Scream 2 (1997)

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), A Nightmare on Elm Street (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 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

I think most people agree that this sequel isn’t anywhere near as good as the first movie, and I concur. I thought Scream 2 started out well, began to move a bit more toward a generic direction, but then bounced back up again toward the last hour. I think there’s some things to really like here, but ultimately, I feel the movie definitely hovers around average.

We have plenty of returning characters, such as Sidney (Neve Campbell), Randy (Jamie Kennedy), Dewey (David Arquette), Gale (Courtney Cox), and Cotton (Liev Schreiber), in a very much expanded role, so we have a great feel of continuity. I do wish that Dewey’s sister, who was killed in the first movie, was mentioned more than once here, but it seems she’s mostly forgotten, which is a shame.

Campbell, of course, does a great job, and Kennedy too did really well, especially during the rather tense phone-call scene. Dewey and Gale were decent, and I did like a rather brutal attack on Dewey near the end, but I’ve never loved Gale’s character, even with her being a bit more understanding. As for Cotton’s return, it makes sense in the context of the story, and I like how the film ends, with Sidney giving him more limelight. Also, on a small note, I liked seeing Omar Epps (most well-known for his long-lasting role on House) in the opening.

The fun thing about Scream 2 is the large amount of potential killers. Up to a point, who couldn’t think that Randy was involved, or Hallie (Elise Neal)? I suspect most people think that Dewey’s in the clear, but Gale, or her camera-man, Joel (Duane Martin), who disappeared at a rather convenient time? Even the drama professor Gus Gold (David Warner of The Omen and Nightwing fame) seemed suspicious, which is where a lot of the fun comes from. Who’s the killer, or are there multiple killers? Let the guessing begin.

As it turns out, I wasn’t overly satisfied with the answer to that question come the end. I understand the thought process behind the killer’s actions, but I just don’t think it’s nearly as memorable as the first movie’s finale was, not by a long-shot, which isn’t really surprising, but it was somewhat disappointing. On a side-note, when the killer first revealed her/himself, I entirely forgot who the character was, which made it lack some punch.

The opening of this film, which takes place during a showing of the movie Stab (which is based off the events of the first Scream) cements this series as one with a particularly meta feeling, from the argument in film class about sequels and their comparison with the originals to the argument that the violence in movies causes people to commit violence in real life (‘The Christian Coalition will pay for my legal fees’). Scream 2 has a great meta feeling going for it, and of course, even one of the characters sprouts off an impressive list of slashers while taunting the killer, such as The House on Sorority Row, The Dorm That Dripped Blood, Splatter University, Graduation Day, and Final Exam. I always love a character that knows his slashers.

Some great sequences are in the film, from the fun opening to the great killing in the middle of the movie, not to mention the tense car scene near the end, nor the enjoyable Ghostface chasing Gale and Dewey in the college. These scenes may not quite be able to match the glory of the first movie, but that scene with Randy might stand up pretty well.

I don’t think Scream 2 is as good as the first, nor is it even that close. You have a few silly scenes, such as that guy singing to Sidney while standing on the lunch tables, but overall, I do think Scream 2 is decent. It’s been so long since I’ve last seen it, by the way, that I actually forgot who the killer ultimately was, so it did make a film a bit more fun as a rewatch than usual. If you enjoyed the first Scream, I think you’d probably enjoy this, but it’s just not near as good.

7/10

Scream (1996)

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), A Nightmare on Elm Street (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 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

I won’t say that Scream is a perfect movie, but I will say that it’s close. A deeply enjoyable and meta slasher, Scream did pretty much everything right, and it’s always a blast to see again.

Wes Craven did a fantastic job revitalizing a dying subgenre of horror, being slashers, and brought a very self-aware, dark comedy aspect with it, combining everything to make Scream a pretty unforgettable experience. The cast works, most of the humor works, the plot works, and really, were it not for his previous film, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven could easily have crowned this one his best.

Pretty much all the main performances work here. Neve Campbell, who was only in a few films before this, including The Dark and The Craft, did great as the focal character, one who is both attractive and highly sympathetic. Matthew Lillard, who is generally too goofy for me (check out Thir13en Ghosts), does absolutely brilliant here, and I pretty much love everything about him throughout the film. Others who merit a positive mention include Rose McGowan, David Arquette (like Lillard, pretty much all of Arquette’s scenes were golden), Courtney Cox, Henry Winkler, and Skeet Ulrich (a name I don’t know, but does quite decent here).

The comedy here really adds something to make the film stand out a bit more. Seeing the killer consistently get knocked down by the would-be victim never fails to cause some laughter. It makes the killer seem human, which is something that many slashers before didn’t do, or if they did, they didn’t do it that well.

Scream is a classic, and for good reason. There’s little to dislike about it aside from some of the annoying teenagers, and the mystery and finale are well worth watching.

9/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.

Arachnophobia (1990)

Directed by Frank Marshall [Other horror films: N/A]

Truthfully, I can’t think of a single thing I dislike about this film.

The cast here is close to flawless. I pretty much like every performance, my favorites being Frances Bay (Happy Gilmore), Henry Jones, Roy Brocksmith, James Handy, Mark L. Taylor (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids), Stuart Pankin, Julian Sands, Harley Jane Kozak, Jeff Daniels (The Newsroom), and of course, John Goodman. Goodman’s character is golden anytime he’s on-screen, and Daniels just does a fantastic job here playing a lead you can definitely feel sympathy for.

With so many great scenes, it’s really impossible to point out where the best portions are, but a scene that always terrified me (and still does today) was the segment in the house when the spiders finally swarm. They crawl on the television, crawl out the vents, crawl out the sink – you name it, the spiders are there. That scene is somewhat hard to watch, but there’s no denying it’s effective.

Also, I want to give a lot of kudos to the twenty minute opening. It’s a fantastically atmospheric opening, what with the rainforests and bugs of all sorts falling from trees. It’s just a great beginning to a film, and sets the tone beautifully in a way that isn’t always common for a lot of movies.

Sometimes when a movie’s good, you can harp on and on about it. I did such with Bedlam, and I’ll likely do so again. But for Arachnophobia, it seems pointless – the cast is great, the story is great, the suspense is great, the music is spectacular, and everything else is great to. Easy top score, and a highlight of the 90’s.

10/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. If you want to listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one, listen below.

A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell (1990)

Directed by Brett Piper [Other horror films: They Bite (1996), Drainiac! (2000), Psyclops (2002), Arachnia (2003), Screaming Dead (2003), Bite Me! (2004), Shock-O-Rama (2005), Bacterium (2006), Muckman (2009), The Dark Sleep (2012), Queen Crab (2015), Triclops (2016)]

Well, with a title like this, how can the movie go wrong?

The sad thing is, while the film is so far from good, it’s actually a somewhat hard movie for me to hate. I certainly think it carries with it a charm that many other lower-budget films lack entirely, and while I don’t love the very fantasy-feel of the film, I can’t deny that they did well with what they had.

I think that, by far, the worst part of the movie is the introduction, which has our lead Nymphoid Barbarian explaining how the Earth got decimated and why society (or what’s left of society, which is very little) lives on a post-apocalyptic planet. It’s cringy, and doesn’t even make sense, as later in the film, the character (who was a little girl when the war started) has no idea what books or lighters are, which leads me to think she should have been born generations after the Event.

Personally, that’s the biggest flaw I found with the film. It just didn’t seem necessary, and might lead people to the untrue conclusion that A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell has some comedy influences, when it really doesn’t. Sure, the title itself doesn’t help battle against that stigma, but the movie and plot itself is pretty straight, if dodgy effects don’t cause one to burst out laughing.

This said, I actually thought that most of the makeup and special effects ranged from tolerably competent to rather charming, in the case of the Claymation monsters. There was a wide-range of terrible creatures, from scaled lizard men, to dwarf-type things, to giant worms (somewhat reminiscent of Beetlejuice, actually), along with giant crab-type things. They often didn’t look great, but honestly, I sort of liked it, and I enjoyed it far more like this as opposed what many modern movies would do, and just CGI the shit out of everything. A guy getting his arm eaten off was good fun also.

The dialogue wasn’t much to be proud of, but the story came across fine. Linda Corwin didn’t strike me as much a ‘nymphoid,’ but whatever. As the main antagonist, Alex Pirnie did fine, and ditto for Paul Guzzi as Corwin’s side-kick. Perhaps my favorite character was Mark Deshaies, who played a rather bad-ass disfigured man.

Another thing that deserves a small mention are the settings, my favorite being a decent-looking castle which held a distinctly evil aura. It might be fantasy 101, and the same could be said for the somewhat threadbare plot, but it was done well despite the budget.

Like I said, A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell is a hard movie for me to actually hate. I was by no means fond of it when I first saw it some years back, but it’s grown on me. I still don’t think the movie’s that great, and I definitely don’t think it’s a film that I’d rewatch all that often, but I will admit to finding the film, despite it’s problems, a charming little addition to the fantasy/horror genre.

6/10

The Rage: Carrie 2 (1999)

Directed by Katt Shea [Other horror films: Stripped to Kill (1987), Stripped to Kill 2: Live Girls (1989), Dance of the Damned (1989)]

I wasn’t a big fan of the first Carrie, and this sequel follows much in the same vein as the original, but luckily, The Rage: Carrie 2 is undeniably a better film. Okay, that last part is a joke, before I start getting angry messages sent my way, but it is true that I did tend to enjoy this film more than the classic 1976 movie, so take from that what you will.

What stood out first about this film was all the recognizable faces. Few of these characters (save Dylan Bruno’s) are all that important, but it was still nice. Dylan Bruno, as the main antagonist, is an actor I know rather well from the television series Numb3rs, so seeing him much earlier on was interesting (though he definitely didn’t look like a high school student). He did great as a rapist jackass here, which, for some reason, didn’t surprise me.

Zachery Ty Bryan also did well as a jackass rapist, which definitely felt right. Bryan’s not a name that I knew beforehand, but as soon as I saw his face, I thought to myself, ‘Isn’t that Brad from Home Improvement?’ and indeed it was. His character was despicable here, what with being a rapist, so it was an interesting change from how I usually see him. Mena Suvari and Eddie Kaye Thomas appeared together later the same year in American Pie, as Heather and Finch, respectively. Rachel Blanchard was in an indie comedy/drama I liked from 2008 titled Growing Op.

The main two characters (Emily Bergl and Jason London) are completely unknown to me, but both did a pretty fine job. Bergl was possibly too attractive to really emulate Sissy Spacek’s performance, but she still did a memorable job (though I didn’t care for the whole tattoo thing at the end). London was solid throughout, and though he was also probably a rapist, he was one of the few likable characters in the film. Of course, Amy Irving (only individual to come back from the original film) was decent, but honestly, she didn’t amount to much aside giving a reason to show flashbacks from the original.

A big problem I had with the film dealt with the amount of utterly unlikable characters in the film. Like I said, Bergl and Londons’ characters were both good, but many of the characters were either rapists or those who have no problem with rapists (such as the town government, as the movie shows, which isn’t uncommon when the rapist in question is a football player). Seeing many of them get killed was the most fun this movie had to give us, but at the same time, since only unlikable characters were killed, I don’t know if it’s necessarily the best choice.

At times, it’s true that the special effects are somewhat awful (especially during the horrific dream sequence at the end), but I thought they got more right (glasses shattering, the shards flying into the wearer’s eyes) than they did wrong. I somewhat question the black-and-white sequences, as they seemed unnecessary, and the flashbacks to the first movie didn’t feel particularly relevant either.

I’ll say this for The Rage: Carrie 2 – I enjoyed it more than I did the first one. But it’s still not a movie I particularly liked that much. The finale was pretty solid, and perhaps the best sequence of the film (though easily lacking the emotional resonance the first one had), but for much of the film, though I found it more relatable than the first movie, I simply found it passable, not good.

6.5/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, so if you’re interested in hearing Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one, check it out.

Mimic (1997)

Directed by Guillermo del Toro [Other horror films: Cronos (1993), El espinazo del diablo (2001), Blade II (2002), Crimson Peak (2015)]

In many ways, Mimic’s a late 90’s film that doesn’t get talked about all that much. While the movie in of itself isn’t necessarily amazing, I do think that it has a lot going for it, especially in terms of special effects.

The story was pretty interesting, dealing with a genetically-modified breed of cockroach created to eliminate a plague of sorts, only after some years, things got out of control. I don’t know if the story is absolutely great, but it really does a good job of keeping people engaged.

Character-wise, the focal characters are all pretty worth it. The two main performances, those of Mira Sorvino and Jeremy Northam, were both solid, though certainly at times Northam wasn’t particularly likable. Charles S. Dutton (of both D-Tox from 2002 and Gothika from 2003) was pretty fun throughout, and the conclusion to his story arc was certainly worth it. Last person really of note would be Giancarlo Giannini, and though I did like his character, I wish more was done with him.

The special effects here are really what makes the film work, though, as they’re pretty much good throughout the film. Toward the end, a few of the scenes don’t look that great, but overall, where Mimic really stands out are the solid effects.

Mimic’s not a movie that I really have a lot to say about, but it is a well-made film, and certainly in the late 1990’s, a somewhat stand-out flick. It’s not really a movie that I utterly love, but it stood up solidly the first time I saw it, and seeing it again did little to dissuade me of the positive feelings I have of the film.

7.5/10

Tales from the Hood (1995)

Directed by Rusty Cundieff [Other horror films: Tales from the Hood 2 (2018), Mr. Malevolent (2018), Tales from the Hood 3 (2020)]

This is one that I’ve seen once before, and I recall enjoying it, but seeing it again shines an even brighter light on the film, because I now think it’s one of the best anthology horror films of the 1990’s.

Honestly, competition isn’t that high, as most anthology films usually falter in one or two of the stories, but Tales from the Hood boasts not only four pretty decent stories, but a solidly amusing framing sequence right out of Tales from the Crypt, with a very classic Amicus feel.

Of all the stories, the only one that I didn’t absolutely love is the final story, titled ‘Hard-core Convert’, but I’ll be honest: as a white guy who barely knew any black people until college, I don’t even know if I really have a right to say much on this one.

The comparison between the violence committed on blacks by racist whites to the violence committed on blacks by other blacks (gang violence, primarily) struck me as somewhat troubling in it’s nature, but then again, as I’m not at all black, and have little experience with the experiences they deal with on a daily basis, especially in areas overrun by gangs, I admit that this is something I don’t think I know enough about to comment on. I’ll simply say that while the story was certainly one that made me think, the implications (seemingly ignoring the poverty and lack of upward mobility that leads many into the gang life in the first place) bothered me.

I think the best story is difficult to choose, but I’d likely go with ‘Boys Do Get Bruised.’ It’s certainly the most moving of the stories, and I definitely thought that it really stood out in a genre that sometimes comes across as callous and cold. I especially enjoyed both Rusty Cundieff’s and David Alan Grier’s performances, and while the ending wasn’t necessarily amazing, I think the story had a lot going for it.

‘KKK Comeuppance’ and ‘Rogue Cop Revelation’ were both pretty good, and also topical to today’s rather racist climate, unfortunately. I’d probably give the edge to ‘Rogue Cop Revelation’, almost for the pure joy of seeing racist cops killed for their atrocious actions of killing a black community leader. Cops like that, and those who defend said cops (which seems to be a vast majority of the corrupt police force), are utterly without virtue, and seeing, even in a fictional movie, the revenge so rightly deserved taking place brought me a lot of joy. There’s joy in seeing a racist politician taken down too, no doubt, but the police seem more solidly protected from the consequences of their racist actions than do politicians (just look at all the police officers who get off on murder charges when they’re clearly guilty).

On a related note, I suspect that while many of the stories in the film are well-crafted, including the framing story (though the conclusion is both expected and ultimately a little on the corny side), if one’s a conservative, or a racist, they may take issue with the film. That’s not to say that some conservatives couldn’t enjoy the film for what it is, but given the issues that the film tackles, I think it’s safe to say that some would definitely be turned off, claiming the film carries with it a ‘political agenda.’

As it is, I’m nowhere near conservative, so I had no such problems enjoying the film. Really, looking through the 1990’s anthology films, I struggle to find one that get’s anywhere close to matching how much I enjoyed this one. Tales from the Darkside: The Movie had one pretty great story, but was otherwise forgettable. Two Evil Eyes ultimately didn’t do anything for me. I’ve not seen either movie titled Campfire Tales (from 1991 and 1997), nor Quicksilver Highway (1997), and I really didn’t care for Body Bags (1993). Looking at the competition, there’s not really any choice, and even without comparing Tales from the Hood with underwhelming movies, I think it stands on it’s own merits. Well worth the watch, and definitely one that I’d go back to.

8.5/10

The Tommyknockers (1993)

Directed by John Power [Other horror films: Alice to Nowhere (1986)]

When I first saw this mini-series, adapted from a Stephen King novel, I’d not read the source material beforehand. Ultimately, while I know I watched the mini-series, I recalled very little about it. Having in recent times, read the novel, and watching this with the novel in mind, it’s not only forgettable, but somewhat terrible.

A little back-story, though, which might alleviate some of the sting of those words. Though I’ve only a single read-through to base this on, I didn’t care for The Tommyknockers. I liked it more than the Dreamcatcher novel (I think, but it’s a close call), but of the King books I’ve read, it’s solidly in the bottom half. I didn’t entirely mind the disjointed feel the meat of the book had, but I did think that portions of the came out a bit of a mess.

For much of the mini-series, things follow the novel closely enough to not warrant too many disagreeable portions (though I’m not fan of the novel, following the source material is probably the way to go when making a movie based of Stephen King’s work). Until the end, that is, when they take a very family-friendly approach to the conclusion, deeply neutering it.

It was neutered long before, though, what with being a television production. Much of the epic feel of the novel is entirely lost in the execution here. Some of the coolest scenes of the novel are nowhere to be found here, and those that make it are changed into a hideously friendly-for-television feel. Certainly other King mini-series have suffered from this (such as It), but because I have no nostalgic feelings for this one, there’s nothing to protect it from my less-than-charitable thoughts.

The cast was mixed bag. I really liked E.G. Marshall in his role as the grandfather, and if there’s any reason to really commend the acting, it’s him. Playing the sheriff, Joanna Cassidy does well, and doesn’t feel too dissimilar from her novel counterpart. John Ashton (Taggart from Beverly Hills Cop) was sort of nice to see, but was nothing like his counterpart from the book, nor was his path here nearly as interesting.

Pretty much everyone else ranges from mediocre to bad. Jimmy Smits didn’t do a thing for me as the main character (and it didn’t help that he didn’t look anything like I imagined the character in the book to). I was neither impressed nor displeased with Marg Helgenberger. Both Cliff De Young and Robert Carradine have a bit of charm to them, but ultimately, I think both are forgettable. Traci Lords, though, does pretty awful here (I’m guessing it’s intentional), and Allyce Beasley (who I recognize solely from an episode of Gotham, believe it or not) is utterly laughable during plenty of her screen-time.

I’ve seen The Tommyknockers twice now (despite, like I said, barely recalling my first experience with it), and it’s not a mini-series that I have any desire to see again. There’s plenty of King’s mini-series’ I’ve not seen yet (Golden Years and Rose Red, to name a few), but The Tommyknockers is a very forgettable and somewhat bad example of a book that, if adapted better, could produce a moderately entertaining movie.

Love the laser lipstick, though. Solid stuff.

4/10

Spontaneous Combustion (1990)

Directed by Tobe Hooper [Other horror films: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), Eaten Alive (1976), The Dark (1979), Salem’s Lot (1979), The Funhouse (1981), Poltergeist (1982), Lifeforce (1985), Invaders from Mars (1986), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986), I’m Dangerous Tonight (1990), Night Terrors (1993), Body Bags (1993, segment ‘Eye’), The Mangler (1995), The Apartment Complex (1999), Crocodile (2000), Shadow Realm (2002), Toolbox Murders (2004), Mortuary (2005), Djinn (2013)]

It’s a shame that this movie, despite the potential I sense, is such a mess. To me, that seems clearly due to the script, which doesn’t really feel right.

I have two big issues with this film. One, as I mentioned, is the story itself. The prologue takes 22 minutes to get through, and once we do, we’re stuck with characters that seem interconnected but don’t know they’re interconnected, a secret plot, some radio psychic, mysteries from the past coming back to haunt a character, some subplot about a nuclear plant that doesn’t seem related at all to the rest of the story, and syringes of glowing green stuff that was never once explained.

The plot goes all over the place, and I don’t think things were put together particularly well. That prologue took way too long to get through, and most of the present-day story isn’t overly captivating either. Some of the special effects (and I really mean some, as there are some really bad scenes here) work out well, but the story itself is just a mess. Maybe I just missed something, but it seems to me there were still quite a few unanswered questions by the end of the film, and it just grated on me. Things just felt disjointed at times.

Secondly, and this may be controversial, but I was deeply underwhelmed by Brad Dourif’s acting throughout this whole film. I know his character is in an odd place, so some of it can be excused, but it wasn’t just the odd scene out where I thought he was just a bad actor. I loved hearing Chucky’s voice, and I get the fact his character’s going through a confusing and emotionally-wrecking period, but his acting didn’t do it for me here at all, which is shame, as he generally is pretty enjoyable (such as his role in Death Machine, which came out four years after this).

I’m not saying that Spontaneous Combustion doesn’t occasionally have charm, but from a personal standpoint, I don’t think I’d watch this again anytime soon, as I honestly enjoyed very little of this film, despite the potential I really thought it had. I could tell from the beginning that the tone just felt off to me, and it pretty much stayed that way throughout, all the way to the ending which also just didn’t do it for me at all.

Tobe Hooper has, no doubt, done a lot for the horror genre, but this one is definitely not one of his better works in my view.

4.5/10

Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence (1992)

Directed by William Lustig [Other horror films: Maniac (1980), Maniac Cop (1988), Maniac Cop 2 (1990), Uncle Sam (1996)]

I didn’t love the second Maniac Cop, but I did think it was a bit above average. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, this sequel doesn’t fare nearly as well, and I generally didn’t care for it whatsoever.

It’s not like the movie’s awful or even that much worse in quality from the second, but I didn’t care much for the route the story took, what with a corrupt cop (Robert Z’Dar, our titular maniac cop) trying to protect an injured corrupt cop (Gretchen Baker) while another corrupt cop (Robert Davi, returning in his role from the second film) does other stuff.

The beginning of the film mentions that Cordell’s character was ‘framed’ and sent to prison. I won’t deny that whatever crime he was thrown into prison for might have been a frame-up, but I will point out that Cordell should have gone to prison anyway, as he absolutely partook in police brutality, the same as Baker’s character, it seems. And on that note, Baker had every right to shoot when she did, but she was using an illegal weapon and illegal ammunition (yet she’s still cleared in the mind of her corrupt cop peer, Davi’s character), so Baker’s character also should have gone to prison had her outcome in the film been better.

My point is that there’s no likable characters in the film. Even the one with potential, a doctor (played by Caitlin Dulany), then falls in love with a cop who just literally tortured her patient minutes before. Again, jail time would be nice.

I don’t like cops, and I don’t respect cops, but this hasn’t really hurt my feelings on the first two movies (though from the beginning, I scoffed when Cordell is called ‘sympathetic’, as he’s not at all). Here, though, it grated on me because there’s not one likable character in the bunch, and their behavior appears to have zero consequence (the video that was uncovered that would have ‘cleared’ Baker’s character, again, still showed multiple illegal actions), but that’s par for the course as far as the corrupt institution of the police force goes.

Throughout the film, there are some okay kills, mostly with firearms, but a solid stabbing is thrown in. As it was, the ending rubbed me the wrong way, also, mainly because I absolutely refuse to believe that someone on fire could drive a car for twenty minutes without 1) melting the seat, 2) causing the gas lines to malfunction, 3) effect the engine, or 4) screwing up the steering wheel. Did it look cool? For the first minute or so, but then it just keeps going. And using the burning arm to light a cigarette, eliciting laughs from his new love? Ugh, kill me now.

Despite all of this, I wouldn’t even be averse to watching this again, as there were some decent scenes, but it’s definitely nowhere near as good as the first movie, and doesn’t much come close to touching the second. It’s not terrible, but it’s not good, and I wouldn’t really go out of my way to recommend this unless you’re already a fan of the series, in which case you’re like to be disappointed anyway.

5.5/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.