1990’s – Page 11 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

Embrace of the Vampire (1995)

Directed by Anne Goursaud [Other horror films: N/A]

Some years ago, I saw a film called Embrace the Darkness, from 1999. It was a slow-moving, softcore erotic vampire seduction flick. If I had to guess, I would say that it ripped off this movie, which has most of the same elements, to my lamentation.

A vampire must seduce an innocent and virginal girl in three days or his long lifespan will finally be at an end. Personally, I can’t imagine this plot being done in an engaging way. The nudity throughout the film, from a party orgy to a lesbian seduction scene (complete with some 90’s R&B tunes), doesn’t make up for the fact that the movie is so damn sluggish. The few kills we do get aren’t overly impressive, and really, aside from the nudity, I can’t imagine why anyone would go out of their way to see this.

Admittedly, it does has Jennifer Tilly, who is appropriately attractive here. And while I don’t know either of them, the main character, played by Alyssa Milano, and Charlotte Lewis, were both pretty cute, and their nude scenes didn’t go amiss. But long-winded sensual seduction sequences don’t make for that enthralling a film, so the performance of Martin Kemp doesn’t do much for me (especially his over-dramatic dialogue).

The one plus this has over Embrace the Darkness is the fact that this is just about an hour and a half, instead of an hour and forty-five minutes. But it still drags, and while the story might be competently done, and the nudity itself was welcomed, I just couldn’t get into it at all, and wouldn’t much recommend it.

5/10

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995)

Directed by Bill Condon [Other horror films: N/A]

Generally speaking, this movie is okay. It’s certainly nothing special, and doesn’t really add much that the first Candyman didn’t bring forth, but you could do much worse than this.

Moving away from Cabrini-Green to New Orleans was a perfectly acceptable choice, though again, it doesn’t really do that much aside from give a new setting to the story. Otherwise, this movie is pretty similar to the first one, only dealing with Candyman on a slightly more personal level.

While there are some worthwhile sequences (I enjoyed the full flashback of Candyman’s origin, especially with the hand being sawed off), there lacks much of the almost-dreamy feel of the first film. Luckily, it does keep that catchy musical theme, but that’s not enough to make up for what feels to be an uninspired sequel.

Kelly Rowan did fine as the main character, though didn’t possess the same strength I got out of Madsen. It was nice to see Michael Culkin come back, and at least connecting the first two movies, though he didn’t really have a chance to do much. William O’Leary was probably the weakest performance here – he just didn’t jibe well with me. Voicing the Kingfish, Russell Buchanan was pretty fun throughout, and of course, Tony Todd had a strong presence here, and pretty much blows everyone else out of the water, though he was more threatening in the first film.

There were some pretty questionable special effects near the end, but overall, this movie does a decent job at avoiding too many special effects failures. It doesn’t do much to make the movie better, but at the very least, it’s a point in the positives for the film.

Personally, I think the first Candyman is a classic of 90’s horror, which is one of the weakest decades for the genre since the 1940’s. This sequel, while not atrocious by any means, seems wholly unnecessary. I’ve seen it perhaps three times now, and I’ve thought the same thing each time I finished it. Not bad, but not that good, and it’s nothing compared to the first film.

6/10

Plaga zombie (1997)

Directed by Pablo Parés [Other horror films: Nunca asistas a este tipo de fiestas (2000), Plaga zombie: Zona mutante (2001), Jennifer’s Shadow (2004), Nunca más asistas a este tipo de fiestas (2010), Plaga Zombie: Zona Mutante: Revolución Tóxica (2011), Soy tóxico (2018), Plaga Zombie: American Invasion (2021), Emesis (2021)] & Hernán Sáez [Other horror films: Nunca asistas a este tipo de fiestas (2000), Plaga zombie: Zona mutante (2001), Nunca más asistas a este tipo de fiestas (2010), Plaga Zombie: Zona Mutante: Revolución Tóxica (2011), Plaga Zombie: American Invasion (2021)]

From Argentina, Plaga zombie is a gory film, which is about all it really has to boast about. It’s a low-budget movie, with not much of a plot, and unfortunately, too much comedy to leave that positive an impression on me.

Despite their heavy budgetary limitations, the individuals behind this film got the gore right. It’s a massacre, with dismemberments, decapitations, tongues getting cut off, and a whole slew of bloody and gory situations. The problem is, that’s really all this movie has.

Throughout most of the film, we have our main characters fighting zombies. And fighting zombies. There’s a sequence near the beginning which was a bit slower, but for the most part, it’s an all-out brawl with the undead, which wouldn’t be that bad in a short, but for a movie that’s seventy minutes long (which is luckily at least shorter than the average 90 minutes), it just felt like it was dragging and dragging.

What didn’t help was the heavy comedic influence – I’m not against comedy mixed with my horror, but when it gets too silly or ridiculous, I check out, and it didn’t take long whatsoever for that to happen here.

Hard work went into making this, and it’s an impressive film for what they had to work with. I’m certainly not giving this one a lower rating because of the budget. The problem is that Plaga zombie is just so damn repetitive (which could be said for many zombie movies, in all fairness), and while it might have made a fine and enjoyable short, for a whole movie, I didn’t think it worked that well.

This Argentina flick has the gore, no doubt, and a lot of heart, but overall, it’s not something I’d want to see again (and it doesn’t make me too excited for the sequels either).

4/10

Death Machine (1994)

Directed by Stephen Norrington [Other horror films: Blade (1998)]

Generally speaking, Death Machine is both a well-made and moderately fun movie. My main question is, did it really need to be two hours long?

The story was good, the gore, when it popped up, was solid also. However, since the movie goes more an action route than it does horror, there’s not as many gory scenes as I would have liked to see, especially considering how dangerous and sharp Dourif’s Warbeast looks.

Brad Dourif was, of course, the stand-out here. His character was wacky, yet quite deadly and amoral, and I have to admit, his portrayal here reminds me a lot of Heath Ledger’s Joker. Dourif was just fun in every scene he was in, and his voice was always a pleasure to hear. The two others who really stood out to me were the main actress Ely Pouget and William Hootkins. Pouget does a solid job as the lead character, and Hootkins, though he didn’t have that much screen-time, had a good presence.

There were aspects of this film that didn’t do much for me. The battle suit was a bit too science-fiction for me, and I could have done without all of the fighting sequences. In a related note, this movie runs for just over two hours, and I really think that was ill-conceived. The movie can be fun, but at two hours a pop, who would take the time to rewatch it? I know I probably wouldn’t.

Death Machine is a decently solid piece of 90’s cinema, despite it being more an action science-fiction flick than a horror (make no mistake, though, there are many horror aspects within). But the length strikes me as rather uncalled for (the movie never feels as epic, for lack of a better word, as the length might lead you to believe), and there were a bit too many fight scenes. As it is, it’s a fine movie, just nothing overly special, despite Dourif’s strong personality.

7/10

Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999)

Directed by Jack Sholder [Other horror films: Alone in the Dark (1982), A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985), The Hidden (1987), Natural Selection (1994), Arachnid (2001), 12 Days of Terror (2004)]

The first Wishmaster film is a pretty enjoyable affair. There were portions I didn’t care for, but overall, it’s a solid piece of 90’s horror. The second film, however, is nowhere near as pleasing.

In terms of special effects, there are occasionally some solid scenes presented here. But it’s no comparison to the first film’s beginning and ending sequence. In fact, a somewhat similar sequence here, which takes place in the final 15 minutes, is so much worse and uninspired than what they managed a few years prior.

The story itself isn’t much to speak of. Honestly, it’s not necessarily even that bad, it just didn’t appeal to me. The idea of having to possess a thousand souls before the Djinn can do anything more is all fine and well, but when he gains 800 of those souls in the course of five minutes, it really takes away from the film. I didn’t expect them to show him gaining hundreds of souls (which is good, because, for the most part, his obscene granting of obscure wishes never really did much for me, and here, very few of them are that interesting), but at the same time, giving him 80% of souls needed in such a short time felt akin to cheating.

Still not the biggest issue, though. I know his performance is what draws some people to this movie, but the Wishmaster himself, Andrew Divoff, just drives me up the wall. Throughout most of the film, he has that same little grin on his face, and his intentionally hammy acting, while in the first film wasn’t that big a deterrent, goes overboard here.

Luckily, the other two main performances were decent: Holly Fields and Paul Johansson. Fields had that cute bad-girl look to her, and having her partner up with Johansson’s priest character was somewhat fun. Neither one has had a particularly impressive horror resume (Fields was in Seedpeople, but that’s about it), but for a movie of this caliber, they do pretty well. It’s just a shame that the story isn’t that impressive.

Evil Never Dies still manages to impress some people, and having seen it twice, I don’t get it. Most everyone agrees it pales in comparison to the first movie, which is certainly true, but seeing a lot of value out of this movie, in itself? More power to you if you enjoyed this. I just wish I could have done the same.

In short, it’s not that it’s a terrible movie. It’s just not particularly good or even that memorable, which is a shame, as Jack Sholder, the director, also made Alone in the Dark and the second A Nightmare on Elm Street film, both of which were decent, if not good. It’s a disappointment he couldn’t do that here.

4.5/10

Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (1994)

Directed by Don Coscarelli [Other horror films: Phantasm (1979), Phantasm II (1988), Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998), Bubba Ho-Tep (2002), John Dies at the End (2012)]

A definite drop-off from the first two of this cult classic series, the third entry still has a lot of solid stuff that makes it worth checking out still.

By-and-large, this film isn’t really that far removed from the second Phantasm. It’s another road-trip, chasing down the Tall Man-type deal, with a few new characters thrown into the mix. It is, however, a bit lighter in tone than the previous film. It takes some odd turns (what they do with Jody – and perhaps Michael – was, shall we say, an interesting choice), and feels somewhat disjointed toward the end. Not even the dreamy disorientation such as the first film, but a ‘I have no idea what’s going on’ type thing.

Before that, though, let’s talk cast: Unfortunately, the stand-outs of this movie are pretty much the stand-outs from the last one: Reggie Bannister and, of course, Angus Scrimm. A. Michael Baldwin came back, but I’m not wooed by his acting. And as fun as Gloria Lynne Henry sometimes was as Rocky, more often than not, she came across as over-the-top. The young Kevin Connors did fine enough, but his character struck me as moderately pointless.

So you put together a, on average, less-than-stellar cast with less-than-stellar plot points (those three zombies that popped up multiple times toward the end rubs me the wrong way), and you get a pretty flimsy Phantasm. Which isn’t to say the film is particularly bad – despite the lighter tone, some of these characters can be pretty fun, such as Rocky – but compared to the first two flicks, this has been a let-down each time I’ve seen it.

6.5/10

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)

Directed by Kevin Yagher [Other horror films: N/A]

Quite possibly better put-together than the third movie, certainly with more ambitious ideas, my problem with Bloodline has always been that it just feels rather soulless.

Cenobites vs. the Merchant family during three different time periods (late 1700’s France, 1990’s New York City, and futuristic space time) didn’t enthrall me. None of the three ages did much to interest me at all. Part of this is possibly because it seems wholly removed from the previous attempts.

And it brings far more questions than it even gets close to answering, such as why Angelique became a Cenobite after the New York sequence, and why exactly didn’t the finale in New York finish up the Cenobite problem. None of these are really answered, and sadly, that’s not all they brought forth without explanation.

Aside from Pinhead, Angelique, and the Siamese Twins, there’s no additional Cenobites in the film, unless you count the Chatterer-based dog, which utterly sucked every time it was on-screen. Doug Bradley did well as Pinhead, again had some good lines (“Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?”), but Angelique and the Twins bored me to death.

It’s not as though the movie didn’t have potential, especially with such an ambitious story, layered such as it is. There are a few solid performances, such as the aforementioned Bradley, Bruce Ramsay, and Kim Myers (Lisa from the second A Nightmare on Elm Street), but does anyone really stand out? Not quite. Possibly because, like I said, the final product didn’t have much soul.

There was a troubled production behind this film, and the director himself rather disowned it and left before filming was finished, so as to why it occasionally feels as some topics are left untouched on, this strikes me as being the most likely reason.

Regardless, the movie, as it is, isn’t worth much. Many of the death scenes were rather ehh (and that mirror scene was atrocious), and the special effects were, shall we say, not really worth mentioning in a positive light.

I didn’t care much for the third movie. However, if I were asked to choose only the third or fourth to watch again in the future, without much hesitation, despite the ambitions this movie possessed, I’d go with the third. I’ve seen Bloodline something like four times now, and it’s disappointed me for hopefully the last time. Might be worth a watch should you be a Hellraiser fan, but it didn’t do it for me.

5/10

Candyman (1992)

Directed by Bernard Rose [Other horror films: Paperhouse (1988), Snuff-Movie (2005), sxtape (2013), Frankenstein (2015)]

While not a particularly disjointed movie, this early 1990’s classic does at times a disorienting, if not somewhat dreamy, feel to it.

And this works to Candyman’s credit, as the movie certainly feels a bit deeper than the preceding decade of horror. Atmospheric, yet definitely gory, Candyman’s the type of film that I think has a decent amount of appeal.

Based off a short story by Clive Barker, the plot is decently interesting (and feels a more well-rounded look into myths than Urban Legend did six years later), and takes some interesting turns (such as a one month time-lapse toward the end). Really, I think this helped the audience feel as disoriented as the main character was, while also allowing sympathy.

Speaking of which, Virginia Madsen does a fantastic job as Helen. Throughout the film, she was a joy to watch. Xander Berkeley (who has a couple hundred roles on IMDb, and I know best from his appearance on The X-Files) had a good screen presence also, and I rather liked his calm demeanor (along with his emotional scene at the end). And of course, Tony Todd does a great job as the Candyman, and his voice was just creepily well-done.

The movie is certainly not without it’s downsides. Not enough explanation of exactly what Candyman’s angle is really given. We’re left to make assumptions, which is fine, especially for a more fantasy blend of horror, but it’s still a bit annoying. And while I sort of liked the enclosed feeling the movie had (it kept it’s core characters and expanded on few others), a wider scope of sorts might have been nice.

Still, the movie was a fun fantasy-horror mix (on a side note, director Bernard Rose also directed Paperhouse, from 1988, a very dark fantasy/light horror mix, which I loved), and the gore it possesses should be enough to engage fans of more straight-forward slashers. The ending sequences (with the bonfire, the funeral, and the aftermath) worked extraordinarily well together, as rarely I’ve seen horror that ended with real feeling.

Questions still come to mind about what exactly Candyman’s goal was, but overall, this Clive Barker adaptation is very much worth seeing. The calming Candyman theme is enjoyable, the movie’s atmospheric feel is great, so this really stands out as a highlight of 90’s horror no matter how many time you’ve seen it.

8.5/10

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

Directed by Anthony Hickox [Other horror films: Waxwork (1988), Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat (1989), Waxwork II: Lost in Time (1992), Warlock: The Armageddon (1993), Full Eclipse (1993), Knife Edge (2009)]

A hard movie to speak about, the biggest problem with this flick is that even though it tries to follow the first two Hellraiser movies, Hell on Earth feels entirely different in tone.

The story is fine. Nothing special, nothing terrible. The subplot with Elliot Spencer and Joey wasn’t really all that intriguing, in my opinion. The movie just felt off, and despite connections to the previous films (including a brief scene with Kirsty), it didn’t real feel all that related.

Most of the acting wasn’t that great. Our main character, played by Terry Farrell, was okay. At times, she certainly didn’t do that well, but she was consistently better than Kevin Bernhardt’s J.P., a pale intimation of the original movie’s Frank. I really did like Paula Marshall as Terri, and throughout the film, she had sort of a Shawnee Smith feel to her, which was definitely appreciated. In fact, I think some of the best scenes of the movie are those with Farrell and Marshall, who did decently well together.

Doug Bradley, of course, did well as Pinhead, but although he occasionally had some interesting insights to shine a light upon, he spoke significantly more in this movie as opposed to the previous ones, which sort of dampens his effects. He had some solid lines (the whole mocking Jesus scene was quality, as was the “limited imagination” line), but smaller doses are what the doctor ordered when concerning his dialogue.

The makeup in the movie was serviceable, but the special effects, many of which were done in early CGI, just looked damn awful. And speaking of awful, every single one of those new Cenobite designs were a kick in the face to the horrific simplicity of the original’s Butterball and Chatterer. The CD Cenobite was bad, yes, but every single design (from the fire-breathing Cenobite to Pistonhead to Camerahead) was an ocular assault. They just looked shitty.

The movie was also far too corny, with some really bad lines in there. The acting often didn’t help with this, truth be told. I’m not sure if all of it was intentional, but even so, it just didn’t do much for me.

If you’re a fan of the first two Hellraiser movies, as I am, this one will come as a bit of a shock. Certainly it’s the black sheep of the first four movies (even if it is probably a bit better than the fourth). This has only been the second time I’ve seen it, but I can see why I forgot much of it. Hell on Earth has an odd vibe, and while it’s not really a terrible movie, the first two are very much superior.

As Camerahead said, that’s a wrap.

6/10

Wishmaster (1997)

Directed by Robert Kurtzman [Other horror films: The Demolitionist (1995), The Rage (2007), Buried Alive (2007)]

Very much a B-movie, Wishmaster has a lot to offer fans of horror.

The story is a fun one, as we don’t get too many Djinn-focused horror flicks. What made it even better, though, was the solid cast. Tammy Lauren did pretty damn well as the main star, despite not really being in all that much of note (the only place I know her from is the 1988 television remake I Saw What You Did, co-starring Shawnee Smith).

Most everyone else was a pleasure too. We had some Kane Hodder, Tony Todd (fantastic as Johnny Valentine), Robert Englund in multiple scenes, some narration by Angus Scrimm, and a fun character played by Jenny O’Hara, who, I kid you not, I only know from a random episode of House (the series starring Hugh Laurie). This movie just had a fun bunch of actors and actresses, and even the individuals who I didn’t care for as much (such as Andrew Divoff, who was a bit too hammy at times) did okay.

Also, the special effects need to be brought up. A few times, they didn’t work out well, especially when they went the hideous early CGI route, but overall, the special effects through the film were something to behold (at both the sequence at the beginning and the party at the end, it’s endless eye candy, such as the great skeleton scene and the half-alligator man). So many of the death scenes were well-done (great jaw-ripping scene), and the special effects just looked great.

Wishmaster is no doubt a B-movie, but I think that works out in it’s favor. I really liked Lauren’s acting, and her character’s final wish was pretty clever. While I cannot speak on the necessities of the sequels (I’ve seen only the second Wishmaster at the time of this writing, and was deeply displeased), I can say that this one is very much a movie worth checking out. Having seen it twice, now, perhaps three times, I think you’ll have a fun time.

8/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, so to give Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I a listen, check out the video below.