Category: 1990’s

Directed by Rachel Talalay [Other horror films: Ghost in the Machine (1993), The Dorm (2014)]

After the drab, disappointing fifth movie, Freddy’s Dead is honestly a breath of fresh air. It’s never been a movie I loved, but I was always entertained by it. Seeing it again, I have to confess, though, that perhaps I’m closer to loving it than I previously thought.

Here’s a warning, first off – there’s a lot I want to talk about, and I don’t have much of a cohesive plan in which to tackle the various different points I want to bring up and expound on, so if at any time I seem to be rambling, I’ll say this in advance: sorry, brahs.

I critiqued the hell out of The Dream Child for being confusing, and since I don’t want to be labeled a hypocrite, I’ll concur with anyone who says this one is confusing too. However, in this case, it didn’t bother me at all.

Well, I shouldn’t say at all – one of the characters, John (Shon Greenblatt), is apparently the last kid who lives in Springwood. Apparently Freddy killed the rest of the kids, causing a deep economic depression and mass psychosis of those who still live there. I fail to see how a kid could have gone unnoticed, though – where did he live? Did he have parents? It just seems odd that a kid could live in Springwood and somehow not attract the attention of the crazy townspeople.

Related, we can see that Springwood isn’t that far from the unnamed city John winds up. Much like Children of the Corn, I cannot believe that a town could survive in the state they’re in and not make national news, nor be smothered by social service workers. It makes more sense in Children of the Corn, actually, because it was a small town in the middle of nowhere, but we can clearly see that Springwood is pretty close to what seemed to be at least a moderately-sized city.

So yes, some of the logic bothers me. The first one, I can’t find a way around, but for the second point – well, technically, this film takes place in an alternate future (the opening says ‘10 years from now,’ which, to me, means 2001), and it’s possible that they was some type of collapse of a national government. Certainly the scenes in the city make it seem seedy, and the shelter for troubled youth seemed painfully underfunded. I guess my point is that, in times of economic despair, it’s not out of the question that the suffering of a small town might go largely unnoticed to a population living close by.

In a way, though, this makes the movie more fun. The fact it takes place in 2001 doesn’t really matter aside from explaining how there are zero children or teens left in Springwood, but it does make the story more interesting, in my view.

Look at Springwood, for instance – I absolutely loved the little we saw of the town. Adults holding a fair with no potential of joy, a teacher (Matthew Faison) reciting senseless lectures about Freddy to an invisible class, a woman at an orphanage who is so out of it, she thinks she sees children playing and having fun. The execution isn’t perfect – I don’t know why Roseanne Barr had to make an appearance – but the concept is pretty cool, and that chalk drawing of Freddy is the icing on the cake.

I also think the cast here is pretty strong. Lisa Zane (The Nurse, Toughguy, Natural Selection) was pretty solid in her role. I can’t exactly describe why, but I found her a lot of fun. Naturally, Yaphet Kotto (Alien, Warning Sign) is fun to see, and his character is solid. I’ve always been a fan of Breckin Meyer (from comedies such as Rat Race and Blue State to horror films such as Stag Night), so seeing him here young was fun.

Lezlie Deane’s (976-EVIL, Girlfriend from Hell) character was pretty good too, and perhaps the most traumatic of the characters here. She’d be top-tier if it weren’t for Zane and Kotto, actually. Ricky Dean Logan and Shon Greenblatt were the weakest here, but still fun at times. Lastly, though he’s as corny as expected, Robert Englund appears to be having fun here.

Speaking of fun, I think one of the reasons this movie sort of works is the fact it is actually entertaining. It doesn’t always hit – the video game/power glove sequence was pretty damn painful, and that Wizard of Oz reference hurt me in ways a man’s not meant to be hurt – but generally speaking, there’s some good times here. In fact, a couple of quotes come to mind: ‘The map says we’re fucked!’ (which is a line I use in my daily life – well, whenever I see a map, anyway) and ‘Damn it! I hate this house’ (a simple quote, sure, but hilarious in context).

Actually, there’s another quote, this one said by Freddy, and one I’ve loved since I was a kid, being ‘Every town has an Elm Street.’ Sure, much of this movie is goofy, but I’d put that line up against ‘You are all my children now,’ as one of Freddy’s best quotes.

And it’s on that note that I need to discuss something I probably should have discussed before. I’ve seen Freddy’s Dead probably twice before, but I never saw it as a kid. I did, however, once have my mom rent out Critters 3 on VHS – I don’t know why, as up to that point, I’d never seen the two previous Critters.

The point is, while we rented it, I watched the movie perhaps three times (and to this day, I have a very soft spot for Critters 3). The movie came out 1991, same year as this one, and before the film started, the VHS tape had a trailer for this movie – a trailer that I watched quite a lot – and it became ingrained in memory. My main point being, while I never saw this movie when I was young, I did see bits and pieces from the trailer, so I do feel a bit of nostalgia when watching this.

Another thing that I absolutely adore about this movie happens toward the finale – Lisa Zane’s character finds out something disturbing about her childhood, and goes to confront her mother, by banging on her door and shouting ‘MOTHER!’. I have to imagine that was intentional, as it’s exactly like how Nancy shouted for her mother in the first movie after seeing the bars on her windows.

But that’s not all – it’s around this same time that we hear the original theme music, as Lezlie Deane falls asleep. And to add to the nostalgic feel of the 1984 classic, while Freddy’s speaking with Yaphet Kotto’s character, he’s casually cutting off his fingers, just as he did in the first movie. It’s like these three things were thrown in as a way to celebrate the (supposed) end of the franchise, and I loved it.

Speaking of a celebration of the franchise, I loved how the film ended with a montage of clips from all six movies – some of the best, creepiest scenes are shown, and it’s a nice look back on the series that so many enjoyed, even during it’s worst moments. And ending with a ‘Freddy RIP’ was fun also.

Oh, another thing I rather liked was how they delved into Freddy’s past, showing his messed up childhood and abuse at the hands of his father. Anyone growing up in an environment like that would find it hard to become a functioning adult, so it’s hard to entirely blame Freddy for where his life took him. Admittedly, the Dream Demons looked rather shitty, but that’s 90’s 3D action for you.

Speaking of the abuse that Freddy faced, by the way, this was a pretty dark movie in terms of characters. As it dealt with troubled youth, you had a kid who has hearing issues due to an abusive mother, you have a teen girl who was sexually abused by her father, and you have a stoner who can’t live up to his father’s image of him. Combine that with the childhood trauma of Lisa Zane’s, and, despite this film being goofy at times, it can get pretty dark.

I don’t doubt that, in many ways, Freddy’s Dead is a mess. I find it thoroughly enjoyable, though, in ways that The Dream Child, and in fact, The Dream Master, couldn’t match. It worked for me, and that’s all that matters.

7.5/10

Directed by Ernest Farino [Other horror films: N/A]

Steel and Lace isn’t a movie I’d heard too much about before watching. In fact, while I had known of the movie in a vague sense, I think it’d be fair to say that I couldn’t have said a single thing if asked what it was about. All of this is to say that I went into this one pretty blind, and I have to admit that while I liked some of the ideas here, along with the effects, I’m not sure the execution was to my liking.

It’s a bit of a twist on the rape/revenge style of exploitation that was somewhat common in the 1970’s into the 80’s, with such films as I Spit on Your Grave, The Last House on the Left, Savage Streets, Demented, and Ms. 45 (two of those I don’t see as horror, being Savage Streets and Ms. 45). I don’t know of many of these types of films from the 1990’s, though, so that was one of my big points of interest when getting into this movie.

Combining both the tragedy of rape with some science fiction elements of artificial intelligence, Steel and Lace (certainly an apt title) is definitely an interesting, almost unique movie. I think it’s strengths lie in the strong cast, solid special effects, and genuinely fascinating idea. I think it’s held back, though, by the execution of some of these ideas, along with elements of the finale.

When it comes to the kills, most are good. I think the most striking is perhaps an individual being lifted up into some helicopter blades, and while the injury (i.e. death) looks weak, the idea has feeling. There was also a good decapitation and another fellow got lit on fire via lightning bolt. The weakest kill here, I think, would be either an individual being sucked of his lifeforce (or whatever – I couldn’t tell exactly how that character actually died) or someone getting #drilled. Not that the latter kill couldn’t have been good, but I don’t think they had the special effects to back it up.

Another area which I think warrants a positive mention is the cast, most of whom are strong. The primary protagonists, David Naughton (An American Werewolf in London, Mirror Mirror 3: The Voyeur, Amityville: A New Generation, The Sleeping Car) and Stacy Haiduk (Luther the Geek, Attack of the Sabretooth), work well together, and I thought Haiduk did rather stellar. Clare Wren and Nick Tate had strong moments also.

Of the group of men who stood together to protect a rapist (that’s how rich, white men do), those being Michael Cerveris, Scott Burkholder, John J. York, Paul Lieber, and Brian Backer, only two stood out. Burkholder (House IV), York, and Lieber were okay, but Brian Backer (a surprising face to see, as he played Alfred in The Burning) and Michael Cerveris had more character. Lastly, Bruce Davison (Willard, X-Men, and Kingdom Hospital) was nice to see, though I wish his character went a different direction.

Which is sort of fair for the movie as a whole, I think. The ideas here were decent, and they mostly worked out, but toward the end, I did lose a bit of interest, as it dealt more with the emerging emotions of an android, which wasn’t a bad route to take, but I also didn’t care for how it was approached. Also, Davison’s character felt almost too villainous, especially given that the reasons he wanted revenge were completely legit.

More than anything, Steel and Lace is a bit of an oddity. It’s not really the type of film that I’d expect from the 1990’s, though it does sort of make sense when you consider other films from around the same time period, such as Hardware or Death Machine. Even so, while there’s some things in this movie to enjoy, I also think it’s fair to say there’s not really a ton of memorable material here. It’s far from a poor movie, but I do personally find it a bit below average.

6/10

Directed by Kim Henkel [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a movie (better known under the title Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation) I’ve long been interested in seeing. I had heard that it wasn’t a particularly good movie, but even so, as long as it was better than the second movie (which is a popular film, but it never sat well with me), I’d probably be okay.

It took a long while to finally watch, though, mainly because the theatrical cut was far more commonly available than the director’s cut. Aside from a scene between Jenny and her step-father at the beginning, I’m not sure what differences there are, if any, but when I watch a movie, I always aim to watch the most complete version possible. With that in mind, even knowing it wasn’t likely to be a good movie, I just bought this one on Blu-ray.

And, well, I don’t know. It honestly wasn’t terrible, at least until the final 25 minutes or so. Otherwise, it was generic; a bit annoying as far as the family element went, but not without some charm. If it weren’t for the final twenty or so minutes, I probably would have enjoyed this a lot more than the second movie. That said, I don’t know if it’s worse – I know my stance on the second film is unpopular, but I probably enjoyed this one just a little more than the second one, and I definitely preferred the family dynamics here.

Speaking of which, while nowhere near as functional as the family from Part III, it was amusing seeing how much fun Matthew McConaughey was having. The family here consists of five members (technically six, if you count the grandfather, but he did very little), being: Vilmer (McConaughey), W.E. (Joe Stevens), Darla (Tonie Perensky), Leatherface (Robert Jacks), and Rothman (James Gale).

Technically speaking, I don’t know if Rothman is in the family. It’s his inclusion in the film that makes this a far less enjoyable affair. He pops up toward the end, driven to the house in a limousine. It’s not clear what his relationship with Vilmer is, but later on, he apologizes to Jenny and drops her at a police station. Oh, and he speaks French. I have no idea who he is, or what his relationship to anyone is, or why he was there, but I didn’t care for it whatsoever.

Another character I didn’t care for would be Darla, who just felt too steeped in comedy to amount to much. I was sort of thinking that Jenny could break through to her – that Jenny’s experience in dealing with her abusive step-father would play a role in getting Darla to help her escape from Vilmer – but it wasn’t to be. She did pick up pizza, though, with Jenny tied up in her trunk, so that was something.

Vilmer, W.E., and Leatherface were all fine. Well, I did think that Vilmer felt a bit too psychotic at times, but at least he wasn’t Chop Top. W.E. didn’t do much, aside from attacking people with cattle prods. Leatherface got a few decent chase scenes in, one kill almost reminiscent of the quick hammer attack from the original movie. His screaming was a bit ridiculous, but this family is all off their meds, so I wouldn’t expect a healthy approach to mental health from them.

What stood out pretty clear to me, and this is something I rarely find the need to speak about, is how atrocious some of the delivery was in this movie. Some of the dialogue was bad anyways, but boy, the delivery didn’t do any additional wonders. It was sometimes amusing – Jenny’s been abducted and attacked by multiple members of this family, and she’s still trying to logically figure out what’s going on. I wouldn’t call this movie necessarily horrible, but I do think those that do have good reason, especially concerning the performances.

Like I said, Matthew McConaughey (Frailty) is having a lot of fun, so there’s no issue there. Delivery aside, I actually rather liked Renée Zellweger (Case 39). Neither Tyler Cone nor Lisa Newmyer did much for me, as their characters were pretty awful, but at least they occasionally provided for some okay violence, when the movie veered that way (which wasn’t very often). Otherwise, it’s tough to find any other performance worth mentioning in a positive manner, as this film doesn’t offer much in that department.

What it also doesn’t offer is much in the way of violence. Sure, the first movie was a bit light on actual gore, but it had a grittiness that stands up to this day. Here, there was a scene of a character being hit over the head with a hammer, and another character got shoved onto a meathook, but that was it. In fact, now that I think on it, while Leatherface was waving his chainsaw around throughout the movie, I don’t believe he ever once hit anything. I guess that someone did get their head crushed with a hydraulic leg, and another got hit with the propeller of a small plane, but this movie didn’t have much else.

I have to admit, with as many negative things as I’ve heard about this film, I’m surprised it wasn’t worse. Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that I often heard having Leatherface dress up as a woman was stupid, but I don’t see what the big deal is about. If he wears the faces of women, I can easily see why he’d want to also wear their attire. Ignoring that, though, while the movie is definitely sketchy, I don’t think it’s awful. Some of the humor was meh, some characters (Darla and Rothman) rather bad, and the ending was complete and utter trash, but I can’t say I hated it.

It’s obviously not as good as the first movie, though, and it’s nowhere near as enjoyable as the third, but honestly, the more I think about it, I might say it’s slightly better than the second. #DealWithIt

5.5/10

Directed by Mark Jones [Other horror films: Rumpelstiltskin (1995), Triloquist (2008), Scorned (2013)]

Leprechaun is a film that I’ve seen before and enjoyed, but it’s been a long time. I mean, ten years+ long, if not longer, so I was worried that when I revisited this one, some of the charm would be lost.

Well, it’s a mixed bag, but generally, I still hold the same positive views that I had when seeing this movie those many years back.

Naturally, I think the biggest problem is that some of the humor is a bit too goofy for my liking, such as that skateboard sequence, or perhaps that scooter chase. Hell, even popping out of those cabinets felt a bit too Scooby-Doo to me. However, unlike later movies in the franchise, the humor is somewhat restrained, and while I wouldn’t exactly call the movie dark or overly serious in tone at any point, Leprechaun isn’t entirely without merit for the traditional horror fan.

It’s in the characters, I think, that this movie really shines. Certainly Jennifer Aniston’s Tory is bratty and unlikable for a solid third of the film, but Mark Holton’s Ozzie has a lot of heart, and his interactions with Robert Hy Gorman’s Alex were low-key my favorite portions of the film, as I felt they could be somewhat touching at times (especially concerning Ozzie’s mental disabilities, which I felt were handled decently in the film).

What’s somewhat impressive, at least to me, is that most of the central cast was pretty solid. Sure, the story may not have been a work of the Gods, but the performances were all varying degrees of good, which, for a movie that feels like a Full Moon feature half the time, is a stunning feat.

Aniston is an individual that some people might know from Friends, but as I’ve never seen an episode of Friends, my knowledge of her comes from films such as Along Came Polly, We’re the Millers, and Derailed (none of the three, sadly, will be reviewed on this blog). Like I said, she’s bratty at the beginning, but has some quality lines (“I know what it feels like when a man caresses my leg,” followed by John Sanderford’s reply, “You do?”), and she does improve as the movie goes on.

Speaking of Sanderford (The Alchemist), he doesn’t appear much past the first twenty minutes, but he’s of good value. Robert Hy Gorman (Sometimes They Come Back), as I said, had some touching moments with Mark Holton’s character. Somewhat amusingly, I saw Holton rather recently when I revisited a crime-drama film from 2003, Gacy, which stars Holton as the infamous serial killer. Also from films such as Hoboken Hollow and Madhouse, I found Holton’s performance great here. Ken Olandt (April Fool’s Day) probably stands out the least, but he still has his moments.

Warwick Davis brings a palpable energy into his role as the titular Leprechaun. It really seems as though he’s having a blast. Like I said, some of his actions are a bit goofy, but I definitely don’t fault Davis, and I love what he brought to the film. Plus, his rhymes are dope (though they get doper), and I love a man with that much dedication toward getting back his gold.

Now, Leprechaun isn’t exactly a gory film. There are a few moments, such as the pogo stick scene, that give us a little something, but that’s not the point of the movie. What I think Leprechaun does quite well are the other special effects, and toward the end, I couldn’t help but think of Gremlins and the gooey goodness both that classic and this provided.

As much as I appreciate a lot of this, though, it still occasionally felt too goofy for me. That doesn’t make the film a bad one, as I did enjoy revisiting this quite a bit, but then I think of how they distracted the Leprechaun by throwing shoes toward him (his compulsive desire to shine any and all shoes well-established by that point), or I think back to that (mercifully short) skateboard sequence, and I have to sort of reign in my praise.

Leprechaun is a solid movie. I personally find it fun, the cast fantastic, and the story amusing enough. It does go overboard, though, which I think is my only real issue. On a related note, if you want to say that I don’t know how to have fun, that’s certainly alright. When it comes down to it, I think the movie is a high average. It may be above average, in fact, but for the time being, I feel an average rating fair.

7/10

Directed by William Lustig [Other horror films: Maniac (1980), Maniac Cop (1988), Maniac Cop 2 (1990), Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence (1992)]

Uncle Sam might be a good example of a movie that’s better in concept than execution. It’s not a bad film, but I think there was a lot more potential here than what the final product displayed, and while portions were solid, I definitely think the movie could have been more memorable.

I think the basic plot is fun, which deals with the resurrection of a soldier who was killed by friendly fire in Kuwait going around his hometown and killing people. Some of the people he kills seems to be for ideological reasons – such as him going after a teacher who protested Vietnam back in the 1960’s – but others seem to be pure revenge, such as his wife who has moved on.

What makes the story mildly more interesting is that there’s a nephew of his, played by Christopher Ogden, who is quite the patriotic youth, and despite the fact his Uncle Sam wasn’t the nicest person in the world, the kid looks up to him, and respects him. He wants to join the military when he’s older, and do whatever the president tells him to, because “he knows best.”

I don’t know if this movie was intentionally attacking the idea of blind patriotism. I’d like to think so, and the poem spoken during the credits – ‘Desert Storm’ recited by William Smith (yes, the actor, who also has a small role in the film) – leads me to that conclusion, but even if the story is just supposed to be a story (fans of Stephen King’s best novel It should catch that reference), I do enjoy what I perceive as the anti-war message, which is best delivered by Isaac Hayes’ character, who was a soldier himself, and lost a leg in Korea.

And this might go without saying, but this movie never could have been made even five years later. After 9/11, patriotism was at an all-time high (along with other delightful things, like illogical wars and xenophobic attitudes toward Muslims, or those who could almost “look” Muslim, such as Sikhs or Hindus), and movies that questioned such fervent and emotional attitudes probably wouldn’t have done too well. None of this makes Uncle Sam a good movie, but it does make it an interesting movie to look at, at least through the political climate of the nearby years.

The main problem here is that the movie is simply adequate. Some of the kills are solid, such as someone being hung from a flagpole, or a cannon being shot at someone, or even someone getting stabbed by a flag, but I’d argue none of these are great kills, and even the decapitation here doesn’t really stand out. A lot of the film feels somewhat tepid, and while it’s nice to see a slasher shortly before Scream brings the subgenre back to prominence, I can see why this might not do a lot to advance love of the genre.

Of course, none of this is supposed to say the movie’s bad, because I don’t think it is. I think some elements are a bit off, such as Zachary McLemore’s wheelchair-bound character’s unspecified relationship with Uncle Sam, but the movie’s still palatable. It’s just that I think the story had a lot more potential, and while I’m glad they veered away from heavy comedy (there’s surprisingly few one liners here from the killer, which I appreciated), maybe that approach would have given the film a bit more flavor. At the very least, Uncle Sam’s costume design was pretty solid.

Christopher Ogden was good as the patriotic kid, and though I didn’t care for his blind worship of the military, he’s a young boy, and made a fascinating main character. Anne Tremko and Leslie Neale weren’t that relevant, but did have one good scene. Isaac Hayes took a bit to appear, but I rather enjoyed him, and while she didn’t do much at all, it was sort of nice seeing P.J. Soles (Halloween, B.O.R.N., and Carrie) here.

Like I said at the beginning, I think the concept of Uncle Sam is stronger than the final product. Make no mistake, this movie is superior to films like The Tripper, but it’s also true that William Lustig made a much more memorable film in Maniac Cop.

7/10

Directed by Jim Gillespie [Other horror films: D-Tox (2002), Venom (2005)]

Among the many slashers to crop up once Scream re-ignited the subgenre, I Know What You Did Last Summer is among the best. It’s nowhere as good as Scream, but it is a very solid movie, partially due to a combination of the story and the setting.

I’m a sucker for oceans. I’ve never personally seen an ocean, at least in living memory, so I was always fascinated by coastal communities, especially small coastal communities. And since I Know What You Did Last Summer primarily takes place in a tiny coastal community in North Carolina, it had me from hello.

Of course, most people know the plot of this one – four teenagers cause an accidental manslaughter, and once they get rid of the evidence, they make a pact to never bring it up again. Alas, a year later, at the anniversary of the incident, a killer wearing a long, black slicker and wielding a hook, hunts them down.

We know the plot, which is fun enough, but what I didn’t know is that it’s partially based on a novel by Lois Duncan, titled, believe it or not, I Know What You Did Last Summer. It’s a thriller written for young adults as opposed to a slasher (and in fact, Duncan wasn’t happy with the slasher approach to the story the film took), but the main plot is all there, which is somewhat fascinating.

I’ve always loved the design of the fisherman here. The long, black slicker, sticking up so it hides their face, that black hat, that hook – I won’t say it’s a better look than Ghostface, but it is among one of my favorite looks among slasher antagonists, and he wields a hook almost as beautifully as Candyman (albeit with less gore). The setting is great, as we see plenty of water, boats, crabs, fishing nets, as is the atmosphere, and much like the killer’s design, I’ve always loved it.

Though it’s not a gory movie, I Know What You Did Last Summer does have some very solid scenes, the tension perhaps making up for lack of blood. I think the sequence in which Sarah Michelle Gellar’s character is chased is the best, especially the attack behind the tires, just feet away from a bustling parade. That was just fantastically shot. A sequence that has the fisherman creeping into Gellar’s house, causing her to wake up the following morning with a message on her mirror, was quality also. There’s also the finale on the boat – with bodies packed in ice and hooks flying everywhere, worth seeing if nautical nonsense is something you’d wish.

Jennifer Love Hewitt was pretty decent as the more likable character of assholes. To be fair, I don’t think any of the four kids are particularly sympathetic, but Hewitt’s was occasionally the most moral. Freddie Prinze Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Ryan Phillippe all had their moments, Gellar perhaps being the strongest. Anne Heche (who I know from both Volcano and the Psycho remake) had some good scenes, and I entirely forget Johnny Galecki was in this, which means I haven’t seen this film since I started The Big Bang Theory, which shows exactly how long it’s been.

And it has been years since I’ve seen this, which is one of the reasons I was quite excited to revisit it. Unlike other post-Scream slashers that disappointed me upon rewatches (such as Urban Legend and Valentine), I Know What You Did Last Summer held up pretty well. It’s even better than another of my personal favorites, being Cherry Falls, and is overall a fun and memorable film with a good mystery and well-designed killer.

8/10

Directed by Steve Latshaw [Other horror films: Vampire Trailer Park (1991), Biohazard: The Alien Force (1994), Jack-O (1995), Death Mask (1998), Return of the Killer Shrews (2012)]

While rather low budget in it’s approach, Dark Universe does have some mild charm to it. It’s not what I’d call a good movie, but for what it is, I don’t think it’s at all awful.

With what looks like a makeshift Xenomorph running around Florida swamps, Dark Universe can be a little fun. Having an alien causing havoc on Earth isn’t uncommon – look at films such as The Incredible Melting Man, The Borrower, Lifeforce, Night of the Blood Beast, and Without Warning – but it’s still unique enough for a lower budget film to try and craft that at least a little respect should be thrown it’s way.

Honestly, while some of the special effects are quite terrible (such as the spacecraft pilot at the beginning morphing into the Xenomorph-lite), some aren’t too shabby. As much as I make fun of the alien design here, it’s okay. There’s also the scenes where the alien sucks the fluids out of some unfortunate souls, leaving their bodies emaciated. It’s not great, but we’re talking about an early 1990’s straight-to-video movie here, so again, I have to give the film some kudos.

It’s not a good movie, though, which may not come as a surprise. It’s sort of fun at times, but there’s not a lot to the film – just people trekking through the swamps, occasionally getting attacked by the alien, and almost always during the day. It’s not generally that interesting, even if it does look okay for the budget they had.

Personally, I thought Blake Pickett (HauntedWeen) made for a somewhat irritating character. She started out fine, but the more she did, the less I cared for her. It’s the opposite with John Maynard (in one of his earliest roles), who I rather liked until the end. Bently Tittle (also from HauntedWeen) was generic, yet fine, Joe Estevez (The Lights and Axe Giant: The Wrath of Paul Bunyan among his most well-known works) popped up for some reason, and we got a small scene with William Grefé (not generally an actor, but the director of suck works as Whiskey Mountain, Death Curse of Tartu, Stanley, and Mako: The Jaws of Death), which was sort of fun.

Dark Universe isn’t a good movie, but I don’t think it’s terrible. It can be quite dull at times, and the finale isn’t what I’d exactly call nail-biting, but for some cheap alien action, and for a retro time, it might be worth checking out at least once.

5.5/10

Directed by David Price [Other horror films: Son of Darkness: To Die for II (1991), Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde (1995)]

I have to say, I have an actively hard time disliking The Final Sacrifice. It’s not a good movie, and it’s nowhere as classic as the first movie, but it’s so damn funny at times, and if you can deal with a somewhat iffy story, at least the film can offer some quality deaths.

As it is, the story here is just so wonky. It apparently takes place shortly after the first film (so I’m guessing 1984), with the children of Gatlin being largely adopted by a neighboring community of Hemingford (based on Hemingford Home, where, as I’m sure we all know, Mother Abigail lived in The Stand). Well, you can take the children out of Gatlin, but you can’t take the Gatlin out of the children, and so they reform their religious separatist movement. Also, while I appreciated them mentioning Isaac, the fact that they didn’t mention Malachi, or the fact that come the end, they followed Malachi as opposed to Isaac, sort of bothered me.

Oh, and there’s also a subplot about a town conspiracy to sell spoiled corn for economic gain (the poisoned corn being set up as one potential explanation for why the kids went crazy in Gatlin), and there’s another thing going on about how there’s a Native American spirit of the land that gets revenge of those polluting it, or something like that.

Here’s the thing – all of this over-complicates things. The first movie wasn’t innocent of this – I really think the first film should have avoided showing anything supernatural during the conclusion. The reason being is that I find a growing commitment to Old Testament Biblical values among the youth, causing them to turn on adults, far more interesting than the idea that the kids were just victims of bad corn. One deals with interesting sociological issues, and the other is just bad luck.

The story here really should have been streamlined. I think that would have benefited the film greatly (and that way, they also could have gotten rid of that God-awful CGI, as it gave me bad flashbacks to Hideaway), and I don’t see how adding in the Native American legends did much to make the film better (aside from giving Ned Romero’s character a reason to exist). Overall, the story isn’t great.

Also, the characters aren’t that great. I liked Ned Romero, as he was quite funny at times (“No, what happened in Gatlin is that those kids went ape-shit and killed everyone”), and while he was no Isaac or Malachi, Ryan Bollman was decent as a younger preacher of He-Who-Walks-Behind-The-Rows. Terence Knox (The Hunters) didn’t strike me as that likable a character, nor did Paul Scherrer. Rosalind Allen (Ticks, Son of Darkness: To Die for II) got so little personality, I’m surprised she existed, and Christie Clark (The Mummy’s Dungeon) looked cute, but I don’t think she added much either.

Even if the story and characters aren’t great, though, you still have a lot of amusing kills, and I mean a lot. Some are simpler, such as a house being lowered on an old woman, or another old woman who gets killed in her powerchair (the innocent children of Gatlin used a remote control and drove her into a busy intersection), or even a meeting house getting sent up in flames, surely killing most people at the town meeting.

The better ones include a freak storm which sends a corn stalk flying through a van window and impaling someone in the neck. The other guy there got his throat slit by corn stalk leaves. There was a guy caught under a corn harvester. Someone was stabbed to death with syringes. And perhaps my favorite, using a voodoo doll (which is something that is never once brought up again or alluded to), a kid carves into a man’s nose during a church service, causing one of the worst nosebleeds imaginable.

Save for the nosebleed death, none of these are particularly brutal or gory, but most of them are either quite amusing or just entertaining. There is an occasional darkness to the film – the movie opens with people finding quite a few decomposing corpses in the basement of a house in Gatlin, and later in the film, people run into the scattered remains of human beings in a cornfield, things such as hands and feet. The Final Sacrifice isn’t a gory movie, but honestly, as far as kills go, it’s decent.

I’ve seen most of the movies in the Children of the Corn series, and only a handful are films I actually find poor. As for Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice, I don’t delude myself into thinking the movie’s good, but I’ve been pretty entertained by it in the past, and that hasn’t changed with this most recent viewing.

7/10