Category: 2000’s

Wilderness Survival for Girls (2004)

Directed by Eli B. Despres [Other horror films: N/A] & Kim Roberts [Other horror films: N/A]

After years of wanting to see this, I really didn’t expect something this atypical. Not that Wilderness Survival for Girls is a bad movie or anything, but it’s not really the type of movie I was expecting, and I think that some people, if they go in with the wrong preconceptions, may walk away from this rather disappointed.

I didn’t expect the film to be anywhere near as low-budget as it was, for one thing. This doesn’t hurt the movie, because, as you all may know, I enjoy quite a few low-to-no budget films, but I was just somewhat taken aback by exactly how amateur this film came across.

What is more important, and definitely far more crucial, to my final verdict is the plot, and I’ll say that I was expecting something significantly different, but it’s also worth saying that this movie did have some feeling and heart which helped it break past what could have been a somewhat dull affair.

And to be clear, I guess I should briefly discuss my expectations – I thought this was a slasher. Why? I don’t know – I guess that, to me, it sounded like one. Some teens go to a cabin and get stalked and killed off by some mysterious figure? Typical slasher stuff, I thought.

Boy, was I wrong. Instead, we follow these three young women who go to this cabin and just hang out for forty minutes or so. They joke around, show off some skin, give the audience a clear view of their varying personalities, and show the small cracks in the friendship, and also sprinkle in a few small, implied character traits that pop up later. They also get high, because these three know how to have a good time.

There’s nothing horror about any of this so far, to be clear. I guess at one point, the three think they see some mysterious guy watching them, but at best, it’s mildly suspenseful, and doesn’t lead anywhere at that time. What it lacks in horror, though, this first half of the film makes up for in giving us three very fleshed out characters, and I love that. These aren’t your average women of horror – these three have a lot of character and personality, and I dig it.

It helps that the performances are great. We have Clea DuVall, Natasha Lyonne, and Velma. Okay, that’s my attempt at a joke, but Jeanette Brox reminded me throughout of Clea DuVall (circa How to Make a Monster) with her somewhat dorky, timid character. Megan Henning, with her glasses and attitude, got me thinking Velma. And the carefree, lower-class character played by Ali Humiston had Natasha Lyonne’s look and attitude from American Pie down beautifully. The three work great together, and the friendship felt authentic.

In many ways, a lot of this film feels more liking a coming-of-age drama with the three teens, unsure of their futures (two of them are going to college while one isn’t), unsure of their sexualities, unsure of love, just hanging out and candidly talking about things such as drugs, sex, masturbation, and their problems. It might be dull to some, but like I said, I think it gives a lot of character to consider, and it all plays in once the action starts ratcheting up.

Not that the movie is ever really inundated with action; once a mysterious man comes to the cabin and the girls, afraid and also high, tie him up believing him to not be cut of clean cloth, the movie certainly becomes more suspenseful, but there’s really only a few distinct moments of actual action. We got a lot of character from the girls, and now we examine this random guy who may or may not be a threat, and based on what the girls have to work with, it could definitely go either way.

If you’re going into this movie expecting some run-of-the-mill slasher plot, like I was, you will definitely be surprised. For some, the movie may not be their cup of tea. Once I got past my slight confusion, though, I was drawn into the characters and the dilemma they faced, and I felt for the characters when they talked about feeling unloved, or when they go for the person they love and are knocked down, or when they bite back and forth over personalities (Debbie telling Ruth’s character that Kate has called her stupid was a heart-breaking, yet very real, very real conversation).

Do I think that the movie is a masterpiece? No, not really. And like I said, I think it has the potential to turn some horror fans off. For me, though, Wilderness Survival for Girls was a pleasant surprise, and what it lacked in the slasher feel I was expecting, it more than made up for in fully-formed characters and great, real dialogue. This is definitely a movie that, while I didn’t love, I won’t be forgetting.

7.5/10

Beyond the Limits (2003)

Directed by Olaf Ittenbach [Other horror films: Black Past (1989), The Burning Moon (1992), Premutos – Der gefallene Engel (1997), Legion of the Dead (2001), Riverplay (2001), Evil Rising (2002), Garden of Love (2003), Familienradgeber (2006), Chain Reaction (2006), Dard Divorce (2007), No Reason (2010), Legend of Hell (2012), Savage Love (2012), 5 Seasons (2015), Olaf Ittenbach’s Colourman (2017), Garden of Love II (2017)]

I knew very little about this going in, which was, in this case, a positive thing, because if I had known it was an anthology movie with only two stories, each one taking approximately 50 minutes, I would have gone the other way. As it was, Beyond the Limits wasn’t terrible, and it has it’s place, but it’s certainly not a movie I’d expect too many people to enjoy or want to sit through.

Before anything else, though, I want to give credit to the gore. Director Olaf Ittenbach is somewhat well-known for his gorier films (though I’ve not personally seen any aside from this one), and this one is no different, with some quality decapitations, someone being garroted, a young kid taking a sledgehammer to the face, and other goodies. It’s a solid example of lower-budget gore being done right, so if you’re into this type of thing, this movie might be looking up.

Otherwise, I just don’t think it’s really a great movie. I’ve not seen that many anthology films which feature just two stories, but those that I have (such as Two Evil Eyes and 2009’s Late Fee) haven’t been that good. Part of the reason being, the stories are obviously too short to be full-length movies, but are also too long to be digestible, easy-to-view segments you’d expect from any decent anthology, be it Tales from the Crypt or Creepshow.

It also doesn’t help that neither story here, not to mention the framing sequence (which started out fine, but by the end just seemed terrible) made a positive impression on me. I’d say the first story – a bunch of people are tortured by a sadistic guy in relation to a gangland incident – was the better of the two, as it’s pretty much, past a certain point, a low-budget Hostel. The second story, a period piece about the torture of the Inquisition on religious folk, felt more like a bloodier The Bloody Judge than anything really worth getting into.

I didn’t hate any of the acting (though I will say that Simon Newby was a bit campier than I’d have personally preferred), but few people here really wowed me. From the first story, even with his flaws, Simon Newby was probably the best there. Thomas Reitmair (who I couldn’t help but see as a blonde Alan Rickman) needed a bit more character, and Daryl Jackson was too much a mystery to really get a hang on.

From the second story, while Darren Shahlavi could have been an okay protagonist, he really didn’t end up that memorable. Russell Friedenberg was delightfully evil, albeit maybe a bit over-the-top, but the real over-the-top performance award goes to David Creedon, who was just ridiculously campy (perhaps even rivaling Newby). There are some quality medieval set pieces and sword fights, but you can see it done decently better in the early episodes of Game of Thrones.

Honestly, Beyond the Limits is far from a terrible film. It’s competent in what it was aiming for, and save for a few really bad effects (such as a woman being thrown out of a building in the first story) and that rather awful and expected conclusion, it might be worth watching if you’re already familiar with Olaf Ittenbach or into low-budget horror. It’s just really not my type of thing.

5/10

The House Next Door (2006)

Directed by Jeff Woolnough [Other horror films: Nightworld: Lost Souls (1998), Strange Frequency 2 (2002)]

This made-for-TV movie isn’t the most forgettable film I’ve ever seen (it helps that I’ve just seen it, to be sure), but I don’t think it has the staying power that the creators were probably hoping for, which is a shame, as the story itself isn’t too bad.

I’m not personally one to care about production value – there have been plenty of quality low-budget made-for-DVD and made-for-TV movies, and I don’t judge a film based on what money went into it – but that being said, a lot of this movie still came across to me as bland and occasionally uninspired.

Based off a novel by Anne Rivers Siddons of the same title, published in 1978, the story isn’t that shabby, and has some interesting ideas in it (such as going through different owners of the house and the varied misfortunes they encounter), but the film isn’t able to pull that together into that great a movie-watching experience.

For what it’s worth, I think most of the performances are okay, at least in that Lifetime movie way. Lara Flynn Boyle and Colin Ferguson are decent together, though maybe come out of this a little generic (and that first-person narration that popped up at the beginning and the end didn’t do them wonders). Mark-Paul Gosselaar (of Dead Man on Campus… fame?) was a bit soapy at times, but still serviceable. Of the people who temporarily brought the house, Noam Jenkins (who appeared in Saw II and IV) was the best, becoming an overly orderly and pompous jackass like few others.

There were some okay scenes here, such as a somewhat jarring suicide, and the uncomfortable way Jenkins’ character spoke to his wife during the dinner party, along with any of the scenes of the new home owners giving into the mental pressures of the new house, but all of it feels tame and bland, even when it really shouldn’t.

The House Next Door isn’t a bad story, but the execution wasn’t properly done. The movie was lacking in feeling, and though a few things were decent with it, overall, I can imagine this being one of the many post-2000 made-for-TV movies that people will watch once and forget entirely.

5.5/10

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)

Directed by Dwight H. Little [Other horror films: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), The Phantom of the Opera (1989), Natty Knocks (2023)]

So when I revisted Anaconda, I was surprised the film wasn’t that fun. I didn’t expect it to be good, by any means, but I did expect to have fun while watching it, and I really didn’t. Gotta lay it on you all straight, though – I had fun with this one.

Not that Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is a great movie, and certainly I think the cast of the first movie was quite a bit stronger, but I actually enjoyed sitting through this one, which wasn’t something I could really say for the first, and that’s got to count for something.

Here’s one random note. Not sure if it’s interesting or funny, but I’ll mention it anyway. Throughout the film, I thought that the boat captain was played by Matthew Marsden. Why? Because to me, the boat captain looked really similar to Michael Madsen, and I guessed they were brothers. Unfortunately, there’s no “r” in Madsen, and these two weren’t brothers, and the captain was played by some guy named Johnny Messner, and I feel like an idiot.

That aside, we have a nice cast. Johnny Messner (a name I don’t know at all) did great as the captain, and he was a solid character throughout. He even wrestled an alligator. KaDee Strickland (another name I don’t know) was a cute, bad-ass chick willing to fight snakes and shit. She also had a southern accent (she was born in Georgia), so that added to the charm. It’s like watching Anna Paquin fight snakes (only when she’s using her southern accent, not the one she normally has since she’s Canadian).

Matthew Mardsen (no relation to Michael Madsen) was good as a scummy piece of trash. I don’t think he really got as much as he deserved, but I’ll take it. Eugene Byrd, Karl Yune, Morris Chestnut, and Salli Richardson-Whitefield were all perfectly enjoyable also.

The snakes here don’t look great, but you do have a solid jungle adventure, including poisonous spiders, leeches, trees, and other things you might expect to find in a jungle. It’s nothing original, but I had fun, which can be said for the movie, and is more than I can say for the first movie.

7/10

Malibu Shark Attack (2009)

Directed by David Lister [Other horror films: N/A]

So I’m not going to claim that Malibu Shark Attack is a good movie, but I will say that, in some ways, it’s a refreshing one, because while it’s not a serious film at all times, this is before Syfy got stupid with their killer shark movies, and this one almost feels like an okay attempt at the sub-genre.

I enjoyed how the tsunami tied into the movie, because seeing those levels of destruction was pretty impressive, and what helped that were the newscasts seen throughout the film. What I liked about these newscasts was that they were appropriately somber and the exact type of thing you’d expect to see in a real situation like this, and it also helped that while the newscasts extensively followed the flooding, sharks never came up, which made it significantly more serious than any of the later shark movies (Sharknado and 2-Headed Shark Attack, I’m looking at you).

Most of the main cast here is fine. I mean, they’re generic, but they get the job done. Admittedly I couldn’t have cared less about Warren Christie’s character (a name you might recognize from Apollo 18), and there were a few others (Jeff Gannon, Sonya Salomaa, and Nicholas Cooper) that left no impression, but everyone else was fine.

Remi Broadway played a character not too different from Christie’s, but I liked Broadway’s story more, and, oddly enough, his budding romance with the irresponsible airhead played by Chelan Simmons (who, fun fact, played that little girl who was killed in the opening scene of the 1990 mini-series It). Simmons was also rather cute here, though for most of the film, her personality was atrocious. Peta Wilson didn’t have an atrocious personality, though – she was a strong character and perhaps one of the best in the movie, so kudos to her.

Now, sure, the special effects of the goblin sharks are horrible, but they’re not as obnoxiously horrible as later Syfy movies, so in a way, it gives this movie a bit of a pass on that. There was a pretty painful scene of a character getting their leg stitched up without anesthetics, and that cut did look gnarly, so that was fun. Overall, nothing in the special effects department ruined the film.

I’ve seen Malibu Shark Attack before, and when I came to watch it again, I wasn’t dreading it like I do some rewatches, and that’s partially because I had an okay time with it the first time around, and the same can be said today. It’s not a great shark movie, but it’s honestly, at least in my opinion, not terrible.

6/10

Ghost Mother (2007)

Directed by Theeratorn Siriphunvaraporn [Other horror films: N/A]

I’ve not seen an over-abundance of Thai horror films. In fact, interested, I checked out on IMDb the Thai films I have seen, and I came up with just six total (ranging from the great like 303 Fear Faith Revenge and The Dorm to the mediocre such as The Victim to the terrible such as Sick Nurses). Ghost Mother now makes that seven films from Thailand.

Sadly, though, I’d probably rank this closer to The Victim than I would The Dorm or 303 Fear Faith Revenge. That said, it’s no doubt better and more cohesive than The Victim, but ultimately, Ghost Mother probably falls around average.

Pachrapa Chaichua was decent as a main character, but I didn’t get a ton of expression from her. Better was Focus Jirakul and Thana ‘Oil’ Suthikamorn. I also enjoyed the woman who played the sister of Chaichua’s character, but I’m not sure what her name was (this foreign film isn’t particularly well-indexed). I’m thinking it was perhaps Sudarat Wongkrut (which is apparently another name for Chotika Wongwilas), or maybe Thiti Rhumorn (I have no idea if Thiti is a male or female name in Thailand, but I also didn’t know that Chotika was a female name in Thailand either until today, so cut me a break), but whoever played that character, good for her.

It’s true that in some ways, the story of a ghost getting revenge on those who killed her is somewhat simple, and though this movie does play around a little with narrative structure (such as showing a flashback to a scene the audience hadn’t seen before), it’s a pretty easy story to follow, which is something I’m actually happy about. Too often I can get lost watching Asian horror (good examples of this would be Ju-on and A Tale of Two Sisters, not to again mention The Victim), so it’s nice to be able to sit down and get the salient points across.

Worth mentioning, while the version I watched was subtitled, they weren’t the best subtitles I’ve ever seen. Sentences were phrased oddly and incorrect syntax was often used. None of this led to any conversation going above my head, and it was probably more funny than annoying, but I thought it worth pointing out.

Ghost Mother was okay, which isn’t really what I was expecting when I first found out I’d be watching it. It’s not a great movie, and I doubt it’s special in many ways (most of the kills themselves are just okay, but there are occasionally creepy visions, such as a character seeing a hanged woman on a bus that was passing by), but for Thai horror, at least the little I’ve seen, it’s a movie that might be worth watching just for a taste of something different.

6.5/10

The Attic Expeditions (2001)

Directed by Jeremy Kasten [Other horror films: All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos (2005), The Thirst (2006), The Wizard of Gore (2007), The Theatre Bizarre (2011, ‘Framing Segments’), The Exorcist Files (2011), My Haunted Vacation (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013), The Dead Ones (2019)]

This is a movie that I wish I liked more. The first time I saw The Attic Expeditions, I was probably too confused to form any opinion other than that I found it a disjointed mess, but seeing it again, I really wanted to appreciate what it was going for. In part, I think I do, but I still found it a movie that leads to far more unsatisfying scenes than satisfying ones, and that ain’t good, as the kids say.

It’s hard to critique the story because it’s difficult to tell what the story here really is. Certainly that’s part of what makes this film memorable, but even so, being as jumbled up as it was, with various different solutions that may be partially or fully true, it makes the film occasionally seem as though it was over-reaching and rather too ambitious.

I don’t really have a complaint about the performances, though. Andras Jones is perhaps the most unremarkable, but for a lead character in a movie like this, he does fine. I hated that haircut, though. Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator, From Beyond, and most importantly, the voice of The Question from Justice League Unlimited) obviously brings some quality here – I mean, who doesn’t like a doctor who smokes joints while talking to his patients?

Seth Green (who I mainly know from Without a Paddle, The Italian Job, Rat Race, and, atypically, It) is really fun here, and I enjoy pretty much any time he talks. His line, “Well, that’s awkward for you” cracked me up, and his on-screen presence was on point. Ted Raimi looked really familiar to me, and to be sure, I’ve seen him in a few movies (Wishmaster, The Midnight Meat Train, and Candyman), but none of those roles seem to warrant my immediate recognition of his face, so that’s bothersome. Also, one of the nurses looked really familiar too, but after scanning all applicable characters in IMDb, no dice.

To be sure, there are some interesting ideas and elements here, such as the fact that after Green’s character caught the doctor with the blank book, she uses another patient who writes to supplement the material she can’t read from the book anymore (it’s explained marginally better in the movie). That’s some good paranoia, which is a lot of what this movie’s based around. It doesn’t make for a necessarily coherent story, though.

[This is the paragraph where I was going to compare this movie to other asylum-based horror films from the time period, such as 1997’s Asylum and 2004’s Madhouse, but despite seeing both of those films, I literally don’t remember a single thing about either, so I’ll just use this paragraph instead to insult my weak memory and note that I need to get to revisiting the both of those.]

I wish I liked the Attic Expeditions more. Even though I don’t care that much for it, though, I do admit that it has an atmosphere about it that makes the film unique, and the story, whatever the real story may be, is interesting enough to at least keep the movie moving along at a good pace. It’s something that I’d probably recommend for the experience, but it’s not something that I’d call a good movie at all, I regret to say.

5.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil, and if you’d like to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this oddity, by all means, give us a listen.

Lost Souls (2000)

Directed by Janusz Kaminski [Other horror films: N/A]

I wasn’t really expecting too much out of this, given what little I knew about the plot (an atheist journalist finds out he’s the Antichrist, essentially), and also given this came out a year after End of Days, another Antichrist-based horror film, so after finishing it, Lost Souls basically went how I thought it would.

Certainly I’ll admit that it’s nice to see Winona Ryder (Beetle Juice and Alien: Resurrection) and John Hurt (Doctor Who and Whistle and I’ll Come to You), both of whom did an okay job, and I didn’t mind the other performances, though Ben Chaplin, despite being most of the focus of the film, never really resonated with me.

That said, the story, while occasionally interesting (the most enjoyable portions being the short time spent with Ryder and Chaplin investigating Chaplin’s origins), felt really rushed at times. I mean, that ending just came and went like zat, as my homegirl Fleur would say (that’s a random Harry Potter reference for all my wizard friends out there). There were some aspects in the story worth delving into (though no matter how hard this tried, it couldn’t beat Damien: Omen II in the Antichrist learning his origins), but that didn’t really happen here, even with the pointless twists thrown in.

Also, I just don’t buy for a second that all of those people at the end knew Chaplin’s character was the Antichrist his whole life and were able to keep it a secret. With that many random people, I don’t care how secure the cult, word would get out.

I feel like this movie was trying to cash in on the whole End of Days and Stigmata trend (Stigmata is a film I started once, but never got around to finishing, on a dull side-note I can pass off as interesting), and while I did like this marginally more than End of Days, maybe solely for Ryder’s presence and maybe that assassination attempt (which was almost tense), it’s not a hell of a lot more than below average.

5.5/10

An American Haunting (2005)

Directed by Courtney Solomon [Other horror films: N/A]

I’m somewhat of two minds about this one. I certainly like some of the scenes in the film, and I don’t object to that much of the movie, but the finale didn’t really feel right to me, and the ending scene itself struck me as just overly dramatic (here’s a hint: instead of screaming at a moving car, just call the police to stop the car. It’ll probably work better, at least if you’re white).

Before I go further, I should explain that there are two versions of this film, a PG-13 version and an unrated version. I didn’t know this before hand, but thankfully, it turns out I watched the unrated version, which was about eight minutes longer. I saw this film once before, and I can’t recall if what I watched then was also the unrated version, or perhaps the PG-13 version, but either way, what I thought about the movie the first time around is about what I think this time around.

I don’t hold it against the film for looking for an explanation that might be a little more memorable than your average supernatural movie, but I have to say, even with the tiny hints and clues that something else was afoot, it felt, at least to me, that the ending came out of nowhere. Also, while I believe that the victim of such a circumstance might be forced to forget about the incident, others who happen to just walk into such a situation strike me as not being able to forget so quickly. It just felt odd, especially when it seems that the entity, whatever it was, set out to harm and persistently bother both Donald Sutherland’s and Rachel Hurd-Wood’s characters.

Some years ago, I watched a Japanese film known as Tales of Terror: Haunted Apartment, and it was mostly a decent little Asian horror film. That was, until the ending, which threw in a plot twist that, as far as I could tell, was basically never hinted at once throughout the previous hour and a half, and it just felt like it was thrown in to shock people. Here, there are hints given, but I don’t know if they’re too subtle or maybe not given enough, but it just didn’t really feel like an earned finale to me.

I’ve only seen Sutherland in a handful of movies (the most recent ones being the 2004 Salem’s Lot mini-series and the 2003 remake of The Italian Job), but I think he’s pretty okay here. I think that if the story had been changed up a little, his character could have been a lot better, but hey, he’s still a good actor. Rachel Hurd-Wood is solid too, though she doesn’t necessarily have a high amount of personal agency in the movie. Sissy Spacek (most famous now and forever for Carrie) was fine here, as was James D’Arcy (who played Jarvis in the ill-fated Agent Carter series), but neither one blew the top off the house.

Many of the haunting scenes themselves are decent, though few are stellar. Much of it is the being-held-down-by-an-unseen-entity variety, but that carriage scene was pretty solid from beginning to end. Also, I think Hurd-Wood’s interactions with the spirit at school were all enjoyable, though I wish the spirit had done more to help her than to terrify her, but then again, who am I to criticize how a spirit operates?

Once all is said and done, and we get past that ending which still feels off, An American Haunting is an okay movie, and certainly more well-made than some other versions of the story (such as the low-budget 2004 Bell Witch Haunting), but I don’t think there’s enough here for me to call it a good movie, even with the unrated version at my disposal, and overall, while I think there’s some good things here, ultimately it’s below average.

6/10

Saw (2004)

Directed by James Wan [Other horror films: Stygian (2000), Dead Silence (2007), Insidious (2010), The Conjuring (2013), Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013), The Conjuring 2 (2016), Malignant (2021)]

So it should come as no surprise that, to me, Saw is a very special movie. I don’t deny it’s dated in some aspects, nor do I deny that some of the performances aren’t quite up to snuff, but even with those issues, I can’t help but see this as an almost perfect movie.

A big part of this, to be sure, is nostalgia. When I first saw this film on Showtime or HBO, I had absolutely zero idea where it was going or how it’d end. I’m sure I had heard vaguely about the film, but I didn’t really know going in exactly what it was even about. And then, come the conclusion, I was blown away, and how.

To this day, that’s one of my favorite finales. Sure, the quick recap, giving us seemingly hundreds of short clips, is a bit much, and one of those dated aspects I mentioned, but despite that, it possesses such a depressing and hopeless aura to it, what with the screaming for mercy while the door is being slid shut. It’s just beautiful.

What’s also beautiful is the whole concept of Jigsaw. Throwing people he deems unworthy of the gift of life into torturous, yet beatable traps (in theory – that broken glass trap with the safe looked pretty close to impossible) is a fun concept to mess around with, and I thought they did a good job here, especially since, unlike later movies, this one doesn’t rely too much on the carnage and gore of the traps, but of the mystery surrounding the situation Adam and Lawrence find themselves in.

I think most people can see that Leigh Whannell’s performance is a bit off. He certainly cracked me up at times, and of all the characters in the film, he’s probably the most sympathetic, but the acting isn’t great. Luckily, it doesn’t really make a big negative impact in my mind, because most everyone else does decent. I mean, hell, the cast is actually pretty solid, with such names as Cary Elwes, Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon series), Michael Emerson, Tobin Bell, and Ken Leung (who randomly popped up over ten years later in the ill-fated MCU series Inhumans). All of them bring something to the table, and it makes the story work beautifully.

Personally, there are some films that aren’t easy to put into words just the amount of impact they make on me, and Saw is a good example of that. On almost any horror forum I’ve joined, my user name’s always been some variation of ‘Jigsaw,’ and though I can certainly see some flaws with additional viewings of the film, none of that can change the fact this movie as a big reason why I became such a dedicated fan of the genre, and I don’t really hesitate to give it the highest props possible.

10/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as I defend Saw against Chucky’s (@ChuckyFE) slanderous words.