Category: Reviews

Directed by Edward L. Cahn [Other horror films: Creature with the Atom Brain (1955), The She-Creature (1956), Zombies of Mora Tau (1957), Voodoo Woman (1957), Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957), It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958), The Four Skulls of Jonathan Drake (1959), Invisible Invaders (1959), Beauty and the Beast (1962)]

When I first saw this movie, I thought it was extraordinary slow. Upon rewatching it, I realized I was too kind; this is one of the driest, slowest films I’ve witnessed. And given the fact it’s just an hour and seven minutes, this statement should hold some weight.

The plot is basically a rehash of The Mummy, only with a different setting. The performances are mostly rather stilted, and the melodrama that’s tolerable in most pre-1960’s horror films seems overbearing here. It’s just not that great a movie. There’s the occasional scene that looks decently shot (especially in the black-and-white scheme that was prevalent at the time), and the Faceless Man himself looks moderately threatening (if only he didn’t move so slow), but the movie has little more to offer past that point.

Curse of the Faceless Man, despite it’s short run time, is a dry, plodding film. I wasn’t tired before starting the film – now I feel dead on my feet. While the movie still has a bit to offer, it’s faults far outweigh the positives. As a note, the director of this film wasn’t a lightweight; Edward L. Cahn directed, among other films, movies such as Zombies of Mora Tau and It! The Terror from Beyond Space, both of which were highly enjoyable. Whatever went wrong with this film, I don’t believe it to be Cahn’s doing. Perhaps the writer of the script. Regardless, this is a below average film both for it’s time and horror as a whole.

5/10

Directed by Nicholas Ortiz [Other horror films: N/A]

This came as a surprise on a few different levels. Firstly, I was amazed I could find the film at all – on IMDb, it had just seven ratings [Edit: it now has nine, so it hasn’t moved much], which doesn’t generally an easy find make. But seconds later, boom – it’s on YouTube, put up by the production company. Needless to say, I was pleased.

Siodmak is a simple story, but told in a more complex way. A serial killer has been hunting in New York City for decades, and the only one who believes in his existence is a video blogger, Nick LaRosa, whom no one takes seriously. But with the help of NYPD officer Angel Vega, who has had a tragic run-in with the serial killer, they soon discover some things weren’t meant to be pried into. This is interspersed with scenes a day later, after the events that transpired, and focus on a medical examiner’s examination of the killer, and learning about what brought him here. It’s a more unique way to tell the story, and overall, I think it worked.

While the production was low, I think that most scenes were shot pretty well, and some in unique ways (a sequence near the end, with a reddish-auburn tint, comes to mind). As far as actors go, Masha Mendieta (Vega), Kit Lang (LaRosa), Russell Jordan (Dr. Feliz, Vega’s psychiatrist), Krista Chandlee (the medical examiner), Madison Idoate Candelario (Vega’s niece), and Michael Valentine (the killer) all stood out, doing a solid job.

Jordan, as the psychiatrist, had an almost Colin Salmon-feel to him. Mendieta and Lang, despite their short screen time together, really worked well, and had some of those small human elements that sometimes go amiss in bigger budget films. The killer, known as the New York Ripper, had a Michael Myers aura to him, helped by his featureless mask, which I rather enjoyed.

The music present was decent also – near the end, a record player can be heard playing hits such as “I Wanna Be Loved By You” (famously lip synced by Baby in House of 1000 Corpses) and “Hush, Hush, Hush (Here Comes The Boogie Man)” (from the credits of Jeepers Creepers), which was a nice touch.

For as much as I liked it, though, a few problems need be addressed, one being the run-time. Siodmak is one hour and fifty minutes long (or 110 minutes) – it’s not a short movie, easy to digest. Siodmak makes you work for it. Many of the scenes are interesting, but after the third flashback or the finale taking the last thirty-five minutes, it might come across as a bit much.

There were also a few unanswered questions, not to mention what came across to me as a Hollywood ending which I was both disappointed but somewhat unsurprised by. A few audio issues were present, but that wasn’t that much a deterrent. For what gore there was, I thought it was decent, though the focus of Siodmak wasn’t gore, but the story told.

This movie was an interesting find. Was it an amazing movie? Not really. The story, while told in an interesting manner, wasn’t overly original. That said, Siodmak is one lower-budget film that should have gotten more attention. Some surprising kills also stand out, a few I certainly wasn’t expecting. It’s a decent, above-average film, if you can get through the lengthy run-time.

7.5/10

Directed by John Carl Buechler [Other horror films: Ragewar (1984, segment ‘Demons of the Dead’), Troll (1986), Cellar Dweller (1988), Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988), Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991), Watchers Reborn (1998), Deep Freeze (2002), Curse of the Forty-Niner (2002), Saurian (2006), The Eden Formula (2006)]

This film truly feels like a TV movie. I saw this once before, years and years ago on Chiller, and thought the same thing. But despite how much it really seems to be a TV movie, it’s not, which is utterly mind-boggling, as that would have gone a long way to explaining this.

Starring Tony Todd as Dr. Jekyll, this movie is atrocious in most ways. Mr. Hyde’s endless barrage of bad quips combined with the less than stellar acting of both Tracy Scoggins and Danielle Nicolet, not to mention the utter lack of true mystery or suspense, makes this quite a difficult job to get through. The story, a modern adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s work, leaves much to be desired. Some corny special effects are sprinkled throughout the film, and the gore we do get isn’t all that well done.

The highlight of this movie really is Tony Todd, who, while his acting isn’t amazing, can make you feel for the troubles of Dr. Jekyll. But Scoggins’ performance as a police officer with an aversion to guns was pretty bad, and indeed, most actors and actresses in this film didn’t do that well, though I do think that’s more the fault of what they had to work with as opposed to their own abilities.

The director of this travesty is John Carl Buechler, well known for the special effects of countless 80’s horror films (such as TerrorVision, Troll, Halloween 4, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, Friday the 13th Part VII, and From Beyond) and directing such films as Troll (1986), Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988), and Curse of the Forty-Niner (2002) (among others, as above shines light on). While it’s not an unimpressive resume, he wasn’t able to make this movie work whatsoever, and as I said, more than anything, it’s a chore to get through. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a failure on almost every front, the one shining light being Tony Todd. But that’s not enough to save this. A subpar film in every way – it’s a shame I saw it twice.

4/10

Directed by Lewis Teague [Other horror films: Alligator (1980), Cat’s Eye (1985), The Triangle (2001)]

I’ve seen this once or twice before, and it always fell a bit flat for me for various reasons. That said, upon rewatching it, I can appreciate it just a tad more. The biggest problem for me is how sentimental and sappy the film can come across as. Sure, it might have been hard to keep the original ending from the book in a time when happy endings were all the rage, but I think the end product would have made the film more menacing and less sappy.

Speaking of which, while I love the suspenseful music the movie has to offer, the 80’s love/drama music can get a bit on the cheesy side. But that’s the 1980’s for you, I suppose. There’s also the fact the film drags a bit. Sure, it’s average insofar as length (just around an hour and a half), but it’s mostly a drama for the first fifty minutes (and I don’t know how interesting I found the whole affair issue, to be honest), and while the horror element is good when it gets there, the payoff doesn’t erase the set-up.

The actors and actresses are solid, though. Standouts include Dee Wallace, Daniel Hugh Kelly, Ed Lauter, and Jerry Hardin (not so much due to his role or screen time, which was minimal, but due to the fact he plays Deep Throat 15 years later in The X-Files). Oh, and the makeup for Cujo was excellent. On a side-note, though I know that Wallace had no choice but to fight Cujo off, I can’t help but feel bad for the dog.

In the gore department, there’s a few offerings, though not that many compared to other films of the time. Cujo can be a bit heavy in the drama department, which I think is why I underrated it before (and, to be fair, still do now). For all it is, it’s great portions and flaws, I think the film’s just slightly below average. Decently fun at times, but not particularly note-worthy.

6.5/10

Directed by W. Lee Wilder [Other horror films: Phantom from Space (1953), Killers from Space (1954), Fright (1956), The Man Without a Body (1957)]

The Snow Creature’s an overly tedious film, partially because of the documentary-feel it has for the first half, and the stale nature of the second half. Though it’s just under 71 minutes, I couldn’t really help but feel bored with the plodding story. It might have had been a decent movie with a higher budget, or a different direction, but as it stands, it’s just not that good. Even toward the end, when police were scouring the sewers, I felt absolutely no dread. The whole movie felt, for the most part, pretty soulless. The Snow Creature’s dull and tedious. Had it been slightly better made, it’s possible it could have possessed a certain charm to it, but as it was, it really isn’t anything to remember fondly.

4.5/10