Directed by Anthony Fankhauser [Other horror films: Tsunami Beach Club (2008), 8213: Gacy House (2010), Shadow People (2011)]
This is a very generic film about military men getting trapped in a lost world – a crater in which dinosaurs exist still.
Truth be told, I’ve not much to say about this. The CGI dinosaurs were some of the worst I’ve seen. The CGI blood was even more cringe worthy. Acting and story was nothing worth writing home about whatsoever. Lastly, most of the characters were thoroughly unlikable – in fact, I’m hard-pressed coming up with one I even sort of liked, and there weren’t that many characters in the movie to begin with.
Jurassic Attack can be fun at times – I mean, seeing terribly made CGI dinosaurs chase after terrible actors, how can you not have fun, especially with alcohol and weed? If I had to describe it in a short phrase, though, I’d simply call it overly generic. And seeing it twice was definitely too much.
This surprised me. I’ve not heard of this film before I watched it – it’s one of those post-2005 horror films that slipped through my fingers. Which makes sense, really – supernatural movies, especially ghost films, have never been my favorite. But Ghosts Don’t Exist was a pretty decent, if not a bit generic, movie.
Acting was okay all around – nothing too special. I did rather enjoy Josh Davidson’s character (a rather arrogant skeptic), and the lead, an emotionally-unstable ghost hunter, was also well-played by Phillip Roebuck. The story, like I alluded to earlier, isn’t overly original: it comes across as a ghost story, but some elements certainly make us question if everything is as it seems. About three-fourths into the film, actually, a plot twist rears it’s head, and I have to admit, I rather liked it. It was reminiscent of a 2004 Japanese film I rather enjoy, truth be told.
I liked the movie before the twist came about, but afterwards, it just got better. Problematically, though, the movie runs for an hour and 40 minutes, which, while was mostly okay, still seemed a bit lengthy. Ten to fifteen minutes could have been cut out, and we’d probably still be fine. Regardless, while generic in some ways, the last ten-ish minutes were rather atypical – I certainly didn’t see it coming, especially from a modern horror film. Ghosts Don’t Exist isn’t amazing, but it did surprise me, and I liked it well enough.
Directed by James Nguyen [Other horror films: Birdemic 2: The Resurrection (2013)]
I’ve not seen this film before, but I’ve long heard it was a doozy, and boy, is it ever.
I won’t go into all that’s wrong about this movie. The meandering first half, focusing on a boring individuals’ romantic life for the first 48 minutes. The clearly computer-animated birds, and the fact that they somehow have the ability to dive bomb into buildings and blow up. The stilted acting and atrocious dialogue. The minute-long scene of people clapping. The stock music on repeat. The prolonged ending. About everything that could go wrong in a movie went wrong here.
I’ll say one positive thing about this movie: the actress who played Natalie, Whitney Moore, was pretty attractive. She couldn’t act worth shit, but she did do far better than Alan Bagh, who gave one of the worst performances I’ve seen in a while. And the constant talking about going green, and solar panels, and preventing global warming. Obviously, I’m all for these things, but come on, tone it down. This movie is not helping the case to go green whatsoever.
Aside from the pretty Moore, this movie is an embarrassment. Definitely a movie to watch with a bunch of friends while drunk or high, but that’s about it. Still, as bad as it is, you will definitely be amused, which is why it’s not getting a lower rating.
Directed by Eddy Matalon [Other horror films: N/A]
First thing’s first – this is a very low-quality transfer that I watched. I’ve heard better quality versions of this film exists, though they’re in French without subtitles. *Shrugs*. So this is a pretty bad print, and if you’ve seen the most common version of Cathy’s Curse out there (one released on Mill Creek Entertainment’s Creepy Classics), I’m sure you’d agree.
In a way, though, I think it brings the movie additional charm. I’ve never been to a drive-in, but I can imagine this is the exact type of movie that would be great to watch at one, and while the quality has faltered, it’s a pretty fun romp.
Cathy’s Curse is one-part The Bad Seed, one-part Burnt Offerings, and one-part The Omen – in it, a little girl is possessed by her father’s deceased sister, and one by one, people around her start dying or going mad. All things considered, it’s a pretty simple film.
Three things about it stand out, though: Firstly, the music has a charming quality to it. Sometimes eerie, sometimes not, the music stood out and enhanced some of the scenes. The acting too was noticeable. It wasn’t always great – Beverly Murray sometimes went a bit overboard portraying the panic-stricken mother. But both Alan Scarfe and Roy Witham did pretty decent jobs (despite Witham only having been in three other films). And lastly, you had some occasionally creepy scenes (along with, of course, some rather ridiculous scenes, but that’s half the fun).
Some of the quotes are pretty classy too – at the beginning, a father tells her daughter “Your mother’s a bitch – she’ll pay for what she did to you.” About halfway through the film, a drunk Roy Witham (playing the groundskeeper as a kindly older man) and gleeful Cathy scare a medium away from the house, shouting, “Get out you old bitch,” and calling her a “fat dried-up whore.” The delivery of these lines were excellent, in my ever-humble opinion.
Cathy’s Curse can at times be a bit of a mess, that much I can say. But I did enjoy it more this time around as opposed to the first time I saw the film, and really, it’s not all that terrible. It doesn’t really drag on, it’s amusing, and is undeniably a product of the 70’s – what more could you want?
Directed by Bert I. Gordon [Other horror films: Beginning of the End (1957), The Cyclops (1957), Attack of the Puppet People (1958), War of the Colossal Beast (1958), Tormented (1960), Picture Mommy Dead (1966), Necromancy (1972), The Food of the Gods (1976), Empire of the Ants (1977), Burned at the Stake (1982), Satan’s Princess (1989), Secrets of a Psychopath (2015)]
This is one of those movies that isn’t overly great, but I can’t help but enjoy. Starts off somewhat similarly to The Blob (also from 1958), in which two teens try to convince the authorities of a giant spider residing in a cave on the outskirts of town. And once they see it, they believe.
In a scene somewhat like the cave scene from Night of the Lepus, authorities witness the spider and gas the caves. Of course, the fun doesn’t end there. We have a groovy scene where, as a band is playing some early rock ‘n roll, the unconscious spider (which everyone just assumed was dead) wakes up, and strikes horror into both the students playing music and the town proper.
The movie, as a whole, is moderately unremarkable, really, especially considering the budget and effects of Tarantula (1955) were higher. Personally, I think this one has more spirit, though. Only problem I have, aside from some rather fake-looking webs, is one of the characters, Mike, who comes across as an asshole half the time. Other than that, this is some solid fun, and even stands up upon a rewatch. One of the better creature features of the time, despite others’ claims to the contrary.
Directed by Rodman Flender [Other horror films: The Unborn (1991), Leprechaun 2 (1994), Nature of the Beast (2007), Eat Brains Love (2019)]
Idle Hands is one of those movies I caught when I was quite young, so though it’s not my usual style of horror-comedy, I can’t help but feel a tug of nostalgia when revisiting this one. That said, I do think the silliness could have been notched down, and while aspects are decent, I’d be lying if I said I thought the movie was good.
There are so few killer hand movies that, at the very least, they had an interesting premise going into the film. Off the top of my head, The Beast with Five Fingers and The Hand are the only two similar movies that come to mind, so I do give props for coming up with something different.
I also give props to the strong cast. Devon Sawa (later in Final Destination) did a great job as the lead, Seth Green and Elden Henson (who I retroactively recognized immediately from the NetFlix Daredevil series, where he played Foggy Nelson) were both pretty good, and Jessica Alba looked quite the angel at times. Some of the performances from Green and Henson (and to be fair, many of those in the movie) were a bit goofy, but that’s more the style of comedy this was going for as opposed to their faults.
As far as the special effects went, I will say they were impressive. There’s a decidedly disgusting scene where the hand was thrown into a microwave, and as it bakes, blood bursts from the fingertips, which was gruesome. The effects behind the hand mostly look good – sharpening the fingers with an electric pencil sharpener even gave a fun and deadly look to the appendage.
Another thing worth mentioning is the strong opening. While much of the time spent with Anton (Sawa’s character) was more on the generic side, we open seeing his parents get killed by a mysterious figure. The suspense isn’t anything overly impressive, but it does have a darker tone than the rest of the movie, and so I definitely appreciated that.
My biggest problem with Idle Hands, and this has been my biggest problem ever since I was a kid, is that sometimes the comedy is just too silly. Some characters return from the dead and go on silly side-quests (which include eating burritos after duct-taping a decapitated head back onto a body) and eventually become guardian angels. It’s just too ridiculous for me, and I don’t care for that aspect of this whatsoever.
If that is your type of humor, though, then I don’t doubt you could do worse than Idle Hands. The performances and story are surprisingly solid, and though at times it might feel like you’re watching a stoner teen comedy as opposed to a particularly terrifying movie, you can have an okay time with this. It’s not my preference, and I do find it below average, but at the end of the day, this horror-comedy hybrid is serviceable.
Directed by Michael Storey [Other horror films: N/A]
Fear Island isn’t a great movie, and that mainly stems from the fact that from the beginning, as an audience, we can sort of see where it’s going.
Unreliable narrators are sometimes fantastic (The Usual Suspects comes to mind), and sometimes not so much, because there comes a point in which something is overdone, and it loses what it otherwise could have had. I feel that happened here
The story isn’t that bad: A girl is found on an island with six bodies, and she recounts her tale to the police, who are at first suspicious, but grow to accept what she says. And we have twists throughout. Or maybe there aren’t, as unreliable narrators can leave things out, lie, etc.
I liked how this movie was set up. But it was made past the time in which these types of movies weren’t uncommon. Hell, it’s moderately similar to The Hole, and that came out way back in 2001. So no, Fear Island’s not great. Some potential inconsistencies, almost no gore, somewhat annoying characters, idiotic characters, and unnecessary twists. You could do worse, though, for a television movie, and despite the problems, it’s certainly a movie that tried. Less than average, pretty generic even, but not disastrously so.
Directed by Dominic Sena [Other horror films: N/A]
This is a film that many, perhaps rightly so, wouldn’t consider horror – it should come as no surprise to anyone (especially those who follow me on Twitter) that my definition of horror, much like my politics, is decidedly more liberal than others. That said, while I do consider it a horror film, I understand that most probably wouldn’t.
Whether it’s horror or not, though, doesn’t take away from the actors – all four of the central actors did a fantastic job. Brad Pitt’s portrayal of a redneck serial killer is pretty eye-opening to watch. His empty-headed girlfriend, played by Juliette Lewis, was a sight to see, and how Lewis was able to keep the air-headed act up was amazing. Of course, David Duchovny was of good value – his character’s not too much different from Mulder in The X-Files, a serious, single-focused individual, not averse to having fun, but always keeping on track. Lastly, Michelle Forbes did a fine job as Carrie, Brian’s (played by Duchovny) girlfriend.
The cast is spectacular, to make matters short. Decent gore can be found a few places also, though it is rather limited. As for the story, I think it’s moderately decent, but not overly amazing. Really, the actors were the highlight of the movie. A bit of a hard one to rate, honestly, partially because it treads the line of horror/non-horror, but it was a decent movie with solid actors. Not overly crucial, and more so, not even that amazing compared to other films, but it might be worth checking out.
Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic – that’s something you don’t need Uncle Jiggy to tell you. It’s a movie that I’ve seen many, many times, and though I have no problem admitting that the film has its problems, I can’t deny that I still find it quite a great movie.
Also, it’s fair to say that it’s a very difficult movie to talk about – this is the horror film I’ve seen the most, and I first saw it at a young age (while hiding behind a couch for the finale, as I was terrified), so it’s very much ingrained in me. Truth be told, I probably didn’t need to watch the movie again to write this review, but believe you me, it’s no hardship to revisit this.
It’s not perfect, though. I’ve never thought that it was, because – the silly, incomprehensible ending aside – there’s one sequence that I’ve never, as often as I’ve seen the movie, been able to understand.
After Tina’s death and Rod’s arrest, Nancy has a plan – she wants Glen to watch over her while she sleeps, and wake her up should it appear that she’s having a bad dream. Certainly this is sensible – if it looks like she’s struggling with someone, waking her up would save her life.
The problem is that once Nancy falls asleep and goes exploring the dreamy suburban neighborhood, she hisses behind her for Glen, to make sure that he’s still watching her, and he pops up from behind a tree to indicate that he is.
Now, this is a dream. Nancy knows it’s a dream. And yet Glen is here? Glen’s purpose was specifically to not fall asleep, so even if someone could propose the idea of a shared dream, that doesn’t fly. The only way this makes sense to me is that Nancy’s sleeping, but also partially awake, and is calling to Glen in reality, and he’s, in reality, replying that he’s there, and her mind is interpreting an image of Glen in the dream, despite him not actually being there.
It still doesn’t make much sense to me – given how exhausted Nancy was, how could she guarantee she’d stay partially awake despite being asleep (which is already incredulous, on a side-note) – but that’s the only way that I can make even partial sense of that scene. This has been a question I’ve had for over 15 years, and I’ve never seen a real satisfactory answer for it.
Of course, there are other confusing scenes (again, ignoring the finale), such as how Freddy is able to taunt Nancy near the end with the phone call if Nancy was awake. It’s possible, of course, she nodded off while waiting for Glen, but I’ve always got the sense that she was awake at the time.
I’m not here to harp on the film, but I do think it’s worth taking the time to point out the problems I have with it. Like Hellbound: Hellraiser II, this is a great movie, but it doesn’t always make much sense, which I think many people, even deep fans of the franchise, would be able to admit.
It is a movie of some rather memorable quotes, though. Nancy shouting ‘MOTHER!’ after finding bars on her homes’ windows has never failed to crack me up, and Rod’s unique ‘Up yours with a twirling lawnmower,’ definitely brings an image to mind. Marge’s drunk ‘Locked, locked, locked,’ which I quote often IRL, has a good ring to it, and though it’s from Shakespeare, the quote from Halmet (“O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space – were it not that I have bad dreams”) was used hauntingly here.
Oh, and let’s not forget the ever-classic line “This is God,” said by Freddy, referring to his clawed glove. A simple line, no doubt, but damn effective.
Few of the performances are perfect, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less memorable. It’s just some odd pieces of dialogue, or intonation, small things like that, which pop up throughout the film (and it’s possible I notice only because I’ve seen this one as often as I have). Heather Langenkamp (Home) still made for a great and proactive lead, of course, and stood out wonderfully. Honestly, I’ve never loved Johnny Depp (Sleepy Hollow) here, and I wish that we saw a bit more of Jsu Garcia and Amanda Wyss (Shakma), but again, still very memorable characters.
Naturally, Robert Englund (Galaxy of Terror, Eaten Alive, Kantemir) is a legend here, as is John Saxon (The Night Caller, Tenebre, My Mom’s a Werewolf, The Girl Who Knew Too Much, Hellmaster, The Scorpion with Two Tails, Queen of Blood, Beyond Evil, Black Christmas, Cannibal Apocalypse), despite the annoyances I feel toward his character. Like, you could tell that Nancy had no real faith that he’d be there to arrest Freddy, should she pull him from the dream, and his character could have used a bit more exploring. Ronee Blakley’s role is another example that could have had a bit of depth added, but I think that they did a better job with her than they did Saxon, especially during her monologue of Freddy’s backstory.
I don’t think I can say anything about the special effects that haven’t already been said. I absolutely adore the scene in which Freddy’s pushing himself out of the wall toward Nancy. That blood geyser was gnarly. Tina’s death is the stuff of legends, of course. Nancy running up the stairs, which soon turn to some sludgy material, was quality too.
Hell, this may be controversial, but even one of Freddy’s first full appearances – the one where his arms are elongated with perhaps silly effects – is damn effective. This movie naturally had a lot going for it, and multiple viewings haven’t dampened that at all.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic, but it’s also a flawed movie. I’ve known that for years. Sometimes that’s not enough reason to justify giving a film a below perfect rating, because few films are actually perfect, but in all the years I’ve seen this one, I’ve never given it a straight 10/10. I just don’t think it quite gets there. There’s no doubt the film is a great movie, though, and a classic very much worth watching, flaws and all.
9/10
This classic was covered on episode #27 of Fight Evil’s podcast, so listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.
Directed by Sam Newfield [Other horror films: The Mad Monster (1942), Dead Men Walk (1943), The Flying Serpent (1946), Gigantis: The Fire Monster (1959)]
This is around the fourth time I’ve seen this film, and for the most part, I always have considered it around average. Not my cup of tea, but certainly not bad, in short.
The story is a moderately simple one: A crazed doctor infects a pianist with a deliberating disease, disfiguring him, and will cure him only if he can marry the pianist’s daughter, hence, becoming the ‘Monster Maker.’
J. Carrol Naish does a fine job as our Dr. Markoff, and the rest of the cast is decent too, though some hysterics from some of the actresses does tend to get on my nerves. There is a slightly boring portion halfway through the film, an eight-minute sequence of the doctor unleashing a gorilla on his assistant (he believes her to be a liability to his plan), but there is still some decent suspense present.
Of course, being a 40’s horror film, the ending is a bit sudden, but I was rather happy with the conclusion. Oh, another positive note – even if this movie isn’t your type of film, it clocks in at only and hour and two minutes. Quick to finish and easy to digest. I don’t love The Monster Maker, but for Poverty Row entertainment, it’s a fine movie.
Jiggy's Horror Corner 