Category: 2000’s

Directed by Mary Lambert [Other horror films: Pet Sematary (1989), Pet Sematary II (1992), Strange Frequency (2001), Urban Legends: Bloody Mary (2005), Mega Python vs. Gatoroid (2011)]

This is a rather cheap-looking film, which is obvious from the camerawork, some of the performances, and even the music. Still, if you’re looking for a somewhat interesting and psychological movie, this might be it.

First thing I noticed when I started this up was the main character’s played by Elisabeth Moss (who is known for a variety of things, but I know best as Zoey Bartlet, the youngest daughter of the president in The West Wing). When I first saw this film years back, I hadn’t really seen many West Wing episodes, so watching it now, knowing Moss, it was a funner experience. She doesn’t do too bad, either, and really pulls off the “is this real or am I going insane” type scenario.

Unfortunately, she’s probably the best-cast in the film. Tom Malloy, did pretty well as an autistic brother, but Catherine Mary Stewart (of Night of the Comet and Nightflyers fame) and John Savage (he’s been in a ton of things, but nothing I’ve really seen) sort of sucked as their parents. Their performance just didn’t jibe with me. Jason Lewis and Thomas Jay Ryan also didn’t really do anything for me in their respective roles, though admittedly, Lewis did come across as charming on occasion.

Because it’s a straight-to-video movie, there’s not much in the way of special effects. Most of the time, it’s just a figure quickly walking by the door-frame, or in the mirror, that leads to most jump scares. There was a single throat-slitting that wasn’t shabby, but aside from that, little to no gore is to be found here.

The draw here is the story, and whether or not what’s happening is the result of some supernatural incident or a conspiracy to drive a young woman insane. Or a cult. Or a twin sister separated at birth who wants revenge. Really, this movie played with a lot of options, and I’m perfectly fine with the more downbeat direction the conclusion took.

If there are any downsides that need to be discussed, it’d come from a few directions. Firstly, I get that this family is moderately dysfunctional, but the constant drama got a bit tiring as the movie dragged on, which wasn’t made easier by the fact both parents were pretty unlikable. There was also a very stagy feel to this movie – at times, I felt like I was watching Guiding Light all over again, or another one of those soap operas of the bygone era. It’s nothing that too negatively impacted the film, but it was noticeable. Lastly, I wanted fewer jump scares and more wholesome horror, but until the end, we never really got that.

The Attic is a cheap movie, straight-to-video, and it definitely shows. That said, at times, this film can be pretty suspenseful, and I do think the story is intriguing enough to pull in most audiences. There’s little here that’s fully original, but especially if you’re familiar with Moss, this might well be worth looking into. As for myself, I definitely enjoyed it more this time around as opposed to when I first saw it.

7.5/10

Directed by Scott Derrickson [Other horror films: The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), Sinister (2012), Deliver Us from Evil (2014), The Black Phone (2021)]

Inferno takes a different route than previous Hellraiser films (the first, second, third, and fourth can be found here), and originally, the script wasn’t even meant as a Hellraiser film, which you could sort of guess by watching the final product. Instead of what we got before, this is much more a psychological-based horror than straight-out gore. It’s an interesting idea, but comes out a mixed bag.

The special effects in the film are okay for straight-to-video. I’ll say again that the Cenobite designs are pretty awful (Torso, while it’s nice to be reminded of Chatterer, just doesn’t do it for me), but because the movie isn’t as focused on the Cenobites as the main character’s battle with his sanity, it doesn’t hurt the film as much as it did the third or fourth movies. Gore throughout is moderately decent – the hook-whip scene in particular was pretty solid, and the sound effects nailed it (along with a few other scenes). While there’s not that many explicitly gory scenes, plenty of aftermath is seen, and all-in-all, it worked out.

The cast wasn’t amazing here. You could certainly get the straight-to-video feeling from them. Craig Sheffer was about 50/50, and his narration didn’t particularly help. He certainly got hokey at times, especially toward the end. Nicholas Turturro didn’t shine here either, and came across as generally weak. Of course, Doug Bradley did just fine as Pinhead, though didn’t have lines as quotable as he’s had in the past. I did like briefly seeing Kathryn Joosten (of The West Wing fame), and overall, I enjoyed James Remar’s performance, though his character didn’t make a lot of sense.

Which is the biggest issue with the movie, being the story, which just feels both underdeveloped and, at times, nonsensical. The time-frame stated in the film is entirely unrealistic, and though toward the end we’re given some answers, I can’t help but still feel unsatisfied. It doesn’t help that some portions of the movie just look rather amateurish (I’m happy to say, though, that the director, Scott Derrickson, greatly improved, and went on to direct 2012’s Sinister, a rather enjoyable film), and some sequences (the cowboy bar, for instance) just seem both random and not relevant to the plot.

I’ve seen this film some three or four times prior, and I probably liked it more in the past than what I do now. That said, I do think I’d prefer this one over the third or fourth Hellraisers, despite their generally more, for lack of a better term, ‘Hellraiser’ feel. Inferno has some interesting ideas, and I think a more clear-cut script would have helped the movie out greatly.

Nowhere near the best the series has to offer, but more enjoyable, despite its flaws, than the third and fourth movies, Hellraiser: Inferno would probably disappoint many going into it, but I’ve found it consistently an okay film, though still below average.

6.5/10

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman [Other horror films: Darkness Falls (2003), The Killing Room (2009)]

I don’t think anyone would posit that the TMC sequels are ever quite original. Some, such as the 1990 Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, can be quite fun, but original? Not so much.

This prequel to the 2003 remake doesn’t really add much of anything, which, for a prequel, is sort of sad. Sure, we get an “origin” story of Leatherface, but it doesn’t really mean much as this film and the remake are virtually identical. Hell, this even has a climatic fight in the meat packing plant, just like the 2003 remake did.

Certainly, the movie’s not lacking in gore. There’s plenty of gore throughout this flick, and more than enough to go around. Related, the special effects are generally pretty good also. Like the remake, there’s sort of a built-in grittiness here, which somewhat falters due to the polished nature of the movie.

The cast is generally pretty blah. Sure, R. Lee Ermey has some charm, but the four main protagonists, Jordana Brewster, Taylor Handley, Diora Baird, and Matt Bomer are all pretty cookie-cutter, which, given the expected bleak ending, may well have been intentional. Aspects of the characters are interesting, such as the two brothers on different paths (one’s going back to Vietnam, the other is burning his draft card and going to Mexico), but there’s not much time to really touch on what makes the characters individuals.

Because the movie takes place in the late 1960’s, it makes the film a little more unique. Not much, though, and while the gore is, of course, pretty good (let’s be real – if a TCM movie can’t do gore good, then why bother?), and Leatherface is appropriately threatening at times, The Beginning is pretty much as bland as the 2003 movie was, even after having previously enjoyed it.

6/10

Directed by Jimi Jones [Other horror films: N/A]

I saw this movie once before many, many years ago, and there was only a single scene I remembered. In the scene, a recently blinded woman is given a stick to defend herself against what amounts to little more than a ghost.

That’s a microcosm of how much sense this movie makes.

Which isn’t to say that, based off the plot and some of the ideas touched upon in the movie, it didn’t have potential. Crazy Eights could have been, despite it’s moderately low quality, a cult classic if done right. But instead of really tying things together, what does the ending do? Gives us some nonsense scene which I couldn’t make head or tails of, and based off what others online have said, I’m not at all alone.

For the most part, the movie’s fine. It’s not really good, and I had very little fun watching it, but for it’s budget, it was somewhat well done (how’s that for tepid praise?). The problem is, because the plot wasn’t fully formed and there’s still plenty of questions in our heads after the credits start rolling, things just feel sort of incomplete.

The cast was a mixed bag. With six main characters, we weren’t over-inundated with new faces, but it did take a little bit for each of the individuals to really stand out from the crowd (and one of them never really did). Gabrielle Anwar, due to the nature of her character, seemed to be drugged out 95% of the movie. Frank Whaley may have a more impressive resume, but his character was a whiny, annoying bitch throughout all of the film.

Dan DeLuca (who appeared a bit in The Wire) never really had much to do, and ended up being one of the more inconsequential characters. Traci Lords, much like Whaley, played a pretty annoying character, and due to that, was pretty unlikable. George Newbern, who played a priest, was pretty fun overall, though pulled a potential solution to the problem out of his ass near the end. Slightly less consistent was Dina Meyer (Starship Troopers, Saw), as she sort of lost it at the end (as did the film), but she was still mostly solid.

The thing is, even the better cast members, being Newbern and Meyer, didn’t make the film fun. I chuckled a bit at some of Whaley’s ridiculous lines, but I felt just sort of ‘there’ when watching this, and not at all interested in what was unraveling on the screen.

For what little gore we got, it was okay. I felt that, as multiple deaths were off-screen, we could have been thrown a bit more in that department, but apparently the creators hoped the story would stand up for itself, which was a bit of a failure on their part.

In all honesty, though I’ve not said many nice things about it, Crazy Eights isn’t a terrible movie. It really did have a somewhat interesting idea that they just failed to realize, and they had some themes they failed to pull together when it counted. It’s not a good movie, but it’s not awful either. I’d give it at least one go, and maybe you’ll end up liking it. For me, it had a shot, but didn’t quite make the hoop.

5.5/10

Directed by Ti West [Other horror films: The Roost (2005), Trigger Man (2007), The House of the Devil (2009), The Innkeepers (2011), V/H/S (2012, segment ‘Second Honeymoon’), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘M is for Miscarriage’), The Sacrament (2013), X (2022), Pearl (2022), MaXXXine (2024)]

I sort of wanted to like this movie, if for no other reason, to erase the taste of the first from my mouth. But while this movie had some pretty decent effects and disgustingly heavy gore, I felt extraordinarily lukewarm toward it as the credits began to roll.

Let’s get the good out of the way, which won’t take too long. I liked both Noah Segan and Alexi Wasser in their roles. I thought they played a cute couple, despite not really being a couple until perhaps the end. Neither one has been in much I’ve particularly seen, but they did well here with what they had. The idea behind the film, in which contaminated water spreads the skin-eating disease past the perimeters of the original, was fun. I just don’t think it was executed well.

Lastly, the gore was moderately top-notch. There were two scenes that were frankly difficult to stomach (keywords being “fingernail” and “dick”), and though I felt repulsed, I can’t deny those scenes’ efficacy. The problem is, I expected a bit more during the prom sequence. Sure, every other person was throwing up blood, but come on, that’s it? No body parts falling off? No grisly face melts? It just felt toned down, which could probably be explained by the fact they hadn’t been exposed to the disease long enough for those extreme effects to be seen, but even so, it was disappointing.

Also disappointing was the pretty unexciting first half of the movie. I don’t mind a little high school drama, but come on, get to something good. Occasionally showing us the party cop from the first movie doesn’t do it for me. And while we’re at it, I was pretty disappointed in Giuseppe Andrews’ story-line in the movie. I was hoping for some type of redemption from his actions in the first, but instead, he sort of goes nowhere.

Speaking of useless sequences, though, the final ten minutes, starting in the strip club, didn’t strike me as necessary at all. What did we learn from that? The disease is spreading still? As if that was supposed to take us by surprise…

The animated opening and finale was sort of interesting, but this movie didn’t do much at all for me. I was hoping (though not seriously expecting) a more serious tone, but again, it wasn’t to be. Did I enjoy Spring Fever more than the first movie? Probably, yes, but it’s not by much, and much like the first movie, I really can’t see myself deciding to give this one a re-watch for the enjoyment of it.

5/10

Directed by Christopher Leitch [Other horror films: I’ve Been Waiting for You (1998), Secrets in the Walls (2010)]

This television movie is a remake of a 1973 television movie of the same name. In fact, the Dean of the college in this movie is played by Kate Jackson, who played a girl in the original version. I’m suspecting, by-and-large, that the only reason they chose to remake a Satanic 70’s television movie was due to the moderate then-recent success of The Craft (which came out in 1996). I’ve not seen the 70’s movie myself, so I can’t compare them, but I can attest to my feelings that this one is sort of fun.

Now, make no mistake – this is not a good movie. But perhaps due to the lower-quality (if you’ve seen one early 2000’s television movie, you know what I’m talking about), or the utter silliness of some of the special effects (wolves turning into humans, killer lightning bolts striking and lighting girls on fire, and crows/ravens with glowing red eyes), I found that Satan’s School for Girls has some charm.

The cast was okay for a television production. Shannen Doherty did fine as the main character, I guess. I sort of got the sense her heart wasn’t in the movie, but given what the movie is, I think that is moderately forgivable. Daniel Cosgrove (who has appeared frequently in soap operas in the past) played his character a bit generically, but still had a surprise up his sleeves. The aforementioned Kate Jackson did decently well until the end, when she had to deliver some rather cheesy dialogue during the *cue dramatic music* ultimate showdown.

Perhaps my favorite actor was Richard Joseph Paul, who played a sleazy college professor. I mean, this guy dated multiple students (in an all-girl school), and more so, did it openly. He would literally go to parties the students throw and show up with his student squeeze, not even trying to hide it. Paul’s character was a hoot and a half, and if you watch this movie, keep your eye on him, because he’s good fun.

Many aspects of this movie aren’t great. The music is exceptionally weak, the special effects were horrendous (as you’d expect from most TV movies), and very little suspense is ever really felt. Still, though I’ve seen this movie before (I suspect it’s been at least ten years), a few things caught me pleasantly by surprise, and a twist or two took me for a ride. Nothing spectacular, but when I finally figured out where the movie was going (a testament to how much I remembered about it), I thought to myself, “Damn, that’s cool.”

This remake is a goofy, cheesy movie. The epilogue was laugh-your-ass-off awful. But it still had some charm to it, so while I definitely think it’s a bit below average, I do think it’s close. Satan’s School for Girls is far from perfect, but damn it, I still had fun. Take that to the bank.

6.5/10

Directed by Marcus Nispel [Other horror films: Frankenstein (2004), Friday the 13th (2009), Exeter (2015)]

This won’t be a very long review, because quite honestly, I can’t think of much to say.

Throughout the whole of the film, I just felt it very bland. It’s not bad, per se, but nothing really did anything for me. The gore was top-notch, with some solid dismemberments and impaling on meat hooks and the like, but with the glossy style the movie sometimes took, it sort of weakened the impact.

One thing, gore aside, that this movie did really well were the sets. The Hewitt house looked great, with a really creepy exterior and fantastically-done basement, with a whole mess of random horrific stuff crammed down there. The meat packing plant was appropriately creepy also, so kudos there.

As for the actors/actresses involved, none of them were either that great or that bad. They just felt sort of there, going through the motions. I didn’t care for R. Lee Ermey’s character, but he did okay. As Leatherface, Andrew Bryniarski did decent, and looked rather menacing. As for Jessica Biel and company, really, nothing good nor bad stands out. Biel was certainly attractive in some scenes, which is what they were going for, it seems, but other than that, eh.

The movie starts off a bit sluggish, and doesn’t really pick up until about forty minutes in, and when it does, it’s a smooth ride forward, but I just couldn’t shake the idea of how bland I felt the movie was. It has it’s positive factors, but from 2003 alone, I can think of other horror flicks I’d rather watch (such as Dead End or House of 1000 Corpses), so ultimately, I wasn’t much impressed this time around.

6/10