Jiggy's Horror Corner

Child’s Play (2019)

Directed by Lars Klevberg [Other horror films: Polaroid (2019)]

This re-imaging of the classic 1988 film was, at times, pretty decent, but though I generally found it above average, I don’t think there’s really a whole lot to utterly love about this.

First off, as hard as I tried, I just couldn’t get use to the change in design of Chucky, most noticeably the face. I don’t think it was something that deeply took away from the film, but at the same time, I had a hard time getting the authentic Chucky feel when he was on-screen.

A big part of that too could be explained by the vastly different origin – instead of an insane serial killer trapped inside the body of a kid’s toy, this Chucky is basically a rogue program installed by a disgruntled employer (which isn’t much a spoiler, as that scene is how the film opens). Because of this change, Chucky was never ‘human’ here, instead feeling more like a robot attempting to understand how best to be the best friend he could be to Andy. Of course, this exploration doesn’t end well.

Though it wasn’t as distracting as I thought it’d be, I also wasn’t overly thrilled with the idea that Chucky was in control of not only himself, but of all the products this company linked into, such as hearing aids, televisions, drones, cars, etc. It really gets rid of the more personal feeling that I tend to expect from Chucky, though at the same time, it matches his drastically different origin well.

Many of the performances were perfectly acceptable. Aubrey Plaza certainly came across as a rather young mother, but it worked well. Brian Tyree Henry was pretty fun as a supporting cast member, though I sort of wish they did a bit more with him. I liked both Ty Consiglio and Beatrice Kitsos, and Kitsos was certainly the more memorable of the two, but I wish they had mattered more in the conclusion. As Andy, Gabriel Bateman was good. He was no Alex Vincent, but he was still good, and it’s always great to see Tim Matheson pop up, if only for a few minutes.

There was a solid kill here involving a heated pipe and a saw-blade, but the other kill with potential (lawnmower) was a bit on the dark side, and made it somewhat difficult to see everything. I did enjoy a somewhat jarring scene involving a head, so it certainly wasn’t all bad, but overall, I thought they could have done a lot more with the special effects and gore than what they did.

I’m somewhat hard-pressed to see how anyone could love this over the original film. There were certainly solid aspects about it, but it also lacked some of the scenes that made the original so great, such as the sequence in the asylum with Andy, or the scene in which his mother finds out that Chucky’s actually alive. Much of the film is serviceable, but it doesn’t really go beyond that for me.

I had a decent time watching this (it helps that by the time I saw this in theater, very few others were there to muddle the experience), and I do find it a bit above average, but I definitely don’t think the film’s great, and it sadly falls behind the original, along with at least three of it’s sequels (the second and third films, along with Curse).

7.5/10

On Fight Evil’s fifth podcast, Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I covered this shortly following it’s release. Give it a listen below.

Due occhi diabolici (1990)

Directed by Dario Argento [Other horror films: L’uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970), Il gatto a nove code (1971), 4 mosche di velluto grigio (1971), Profondo rosso (1975), Suspiria (1977), Inferno (1980), Tenebre (1982), Phenomena (1985), Opera (1987), Trauma (1993), La sindrome di Stendhal (1996), Il fantasma dell’opera (1998), Non ho sonno (2001), Il cartaio (2003), Ti piace Hitchcock? (2005), La terza madre (2007), Giallo (2009), Dracula 3D (2012), Occhiali neri (2022)] & George A. Romero [Other horror films: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Hungry Wives (1972), The Crazies (1973), The Amusement Park (1975), Martin (1976), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Creepshow (1982), Day of the Dead (1985), Monkey Shines (1988), The Dark Half (1993), Bruiser (2000), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), Survival of the Dead (2009)]

Featuring two Edgar Allan Poe stories directed by two well-respected directors (George A. Romero and Dario Argento), I wish that I could like Two Evil Eyes (as it’s known here) more. As it is, the first story is really enjoyable, but Argento’s addition here just drags, and deeply pulls down my enjoyment of the film overall.

Directed by Romero, the first story is a pretty spooky idea, and has a rather classical feel to it. It felt like one of those stories you might see in a 70’s Amicus anthology (Tales from the Crypt, Vault of Horror, what-have-you), with a great feel for suspense and a solid conclusion.

Argento’s story, based off The Black Cat, just felt off, for lack of a better word. The last six minutes or so were pretty good, if only because it was moderately suspenseful, but the rest of the story just didn’t do it for me. It’s made worse by both the fact that it’s the longer of the two stories (about an hour and three minutes long as opposed to the first story’s fifty-five minutes) and almost none of the performances wowed me, and in fact, the main actor bothered me quite a bit.

The cast for the first story is so much better anyway. Starring Adrienne Barbeau (from such classics as The Fog and Creepshow) and Ramy Zada (who I know only from a segment in 1989’s After Midnight), who work rather well together, this story also has strong performances by Bingo O’Malley, Tom Atkins, and E.G. Marshall. O’Malley isn’t a name I’m familiar with, but Atkins was in such genre classics as The Fog, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Night of the Creeps, and Maniac Cop, and was great to see here. E.G. Marshall hasn’t done much for the horror genre (in fact, this movie aside, he’s only been in two others, 1979’s television movie Vampire and a segment in Creepshow), but was amazing in the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men, and seeing him here was sort of a treat.

The second story, on the other hand, had just one performance I actually liked, being that of John Amos (who, along with being in the second Die Hard, was also in twenty or so episodes of The West Wing), who played a police detective. The star, Harvey Keitel (who I know mostly from Pulp Fiction), had a pretty weak performance here – his character didn’t really make much sense to me, and he seemed all over the place. Both Madeleine Potter and Sally Kirkland were in much the same vein, and I especially didn’t like Kirkland’s esoteric character.

Originally titled Due occhi diabolici (though the film’s in English, it’s an Italian production), Two Evil Eyes had a decent concept, but it didn’t work out, which is a shame. If I could rate the movie off the first story only, it’d be getting a pretty high rating. But as an overall package, Two Evil Eyes isn’t a movie I’d want to see again. My advice is to give the first story a watch, as it truly is pretty good, and just ignore the second.

5.5/10

Los sin nombre (1999)

Directed by Jaume Balagueró [Other horror films: Darkness (2002), Frágiles (2005), Películas para no dormir: Para entrar a vivir (2006), [Rec] (2007), [Rec]² (2009), Mientras duermes (2011), [REC] 4: Apocalipsis (2014), Muse (2017)]

Known as The Nameless to American audiences, this independent Spanish flick seems to be going for the bleak feel of movies like Se7en, which came out just four years prior. Unfortunately, while it succeeds in that endeavor, I don’t think I got much more out of this one.

In itself, the plot is pretty interesting, working itself like a solid mystery movie with occasionally rather gory scenes. I enjoyed the inclusion of the cult, but I don’t think they were particularly explained as well as they could have been, which is where a lot of my problems with this come from.

The main cast, being just two people, work decently well together. Emma Vilarasau acts way too hysterically at times, but given what her character’s going through, that could probably be excused. Karra Elejalde (who, in 2007, starred in the somewhat fun Los cronocrímenes, or Timecrimes) did well here as a retired detective, and I think he stood out because of his mostly unassuming look. Though he had just a single scene, Carlos Lasarte (who appeared later in the [Rec] films) was rather creepy, and gave off a Tim Curry vibe. No one else really stood out in one way or the other.

Parts of the plot didn’t work for me, mostly revolving around the aforementioned cult. I liked the ending, but it was pretty obvious from the get-go that this movie wouldn’t end in sunshine and daisies. Aspects of why the cult went after children, though, didn’t really seem to have a good explanation. Part of this may be the fact that the version of this movie I own on DVD is dubbed, and dubbed horribly. I rather dislike dubbed versions of foreign films, and given how badly this one was, it stood out very negatively. That possibly could have obfuscated some of the message that this movie was going for.

Still, Los sin nombre does have an interesting feel to it. Some pretty violent scenes, some involving children, and a good ending despite it’s expected nature. The problem is some parts don’t do it for me. I did happen to like this more this time around than when I first saw it, but I still find it quite a below average film. Director Jaume Balagueró later went on to direct the flawed Darkness, but also some better films, such as [Rec], so at least his later attempts were more solid.

Many people enjoy this movie, some calling it a lesser-known classic. I’ve seen it twice, and I just don’t get it. Portions are pretty good, especially for a movie of this independent a feel, but until I find a subtitled version (and chances are, that might not help as much as I hope), this isn’t a movie I’d care to see a third time.

5.5/10

The Swarm (1978)

Directed by Irwin Allen [Other horror films: N/A]

This two-and-a-half hour epic certainly feels like something unique, and despite some unnecessary sequences, I think the movie overall works out, which may be an unpopular opinion.

Very ecological in message (not dissimilar to films such as Night of the Lepus or Frogs), The Swarm boasts a strong epic feel and a very decent cast. The story isn’t necessarily special, but the almost procedural method the filmmakers employ set it apart from many other killer insect movies.

The cast here is pretty superb. I wouldn’t say that Michael Caine starring in this is the only reason to see the film, but I do think his incredibly strong presence here alone makes a good case for viewing this. Sometimes he’s a bit over-the-top, but he’s never boring. What makes his presence here better is that Caine, despite being very well-known, hasn’t been in many horror films (aside from this one, he’s been in maybe five others, such as Jaws: The Revenge and The Hand), so it’s great seeing an actor of his caliber starring here.

Richard Widmark, despite playing a somewhat unlikable character, stands out pretty well too. Like Caine, he had a strong personality, and it was fun to see where his character would go. I only know Richard Chamberlain from the Shogun mini-series, but he looks virtually identical here, and I enjoyed his character, though he didn’t get enough screen-time. Plenty of other names here stand out, such as Katharine Ross, Olivia de Havilland, Fred MacMurray, Slim Pickens, Cameron Mitchell, Morgan Paull, and perhaps most importantly, Henry Fonda.

The Swarm had some really great sequences, including an attack by bees on a small Texas community (the school scene, which reminded me a little of The Birds, stood out as particularly tragic), a rather thrilling train disaster, and the burning of Houston by the military via flamethrowers. Even toward the end, when a military base is under siege by both bees and fire, there’s a definite action feel to the scenes, and when this movie does well, it really does well.

The problem is that there are more than a few meanderings into the personal lives’ of characters who ultimately don’t really matter. It could be argued that these characters help bring a personal, human element to a film otherwise preoccupied with scientific and military efficacy, but they felt a bit too out-of-place and humorous in this otherwise somewhat bleak and somber story. The love-story involving MacMurray’s, Havilland’s, and one Ben Johnson’s characters didn’t enthrall me, though again, I sort of see the point. Also worth mentioning, there are a few hideously superimposed giant bees that pop up throughout the film that looked laughably bad.

The director of the film, Irwin Allen, played a big part in this movie carrying with it an almost-disaster movie feel, due to the fact he was a producer for classics such as The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure (neither of which I’ve seen, if truth be told). For a more genre-centric comparison, think the military portions of The Stand, and that’s a lot of what you have here. Luckily, most of it works out in a pretty suspenseful way.

Personally, I don’t find a lot wrong with the film, despite the fact that many have more than a few negative things to say about it. Maybe it’s because I’m a decent fan of Caine’s work, maybe it’s because I have a soft spot for bees (on a side-note, being allergic, I really don’t), but this ecological horror-action film is a fun movie, and if you can survive the two-and-a-half hours, hopefully you too will get something out of it. I just know I’ve seen this twice now, and I’ve not been disappointed.

8.5/10

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 tifeme 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