Category: Reviews

Directed by Ken Wiederhorn [Other horror films: Eyes of a Stranger (1981), Dark Tower (1987), Return of the Living Dead: Part II (1988)]

I’ve known about Shock Waves for over ten years now, and I’ve heard generally good things about it in that time. After seeing it, though, I think it’s at best okay, and I don’t personally know if it’s really a movie that will really stand out in the long run.

Like some 70’s movies, Shock Waves does move a bit sluggishly. That said, while most of the action isn’t going on until the final half hour, it’s a pretty atmospheric, and somewhat bleak, movie. It’s somber, and feels totally like the 1970’s atmosphere that I tend to expect.

Despite having Nazi zombies, I don’t think that this movie has quite the character of other 70’s zombie films, such as Tombs of the Blind Dead, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie/The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue, and Sugar Hill. Certainly the movie does some things well, such as the atmosphere, but it just can’t pull everything past the finish line alone.

Neither Peter Cushing (The Gorgon, Scream and Scream Again, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Island of Terror, The Flesh and the Fiends, Night of the Big Heat, Dracula, The Creeping Flesh) nor John Carradine (Bluebeard, The Unearthly, House of Dracula, The Mummy and the Curse of the Jackals, Horror of the Blood Monsters) get a lot of screen-time, but obviously, both are icons of the genre, and as a personal fan of Peter Cushing, it’s always a pleasure to see him.

The real focal points are Brooke Adams (The Unborn, The Dead Zone, Sometimes They Come Back, Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and Luke Halpin, but unfortunately, neither one has much character. We literally learn nothing about either one of them; they’re just empty vessels being chased by zombies, and that’s it. Fred Buch did have character, and as such, was one of the more interesting characters, while Jack Davidson played one of the more annoying characters I’ve seen recently, but that’s not really enough to bring life to the film.

That might be the biggest issue – it’s a decent movie, but it’s just dry at times, reminding me of Death Ship every now and again, and when I’m reminded of Death Ship, that’s a problem. Most of the time, zombies just drown people, so it’s not some gore-fest like Zombi 2 either. It has atmosphere, and it’s somber, but that’s really all it has.

I’m not saying that Shock Waves is a bad film. I personally think it’s a bit below average, but it definitely has some charm. Others seem to enjoy it a bit more than I did, and I would say that if you’re into zombie movies, Shock Waves may be worth checking out, but it didn’t personally wow me by any stretch.

6/10

Directed by William Castle [Other horror films: Macabre (1958), House on Haunted Hill (1959), The Tingler (1959), 13 Ghosts (1960), Homicidal (1961), Mr. Sardonicus (1961), The Old Dark House (1963), The Night Walker (1964), I Saw What You Did (1965), Let’s Kill Uncle (1966), The Spirit Is Willing (1967), Shanks (1974)]

I’ve not seen Strait-Jacket in some time, and it was an enjoyable movie to revisit. Admittedly, if not for Joan Crawford’s stellar performance, this might be a more generic William Castle fair, but because of Crawford, and some other factors, it turns out quite a solid film.

A lot of the ideas in this one seem similar to Castle’s Homicidal. Honestly, I think I enjoy the both of them equally, though in a somewhat interesting fashion, this movie doesn’t necessarily feel quite as campy as some of Castle’s previous films (such as House on Haunted Hill and The Tingler).

I did like the plot here, though, with a woman twenty years in a mental institution being released, only to possibly be facing a relapse. It’s nothing that’s quite new, and the finale felt rather like the end of Psycho, but the performances and occasionally tense story allow it to work well.

Naturally, Joan Crawford (What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, Trog, Berserk) did great here, and you can really see the emotional range she has throughout the film. Admittedly, Diane Baker (The Ghost of Sierra de Cobre) isn’t a name I know that well, but she did a great job also, especially toward the finale. The last individual to really make an impression was Leif Erickson (I Saw What You Did, Invaders from Mars, Night Monster), who played a pretty gentle individual.

Others aren’t bad, though – George Kennedy (Death Ship, Wacko, Creepshow 2, Uninvited, Demonwarp, Just Before Dawn) had some good scenes, reminding me a little of Henry Jones’ role in The Bad Seed. A couple of other performances – John Anthony Hayes, Rochelle Hudson (Gallery of Horror), Howard St. John, Edith Atwater (Die Sister, Die!, The Body Snatcher), and Mitchell Cox (who wasn’t even an actor, but did just fine) – didn’t really have enough room to breathe, which isn’t a surprise, given this is largely the Crawford show.

A few other notes – I enjoyed the decapitations we get. The first pair was shown in the shadows, which had a nice vibe to it, but we do get an on-screen decapitation, and while it doesn’t look amazing, nor is it gory whatsoever, it was fun to see. Also, the finale does feel a little silly, mainly around the mask we’re shown, but as much as it feels like Psycho, I still found it fun.

Strait-Jacket isn’t a movie I think is amazing, but it’s a solid movie, and a quality entry in William Castle’s filmography.

8/10

Directed by Arnold Laven [Other horror films: N/A]

Though sometimes heralded as one of the many solid giant-animal movies of the late 1950’s, I have to say that The Monster That Challenged the World didn’t do much for me. The movie’s not bad, or anything, but the more and more I see these types of movies, the more I lose interest in them.

Some of them, of course, do have something special – The Giant Claw had a lot of science going on, Earth vs the Spider has been a mild favorite for a while, and Attack of the Giant leeches has hokey charm – but I’m widely disinterested in this particular portion of the genre. Giant monsters causing havoc just isn’t my thing.

Taking place around the Salton Sea in southern California (which I never heard of before this movie), we have a mollusk-like thing that entertains some people, and by ‘entertain,’ I mean suck their blood out entirely and kill them. Of course, it’s not just one – the thing laid eggs, so there’s a potential of hundreds, though we only see three or so others, and as the film focuses around a Navy Base, I can’t say there was much character in the characters we got.

Tim Holt plays a generic, gruff military guy. Because a monster movie isn’t complete without romance, Audrey Dalton (Mr. Sardonicus) plays a young woman who falls head over heels for him, and he saves her from the monster at the end, and I don’t have the words to describe how uninterested I was in their romance. Hans Conried didn’t really do that much, but he did later voice the Grinch in Halloween is Grinch Night, so that’s something.

Honestly, I don’t know what more to say. The special effects were iffy, the finale somewhat underwhelming, the monsters were monstering. I don’t know – these types of movies just often don’t interest me, but they can work for others, so if this sounds like your type of thing, give it a watch. I just may not be the exact audience to enjoy it.

6/10

Directed by Arthur Lubin [Other horror films: Black Friday (1940), Hold That Ghost (1941), Phantom of the Opera (1943)]

Perhaps one of the earliest examples of what I’d label botanical horror, The Spider Woman Strikes Back is a decent film, short, digestible, and with a solid atmosphere and occasionally creepy vibe. Not that it’s stellar, but it’s a solid little film.

I speak a bit about my enjoyment of botanical horror in The Ruins – I think it largely has to do with growing up on the book and two-part episode of Goosebumps titled Stay Out of the Basement!, which was always one of my favorite Goosebumps stories. The idea of plants consuming blood, or flesh, or attacking, just has a creepy vibe to it, and while I can’t explain it any better than that, it’s always been something I loved.

To be clear, there’s no plant attacking anyone in The Spider Woman Strikes Back. This isn’t The Revenge of Doctor X. However, there are sequences of a plant being fed blood to keep it strong, and while it’s true Gale Sondergaard deals with spiders, she uses them to feed plants (when she’s not using blood), so really, this should be The Plant Woman Strikes Back.

Of course, this is sort of meant to mimic a sequel-in-name-only, or a spin-off, of the 1943 mystery/thriller film The Spider Woman, which also starred Gale Sondergaard. Aside from Sondergaard’s presence, there’s no relation, so that just adds to the fun. Really, though, this movie, despite the somewhat confusing title, does have a decent amount going for it, so it’s a shame some people might shy away because they think it’s a sequel to something else.

The story is pretty basic, but it’s also somewhat atmospheric. Now, I did watch a rather scratchy print of this one on YouTube, which is amusing, because there’s actually a 1080P HD version I didn’t notice until after I watched the version with ten pixels. Even so, I had a pretty good time with it, and while I wish the finale had been a bit better (especially regarding Rondo Hatton’s character), it was pretty good for a 40’s horror film.

Brenda Joyce (Strange Confession, Pillow of Death) made for a fair lead, but like many women of the time period, her character’s only given limited agency. Gale Sondergaard (The Climax, Echoes, Savage Intruder, The Cat Creature, 1939’s The Cat and the Canary) had a sinister aura to her, so no complaints there. Neither Kirby Grant nor Milburn Stone (Captive Wild Woman, The Frozen Ghost, Strange Confession) do that much, but Stone’s character had some potential.

It’s Rondo Hatton I have the biggest issue with. He’s a familiar face (having been in movies such as The Jungle Captive, House of Horrors, and The Brute Man), and his performance is perfectly solid, playing a mute servant of Sondergaard’s character. I saw inklings of his character fighting for his independence, but come the end, they don’t really do much with it. Hatton’s performance was good, but they could have done a bit more with the character.

When it comes down to it, I can’t say that The Spider Woman Strikes Back is an amazing movie, but I did find it a good, quick way to spend an hour. At 59 minutes, it’s digestible, it’s decently fun, and while it could have been a bit better, it’s not at all a bad watch. If you’re into classic horror, this may well be worth a watch.

7.5/10

Directed by Rupert Julian [Other horror films: Creaking Stairs (1919), The Cat Creeps (1930)], Lon Chaney [Other horror films: N/A], Ernst Laemmle [Other horror films: N/A] & Edward Sedgwick [Other horror films: Beware Spooks! (1939)]

When it comes to silent horror, The Phantom of the Opera has never been one of my favorites. Oh, it’s a pretty solid movie, and if you’re into silent horror, or looking to get into silent horror, it’s most definitely worth seeing, but there are other silent films I’d personally prefer to spend time with, such as The Last Warning and The Cat and the Canary.

Some of this may have to do with Mary Philbin’s character Christine. She’s an understudy to another opera singer, but a mysterious voice beyond her dressing room wall has been championing her, making her climb up the opera ladder easier. And Christine is completely okay with it. Apparently unknown voices that advance your career are a-okay in her eyes. She even willingly refers to him as her ‘Master,’ and vows to be his.

Well, until she found out he wore a mask, then all of the sudden the Phantom’s the bad guy. To be fair, Christine didn’t know the voice in question was the Phantom, but regardless, she didn’t seem to care, nor do we see her ask much up front about the mysterious voice calling to her from her mirror. She’s completely fine with it, and I 100% believe that if the voice came from a typical handsome man, Christine would have continued willingly calling him ‘Master.’

Perhaps this isn’t a critique of Christine’s character at all, but more the sexist way in which the character was written. Either way, the idea that she’s okay with her career being advanced and willingly calling unknown voices ‘Master,’ then getting upset when the unknown voice comes from a man wearing a mask – the character just pisses me off. The Phantom, a generous guy named Erik, tries to explain to her about himself, but Christine doesn’t listen, and later calls him a ‘monster.’

Looking different from other people doesn’t make someone a monster. I get the sense that Christine has absolutely zero empathy and, based on her being okay with her career being advanced by the voice, a huge sense of entitlement.

I don’t like Christine as a character at all, and that was my biggest hurdle to fully enjoying this one. I mean, otherwise, it’s a pretty charming silent horror with some great set pieces, good tension, deeply memorable scenes, and a decent finale.

The Paris Opera House itself looks quite grand (and I didn’t know this until today, but it’s apparently the same opera house as was used in Dracula), but what’s more interesting is what’s beneath the Opera House, being a pleasant underground lair of the Phantom (and actually, on a side-note, throughout much of the film, I couldn’t help but compare it to V for Vendetta). I especially enjoy the underground lake, and the Phantom’s use of a bamboo stick-type thing that he uses to breathe with as he strolls along underwater (used to great effect as he attacks someone in a boat too near his lair).

Perhaps without question, the most famous sequence in the film is when Christine creeps up behind the Phantom and pulls his mask off whilst he’s playing music – despite being warned against this very act just minutes before – and finally revealing his face to the audience (and Christine, to her privileged shock). It’s a good, tense moment, and the make-up looks stellar.

Another scene that I have to mention is the Bal Masque de l’Opera sequence, or the Masque Ball. The version of this movie I’ve seen always has this sequence in early Technicolor – think Doctor X, only rougher – and it looks beautiful. It’s made even more beautiful by The Phantom, as so many things are, as he strolls in dressed as the Red Death and admonishes them their merriment while they’re dancing over the skeletons of the tortured who died in the catacombs below. He’s what I like to call a buzz-kill, but hey, he has his issues and he’s speaking to them, so who can complain?

It’s a solid sequence, followed by him standing atop a statute on the roof of the Opera House as Christine and her lover (not her mysterious, voice-in-the-wall lover – she’s over him by this point) Raoul (played by Norman Kerry) plot to get away from The Phantom’s grasp. What’s cool about this scene is that it’s tinted as Christine and Raoul speak, as most of the movie is tinted, but when it goes to The Phantom overhearing, it’s still technicolor. It looks stellar.

Lon Chaney (The Monster, London After Midnight, The Penalty, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) did fantastic as The Phantom, who truly is the victim here in many ways. He has a grandiose and power to him, and his expressive nature works wonderfully. He’s also quite amusing at times, such as his lines about “Callers” near his lair. I don’t like her character, but Mary Philbin (The Man Who Laughs, The Last Performance) does well with what she has, though I don’t find her terribly sympathetic.

I can’t say that I ever got much of a sense of Norman Kerry’s (also of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, along with The Unknown) character – he seemed like the generic, manly man willing to fight for the woman he loved. I did like Arthur Edmund Carewe’s (Doctor X, Mystery of the Wax Museum) character, though. He doesn’t appear much until the end, but he’s of quality stock.

Overall, the finale was solid also. People were storming the catacombs after The Phantom kills the wrong man, characters trapped in an underground torture chamber, soon to die due to high levels of heat – there’s just a lot of action come the ending. I even like how The Phantom goes out – he gets one last jab in before the mob deals out their illegal brand of “justice.” I should mention that I’m glad the mob was there because The Phantom killed a working man’s brother, as opposed to abducting a privileged woman. I didn’t agree with the mob’s actions, but their hearts were in the right place.

Like I said, The Phantom of the Opera isn’t my go-to when it comes to silent horror. It’s a decent movie, and certainly one that’s above average, but as far as personal enjoyment goes, I don’t love it. Still, if you’re in the mood for a silent classic, or you want some classy Phantom action, than this movie may be worth seeing if you haven’t already.

7.5/10

Directed by Jane Schoenbrun [Other horror films: A Self-Induced Hallucination (2018), I Saw the TV Glow (2024)]

This movie has been on my radar since the beginning of 2022 (currently writing this on October 8th, 2022 – God knows when it’ll be published), and was one of the movies I was interested in seeing for my annual marathon of horror films for the previous year (which is why I watched films such as The Power, In the Earth, The Land of Blue Lakes, and Broadcast Signal Intrusion).

Alas, early on this year, it wasn’t available for easy viewing. Luckily, it hit HBO Max, and since I love spending money I rarely have on streaming services I rarely use, I have a subscription to HBO Max, and so was quite eager to watch this one.

Going in, I didn’t know much – I had read the plot outline on IMDb, but didn’t look any further, as it seemed to me the type of movie that might be quite the treat going in blind. After having watched it, I certainly think that We’re All Going to the World’s Fair is an interesting movie, but unfortunately, I don’t think it’s great.

The narrative is a bit unconventional in that there’s only two characters of relevance, being Casey (played by Anna Cobb) and JLB (Michael J Rogers). The story is simple enough – a socially awkward and isolated teen girl takes an online challenge, and seems to be going through some type of change in her mental state.

I will say, as flawed as the final product might be, I do think this is a solid showcase on how mental illness could impact teens, especially lonely, isolated kids who spend much of their time on the internet. I was never much for Reddit or 4chan, or wherever kids went back in the early-to-mid 2000’s (I was born 1993), but the type of isolation – while technically, with the internet, much of the world is at your fingers, but you still feel just as disconnected as always – this movie portrays is something I personally struggle with also.

It’s the final 15 minutes, though, that I found somewhat troubling. While I do think the film suffers from a rather anticlimactic finale, it’s something that we find out right toward the end which, in a way, takes a bit of feeling and meaning away from the movie. I’m not saying it ruins the whole thing, because it doesn’t, but had they approached things differently, it might have done more for me.

All of which I know is rather vague. There were a few small things I found difficult to reconcile given what we know toward the end, which was another problem, but I just think the movie loses a bit of it’s impact once we hit the final 15 minutes.

No doubt in my mind, though, that Anna Cobb gave a great performance (in her first film). She did stellar showing how isolationing and lonely life can be, not just in general, but especially for teenagers. Again, things are given a different light toward the end, which does harm the character in my view, but Cobb’s performance was great. I wanted a little more from Michael J Rogers’ (Beyond the Black Rainbow, Children of the Corn: Revelation, Demonic) character, but it was a film focused on Cobb, so I can’t be too bitter.

While disturbing in some aspects, this isn’t at all a gory movie. There might be some minor elements of body horror – in a video that Casey watches, a man pulls ticket stubs out of his arm – but far more than that, it’s the horrors of mental illness. During one sequence, Casey is recording herself singing a song called ‘Love in Winter,’ and toward the finale, apropos of nothing, she starts shrieking. This lasts for perhaps five seconds, and then, without reaction, she goes back to singing the song.

The character of Casey is a self-professed horror fan, and name-drops Paranormal Activity in the film. I should add, on a side-note, that I’m an old fogey, and it amazes me to think that there are kids born who, when they think of the horror films of their childhood, they go to Paranormal Activity. Obviously, if someone was born in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s, it makes sense, but even so, it shows how fleeting this life is.

I should also add that much of this film is inspired by Creeypasta subcultures. I’ve never really understood the Creepypasta thing (I don’t even know if it should be capitalized) – they’re just scary stories, are they not? In the film, the World’s Fair Challenge is sort of a Creepypasta thing, in which there’s multiple videos online of people taking the Challenge and in different, disturbing ways, they change.

Not much is touched on this exact topic – we do hear from Michael J Rogers’ character a bit about different theories, such as what the fair is, or how Loop Theory might mean life itself is all, more or less, not true reality, but this type of stuff is on the periphery, and not at all the focus (really only popping up in a single conversation). Still, it’s interesting, especially as we see a clip of a sort of text video game that could be related to the origins of this thing/Creepypasta/Challenge.

We’re All Going to the World’s Fair isn’t an easy movie to discuss. It can often be uncomfortable, with Cobb’s character just staring into the camera, or making her awkward videos, and may even seem dull to some. I was never disengaged, but I know this movie won’t be for everyone. I certainly liked portions of it (and was reminded a bit of ‘The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger,’ the only segment worth anything from V/H/S), but it’s definitely a movie that’s plenty flawed.

6/10

Directed by Griff Furst [Other horror films: I Am Omega (2007), Wolvesbayne (2009), 30 Days to Die (2009), Lake Placid 3 (2010), Maskerade (2011), Swamp Shark (2011), Arachnoquake (2012), Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators (2013), Starve (2014), Cold Moon (2016), Trailer Park Shark (2017), Nightmare Shark (2018)]

Well, I thought, as I set this movie to record on my DVR, that Ghost Shark would be a bad movie, but hopefully an entertaining one. And because I’m what people call a genius (or a conceited dick, depending on your point of view), I was pretty close to the mark.

In plenty of aspects, Ghost Shark is laughably bad. The special effects were awful across the board, few of the characters really felt like they had character, the kills were as atrocious as one could imagine, and the story? Well, ludicrous may be the fairest way to describe it.

However, in the depths of atrocity, I can’t deny that Ghost Shark had some charm. Look, I’ve seen a lot of Syfy movies, and a lot of Syfy killer animal movies (be it sharks, alligators, Bering Sea Beasts, what-have-you) and some of them can get mighty repetitive. The 2-Headed Shark Attack series was awful throughout. So when I see something that feels different, even if it’s not executed well, I’m at least minorly pleased.

A good example of this would be Nightmare Shark, which, while certainly flawed, held a potential that few Syfy shark movies held before, and that’s because it was at least different and new, no matter how poor aspects of the execution were. Ghost Shark is nowhere near that level, but it is a bit fresher than plenty of other Syfy films I could name. It’s not lost on me, on a side-note, that these two films have the same director.

The story is awful – a shark gets killed, but before it dies, it winds up in a cave that resurrects those who died there as spirits. Which means, you guessed it, a Ghost Shark. It’s splendid, sure, and the ghostly shark effects are as awful as you can imagine. Not only that, but when it bites people in half, or splits them open from the inside (more on that soon), or gnaws someone’s fingers off, the special effects are absolutely shit.

Wherein lies the entertainment, you might ask? Well, normal Syfy shark movies, even sharks of the multi-headed or Atomic variety, are restrained by their physical being. They’re a physical thing, and as such, can’t go where sharks can’t usually go, unless they use their multiple heads to walk along the sand (God, 5-Headed Shark Attack was such trash).

Naturally, when a shark is instead a spirit, that frees it up a bit. Now it can pop up anywhere water may be. Ah, but not just salt water, which wouldn’t make sense anyway, but fresh water too. Basically, if it’s a source of water, the shark spirit could appear and consume you.

It’s hard to say what the best scene is. Well, perhaps not – a character grabs a plastic cup and fills it with water from a water dispenser. But before he filled the cup, the shark appeared in the tank and got poured into the cup. When the character drinks it, it doesn’t take long until the shark spirit literally splits him in half, emerging the victorious shark spirit that it is.

That’s probably the best scene, and there’s not much competition. True, the shark does appear in at a pool party, it appears as children are playing at a broken fire hydrant, it appears from the puddles caused by fire extinguishers, it appeared as some kids played on a Slip ‘N Slide, it even appeared in a bathtub (shame the character in question didn’t have a lifeguard nearby amiright?). It’s ridiculous and stupid, especially when it can jump from any puddle, or materialise mid-air when it’s raining, but compared to the repetitive nature of so many other shark films, it’s almost a welcomed alteration.

As aforementioned, none of the characters have much character. It’s true that Richard Moll (House, Headless Horseman, Night Train to Terror, Ragewar) had some strong moments, but the script didn’t do him any favors. Thomas Francis Murphy (Ozark Sharks, Sisters of the Plague, Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators) and Lucky Johnson seemed like pure filler, and neither Brooke Hurring nor Shawn C. Phillips (Haunted High) sticks around long enough to leave an impression.

Dave Davis (Ozark Sharks, The Vigil, American Horror House) didn’t seem to have a personality, which I found interesting, and Jaren Mitchell (End Trip) was a mixed bag. I didn’t think that Mackenzie Rosman (Beneath, Nightcomer) did too bad, and though far from stellar, Sloane Coe (Zombie Shark, SnakeHead Swamp) was at least fun.

Which, as terrible as portions of this film were, is a fair description of the film. It can be fun. Awful, yes, but fun. I still think Ghost Shark is far below average, but I’d definitely recommend it over plenty of other Syfy shark attempts, for whatever that might be worth.

5/10