem is that the story drags past the point of interest, and honestly, though I understand why they added in the last twenty minutes, I think the movie would have been better without it. Really, I’d rather have a pretty good eighty minute movie as opposed to a flawed hour and forty minute one.

The two main actresses do good, at least. Anderson might grate on you a bit as the movie goes on (she felt too similar to a few other characters I’ve seen in earlier horror films), but Allen is consistently fun, despite her utterly horrible choices toward the conclusion of the film. On a side-note, I find it somewhat amusing that both these women were also in 2017’s Jigsaw. Not relevant to this movie, I just found it interesting. Given that only four total individuals are in this film, it’s a good thing that these two main characters are at least bearable.

It doesn’t really matter when it comes to the elongated conclusion, though. Like I said, without the final twenty minutes (which did have an okay scene, at least), I think many people would have liked this movie a bit more. Because of the route it took, though, What Keeps You Alive just hovers around average, maybe even dipping a bit below. Had the story been tightened up a bit, I could see giving this film a much better rating, but it wasn’t to be. Certainly an interesting idea, though.

7/10

Halloween II (1981)

Directed by Rick Rosenthal [Other horror films: The Birds II: Land’s End (1994), Halloween: Resurrection (2002)]

In many ways, this sequel reaches similar heights as it’s predecessor, and though it lacks the classic feel of the original, it’s both a fun and oft-thrilling watch.

Much of the suspense works due to the setting, a rather isolated and understaffed hospital, filled with empty corridors and many deadly weapons (and a therapy tub, used to glorious effect). It’s worth noting that the film doesn’t have a significantly higher amount of gore (aside from a pool of blood that one character slips in), and still manages most of the kills without showing that much. That said, there is a much higher body count here, so there’s still certainly enough to keep us looking for more.

The great setting aside, the fact that Laurie is wounded here also makes the chase sequences just a bit more suspenseful. When in her prime, Laurie could defend herself against Michael, but here, she’s nowhere near her best, and watching her stumble down a deserted hallway to escape Michael, then going into a dingy basement area, those were great scenes, and perhaps my favorites of the movie.

Of course, Jamie Lee Curtis does pretty good here as Laurie, though she doesn’t get nearly as much screen-time as you might expect. Donald Pleasence is fun here too, and gets a few more wild moments only hinted at in the first film. He especially gets in some good action toward the end and the explosive finale. Lance Guest is pretty solid here, though doesn’t have as much to do with how the film goes as first thought. Finally, returning from the first film, Charles Cyphers is nice to see, but quickly gets put out of commission after finding out his daughter, Annie, was a victim of Myers’.

Speaking of the first film, I liked how this film replayed the last few moments of the first, the music not kicking in until after Pleasence talks to a neighbor attracted to the gunshots. A nice, subtle beginning that quickly turns into a chaotic police manhunt, but of course, Michael still evades the search. The one plot twist in the film isn’t necessarily the best thought out (I think we all know what I’m talking about), but for this one film, it works out fine.

Halloween II doesn’t feel nearly as good as the first movie, but given how I think the first movie is one of the best horror movies ever made, that should hardly come as a shock. Still, there’s plenty in this movie to deeply enjoy, and ever since I first saw this many years back, I absolutely loved the hospital chase sequences, and always found them thrilling. The ending too was also pretty epic, and if they had wanted, would have served a fine conclusion to the story. A great movie by any means, this film stands the test of time, and brings a lot to enjoy to the table.

8.5/10

Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel (2018)

Directed by Stephen Cognetti [Other horror films: Hell House LLC (2015), Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire (2019)]

The second film of this planned trilogy doesn’t really change a significant amount as far as the style or story goes, but at the same time, it doesn’t set itself apart from the first one that much either, and toward the end, sort of goes a bit overboard on explaining some things.

Pretty much everything decent about the first movie is decent here – the multiple media forms (such as YouTube videos, a morning talk show, interviews, etc), the subtle creepy scenes, the setting itself – but there’s little here that wasn’t in the first movie, and the stuff that was added doesn’t much help the film a whole lot.

I think the biggest problem is toward the end, in which a sequence takes place that throws all subtly out the window, and instead makes obvious what could have mostly been inferred already. The scene felt unnecessary to our understanding of the story, and it was just too much. Instead of that, if they had thrown in some more creepy clown scenes, I think I would have been happy.

I do like all of the references to the characters from the first movie, and the fact that they expand a bit on one of the unanswered questions the first movie brought forth. Shining a light a bit on Alex’s motivations, both in the middle of the film and with the flashbacks at the conclusion, really add something that I thought was actually relevant.

Personally, I feel that if you’re a fan of the first movie, as I definitely was, this isn’t really all that different. True, I feel the first movie has a more mysterious and creepy, uneasy vibe to it, especially given that in this film, most people agree that the hotel isn’t the safest place to be, and it dampens the suspense. Still, it’s mostly a clone of the first film, which is both a good thing, as it does many of the same things right, but it also doesn’t seem to try and be more.

If you liked the first one, you’ll possibly like this one, as apart from the unnecessary sequence toward the end, there’s not a whole lot of differences.

7.5/10

Quella villa accanto al cimitero (1981)

Directed by Lucio Fulci [Other horror films: Una lucertola con la pelle di donna (1971), Non si sevizia un paperino (1972), Il cav. Costante Nicosia demoniaco, ovvero: Dracula in Brianza (1975), Sette note in nero (1977), Zombi 2 (1979), Paura nella città dei morti viventi (1980), Gatto nero (1981), …E tu vivrai nel terrore! L’aldilà (1981), Lo squartatore di New York (1982), Manhattan Baby (1982), Murderock – Uccide a passo di danza (1984), Aenigma (1987), Zombi 3 (1988), Il fantasma di Sodoma (1988), Quando Alice ruppe lo specchio (1988), La casa nel tempo (1989), La dolce casa degli orrori (1989), Un gatto nel cervello (1990), Demonia (1990), Hansel e Gretel (1990), Voci dal profondo (1991), Le porte del silenzio (1992)]

As with much of Fulci’s horror output, Quella villa accanto al cimitero (or The House by the Cemetery) lacks some cohesion at times, but comes forth with strong gore, though this doesn’t entirely save it.

At first glance, the story is somewhat simple, but there are elements never really touched upon aside from being referenced once or twice (such as what exactly the deal with the babysitter was, and under what circumstances did the main guy visit the house previously, or the psychic girl subplot), which creates an occasionally incoherent film, perhaps par for the course, as far as Fulci’s concerned.

That said, many don’t come to Fulci’s films for their unparalleled stories, they come for the gore, and this movie certainly has that. Dismembered body parts, a bloody bat attack, multiple stabbings, this movie knew what it was doing insofar as the gore and special effects were concerned.

I watched a dubbed version of the film (which is the same as last time I saw this, if I recall), and the dubbing wasn’t spectacular, but it didn’t really harm the performances. Paolo Marco was still decently strong as the main character, though he wasn’t as involved as I thought he might be. Catriona MacColl was a bit hysterical at times, but it worked for her character. Playing the babysitter with an unexplained connection to the house, Ania Pieroni did fine, but was lacking characterization. Lastly, the boy, played by Giovanni Frezza, was hurt most by the dubbing, and came across as annoying half the time, but I could live with it.

The lack of cohesion here is the biggest problem. Certainly there’s occasionally a strong atmosphere, and of course the gore is pretty top-notch, but when the story’s not amazing, those other factors can only do so much. Related, while much of the score was pretty good, it was rather eclectic at times, and seemed cut oddly, at least in the print I saw.

The House by the Cemetery probably isn’t Lucio Fulci’s best movie (I definitely prefer Don’t Torture a Duckling and Zombi 2 more, and maybe even The Beyond), but it is a good example of the kind of horror this Italian director did for the genre. It’s worth seeing despite the problems present, but it might not be one of his movies that you constantly go back to.

6/10

Apostle (2018)

Directed by Gareth Evans [Other horror films: Footsteps (2006), V/H/S/2 (2013, segment ‘Safe Haven’)]

This one caught me a bit by surprise. While I expected it to be an above-average movie based on the plot alone, I wasn’t quite expecting something of this high quality.

In many ways, this feels a bit like an updated version of The Wicker Man (a comparison that many others have made, it seems), only this takes place in the early 1900’s. There’s some amazing suspense and a somewhat layered story here, and combine that with both the quality performances and heavy quantities of gore, you have a solid movie here.

One factor that might initially seem detrimental to enjoyment may be the run-time, Apostle being a two hour and ten minute movie. That said, the film didn’t feel that long, and never really seemed to drag, which is somewhat of a feat in itself. I’d just say to not let the length deter you from giving the film a chance.

The cast makes the film better even if you think it’s on the sluggish side. I’m not familiar with any of these names, but Dan Stevens does great as the main character, and Michael Sheen was rather charismatic as Prophet Malcolm. Bill Milner did okay in his role, but his love interest Kristine Froseth did better. Lucy Boynton has a fiery nature about her, and Mark Lewis Jones really shone here, especially nearing the conclusion, which held a few surprises for us.

Possessing an unexpected brutality, Apostle had great gore. Multiple slit throats, a few torture scenes, impalement by spears, some mangled fingers, and my favorite scene, a disembowelment. I was pretty much thinking the movie would be an atmospheric slow-burn, and it sort of is, but the gore they had was top-notch, and like I alluded to, took me by surprise.

Apostle’s not a movie likely to appeal to everyone, especially given the run-time. If you’re a fan of The Wicker Man, though, this might be worth looking for. The gore would likely satisfy the slasher fans, and the suspense and pretty lush story and characterization would please those looking for something a little deeper. This is a movie that I can’t easily classify, but it’s all the better for it, and I think it was really a treat to see.

9/10

Summer of 84 (2018)

Directed by François Simard [Other horror films: N/A], Anouk Whissell [Other horror films: N/A] & Yoann-Karl Whissell [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a movie that I’m not even going to try and write a lengthy take on – it originally blew me away entirely, and if you’ve a thing for movie’s harking back to the 1980’s, I’d highly recommend giving this one a look. With a second viewing, it’s not quite as fresh, but still very much worth a look.

With a story somewhat similar to the Rear Window/Disturbia-type plot, and with the vibe of Stranger Things (I’ve seen only the first episode, but the similar vibe is definitely here), Summer of 84 really had a lot of talent behind it, from cinematography to the absolutely masterful soundtrack, and amazing handle on suspense.

It is true that the story may not lead you to any really big surprises, but it does a moderately decent job at keeping you guessing at times, and the way they handle what they have is beyond enjoyable. That soundtrack alone had me excited every time the music popped up.

Plenty of good performances from all the main actors and actresses involved, from the four main kids (Graham Verchere, Judah Lewis, Caleb Emery, and Cory Gruter-Andrew) to the other characters of import (the beautiful Tiere Skovbye and seemingly-shifty Rich Sommer). I didn’t have a single complaint about any of the acting here, and I thought the four main boys all complimented each other nicely.

As said, the story itself may not seem a thrill ride, but the suspense in this movie is so damn heavy, especially toward the end. Some may argue the last ten minutes or so were unnecessary, but I thought it tacked on something quite memorable, and without it, I feel the movie wouldn’t feel near as complete.

I honestly don’t have many bad things to say about the film at all. Sure, it feels a lot more like a coming-of-age film than a horror movie at times, but other great movies, including the somewhat similar The Girl Next Door (2007), had very much the same feel. Throw in the 80’s vibe this film captured magnificently, and you have a winner. It’s far from the greatest movie ever made, despite the fact that I really loved it when I first saw it, but again, despite it not being as memorable as one might hope, I think it’s worth the watch.

8/10

This was on the 12th episode of Fight Evil’s podcast, so if you care to, listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss it.

Truth or Double Dare (TODD) (2018)

Directed by Shaquita Smith [Other horror films: N/A]

While not a necessarily good movie, this was nowhere near as bad as the title or rating on IMDb (3/10 when I first wrote this review, and it’s a 2.4/10 right now) led me to believe. Still, it did come across as rather soulless, which is it’s biggest problem.

The story isn’t really that unique. Combining elements of past films like Truth or Dare (2012) and Most Likely to Die (2015), this flick felt as though it had been done before. That said, for a lower-budget movie (the estimated budget is around a million dollars), it had a decent production, and I sort of liked what they did with the flashbacks in the movie.

Worth noting, the movie, while only an hour long, has a somewhat ambitious plot, and probably more characters than necessary (there’s Michelle, John, Chiggy, Claudia, Egypt, Rashad, Lucas, Juan, Felicity, and Alex as the main characters). It didn’t take much to figure out who was who or what relationships they had with each other, but given the first twenty minutes of an already short movie were devoted entirely to showing these characters, it felt a bit much.

As said, the story’s generic, and while some actors and actresses do decent, others are pretty cringe-worthy. Those who did well include Jake Levin, Jillian McLendon, Caleb Spivak, and Alyx Libby, Spivak and Libby perhaps being my favorites. Austin Chunn and Drew Stephenson didn’t do much for me, but both were moderately competent. Gina Hiraizumi (who is probably one of the most-accomplished cast-members) didn’t work for me, though, and Tevon Plunkett was laughably over-the-top at times. I’m torn by Maia Kavchak – she did well at times in her role, but she also did horribly during a few scenes.

That said, the failures of acting isn’t what brings the movie down the most. It’s that the story, while somewhat well-constructed (despite pathetically weak kills), felt utterly soulless. Some movies of a similar plot, such as the aforementioned Most Likely to Die, Don’t Go to the Runion (2013), and ROT: Reunion of Terror (2008) all had more feeling (Reunion of Terror wasn’t that good, but for an indie horror, it knew what it was going for). This one had a decent story, if not derivative, but I didn’t get the sense that those involved loved what they were doing. It felt a bit stale, especially compared to Don’t Go to the Reunion, which was a clearly made-for-horror-fans-by-horror-fans flick, made for about $18,000.

You could do worse than making a movie without feeling – like I said, there were some good performances here, and the way the story was told, especially regarding the flashbacks, was somewhat inspired. But I couldn’t imagine ever wanting to watch this again if I had those other previously mentioned movies at my disposal.

5.5/10

The Terror (1938)

Directed by Richard Bird [Other horror films: N/A]

This British adaptation of an Edgar Wallace play has many of the elements you would hope from an old dark house mystery, but falls just a bit flat due to some comprehension issues.

The story starts out more a crime movie than many other examples of the subgenre, what with a clever robbery of a rather large shipment of gold. Before long, though, we meet a large cast of characters, each one somewhat suspicious, including a drunkard who seems to have quite an interest in the grounds of an inn, a butler who seems to know far more than he says, and a parson who definitely doesn’t seem what he is, along with others.

It’s a good story with multiple red herrings and an enjoyable mystery, while also throwing in some delightful wit (much of it rather amusing) and characters that are rather memorable, such as Bernard Lee’s inept drunkard.

In fact, Bernard Lee, while being far from the main star, was probably my favorite performance of the bunch. Linden Travers did pretty good, but much of the time fell into the generic ‘hysterical woman’ that these movies always seemed to rely on. Wilfred Lawson didn’t make much an of impression until the end, and Arthur Wontner never really does. Iris Hoey’s character was pretty funny at times, but is representative of my main issue with the film.

Beforehand, I want to state that I know this may not be a necessarily fair criticism, but it was still a prevalent issue. Being a British movie of not the highest quality, some of the dialogue was hard to follow, especially from Hoey’s character, who had a rather rapid-fire delivery. I caught most of what Lee’s character said, slurred as it almost always was, but some character’s accents, mixed with the audio present, led to more than a few incomprehensible lines of dialogue. I still caught most of the story, but I know I missed some amusing quips, and even once, a whole conversation went over my head.

It didn’t help any that this movie had a rather staged feel, partially, I suspect, because it’s based off a play. A lot of conversations with different characters lead to increased opportunities of missed snatches of conversation, which happened multiple times. It’s not the fault of the movie, but it still impacted how I felt about it toward the end.

Otherwise, this is a delightful little film. I liked the ghostly monk, and his ghoulish chuckles, though he should have appeared more. The creepy organ music of mysterious origin was fun, and there were some desolate ruins too that played a part. Generally-speaking, the setting was pretty solid, as were the characters. It’s just the language barrier, as it was, that presented a problem.

I first saw this film some years back, though I don’t remember much about how much I enjoyed it. It probably came across as a somewhat generic old dark house mystery, which I guess it sort of is. Still, re-watching it certainly increased my appreciation of it, and were it not for the problem I had with it, I think it’d be getting a higher rating easily.

There was an American version of this play made in 1928, but unfortunately, it’s lost. It was apparently one of the earliest horror talkies, which makes it all the more a shame that it can no longer be seen. Elements of the film were then used in Return of the Terror, which came out in 1934. While this film does survive, it can only been seen from the Library of Congress, and as such, hasn’t had many words said about it.

As for the 1938 version, though, it certainly has it’s charm, much of it coming from the wit throughout, and if you’re a bit better at catching some fast-moving dialogue, you’ll probably get a bit more from the movie out of me. Still, by no means a bad movie, The Terror is an enjoyable late 30’s mystery/horror hybrid during a time when horror films were rather hard to come by.

6.5/10

Cucuy: The Boogeyman (2018)

Directed by Peter Sullivan [Other horror films: Summoned (2013), High School Possession (2014), Ominous (2015), The Sandman (2017)]

This is definitely one of the better flicks I’ve seen on Syfy in the last few years, surpassing my admittedly low expectations of it rather easily.

Focusing on the Latin American-based mythology of Cucay or the Sack Man, the movie had a strong Spanish feel to the film, which is something that I generally don’t care for. Here, however, they made it work, a big part due to the characters themselves who were mostly solid. It helped too that the story was pretty well-done, especially for a television flick.

Bella Stine did pretty good for as young an actress as she is. Both Marisol Nichols and Pedro Correa did commendably also, though it did take a bit for Correa to grow on me. The star of the film, and also the strongest performance, was Jearnest Corchado, who came across quite well as a strong teen fighting for her sister.

Another somewhat surprising aspect of the film is that the design of the titular Cucay isn’t that bad. At first, it does look a little ridiculous, but like Correa’s character, it grew on me after a while. I’m somewhat reminded of the 2017 Syfy film Stickman, in which the story was decent, but the design was terrible. Here, luckily both the story and special effects are superior.

So too is the ending. Instead of tacking on a hideous downer ending in the last two seconds of the film, they do something a bit differently, and though the effects of the specific scene I’m referring to are sketchy, I really liked the implications.

Most modern-day television movies don’t blow me away, and this one didn’t either, but I certainly recognize it as clearly one of the stronger efforts in the last few years (the only other one that really comes to mind is Neverknock from 2017). For a television movie, you could certainly do worse than this one, and though it doesn’t really add much to the genre, I was happy with the final product.

8/10