Directed by Tom Chaney [Other horror films: The Wind Walker (2019)]
This is a pretty horrible movie, and seems like a combination of a more competently-made Things (1989), combining ideas with The Evil Dead, but damn it, I do think it has a bit of charm, which is probably what’s expected from a Troma movie.
There’s an okay story here, which is somewhat goofy at times, but what makes it work a bit better than expected is the stop motion used on the titular wendigo, which looks more to me like a centaur. Even so, I appreciated the attempt, and seeing him rip through a cabin’s roof and grab someone was a pleasure.
As far as performances go, it was a mixed bag. Lori Baker, Patrick Butler, and Devlin Burton were all accessibly decent, but Ron Asheton’s performance was so awful, it almost wipes out the positive aspects of everyone else. His hamminess was off the charts, but luckily, he doesn’t have the chance to quite ruin every scene, which I guess is something.
Speaking of Asheton, who was a member of Iggy Pop/The Stooges, it was probably his idea to throw such an awful and discordant soundtrack into the mix. The music itself is bad and often out of place, but what’s worse is that the audio was mixed poorly, and it’s not uncommon for the lyrics of songs to be on the same audio level as characters in the movie, which was distracting as hell.
Another thing I really could have done without were the two news flash sequences, which literally added nothing to the story. There wasn’t anything in them particularly funny or note-worthy, and at least six, seven minutes of time is just wasted.
Hey, at least we got some okay decapitations, including one done by a pterodactyl demon-type thing, which was a solid sequence, so kudos there.
Frostbiter isn’t a movie that comes highly recommended, and I do find the movie below average, but in it’s mediocrity, I do think the movie has a bit of charm, and I actually could see myself giving this one another watch in the future.
Directed by Stephen Williams [Other horror films: Shadow Zone: My Teacher Ate My Homework (1997)]
Okay, this is a movie that I don’t think many horror fans would take a big interest in, primarily due to the fact it’s a movie aimed more toward older kids/younger teens, and it pretty much feels like an hour-and-a-half episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark?, mixed with an element or two of a more kid-friendly Tales from the Crypt.
Having seen this vampire movie twice now, though, I can firmly state that I quite love it.
Some of this undoubtedly comes from the cast. It’s true that most names here are new to me. The main kid, played by Chauncey Leopardi, was pretty decent, in a corny, Goosebumps-main character way. And speaking of Goosebumps, his father was played by Ron Lea, who was in the Werewolf Skin two-parter (which I own on VHS, and always thought added something interesting to the werewolf lore). Leopardi’s two friends are, of course, a black dude and a white girl (typical equality from Are You Afraid of the Dark?/Goosebumps), played by Tony T. Johnson and Natanya Ross.
Johnson I was more lukewarm toward, mainly because he was one of the main comedic relief elements, but I really liked Ross’s character, especially since they threw in that her character had dyslexia (which led to a painful argument between her’s and Leopardi’s character). It might not be game-changing, but how many horror movies throw in learning disabilities like dyslexia? I get it, it’s to show kids that not all kids have it the same, but I still find it somewhat commendable. Oh, and Wes Craven appears for a few scenes, which is sort of fun.
It’s the last actor, though, and the co-star with Leopardi, that makes the film all the more enjoyable, that being Ron Silver. Silver doesn’t seem to be that big a name, but I’m personally a fan of the series The West Wing, which is a politically-based show with a lot of great names and fun plots. Silver plays a recurring character in the show, so seeing him here (with pretty much the same, quietly humorous personality) was an utter blast. At the time I first saw this movie, I hadn’t really gotten into The West Wing yet, so this only increased my enjoyment with a fresh watch.
The plot is, I’ll say it again, much like something you’d see on Are You Afraid of the Dark?, being a little bit silly. Here, a coven of vampires live in the New York City subways, living primarily off rats, and once lead vampire Silver meets Leopardi’s character, works on trying to gain his coven the freedom to roam the city proper. It’s nothing special as far as vampires go, but I did think it was mostly well-done.
It’s worth noting that the budding friendship between the kid and the vampire was touching at times, and though I didn’t shed tears or anything, I did think the conclusion was pretty touching also (not to mention satisfactory even without that). Not everything is quite as explained as you’d hope, but overall, I can’t help but have a good time with this.
There’s not a whole lot in the way of blood here, which can only be expected. To be fair, there are a few surprisingly gruesome vampire deaths here (some of which are quite gooey), but that’s about as far as it goes. I mean, come on, this is made for kids.
Also have to throw a shout-out to the kid’s love of horror movies and that hella beast video store with a beautiful collection of horror posters thrown up on the walls, such as Sssssss and The Mutations, a 1974 British flick with Tom Baker and Donald Pleasence.
Shadow Zone: The Undead Express isn’t a movie that’s likely to impress all that many horror fans who see it. It’s a made-for-kids television movie, but I personally grow up on Goosebumps and Are You Afraid of the Dark?, so it was definitely the type of movie I would have loved if I had seen it back then. The nostalgic feelings are deep regardless, and I find this movie an exceptionally enjoyable watch.
8.5/10
This is one of the movies that was covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, episode #29, so if interested, you can hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.
I’ve not seen this one since I was around 13 – 16 years old, and given I was 26 at the time of writing this, I was excited to finally see this one again. Jack Frost isn’t a great movie, and I didn’t think it would be, but I still had a pretty fun time with it, and while it occasionally gets a bit too silly for me, overall, I will admit to enjoying this one.
The killer snowman here reminds me a lot of Chucky from Child’s Play, which I suspect was intention on the part of the movie-makers. Not only is he a serial killer endowed with a new body, but he has consistent quips to go along with every kill, and generally seems a talkative guy. Sometimes, as I said, this gets to be a bit much (especially toward the end), but Scott MacDonald definitely had fun with this.
Personally, that does often make a difference to me. There are some movies in which it’s clear the cast has a blast making it, but that doesn’t always lead to the movie being good (likewise, there are movies that it seems clear the cast wasn’t invested, and that can badly damage a movie). However, when the story is decent enough and the cast is clearly enjoying themselves, it’s a great little feeling, and I think Jack Frost definitely has that.
Christopher Allport isn’t necessarily stellar here, but I do think he’s stable enough to commend. I do wish we had seen Stephen Mendel’s character punched at least once, as he was pretty good at acting the asshole, but to no avail. The same could be said for Rob LaBelle – he got a slight comeuppance, but it wasn’t near enough. Shannon Elizabeth has an early appearance here, two years before her role as Nadia in American Pie and four before Thir13en Ghosts, and it’s probably one of the more well-known scenes in the film. Let’s just say it looks chilly.
What really cracked me up toward the end was when we find out that Allport’s kid (played by Zack Eginton) put antifreeze into a Christmas snack for his father. I was expecting hot sauce or something, but it’s freaking antifreeze. I chuckled at that, because that kid is absolutely going to kill someone someday.
Toward the end, though, I do think things tend to run a bit slower. We’ve already seen what seemed to be the defeat of Jack Frost twice now, and he still comes back. I wish they had trimmed a bit of that (such as the scene where the gaggle of main characters were forcing Jack Frost into the furnace with hair-dryers – that, what with the music and Jack Frost’s dialogue, was just too silly), but it’s not really that detrimental a problem.
I wouldn’t call Jack Frost a great movie, or even a traditionally good one (fantastic introduction, though, that cracked me up), but I do think it’s a decent amount of fun, and though some of it is a bit much, I found myself quite enjoying this rewatch.
7.5/10
This was covered on one of Fight Evil’s podcasts, episode #26. If it tickles your fancy, listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.
Directed by Ralph S. Singleton [Other horror films: N/A]
Though this is far from one of the better Stephen King adaptations, I think that Graveyard Shift carries with it some charm, much of it from a combination of the schlocky nature of the story and Stephen Macht’s overly enjoyable performance.
While it’s based off a short story from King’s first collection, Night Shift, not too much in this hour-and-a-half long film seems too unnecessary. Certainly, showcasing Warwick’s despicable nature more overtly here was a nice addition, which makes sense since they were trying to find some additional padding for the story, which was somewhat thread-bare in the original short story.
Without a doubt, Stephen Macht gave the best performance here. I don’t know what his accent was (sounds like a strong Louisiana twang), but he commanded attention in every single scene he was in. I really enjoyed Macht’s portrayal of Warwick, though it did get a bit much toward the end (more on that shortly). The main character, played by the milquetoast David Andrews, left naught a single impression whatsoever. Kelly Wolf had some gumption, but her character didn’t much amount to much, aside from hint at Andrews’ untold back-story.
Brad Dourif also appeared somewhat extensively in the film, but I thought his character was far, far too over-the-top. This isn’t to say that Macht’s character wasn’t, but Dourif took it to a new level, and I admit that while I usually enjoy his performances, this one turned me off somewhat.
A few things, such as the back-story of Andrews’ character, made Graveyard Shift feel somewhat incomplete. We’re literally never given any idea of what makes Andrews’ character tick – he was a blank slate, and we about never learn a thing about him. Another problem I had was that the conclusion felt as though it was escalating too quickly. It’s a shame, as otherwise, things were mostly plodding along fine.
One of the absolute best things about the film, though, was the setting. From an expansive cavern filled with bones to a flooded out, marshy graveyard, which stands next to an old, ominous mill, Graveyard Shift really knew how to use their settings, and it stood out as easily one of the most memorable parts of the film.
Ultimately, I enjoyed the clinical style of the short story more, but I appreciate how they attempted to flesh out Warwick’s character here, and I can’t say it enough: Stephen Macht’s performance is fantastic. I’d say that this is somewhat below average, but I will admit to enjoying it a hell of a lot more this time around as opposed to when I first saw it some years back, and while some aspects weren’t that great (including much of the conclusion), I suspect this has decent rewatchability.
Directed by Clive Barker [Other horror films: Hellraiser (1987), Nightbreed (1990), Clive Barker’s Salomé & The Forbidden (1998)]
After wanting to see this for some time, I have to admit I’m a bit underwhelmed. The story was decent, but I felt this sort of missed the mark, and ultimately wasn’t quite what I was looking for.
Portions were certainly enjoyable, though, particularly the detective work in trying to solve the mysteries Harry (Scott Bakula) was facing. I think it was during these sequences where I was most engaged, and I feel the movie did far better with showing us the mystery as opposed to the overly supernatural, more ridiculous parts of the story.
Bakula made for a pretty good main character. I’m not that familiar with him, but I definitely liked him here. Famke Janssen (who I know best as Jean Grey from the X-Men movies) was decent, but I didn’t care that much for her character. Barry Del Sherman shined here, and was perhaps the stand-out performance of the film, as his character seemed almost inhuman every time he was on-screen. I also enjoyed both Joel Swetow and Lorin Stewart. Daniel von Bargen didn’t do it for me, though, and his over-the-top character was pretty meh. Related, Kevin J. O’Connor didn’t wow me either.
Honestly, Lord of Illusions reminded me a lot of Wishmaster, albeit with far worse special effects (seriously, the special effects here, even for the 1990’s, are mostly awful). I had a lot more fun with Wishmaster than I did this one, though, and I can’t put my tongue on exactly why I kept thinking of that flick while watching this.
It’s true that the film ran a bit long (it’s about an hour and 50 minutes), but even if it was cut down a bit, I get the sense it wouldn’t do that much to boost my entertainment. The gore, when it popped up, was decently solid, and again, I thought the story itself was interesting (and the middle portion of the film pretty great), but overall, while I’d probably watch this one again, it wouldn’t be high on the list.
I’ll say this for it, though: Lord of Illusions had some strong ambitions, and it definitely had potential (that spinning sword trick and the resulting suspense was top notch). It just wasn’t what I was hoping for. It may still be worth a watch, though, if you’ve passed it up in the past.
Directed by Tom McLoughlin [Other horror films: One Dark Night (1982), Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986), The Haunting of Helen Walker (1995)]
For a television adaptation of a Stephen King story, this early 90’s flick is okay. The problem is that, compared to the original story, this falls moderately flat.
See, the short story (which was first published in 1974, then released in King’s first anthology, Night Shift, from 1978) was written in a very succinct, almost clinical, manner. It’s not King’s best outing in Night Shift, but it is a pretty solid story, and also appropriately dark.
Partially because this is a television movie, though, Sometimes They Come Back strikes me as a lot more saccharine than anything, and it’s overly sentimental, almost sappy, portrayal, really takes away from what the story brought forth.
If you’ve not read the story, I suspect it might fair a little better, but I still think the movie would feel like the sanitized, 90’s flick it is. There are some solid sequences, and pretty solid performances, but it just doesn’t cut it for me.
I do have to give props to Nicholas Sadler, Bentley Mitchum, and Robert Rusler, who gave a fantastically exuberant performance as some greasers out for vengeance. Their over-the-top style, including the fun Big Bopper reference, made the film a lot more fun than it otherwise would have been. Those three brought a lot of heart to this film, and their antics added a lot. Rusler, by the way, played Ron Grady in the second A Nightmare on Elm Street, which was sort of fun.
Otherwise, the only other performance that stood out was the lead Tim Matheson. Brooke Adams, who was also in The Dead Zone (1983), was okay, but didn’t particularly do much for me. Matheson, of course, is a rather well-known name. I know him best from The West Wing, where he played the Vice President for a time, and he also starred in the television movie Buried Alive, which I’ve previously reviewed. He does a good job here, and he fit the role I imagined from the story pretty well. His dialogue, at times, was rather sappy, and his internal monologue was way too 70’s, but he was nice to see nonetheless.
Compared to the story, Sometimes They Come Back isn’t that great. It’s been years upon years since I last saw it, and it’s not really a movie I could see myself watching again any time soon. There are much better Stephen King adaptations out there, so I’d personally just recommend sticking to the story. Still, this is a harmless movie, with occasionally fun scenes, so if it sounds like your thing, give it a shot.
Directed by Turi Meyer [Other horror films: Sleepstalker (1995), Alien Express (2005)]
I can’t even remember the last time I saw this flick – it’s easily been over eight years. This isn’t surprising, considering how utterly sub-par the movie is, even compared to the below-average Farewell to the Flesh.
Certainly, I understand some of what they were going for. They had a lot more skin and scantily-clad women in this one, and seemed to up the amount of gore. The story wasn’t anything new, though, and it just came across as pretty pointless, especially when the second film was pointless enough.
One of the things that bothers me about the Candyman films are the titular character’s angle. In this film, he keeps talking about how, once his descendant is his victim (willingly, as for some reason that matters), they’ll become myths whispered about in reverence by their congregation, and become immortal due to that. First off, I don’t think it’s a surprise that someone would refuse such if, to get there, they had to be impaled by a hook, but ignoring that, once Candyman discovers an actual newly-formed congregation, devoted to his myth, he just kills them all.
I really don’t get what Candyman’s going for. It’s not even revenge against the people who wronged him – he’s literally going after his descendants, who you would think he’d want to protect, if anything. It’s just one of those things that has been a somewhat constant annoyance, and while it didn’t much impact the first film (because it was otherwise a fantastic horror-fantasy mix), it bothered me throughout this one.
Of course, Tony Todd himself is a pretty threatening presence on screen, and despite not understanding his motivations, he brings the character to life. Robert O’Reilly and Wade Andrew Williams did pretty good as some racist cops. Ernie Hudson Jr. was solid in a few scenes as a black police officer, and I wish he had gotten more screen-time.
On the other hand, it’s obvious why they chose Donna D’Errico (who was in Baywatch, apparently) as the main actress, and it has to do more with her breast size than acting ability. Oh, make no mistake, she was smoking, but I wasn’t overly convinced with her performance throughout the movie. Jsu Garcia (credited as Nick Corri) was sort of nice to see (he played Rod Lane in the first A Nightmare on Elm Street), but his performance here wasn’t overly spectacular, and generally, he came off a bit generically.
If there’s one thing I liked about this film, it’s how it portrayed the racism that Latino communities face from the police, and along with the somewhat solid ending, it ends up being one of the few true high points of the film. Otherwise, there’s no real reason to go out of your way to see this one, unless you’re a die-hard Candyman fan.
Day of the Dead is worse than Farewell to the Flesh, and both are below-average, which is a real shame, considering that the first movie proved that, done right, the idea of Candyman could be rather effective. Sadly, this late 90’s sequel focuses more on nudity and gore, and fails to realize that potential.
Directed by David Fincher [Other horror films: Alien³ (1992)]
In many ways similar to Silence of the Lambs, Se7en is one of those products of the 90’s that skims the waters of the horror genre. Personally, if it’s not been clear, I have a somewhat liberal view of what should be counted in the genre, and Se7en fits for me. Even if you don’t think it belongs, though, this movie is still a dark and often depressing masterpiece.
Rather moody and atmospheric (and perhaps too dark – the city, which always seemed to be enshrouded in gloom, was a bit much), Se7en has a lot of feeling to it. Once the killer comes forward and gives his reasoning for his actions, I suspect many out there would be sympathetic. The story’s tried and true also, with some solid twists.
An older, more-experienced cop (Morgan Freeman) partnering up with an often abrasive hot-head (Brad Pitt) always leads to some good scenes, and especially given the quality of the two actors in question, and it’s no different here. Freeman’s character is rather interesting, and has a depth to him, and while the same can be said for Pitt’s, Freeman was overall who I found myself consistently more interested in.
The story itself is overly solid also, and never really lets up. Plenty of potentially boring procedural sequences end up captivating due to, as aforementioned, the performances involved. The conclusion is a little shaky for a reason I’ll talk about in a bit, but overall, I don’t have any real complaints about the story here, other than that the city really did seem too grim (I mean, it’s not like this is Gotham).
Freeman and Pitt, who had mostly great performances, aside, there are plenty of others who stand out in this film. Kevin Spacey, who is perhaps one of my favorite modern day actors, does amazing here, with a fantastic calm, collected style and just steals the few scenes he’s in. Gwyneth Paltrow (who I know only from the MCU films) is an enjoyable presence also, though I sort of wish a bit more was done with her. Though small performances, both R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket and Mississippi Burning) and Richard Schiff (The West Wing) were nice to see also.
As alluded to earlier, I don’t think the movie’s perfect. Again, while I know the movie was going for a gloomy and depressing feel (that ending quote always stuck with me), the city just felt unrealistically bleak, at least in my opinion. Also, while I mostly liked Pitt’s character, the famous sequence at the end doesn’t feel like his best work. The way he screams, ‘What’s in the box?’ just felt almost silly and too over-the-top. It’s a great sequence overall, but his acting on those lines sort of dampens the otherwise dark feel.
On a side-note, I didn’t notice until I began writing this review that I’d seen most of director David Fincher’s movies, favorites of mine including 1997’s The Game, The Social Network, and Gone Girl. Though it’s not particularly relevant here, I do appreciate the versatility of his work.
Se7en is a great crime flick which, while not overly violent, does have enough material in it to maintain the interest of most horror fans. It’s a captivating movie with a great cast and some classic scenes. Kudos to both Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman for being the two best performances in the film.
Directed by Jonathan Demme [Other horror films: Beloved (1998)]
This is one of those very contested, borderline genre pieces. Personally, I find there enough qualities in this classic to consider it a horror flick, but if you’re one of the many who just don’t see the horror here, that’s understandable too. That discussion aside, The Silence of the Lambs is of course a solid movie, with it’s biggest strengths being the story and great performances.
It’s the combination of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins that really give this movie life. Hopkins does a great job as Lecter, and despite his moderately short screen-time, he has a presence that really can’t be contested in the film. Playing Buffalo Bill, Ted Levine shows a fantastic, crazy side as opposed to Hopkins’ calmer form of insanity. Other performances worth noting are Scott Glenn (I love his rather straight-laced character here), Anthony Heald (who I saw somewhat recently in the 2006 comedy Accepted), and Frankie Falson (admittedly, he didn’t really do much, or get that much screen-time, but he’s still an actor I appreciate).
When you combine such a stellar cast with a pretty hypnotizing story, only good things can come from that, which I think is clear from the film. Though violence wasn’t much the point, there are a couple of standout sequences, such as Lecter’s breakout, that are well-worth seeing.
Quite often, this is a clever and psychological film, and it’s obviously very well-known, and for good reason. Many probably wouldn’t consider the film horror, but like other well-loved borderline flicks, such as Jaws and Identity, I certainly think it has its place in the genre. A great film with a lot going for it, this is definitely a 90’s film worth seeing, if for some reason you’ve not already.
Directed by Tom Holland [Other horror films: Fright Night (1985), Child’s Play (1988), Two-Fisted Tales (1992, segment ‘King of the Road’), The Langoliers (1994), Tom Holland’s Twisted Tales (2014), Rock, Paper, Scissors (2017)]
Thinner’s a book I’ve not read, unlike many other Stephen King novels (technically, Thinner was written under Richard Bachman, but even so), which may play a part in my review. While the movie is mostly enjoyable, there are a few performance issues, and ultimately, I think the film is missing something.
The story starts out well, but after a certain point, I personally think things drag a bit. It doesn’t help that the main character, played by Robert John Burke, came across as overly hammy toward the second half of the film. Near the end, it was definitely a bit much.
Which is one of the biggest problems with the film. Sure, the story is a bit thin (see what I did there?), but if Burke had put in a better, more serious performance, I think I would have liked the flick at least a bit more. As it is, the highlight of the film is really Joe Mantegna (who I know most from both the 1994 comedy Airheads and a long-lasting role in Criminal Minds). Without Mantegna’s presence here, I really don’t think this movie would have been anywhere near as enjoyable. Michael Constantine puts in a solid performance too.
Perhaps it’s because of Burke’s occasionally hammy acting, but the film felt just a bit on the light-hearted side at times. It’s tone didn’t work too well with me, but once Mantegna’s role becomes more a focus toward the end, things start coming together.
On a side-note, while the special effects were moderately decent for most of the film, there was a lengthy dream sequence that was entirely too goofy, and I definitely could have done without.
I’ve seen this once before, and I wasn’t overly amazed. It’s a good flick to sit back and eat popcorn with, but even for the mid-1990’s, which wasn’t the best time for the horror genre, Thinner just felt as though it was lacking. Good ideas in this one, to be sure, but an inconsistent tone and main performance places this one below average.
6/10
Thinner was covered by Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and myself on Fight Evil’s tenth podcast, which you can listen to below.
Jiggy's Horror Corner 