Directed by Tom Holland [Other horror films: Fright Night (1985), Two-Fisted Tales (1992, segment ‘King of the Road’), The Langoliers (1994), Thinner (1996), Tom Holland’s Twisted Tales (2014), Rock, Paper, Scissors (2017)]
This classic flick gets many things right, and very little wrong. Despite the nature of the movie, believe me, it’s not at all as silly as you might think (or what later sequels would lead you to believe). I won’t have a lot to say on this, so bear with me.
The story is pretty fun and captivating throughout, not to mention original. Certainly didn’t really feel like other movies around the time, and still stands out to today (despite some not so great sequels, such as Bride and Seed). Both tense and well-paced, everything seems to work out fine in this department.
The acting is pretty top-notch all-around, also. Catherine Hicks does a fantastic job as a mother worried sick for, at first, the mental health of her child, and then about a doll trying to take over her son’s body. Hicks has never been a big name, but she does beautifully here. Chris Sarandon, as a police detective, does a fine job also. It actually took me until this re-watch to realize he’s also in the 1985 classic Fight Night. Big duh moment then. He was a fun character though, and certainly got his licks in.
Despite being a young kid, Alex Vincent does extremely well as Andy. The scene in which Chucky’s coming for him while in the institution is perhaps one of my favorites in the film, and Vincent shows very strong acting both there and pretty much throughout the film, all without turning into an annoyance, which I appreciated. And need I mention Brad Dourif? His voice makes Chucky the memorable mofo that he is, and really helps the movie stand out from it’s peers.
As aforementioned, there’s more than a few kills that aren’t great (keywords: window, house), but others make up for it, such as that voodoo scene. The car scene too, with Sarandon, was a fun ride (for us, not Sarandon), with Chucky trying to stab him through the seat (another scene that’s stuck with me since I was a kid).
There’s very little that Child’s Play doesn’t get right. I suppose at times Chucky could be a bit much, but really, that’s part of his nature, it seems. The movie doesn’t waste any time, and just throws us into the action, which I always appreciated. It never really lets up, either. A solid movie all-around, Child’s Play is one that, if you’ve not yet seen, you no longer have an excuse to avoid.
8.5/10
We covered this classic on Fight Evil’s third podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss the movie, and you shouldn’t be surprised by how much both of us enjoy it.
Directed by Kenneth Zollo [Other horror films: N/A]
At the time I watched this (around March 2018), this movie came out of nowhere, and I’m guessing it must have been added to IMDb sometime within last six to eight months of that date – had it been there any longer, I would have ran into it (as I often scour IMDb for previously unknown horror flicks).
Straight to video (that much, the quality can attest to), The Toxic Slime Creature is such an obscurity I’ve thus far not found much information on it. A few sources call it an “extremely rare Vidimax release,” and that certainly seems plausible. The origins of this movie aside, let’s see how it actually is.
Made up of a limited cast (all of whom, at this point in time, have no additional credits on IMDb), this movie keeps things simple and to the point, going as far as only giving us brief, one-second glances of the titular slime creature at a time, which, given the special effects, is probably only a positive.
The only actor who really stood out was Charles Ward, whose character is one of the few who manages to keep calm throughout. Some of the dialogue is laughable (“How can it not have legs? What doesn’t have legs” being rebuffed by two suggestions, that of a snake and fish), but not as much as you might think going in.
With a run-time of just an hour (more like 57 minutes, truth be told), being holed up in an office most of the time and occasionally trying to fight the creature doesn’t make for an enthralling film, but even a banana held more dread than the climatic fight at the conclusion. There’s not that much to this movie, and it’s probably not worth seeing, but hell, it did possess some charm. At the very least, the title’s amusing.
Directed by Joe Dante [Other horror films: Piranha (1978), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983, segment ‘It’s a Good Life’), Gremlins (1984), The ‘Burbs (1989), Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990), Trapped Ashes (2006, segment ‘Wraparound’), The Hole (2009), Burying the Ex (2014), Nightmare Cinema (2018, segment ‘Mirari’)]
I saw this movie once many years ago, and I didn’t care for it then. Upon rewatching it, my views haven’t really altered all that much.
The Howling has more than a few positive qualities. Plenty of the actors and actresses are either good or fun, the special effects are very well done, there are some tense scenes, and the setting itself (forest retreat) is pretty decent.
Dee Wallace did a very good job, especially near the beginning, of a woman suffering from the aftermath of a violent attack. I didn’t really care for where the story took her, but still, she did a solid job. Patrick Macnee stood out also, as did Belinda Balaski, who, along with being a rather attractive woman, was one of the few characters really trying to figure out what was going on. And need I mention Dick Miller? His appearances are always fun, and this one was no different.
The special effects certainly were top-notch, with good werewolf transformations and severed arms. Really, if there’s one reason to watch this film, it’s probably for what they were able to do as far as the effects went, as even by today’s stands, they’re impressive.
The problem is, though, despite the positives (the Colony, in concept, was cool, for instance), this movie just didn’t jibe well with me. I’m not sure what it is – it has elements I rather like throughout the film, but it just didn’t work for me.
Often hailed as a werewolf classic (which, let’s be honest, isn’t that much an accomplishment), The Howling didn’t do much for me. It had a memorable ending, memorable transformations, memorable actors. But the movie just falls flat, despite all that, and end up well below average.
Directed by Stuart Gordon [Other horror films: Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986), Daughter of Darkness (1990), The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), Castle Freak (1995), Dagon (2001), Bunker of Blood: Chapter 5: Psycho Sideshow: Demon Freaks (2018)]
Seeing this movie a second time really solidified what I felt the first time around: while certainly corny at times, with some overacting afoot, Dolls has a lot of feeling to it.
There were some atrocious characters in the film (Bunty Bailey’s Isabel, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon’s Rosemary, and Ian Patrick Williams’ David), but the heart of the film lie in Judy, Ralph, and the elderly couple Hilary and Gabriel.
Played by Stephen Lee, Ralph was a great character, and while at times he was played up a bit much as the comic relief, I really enjoyed how he was able to connect with Judy (Carrie Lorraine) better than her father or step-mother ever could. And of course, Hilary Mason does wonderful as a witch-type old woman. While Ralph was a great character, though, the true stand-out is Guy Rolfe’s performance as Gabriel.
Charismatic and often kindhearted, Gabriel was a real treat, who spoke with respect to those who deserved it. In many ways, his placement of importance on kids’ and their wonder really reminded me, oddly enough, of a Willy Wonka-type character. Who couldn’t love that?
In relation, this movie had a strong fantasy feel throughout, which, while at times I find bothersome in a horror flick, really worked out well here. Stuart Gordon did a great job balancing the two, and while overall I think Paperhouse is a better fantasy/horror blend, Dolls is damn enjoyable also.
There were creepy scenes throughout, some subtle, some not so, and the kills were both memorable and, at times, brutal (I enjoyed the dolls attacking one of the characters in waves, but the firing squad death has to be my favorite – the slow motion worked really well there). The stop motion effects were pretty good looking, so kudos to that department also. Lastly, the music throughout the film was deeply enjoyable. Sometimes suspenseful, sometimes fantastical, those who worked on the score did a really great job. High quality all around.
Dolls isn’t by any means the perfect film, but it does possess occasionally poignant scenes and overall comes across as a feel-good movie, despite the violence. It harkens back to the creativity of childhood, and questions why we lost the wonder most of us once had. It’s a pleasant watch, in short, and I’d certainly recommend this to any interested party.
Directed by Jeff Kwitny [Other horror films: Beyond the Door III (1989)]
I’m not ashamed to say that I find Iced an enjoyable slasher. Of course, since I like 3/4’s of all 70’s and 80’s slashers, perhaps that doesn’t come as a surprise.
Iced is a low-quality late addition to the slasher genre, and doesn’t really have much to add. The kills vary in quality (weakest, by far, was a hot tub electrocution, but both the icicle kill, along with the bear-trap death, were quite fun), but for the most part, they were all good fun. The setting, a secluded cabin in the snowy wilderness, was delightful also (reminiscent, almost, of 1984’s Satan’s Blade).
None of the cast did particularly amazing, but I will say, many of the folks in this flick have been in other classic (and not so classic) films around the same time. Debra De Liso (Trina), who did, in my opinion, pretty decently throughout, was in The Slumber Party Massacre (1982). Doug Stevenson (Cory) was briefly in The Prowler (1981). Ron Kologie (Carl) was in the mess Cards of Death (1986). Joseph Alan Johnson (Alex) was also in The Slumber Party Massacre, along with 1987’s Berserker (a slasher I’ve not had the pleasure to view yet). Lastly, Lisa Loring (Jeanette) was in Blood Frenzy (1987).
So while not great, those actors and actresses certainly got around the horror genre, and all things considered, no one really did terribly in Iced (the nudity certainly didn’t hurt matters). Oh, the conversations were often awkward or stilted, but isn’t that half the fun? And don’t get me started on that utterly ridiculous ending…
Iced is one of those flicks that would probably only appeal to slasher fans. It’s not the bottom of the barrel, as far as quality goes (1986’s Night Ripper! might get that accolade), but Iced is certainly no Friday the 13th. That said, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, legitimately. Not an A+ slasher, but an all-around solid viewing.
(One last side-note: this movie has no DVD or Blu-Ray release currently – it’s on VHS only. Damn shame).
Directed by Gary Sherman [Other horror films: Death Line (1972), Mysterious Two (1982), Poltergeist III (1988), 39: A Film by Carroll McKane (2006)]
I’ve now seen this film twice, and it has thoroughly been cemented into my favorite horror flicks of the 1980’s.
Dead & Buried is a moody and atmospheric classic, one that I think every horror fan should give a shot. The plot takes you for a ride – you might think you see what’s coming, but you may be in for a surprise. The atmosphere is wonderfully tense and mysterious, and like the main character, Sheriff Dan Gillis (played by James Farentino), you’re wondering what the hell is going on.
Dead & Buried is an innovative movie that is held back only by leaving a few too many unanswered questions at the end, along with some moderately hokey acting by Farentino later on in the flick. But the positives far outweigh the downsides.
James Farentino and Jack Albertson (playing a very memorable coroner/mortician) did amazing throughout the film, and although, like I said, Farentino got a bit iffy toward the end, he still did a damn fine job. Also worth noting: while he didn’t appear much, Robert Englund was also in the flick, playing one of the townsfolk. Always fun to see him, no matter how unsubstantial the role.
The gore level isn’t all that high, but there are amazing special effects throughout (Stan Winston did so well here), and really, just for those alone, it’s worth watching.
It’s hard to overstate how amazing this film is, even with the drawbacks. It may feel like a Twilight Zone episode at times, albeit a violent one, but that just adds to it’s charm. A fine movie in any horror fan’s collection, Dead & Buried has been overlooked for far too long. This movie certainly did it for me, and that ending is not one I will be forgetting anytime soon.
Directed by Paul Lynch [Other horror films: Humongous (1982), Mania (1986, segments ‘Have a Nice Day’ & ‘The Good Samaritan’)]
I’ve seen this movie around five times now, and I can finally appreciate it more than I’ve been able to in the past. My main problems stemmed from the fact that many of the characters seemed interchangeable – the difference between Kelly and Jude and Vicki and even Jamie Lee Curtis’ Kim never stuck with me, and so I lost track of who’s who and what relationship between everybody was as the movie dragged on, which wasn’t helped out by the fact Nick and Alex didn’t look all that different from each other either. With this most recent viewing, though, things were cleared up, and while it doesn’t save the film, it goes a long way in increasing my rating.
Aside from Jamie Lee Curtis (who, by the way, had some fantastically cheesy dance scenes toward the end), there weren’t a whole lot of stand-out performances. I liked Nielsen well enough, along with Eddie Benton (mega-bitch Wendy), Michael Tough (Kim’s brother, Alex), Joy Thompson (Jude), and Sheldon Rybowski (Slick, a deliciously fun character), but none of them blew me away. Which is sort of a shame, because for the first two acts, next to nothing horror-wise occurs to keep us otherwise occupied.
Which is my biggest gripe of the film – it’s drags on too long at the beginning. Once we get an hour in, I start having a great time (that decapitation is still a favorite of mine), but getting there is, more than anything else, a chore. It feels like Carrie (1976), in many ways, actually, as it just drags on and on until we finally get to an epic finale.
I did like the end, which was actually rather somber. There were plenty of attractive ladies throughout, and while nudity wasn’t high, it was still a nice plus. Again, Jamie Lee Curtis did a good job (even though that disco dance is so dated), though her role in Terror Train, also from 1980, stuck with me more. Lastly, the song that bled into the credits, ‘Fade to Black’ by Gordene Simpson, was beautifully sung, and though I didn’t notice it during my first viewings of this flick, it really is a nice song that I’ll not forget.
Prom Night, despite the problems I have (not mentioned, but I feel the killer’s absence would have been noted, for instance), has a lot of charm. It drags, but it is still a decently well-done slasher that is just outclassed by others from the same time (such as My Bloody Valentine, which came out a year later). I still don’t love this flick. But I’m closer than I have been before.
6.5/10
This was covered on Fight Evil’s second podcast, so you can listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this.
Directed by Amy Holden Jones [Other horror films: N/A]
My views on this film haven’t much changed since I last saw it.
It’s a quick-paced, fun, cheesy slasher movie. The 80’s soundtrack is both fun and nostalgic, and the female nudity is both memorable and captivating. At under 80 minutes, this movie doesn’t take long for things to begin happening, and given that the story’s moderately paper-thin, that’s only a positive.
The killer is a bit uninspired, but I do like the his choice of weaponry, being a drill. Gore throughout the film is pretty good, and given the quick-paced nature of the movie, it really doesn’t seem like all that long a time.
The Slumber Party Massacre is a simple movie, and while most of the characters are decent, none of them really stand out (though the neighbor, played by Rigg Kennedy, is a damn cool cat), it’s a fun movie that is always a good time. Not a long review, but don’t really have much to say. A good slasher worth watching.
Directed by Lewis Teague [Other horror films: Alligator (1980), Cat’s Eye (1985), The Triangle (2001)]
I’ve seen this once or twice before, and it always fell a bit flat for me for various reasons. That said, upon rewatching it, I can appreciate it just a tad more. The biggest problem for me is how sentimental and sappy the film can come across as. Sure, it might have been hard to keep the original ending from the book in a time when happy endings were all the rage, but I think the end product would have made the film more menacing and less sappy.
Speaking of which, while I love the suspenseful music the movie has to offer, the 80’s love/drama music can get a bit on the cheesy side. But that’s the 1980’s for you, I suppose. There’s also the fact the film drags a bit. Sure, it’s average insofar as length (just around an hour and a half), but it’s mostly a drama for the first fifty minutes (and I don’t know how interesting I found the whole affair issue, to be honest), and while the horror element is good when it gets there, the payoff doesn’t erase the set-up.
The actors and actresses are solid, though. Standouts include Dee Wallace, Daniel Hugh Kelly, Ed Lauter, and Jerry Hardin (not so much due to his role or screen time, which was minimal, but due to the fact he plays Deep Throat 15 years later in The X-Files). Oh, and the makeup for Cujo was excellent. On a side-note, though I know that Wallace had no choice but to fight Cujo off, I can’t help but feel bad for the dog.
In the gore department, there’s a few offerings, though not that many compared to other films of the time. Cujo can be a bit heavy in the drama department, which I think is why I underrated it before (and, to be fair, still do now). For all it is, it’s great portions and flaws, I think the film’s just slightly below average. Decently fun at times, but not particularly note-worthy.
Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic – that’s something you don’t need Uncle Jiggy to tell you. It’s a movie that I’ve seen many, many times, and though I have no problem admitting that the film has its problems, I can’t deny that I still find it quite a great movie.
Also, it’s fair to say that it’s a very difficult movie to talk about – this is the horror film I’ve seen the most, and I first saw it at a young age (while hiding behind a couch for the finale, as I was terrified), so it’s very much ingrained in me. Truth be told, I probably didn’t need to watch the movie again to write this review, but believe you me, it’s no hardship to revisit this.
It’s not perfect, though. I’ve never thought that it was, because – the silly, incomprehensible ending aside – there’s one sequence that I’ve never, as often as I’ve seen the movie, been able to understand.
After Tina’s death and Rod’s arrest, Nancy has a plan – she wants Glen to watch over her while she sleeps, and wake her up should it appear that she’s having a bad dream. Certainly this is sensible – if it looks like she’s struggling with someone, waking her up would save her life.
The problem is that once Nancy falls asleep and goes exploring the dreamy suburban neighborhood, she hisses behind her for Glen, to make sure that he’s still watching her, and he pops up from behind a tree to indicate that he is.
Now, this is a dream. Nancy knows it’s a dream. And yet Glen is here? Glen’s purpose was specifically to not fall asleep, so even if someone could propose the idea of a shared dream, that doesn’t fly. The only way this makes sense to me is that Nancy’s sleeping, but also partially awake, and is calling to Glen in reality, and he’s, in reality, replying that he’s there, and her mind is interpreting an image of Glen in the dream, despite him not actually being there.
It still doesn’t make much sense to me – given how exhausted Nancy was, how could she guarantee she’d stay partially awake despite being asleep (which is already incredulous, on a side-note) – but that’s the only way that I can make even partial sense of that scene. This has been a question I’ve had for over 15 years, and I’ve never seen a real satisfactory answer for it.
Of course, there are other confusing scenes (again, ignoring the finale), such as how Freddy is able to taunt Nancy near the end with the phone call if Nancy was awake. It’s possible, of course, she nodded off while waiting for Glen, but I’ve always got the sense that she was awake at the time.
I’m not here to harp on the film, but I do think it’s worth taking the time to point out the problems I have with it. Like Hellbound: Hellraiser II, this is a great movie, but it doesn’t always make much sense, which I think many people, even deep fans of the franchise, would be able to admit.
It is a movie of some rather memorable quotes, though. Nancy shouting ‘MOTHER!’ after finding bars on her homes’ windows has never failed to crack me up, and Rod’s unique ‘Up yours with a twirling lawnmower,’ definitely brings an image to mind. Marge’s drunk ‘Locked, locked, locked,’ which I quote often IRL, has a good ring to it, and though it’s from Shakespeare, the quote from Halmet (“O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space – were it not that I have bad dreams”) was used hauntingly here.
Oh, and let’s not forget the ever-classic line “This is God,” said by Freddy, referring to his clawed glove. A simple line, no doubt, but damn effective.
Few of the performances are perfect, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less memorable. It’s just some odd pieces of dialogue, or intonation, small things like that, which pop up throughout the film (and it’s possible I notice only because I’ve seen this one as often as I have). Heather Langenkamp (Home) still made for a great and proactive lead, of course, and stood out wonderfully. Honestly, I’ve never loved Johnny Depp (Sleepy Hollow) here, and I wish that we saw a bit more of Jsu Garcia and Amanda Wyss (Shakma), but again, still very memorable characters.
Naturally, Robert Englund (Galaxy of Terror, Eaten Alive, Kantemir) is a legend here, as is John Saxon (The Night Caller, Tenebre, My Mom’s a Werewolf, The Girl Who Knew Too Much, Hellmaster, The Scorpion with Two Tails, Queen of Blood, Beyond Evil, Black Christmas, Cannibal Apocalypse), despite the annoyances I feel toward his character. Like, you could tell that Nancy had no real faith that he’d be there to arrest Freddy, should she pull him from the dream, and his character could have used a bit more exploring. Ronee Blakley’s role is another example that could have had a bit of depth added, but I think that they did a better job with her than they did Saxon, especially during her monologue of Freddy’s backstory.
I don’t think I can say anything about the special effects that haven’t already been said. I absolutely adore the scene in which Freddy’s pushing himself out of the wall toward Nancy. That blood geyser was gnarly. Tina’s death is the stuff of legends, of course. Nancy running up the stairs, which soon turn to some sludgy material, was quality too.
Hell, this may be controversial, but even one of Freddy’s first full appearances – the one where his arms are elongated with perhaps silly effects – is damn effective. This movie naturally had a lot going for it, and multiple viewings haven’t dampened that at all.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic, but it’s also a flawed movie. I’ve known that for years. Sometimes that’s not enough reason to justify giving a film a below perfect rating, because few films are actually perfect, but in all the years I’ve seen this one, I’ve never given it a straight 10/10. I just don’t think it quite gets there. There’s no doubt the film is a great movie, though, and a classic very much worth watching, flaws and all.
9/10
This classic was covered on episode #27 of Fight Evil’s podcast, so listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.
Jiggy's Horror Corner 