Category: 1990’s

Directed by Mick Garris [Other horror films: Critters 2 (1988), Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990), Sleepwalkers (1992), The Nightmare Begins Again (1993), The Stand (1994), Quicksilver Highway (1997), Riding the Bullet (2004), Desperation (2006), Bag of Bones (2011), Nightmare Cinema (2018, segments ‘The Projectionist’ & ‘Dead’)]

Ah, the smell of fresh anger in the air.

I’ve never cared for the 1980 rendition of the classic Stephen King novel. Sure, it’s one of the most well-known and highly-rated movies in the genre, but I never felt strongly about it. I don’t hate it, but if I were told I had to pick 500 horror movies to bring with me to a desert island, I’m not remotely joking when I say that Kubrick’s The Shining wouldn’t make the list.

This 1997 television mini-series perhaps would, though. Spread over three episodes (each one about an hour and a half, coming in at a total runtime of four hours and 32 minutes), The Shining is a story that takes it’s time to breath. It takes its time to work through the story, and touches on many of the elements that make the book a solid read.

I’m not going to harp on the 1980 movie – much like The Haunting, this isn’t a remake of the 1980 film, but another adaptation (and one that actually had the involvement of Mr. King). Comparing the two adaptations is pointless, and even a tad mean-spirted, and not something I have any interest in doing.

I also want to add that at the time I first saw the 1980 film, I had not read the novel. In fact, I’d seen the movie multiple times before I read the book, and the one time I’ve seen this mini-series was also before I read the book. And you know what? Even before reading the novel, I preferred this mini-series. It’s a better adaptation of the source material, no doubt, but the bigger point is that I have more fun with it, point blank.

Given that this is a mini-series that lasts over four hours, The Shining takes its time setting the characters and ideas up. Much of the action doesn’t really start until the second and third episodes, but I think that works out fine. Plenty of other Stephen King-based mini-series (Storm of the Century, The Stand) had similar routes, and I appreciate that they didn’t try to cram too much in, and didn’t rush things.

I thought Steven Weber (Crawlspace, Farm House, Desperation) did great in his role, as did Rebecca De Mornay (The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Mother’s Day). Surprisingly, even Courtland Mead did well, and I don’t generally care for child actors. My favorite performance might be that of Melvin Van Peebles (Jaws: The Revenge), though – not only is his portrayal of Hallorann great, but he comes across as so likable.

Other small performances did well too – Wil Horneff (Ghost in the Machine) often had an ethereal feel to him, and it worked well, along with Pat Hingle (Sweet, Sweet Rachel, Not of This World), despite just having two scenes of note, also making a good impression. Stanley Anderson had some good portions toward the end, and we even randomly got Shawnee Smith (The Blob, I Saw What You Did, Saw) popping up as a waitress. In fact, I was so surprised to see her that I didn’t immediately realize who it was – it was only as the credits ran that I realized, and then rewound the film to confirm.

It’s true that not everything’s amazing. Some of the CGI can look a bit off, such as those topiary animals. The first sequence, with Jack, wasn’t bad, because it was subtle, but once we actually see them on the prowl, the effects are questionable. Portions of the wasp nest sequence had the same feel. Hell, early on, we even see a boom mic in a window’s reflection, which is something I was surprised to see make it through.

None of that really impacts the mini-series much, though. The heavy focus on Jack’s alcoholism and his slowly deteriorating mindstate is far more important to me than the CGI flaws here and there. I’m just happy that there’s a version of this story that I actually enjoy, because – and this may surprise some – I’m not even a big fan of the novel. After watching this one again, though, perhaps I’m in due for a re-read.

I know that it’s an unpopular opinion, but it’s how I truly feel. I thoroughly enjoy this adaptation of the story more than the 1980 movie, and if you’re someone who just wants to see a solid mini-series, then I think this is well-worth checking out.

8/10

Directed by Jan de Bont [Other horror films: N/A]

I don’t think many people would argue were I to make the claim that the appeal The Haunting most reaches to is spectacle. It’s a CGI-laden movie, and at times, one could certainly put forth that, at an hour and 53 minutes, the movie’s progressing slowly. These factors may be true, but I have to admit that despite that, I tend to enjoy this.

Many have either negative or lukewarm reaction to this film, and I personally believe that much of it is because it’s a new adaptation of The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson; to put a finer point on this, this movie is not a remake of the 1963 classic, but a new adaptation of the source material. This is a distinction that may seem needlessly pedantic to some, but I personally find it a very important distinction to make.

For those people who think this is a remake, obviously this movie is then being pitted against one of the true classics of the 1960’s, and of course it’s going to unfavorably compare to it. Given that this isn’t a remake, though, judging it against another adaptation, while certainly valid, isn’t the way I wanted to go.

In part, it’s due to the fact I don’t love the 1963 movie. I don’t dislike it, by any means, but I’m not going to sit here and pretend that I absolutely adore a movie that I don’t. When it comes to creepy 60’s movies, I’d pick The Innocents every single time. Again, I’m not saying that the 1963 version isn’t good, but I can say that it’s never been one of my favorites.

I’m also pretty sure that I saw this version long before I sat down to watch the 1963 one. The sense of nostalgia I feel toward this isn’t particularly strong, nor is it particularly impactful on how I view the film, but I did see this at a somewhat younger stage in life, and I’m sure it impressed me back then.

Nowadays, I have no problem admitting the film has flaws. The amount of CGI is absolutely ridiculous, and though I do think some of the usage looks decent, or at least impressive (the spirit swimming through the curtains and sheets come to mind), it’s a very stark difference from what people who love the 1963 version of the story might expect.

I’ve no complaints on the performances, though. Lili Taylor (Leatherface, The Addiction, Eli, The Conjuring) made for a rather compelling lead, and I thought that the finale carried a mild emotional impact with it. Liam Neeson (Batman Begins) is of good quality, as one could expect. Catherine Zeta-Jones isn’t a name I honestly know too well, but she brought her A game also.

It’s possible that Owen Wilson (Anaconda) felt a bit too light-hearted at times, but I don’t think it was a big issue. Neither Alix Koromzay (Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return) nor Todd Field stuck around long enough to make any impression, and I can say the same of Bruce Dern (Swamp Devil, Twixt, Coffin Baby, Choose). For a one-hit wonder, though, we have Marian Seldes (she did get more than one scene, but her opening portion is by far the most memorable, along with her speech).

Denying the grandeur and splendor of the setting is also beyond me. I think the mansion and the grounds are absolutely beautiful, and if this movie’s main aim was spectacle, I think by the setting alone, they did a great job. Any time we got a shot of the mansion from a birds-eye view, I thought it looked absolutely stunning, and the various rooms throughout the mansion were stellar too.

The story here does take a bit to really get going, and I think problematically, I’m not sure it’s all that interesting, and even if someone did find it interesting, it’s also true to say that it doesn’t really feel all that original. Aspects are decent, and I’ve never hated the story or anything, but I don’t think it does near enough to set itself apart from other like-minded films.

Generally, I do enjoy The Haunting, but I can understand the mixed and lukewarm reception it’s received over the years. It has a straight 5/10 on IMDb right now (with almost 80,000 total votes), so there’s a large amount of people out there who just find this whole experience ‘meh,’ and after a movie that’s almost two hours, that’s somewhat damning on it’s own.

I don’t think it’s really an above average film, for all that I enjoy about it, but I also don’t think it’s any worse. Straight average seems fine to me, and honestly, is probably the highest I dare go.

7/10

Directed by Mansour Pourmand [Other horror films: N/A]

I’ll be honest: I wasn’t expecting much from Zipperface. It’s not just the 3.3/10 this currently sports on IMDb – ever since I first heard of this movie back in late 2009/early 2010, I was under the impression it wasn’t good. I’ve still wanted to see it, though, ever since I first heard about it, but I didn’t expect anything particularly great. Like Heavy Metal Massacre, I wanted to see it, but knew, in my heart, it wouldn’t be worth it.

I was wrong – Zipperface is worth it.

True, the movie’s not exactly stellar, but based on what I was thinking coming in, it did way over-exceed my expectations. The plot – about a guy in BDSM leather stalking and killing prostitutes while the police investigate the murders – isn’t exactly Earth-shattering, and the effects could have used some work, but they struck gold with the characters.

Naturally, it’s important to not overstate this, so I want to say that the movie has it’s problems. Some of the dialogue and acting is subpar, and perhaps some of the finale is silly, but I also think it’s important to be honest, and honestly, I had a hell of a lot of fun with this.

You have to understand where I was coming from, though. I knew this was an early 1990’s slasher, but I didn’t know it was a slasher in which the killer was a character known to us. I thought it was going to go the Slumber Party Massacre or Final Exam route, and have a completely random killer. In this movie, however, the identity of the killer is a mystery, and boy howdy, we’re given a lot of suspects.

It could be a police officer (Richard Vidan), side-lined to desk duty after his performance slips. It could be the mayor’s PR assistant (Timothy D. Lechner), who has some surprises up his sleeve. It could be a photographer (Jonathan Mandell) who burned pictures after the police questioned him, or a shifty religious figure (Christopher Dakin), or the mayor’s husband (Bruce Brown), or hell, the mayor herself (Trisha Melynkov), though admittedly, that would have been a stretch.

The point is, we’re given a lot of suspects, and I’ll be honest, while I thought I knew who the killer was, I wasn’t confident, which was wise, as I was incorrect. Naturally, we’re given a lot of red herrings, each of them pointing to a specific person, and just as I love that type of thing in gialli, I loved it here, and they did it well. I know this film had a lower budget, but props to the story.

Props too to the performances. Some were shaky, sure, but like I said, I had a lot of fun watching this one, and I suspect that they had a lot of fun making it. Dona Adams (in her sole role) made for a fair lead. She had some cringy dialogue (“I can’t stand women being referred to as chicks, broads, or babes!”), but she was generally quite good. David Clover was better – at first, I thought he’d be one of those misogynist cops who’d be pissed to be partnered with a woman, but he grows to be a really solid, supportive, and nice guy.

As the mayor, Trisha Melynkov is as aggravating as mayors can be in movies like this, but there’s also more to her. Richard Vidan (Scarecrows, Zombie Infection) cracked me up as an obviously sexist cop with a chip on his shoulder. Timothy D. Lechner had a few funny scenes, Laureen E. Clair and Jillian Ross had some suspenseful moments, and Bruce Brown, who didn’t do that much, made an impression at times too. Oh, and Jonathan Mandell was a sensual brah.

Speaking of which, there was a scene in which Mandell’s character, who happens to be a photographer, was seducing the lead, police detective Ryder (played by Dona Adams) during a photoshoot. And honestly – that scene was great. The photoshoot itself was a lot a fun (it was nice seeing Adams’ character actually having fun), and the music playing was quite nice. I went into that scene cringing, but I ended up appreciating it.

I also appreciated a scene in which two prostitutes go out to a John, only to run amok of the killer. It was played in a way that most people would suspect Zipperface’s arrival, but it still held some quality suspense early on. It ended with a somewhat poor decapitation, but honestly, I’ve seen far worse decapitations in my time, so I don’t think it was a big issue.

Aside from the decapitation, I don’t think many scenes here were necessarily memorable. Someone got stabbed in the back with a machete, someone got strangled, someone got run over by a car, and someone got suffocated with a whip (related, someone got whipped by, well, a whip, and it didn’t draw blood, so I was impressed) – none of these scenes were great, but I think the fact that none were terrible, and none detracted from the film, is good in it’s own way.

I was surprised by Zipperface. Slashers were few and far between in the early 1990’s, and I really wasn’t expecting much from this, but I had a pretty solid time with it. Most people would likely see it as below average (though I have to admit, that average rating of a 3.3/10 on IMDb hurts me physically, nor do I remotely understand it), but I’m not most people. It may be a movie that doesn’t work for many; I can say, however, that it worked its magic on me.

7.5/10

Directed by Mark L. Lester [Other horror films: Firestarter (1984), Blowback (2000), Sacrifice (2000), Pterodactyl (2005), Groupie (2010), Poseidon Rex (2013)]

Class of 1999 is a movie that I’ve long had an interest in. It’s never been a film I knew too much about, but I did have a grasp on the basics (killer robots in a school), and I thought it’d be a fun idea to play around with. While the film could have used a little polish, I found it a decently fun time.

According to director Mark L. Lester, this movie is a sequel to another one of his films, being Class of 1984. I’ve seen Class of 1984, but as I don’t find it a horror film, I don’t cover it here. I don’t know why this film needed to be called a sequel – the themes are somewhat different, and aside from the fact both movies have gangs and schools, there’s not many similarities – but apparently it is, so I wanted to say that Class of 1984 was an often depressing film, but certainly a good one.

This one doesn’t have near as much feeling as that one did, but than again, one was a drama/action/crime film, whereas this one is an action/science fiction/horror hybrid, so we’re talking two different types of films. The story of this one was interesting, as you’d hope a science fiction story would be, so I wanted to tackle that first.

Taking place in, as you can likely guess, 1999 (which is nine years in the future from when this movie was released), apparently the systemic problem with gangs we saw in Class of 1984 has gotten worse, and police don’t even try in some places. There’s a school in Seattle that attempts to stymie their violence problem by bringing in a handful of robot teachers. Things devolve even more from there.

I’m reminded of Battle Royale, actually. I didn’t think the government’s policy in Battle Royale really would have helped with the problems they were having, and while I can definitely say that school should always be a safe place, putting killer robots in charge of kids (both innocent and harmful) isn’t the way to pursue the solution. I get it – desperate times call for desperate measures – but this just wasn’t the way.

As you can expect, the problem is that robots, at least with this programming, don’t differentiate between the wrongs being done. A student starts a fight with another student – yeah, that’s a problem. A student fighting someone who was attempting to rape someone? Instead of going after the attempted rapist, they went after the student defending the young woman, and that’s the exact problem with this type of solution. We’ve seen it time and time again in science fiction and horror films, and it’s no different here.

Stacy Keach (Fear Runs Silent, Roadgames, Mountain of the Cannibal God, The Ninth Configuration) is a big name, and he was fun here. His character didn’t get a whole lot of depth – from his first scene, you could sort of tell what type of guy he’d be – but he had fun. I didn’t know Malcolm McDowell (Silent Night, Firestarter 2: Rekindled, Halloween, Cat People) was in this one, and to be fair, his role isn’t big, but it was nice to see a familiar face.

Technically, I know Traci Lind (Spellcaster, My Boyfriend’s Back, Fright Night Part 2), but she’s not really a face I instantly recognize. Still, she was also solid here, and her budding relationship with Bradley Gregg’s character was decent. Gregg (Phillip from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors) was an interesting lead. Never loved his character, but it made for an interesting focal point.

Of the three robotic teachers (played by Patrick Kilpatrick, John P. Ryan, and Pam Grier), well, I’d say that Ryan (It’s Alive) was my favorite, as he had a dignified look to him, but Kilpatrick (The Stand) had the best smile. Of course, Pam Grier (Scream Blacula Scream, The Twilight People) is a notable actress herself, but she didn’t make a huge impression on me here.

Despite thinking that the film’s a little rough, the special effects were pretty solid. Until the final 20 minutes or so, they’re not too noticeable, but once they pop up in more effect, there are some good sequences. Related, this isn’t a gory film at all – it’s really more action-oriented much of the time – but there are some good kills, such as someone getting their head drilled into, or a few nice neck snaps, or someone getting lit on fire.

Class of 1999 was a perfectly decent film, and a somewhat fun watch. I guess my issue is that it wasn’t anything more. I had an okay time with it, but I can’t honestly say that I loved it. It was a good way to spend an hour and 36 minutes, but I wasn’t blown away. That said, if you enjoy robots in your horror – something like Chopping Mall, Steel and Lace, Hardware, or Death Machine – then Class of 1999 may be right up your alley.

7/10

Directed by Jeff Burr [Other horror films: The Offspring (1987), Stepfather II (1989), Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990), Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings (1993), Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5 (1994), The Werewolf Reborn! (1998), Phantom Town (1999), Straight Into Darkness (2004), Frankenstein & the Werewolf Reborn! (2005), Devil’s Den (2006), Mil Mascaras vs. Aztec Mummy (2007), Resurrection (2010), Puppet Master: Blitzkrieg Massacre (2018), American Resurrection (2022), Carnage Collection – Puppet Master: Trunk Full of Terror (2022)]

I’ve long known about Night of the Scarecrow. It’s hard not to, given it’s the third and final scarecrow-focused horror film to come out before 2000 – the other two, of course, being Dark Night of the Scarecrow and Scarecrows. While I don’t think Night of the Scarecrow is as enjoyable as either of those two, I do think it made a valiant effort.

Personally, I appreciated how quick-paced the film was. The events here happen over the course of just two days, and it doesn’t take long at all for the action to get going. At an hour and 25 minutes, it’s certainly not an over-long movie either, though I tend to think that the finale perhaps could have been trimmed a little. Nonetheless, it’s a quick-moving film, and has the vibes you’d expect from some 80’s movies.

I know that some have labeled this a slasher, and while there are some kills with a scythe, the deaths here are quite a bit more varied than that. Some are beyond description, almost – a young woman is sort of implanted with straw (?), and then stalks of wheat (or corn) burst out from her body, and she’s dragged underground by the roots. Another person gets straw shoved into their arm, and shortly thereafter, straw grows from their eyes, mouth, etc., and it didn’t look at all pleasant.

To be sure, some of the kills were more typical, as the aforementioned scythe kills, one of which was pretty solid, as it was a quick slice to the stomach, which looked hella painful. Speaking of painful, someone got their mouth sewn up. Another individual got killed by a farming truck (not being a farmer, I don’t know if it was a combine harvester or not, but it looked pointy). It’s not unfair to call this a slasher at all, but if you come into this one expecting a simple scarecrow killing with a scythe, well, there’s more to it.

And I can appreciate the vision behind that. About halfway into the film, we get some backstory as to why this scarecrow is attacking citizens of the town, and it’s a decent origin. Dealing with a warlock and a town faced with draught and pestilence, it’s not an overly original backstory, but it was fun, and had a classic feel to it.

Neither lead wowed me – Elizabeth Barondes (Natural Selection, Not of This Earth) was okay, and certainly John Mese’s character was confident, but they’re not the performances that really stood out to me. It’s Stephen Root and Bruce Glover who do that.

Root is an actor I know from a handful of random things (such as his role in the last two seasons of The West Wing, along with a handful of appearances on The Big Bang Theory), and he’s pretty fun here, with more focus than I would have thought. Bruce Glover (Hunter’s Blood) did a decent, sometimes amusing, job as a priest, and I dug his role. Others that warrant a mention include John Hawkes (Scary Movie, Identity), Cristi Harris (Night of the Demons 2), Dirk Blocker (Poltergeist, Prince of Darkness), and John Lazar, despite only appearing in a single sequence.

Oh, and I wanted to give a brief mention of the music. Throughout the movie, I was impressed with Night of the Scarecrow’s music, some of which was quite atmospheric. I can’t say it was necessarily special, or that it’s the type of music that you’d remember long after the movie finished, but I can say that in the moment, the music was quite nice.

Elements of Night of the Scarecrow don’t always work, but I appreciate that this film keeps a good pace with a moderately classic feel (the scarecrow’s origin, for instance). Like I said earlier, I don’t think it’s as good as either of the scarecrow-based horror films that pre-date it, but it’s definitely not a bad film at all, and I think it’s a bit of a shame it seems as forgotten as it is.

7/10

Directed by David Allen [Other horror films: Ragewar (1984)]

This is a somewhat difficult sequel to compare to the first movie. While I definitely found the finale of the first movie a more enjoyable affair than what this one had to offer, as a movie overall, I tend to think that this moves at a better pace. Both are likely equivalent, though, and I’d probably say this one is around average.

For the most part, that story isn’t too shabby. Andre Toulon is resurrected by his creations (specifically Blade, Pinhead, Jester, Leech Woman, and Tunneler) while the Bodega Bay Inn has more visitors attempting to research what drove Paul Le Mat’s character mad in the first film. I am glad they attempted to connect this to the first movie, though there is a dating issue – Toulon is shown to kill himself in 1939 in the opening to the first film, whereas his tombstone in this movie reads ‘1941.’ Could be a simple in-universe mistake, but it’s worth pointing out.

Also interesting, we get a new puppet in this film (after losing Kahn, who didn’t get much focus in the last movie, but had a memorable look) in the form of Torch. Torch is among one of my favorite puppets, and along with Pinhead, Tunneler, Jester, and especially Blade, there’s a strong puppet cast in this one (I never cared for Leech Woman, and she doesn’t have a whole lot to do in this movie, but she is here too). I do think the stop motion effects look decent, and as always, it’s fun to see the puppets have fun.

I think where my main hang-up with this film lies is in Toulon’s character. After being resurrected, he grows attached to one of the characters (played by Elizabeth Maclellan), who he thinks is his late wife reincarnated. Because of that, he sort of ignores the well-being of his puppets, and I have to admit to feeling bad for the little fellas. I’d just hope his character would care more about his creations than cling on to a past love (Toulon seemed rather close to the puppets in the intro to the first film), but at the same time, after being dead for 50 years, I can imagine his personality could change some.

And to be sure, the finale did have a creepy moment or two, as he tries to transfer both his soul and the soul of Maclellan’s character into life-size puppets. Admittedly, the final scene of the film was a lot less pleasing, but if I recall, that’s not followed up on in any of the sequels, so I can survive a bad ending if I need to.

Elizabeth Maclellan makes for a fair lead, and while I couldn’t much care for her growing relationship with Collin Bernsen’s character, I did like her brother, played by Greg Webb. Steve Welles did decent, rocking a Claude Rains look to him, and has some solid dialogue. Jeff Celentano and Charlie Spradling (To Sleep with a Vampire, Meridian, Mirror Mirror) didn’t have quite as much involvement as I was hoping, nor did Nita Talbot (Frightmare, Island Claws), but George ‘Buck’ Flower (Drive In Massacre, Pumpkinhead, Cheerleader Camp) was fun to see in a single scene.

Most of the kills aren’t great here, though it was always fun to see Torch light people on fire. Blade did some occasional slicing, which was welcomed, and naturally, Pinhead attempted to strangle people here and there, but the finale of the first movie had a pretty epic scene, and there’s nothing here that even comes close to matching it.

I think this movie is about as enjoyable as the first one is, though for different reasons. To be honest, though I’d seen this once before, it’s been a while, and was personally hoping for a bit more bang for my buck. It doesn’t feel quite as special, though, and the story isn’t really exactly A+ material, but the movie has better pacing than the first one, and I think it’s probably worth seeing if you also enjoyed the first entry in the series.

7/10

Directed by Conrad Brooks [Other horror films: Jan-Gel, the Beast from the East (1999), Jan-Gel 2: The Beast Returns (2001), Jan-Gel 3: Hillbilly Monster (2003), Gypsy Vampire (2005), Gypsy Vampires Revenge (2008), Gypsy Vampire: The Final Bloodlust (2009), Zombie on the Loose (2010)]

Despite the wild title this film has, this straight-to-video film really isn’t as fun as you might hope. It’s not dreary or lifeless – certainly the people involved in this movie had some fun – but Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf does tend to be a bit repetitive, overlong, and generally, not my type of film.

The budget is quite low here, but you have to give director Conrad Brooks credit for doing what he was able to. The film opens up with a ‘This film is dedicated to the memory of Ed Wood,’ which is then followed by the fakest bat I’ve ever seen as it flies around. If you can’t get into low-budget horror, I can promise you that this is not the movie for you.

I can get into some low-budget horror films, though I generally gravitate toward slashers (such as The Horrible 4 and You’re Not Getting Out Alive). The problems I have with this movie have little at all to do with how cheap everything looks. Well, I guess one problem is related – the audio, while mostly audible, wasn’t particularly great. I don’t think I ever lost track of a conversation, but I don’t think they had much in the way of audio equipment when they made this one.

Otherwise, though, the problem is that the movie is an hour and 44 minutes long, and it’s just dull most of the time. A vampire lady makes a slave of a big horror movie fan, and uses both him and a mute servant to send out and collect blood for her. It’s not until the final 40 minutes that things get mildly interesting, as a British police officer (apparently here in Hollywood because he and another cop traded places for training or something) works with a woman to investigate some mysterious murders.

And that doesn’t mean that the final forty minutes are good, either; just that they had more going for them then the previous material, and I suspect that’s largely to do with Michael Hooker’s character, who I sort of liked.

To be fair, I thought that Don Miller did okay with his role, but it’s hard to stand out when you spend most of your screen-time as as a soulless blood slave of a vampire queen. Before that upgrade, though, he seemed like a pretty fun guy. I can’t say that Jennifer Knight’s portrayal of a hundred year old vampire did much for me, and Annette Perez didn’t add much either, but like I said, at least Michael Hooker was fun.

There’s not really much in the way of gore here. Early on, we do have a guy who’s stabbed multiple times with a hatchet (we get that classy ‘blood-running-down-the-camera-lens’ thing going on with it), and that was a decent scene, but otherwise, I’d say most of the kills are entirely ineffective, and wouldn’t be a drawing point to this movie.

What really should be the drawing point is the heart they put into this. I may not have enjoyed it, but it’s good to see people put hard work into cheap movies – case in point, I despised The Stripper Ripper, but I never once doubted that they had fun making it. The problem is that this movie is an hour and 44 minutes, which is way too long to warrant, and I just don’t think there was enough meat in the story to keep it that engaging.

If you enjoy the occasional lower-budget vampire movie, Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf may be worth a visit. Personally, it’s not the type of movie that I really cared much for, but on the other hand, I’ve definitely seen worse in my time.

3.5/10

Directed by James D.R. Hickox [Other horror films: The Gardener (1998), Krocodylus (2000), Sabretooth (2002), Detention (2010)]

I think that Urban Harvest is among one of the more enjoyable sequels in the Children of the Corn series. It’s not a great movie, and it does have some problems, but entertaining? As some folks say, you betcha.

Let’s get some of the issues out of the way first.

The finale was awful. Toward the end, a giant creature rises from a make-shift cornfield, and while it does lead to a few solid scenes, the overall execution is pretty atrocious.

Related to the finale, Ron Melendez’s character went to Gatlin and then back to Chicago, where the majority of the film takes place. To me, it seems clear this is happening the same night, as it’s the night of the Harvest Moon. However, it was night when Melendez was in Gatlin, Nebraska, and when he gets back to Chicago (at least a 7 hour drive), it’s still dark.

That’s what I’d call a problem.

Also, I have to admit to some dissatisfaction when it comes to the He-Who-Walks-Behind-the-Rows cult that Eli forms, and this is a problem I had dating back to the first movie, so allow me to take it a step at a time.

The idea of children, with religious upbringings and living in an isolated, rural community decided to band together under a charismatic leader preaching a harder line of their faith makes sense to me. I find it a legitimately creepy idea, and I love plenty of scenes from the original Children of the Corn.

Where the problem comes in is how the 1984 movie ended – by showing some type of actual entity that seemed to represent He-Who-Walks-Behind-the-Rows. This movie does sort of the same thing, with the random monster at the end. I truly believe these movies would be creepier if they dropped the supernatural elements and went purely with the idea of religious mania in kids causing them to kill adults.

Related, Eli (who takes the place of Isaac/Malachai/Micah) sort of brainwashes much of his religious private school (which really felt more like a public school, on a side-note) to create a cult in Chicago. I would have preferred he used his charisma – and he does have charisma, as the scene in which he’s given a sermon shows – and urged the young onto his side naturally. It would have felt more sincere, I think, then just dosing them and creating a cult of young followers all at once.

And also related, Eli says a few things that seem, at least to me, to imply he’s the Devil, or at the very least a demon, or something along those lines (this is most prevalent when he’s speaking with Michael Ensign’s Catholic father character). Maybe I took Eli’s comments the wrong way, but those who worship He-Who-Walks-Behind-the-Rows would theoretically have a religious system that’s more Biblical, fire-and-brimstone stuff. It’s not anti-Christianity, it’s just a more harsh interpretation of the exact same Bible.

My point is, if I’m understanding Eli’s comments correctly, and he’s the Devil or a demon, that goes entirely against what makes the basic idea of Stephen King’s short story so good. These children who follow Isaac/Malachai weren’t following some Pagan belief system, they were Biblical Christians, twisting things around a bit to create a more rural flavor. Making Eli some sort of supernatural figure (which this movie sadly does, as it shows newspaper clippings of Eli in Gatlin in the 1960’s, before the events of the 1984 movie transpire) just damages the whole idea.

Obviously, those are a lot of critiques, and if someone thinks they’re a bit nit-picky, I’d personally have to disagree. Even with the very real problems in the movie, though, Urban Harvest does generally tend to be entertaining, and like I said, among one of the better sequels in the series.

It’s somewhat of a wild ride, which is where I think a lot of the entertainment can come from. Two kids from Gatlin (Ron Melendez and Daniel Cerny) experience major culture shock when they’re adopted by a couple in Chicago, and it leads to a lot of fun scenes, including a sort of corny one in which Melendez’s character is kicking ass in a basketball game despite appearing an Amish guy.

There are somewhat surprising deaths of characters, some wild dream sequences (two of which actually show scenes from the previous movies, such as the opening diner massacre of the 1984 film and the death of the doctor, getting stabbed by a ton of syringes, as shown in the second movie), a few gory deaths; certainly there’s stuff here that should be able to keep you engaged with the story.

Not all of the special effects look great, though. Sometimes they do get it right – there’s a decapitation by cornstalk and another individual cut in half by a window that look solid – but then there’s someone who sort of swallows fire from a lighter that looks pretty iffy, and the finale, what with the giant monster and Eli throwing fireballs of faith at Joshua, had quite a few effects that didn’t seem altogether special.

Daniel Cerny (Demonic Toys) is no John Franklin or Courtney Gains, but he definitely has a solid aura to him, and the scene in which he’s giving a moving sermon over the objections of the priest was some quality stuff. Ron Melendez (Voodoo) does well as a teen who’s lived a hard life and is trying to adjust to a new one. I wish that Mari Morrow and Jon Clair, who played sister and brother, had been a bit more involved at times, but they had their moments.

Nancy Lee Grahn isn’t the focus you might at first think, but she’s a decent character. Jim Metzler (976-EVIL, Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat), on the flip-side, never really grows, and while his performance was okay, there didn’t seem a lot to his character. Michael Ensign (Doctor Hackenstein) is decently fun, and Yvette Freeman almost has a CCH Pounder-feel to her, which I can dig.

Plenty of the kills are entertaining also. Like I said, there’s a few duds here that don’t hit right, but the film opens with someone being attacked by cornstalks and effectively turned into a scarecrow (complete with sewing the lips and eyes shut), which was decently gruesome. Likewise, while that decapitation by the cornstalks wasn’t amazing, it was decently gory, and a fun kill to watch.

All-in-all, Urban Harvest is a flawed movie that tends to be rather entertaining. I think it could have been better had they changed a few things around, but even with the final product as it is, it can be a fun movie to watch, and though I’ve seen it around three times now, it’s a movie I can still see myself enjoying in the future also.

7.5/10