Category: Reviews

Directed by Ernest Farino [Other horror films: N/A]

Steel and Lace isn’t a movie I’d heard too much about before watching. In fact, while I had known of the movie in a vague sense, I think it’d be fair to say that I couldn’t have said a single thing if asked what it was about. All of this is to say that I went into this one pretty blind, and I have to admit that while I liked some of the ideas here, along with the effects, I’m not sure the execution was to my liking.

It’s a bit of a twist on the rape/revenge style of exploitation that was somewhat common in the 1970’s into the 80’s, with such films as I Spit on Your Grave, The Last House on the Left, Savage Streets, Demented, and Ms. 45 (two of those I don’t see as horror, being Savage Streets and Ms. 45). I don’t know of many of these types of films from the 1990’s, though, so that was one of my big points of interest when getting into this movie.

Combining both the tragedy of rape with some science fiction elements of artificial intelligence, Steel and Lace (certainly an apt title) is definitely an interesting, almost unique movie. I think it’s strengths lie in the strong cast, solid special effects, and genuinely fascinating idea. I think it’s held back, though, by the execution of some of these ideas, along with elements of the finale.

When it comes to the kills, most are good. I think the most striking is perhaps an individual being lifted up into some helicopter blades, and while the injury (i.e. death) looks weak, the idea has feeling. There was also a good decapitation and another fellow got lit on fire via lightning bolt. The weakest kill here, I think, would be either an individual being sucked of his lifeforce (or whatever – I couldn’t tell exactly how that character actually died) or someone getting #drilled. Not that the latter kill couldn’t have been good, but I don’t think they had the special effects to back it up.

Another area which I think warrants a positive mention is the cast, most of whom are strong. The primary protagonists, David Naughton (An American Werewolf in London, Mirror Mirror 3: The Voyeur, Amityville: A New Generation, The Sleeping Car) and Stacy Haiduk (Luther the Geek, Attack of the Sabretooth), work well together, and I thought Haiduk did rather stellar. Clare Wren and Nick Tate had strong moments also.

Of the group of men who stood together to protect a rapist (that’s how rich, white men do), those being Michael Cerveris, Scott Burkholder, John J. York, Paul Lieber, and Brian Backer, only two stood out. Burkholder (House IV), York, and Lieber were okay, but Brian Backer (a surprising face to see, as he played Alfred in The Burning) and Michael Cerveris had more character. Lastly, Bruce Davison (Willard, X-Men, and Kingdom Hospital) was nice to see, though I wish his character went a different direction.

Which is sort of fair for the movie as a whole, I think. The ideas here were decent, and they mostly worked out, but toward the end, I did lose a bit of interest, as it dealt more with the emerging emotions of an android, which wasn’t a bad route to take, but I also didn’t care for how it was approached. Also, Davison’s character felt almost too villainous, especially given that the reasons he wanted revenge were completely legit.

More than anything, Steel and Lace is a bit of an oddity. It’s not really the type of film that I’d expect from the 1990’s, though it does sort of make sense when you consider other films from around the same time period, such as Hardware or Death Machine. Even so, while there’s some things in this movie to enjoy, I also think it’s fair to say there’s not really a ton of memorable material here. It’s far from a poor movie, but I do personally find it a bit below average.

6/10

Directed by Richard Friedman [Other horror films: Stephen King’s Golden Tales (1985, segment ‘The Old Soft Shoe’), Scared Stiff (1987), Doom Asylum (1987), DarkWolf (2003), Born (2007)]

Despite the somewhat silly title, I can say that Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge is a decent movie. It’s probably not great, but I’ve seen it twice now, and I do find it a rather fun film with a lot going for it.

The story here is about what you’d expect, being a modern-day (at least modern-day to the late 1980’s) adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. There’s little here that’s likely to amaze anyone, but the mystery is decent, some characters and their motivations hidden well, and come the finale, we’re mostly satisfied with how everything has gone down.

Oh, and if you’re wondering why the mall in this movie may look familiar, it’s apparently also where Chopping Mall was filmed, so there’s another element of fun.

As far as performances go, the only one I didn’t really care for was Gregory Scott Cummins (Watchers III, Click: The Calendar Girl Killer, Hack-O-Lantern), and that’s more due to the nature of his character than to the actual performance.

Otherwise, the cast is pretty strong throughout the board.

Kari Whitman was never really in much, or at least much I’ve seen, but she made for a solid lead, not to mention sympathetic. Her friends, played by Kimber Sissons, Pauly Shore, and Rob Estes (Uninvited), were all decent – in fact, while Shore’s character was sort of the odd, goofy guy, he knew how to get serious. Derek Rydall (Popcorn, Night Visitor) was tragic, and knew how to do a spinning kick with the best of them.

Jonathan Goldsmith (Blood Voyage) was good as a scummy individual, Morgan Fairchild (American Horror House, The Initiation of Sarah) also good as a scummy individual, being the mayor of the town. Actually Fairchild and Goldsmith worked well together, and related, I was happy with where the movie took their characters. Other familiar faces include Ken Foree (Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, From Beyond, Dawn of the Dead) and Tom Fridley (Summer Camp Nightmare, Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI), along with a small cameo of Brinke Stevens (Blood Reaper, The Ritual, Spirits).

The kills here were never really gory – this isn’t Intruder, or anything so enjoyable. However, most of the kills were at least decent, from a decapitation and a snake in a toilet to someone being thrown out a window and impaled, not to mention someone meeting the business end of a flamethrower. There’s a lot of decent kills here, and it keeps you entertained.

Also quite nice is the fact that this movie moves at a great pace. It’s an hour and a half, but it doesn’t really feel it, and though I will say there was a small sense of dragging around the hour and ten minute mark, the finale was actually pretty solid and satisfactory.

Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge is a pretty enjoyable movie, albeit not really that special. If you’re into slashers, I can’t think of a good reason not to give this one a shot. It has a good classic feel, along with a power ballad titled ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Stan Bush that keeps popping up. Again, it may not be special, but I think it does a lot of what it was trying to do.

7.5/10

Directed by Keenen Ivory Wayans [Other horror films: Scary Movie 2 (2001)]

I’ve never really been a fan of parody films, which ties into the fact that once the comedy in a movie is too goofy, my interest level dries up. Naturally, this doesn’t bode well for Scary Movie, because it’s really just way too goofy for me to enjoy whatsoever.

What’s interesting is that I recently revisited Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, another post-Scream parody movie, and I had an okay time. I still rated it below average, yes, but there were some legitimately funny scenes and quotable quotes in that movie that I dug a lot.

I can’t say what’s different about the humor here, but Scary Movie wasn’t anywhere near as fun. There were some amusing ideas, and I’ll touch on them in a bit, but I had a lot more fun with Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth. For one, I don’t think SIYKWIDLFtT was quite as over-the-top as this, and perhaps more importantly, there’s not a whole ton of gross-out comedy in that film, while Scary Movie does have some present (which isn’t my type of humor at all).

To expand on that, there were jokes dealing with women characters having testicles (well, technically the character was a man, but people thought he was a woman, so whateves), wild pubic hair (which was done away with by electric garden shears), a blast of semen that plasters someone to the ceiling, and naturally, plenty of flatulence jokes, because that lowbrow humor works for some. It’s just not my type of comedy, and I don’t really like seeing it. Gross, sexual humor isn’t my type of thing.

Now, I can say that I enjoyed the ending of the film. No, not the horrible Matrix-inspired scenes, but the last couple of minutes. I’ve seen this movie before, but I actually forgot who the killer was (and in fact, wasn’t sure if this would even reveal who the killer was), so when it then copied the end of The Usual Suspects (which I’ve seen plenty of times, and actually watched a couple of weeks ago, at the time of this writing), I cracked up. That was pretty funny, and I didn’t see it coming.

Though it didn’t have much in the way of substance, I did enjoy some of the humor around Ray’s character (played by Shawn Wayans), who was a ‘closeted’ gay guy, and related, while it didn’t add a hell of a lot to the movie, seeing Marlon Wayans cackle at everything was sort of amusing too. But when it comes to comedic high points, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth has this one beat, and it’s not even close.

Anna Faris is one of the few here I actually liked. Regina Hall’s character annoyed the hell out of me, Dave Sheridan’s (Camp Twilight, Bloody Summer Camp, Blood Craft) Doofy was way too stupid for me, and Lochlyn Munro (Freddy vs. Jason, The Blackburn Asylum) unable to stand out. In fact, most people here, from Shannon Elizabeth (Jack Frost, Thir13en Ghosts) and Jon Abrahams (House of Wax, They) to Cheri Oteri and Rick Ducommun, weren’t notable. Again, both Shawn Wayans and Marlon Wayans occasionally cracked me up, but neither added much, and Faris, while consistent, didn’t add a whole lot either.

Largely focusing on parodying Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer (though not afraid to reference other popular films, such as The Blair Witch Project, American Pie, The Matrix, and The Sixth Sense), the story was about what you’d expect. Now, again, I want to give props to the ending. Again, I have seen this movie before, but it’s been so damn long, I truly didn’t see that coming, which surprised me.

Even so, much of the humor of Scary Movie just didn’t do much for me. I didn’t really have that much fun here. For the right group of people, Scary Movie could work, but as for me? Yeah, I’ll stick with Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th.

4/10

Directed by Fritz Kiersch [Other horror films: Children of the Corn (1984), Surveillance (2006)]

I’ve vaguely known of The Hunt for a while. I imagine I first ran into it after hearing it was directed by the same guy who made Children of the Corn. As it was, the movie wasn’t half-bad. Well, it’s probably still below average, but honestly, The Hunt had a decent amount going for it.

What I found most intriguing about the film is that, for a lot of it, I had no idea where it was going. Sure, the main story – two guys (Robert Rusler and Joe Michael Burke) and a kid (Mitchell Burns) get lost in the woods while hunting – made sense, but it was the deeper stuff I wasn’t sure about.

At first, I thought this was going either a slasher-esque route, with a focus on snuff films. Then I thought perhaps it was something to do with government experiments, and then the idea of aliens came to mind. Before aliens, though, I was considering a Most Dangerous Game-type situation where humans were being hunted. Hell, at one point, I even thought of evil trees. It’s not that the movie’s wild or anything, but knowing as little about the movie as I did going in, I just had no idea where it was going.

The biggest problems here, I think, would be an unsatisfactory finale mixed with an uneven execution. I think part of this has to do with Robert Rusler’s character, who, along with leading me toward incorrect conclusions about the nature of the movie, was also just such a big dick that he was hard to care for. The story here is decent, and while the whole scope is just merely glimpsed come the finale, I sort of wish they gave us a little more meat in some form.

Oh, and while I sort of liked the whole “This is where the characters are after the event of this movie” thing at the end, it felt close to claiming the events of the film were true, and my hatred for that should be well-documented by now (as my thoughts on both Paranormal Activity and There’s Something in the Shadows demonstrate). This film does has a bit of found footage feel, but it certainly is more than that, so if that is one of your concerns, try not to let that turn you off.

Joe Michael Burke took a bit to grow on me, but he ended up playing a pretty decent character. As I’ve said, Robert Rusler (A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge, The Unwilling, Blood Feast) played a bit of an asshole, but he did it well enough. Cliff De Young (who I suppose I recognize from The Tommyknockers, but he was also in such films as Dr. Giggles, The Craft and The Westing Game) was decent, though he wasn’t involved in much of the action. For a younger individual, Mitchell Burns was solid, and Thomas Cunningham had a good scene toward the end.

I will say that some of the special effects during the finale were a bit suspect, but overall, I was actually happy with most of them. They’re not really necessary most of the time, of course, but when they do play a part in the film, it’s not that shabby.

Like I said, though, I think the biggest problem here is probably the uneven execution. The story is decently interesting, and though I’d have preferred a little more explanation as to what exactly was going on, The Hunt definitely wasn’t a movie I’d call awful. It’s unlikely that The Hunt will end up being a memorable movie, and it’s probably below average, but for at least a single watch, it’s not a bad time.

6.5/10

Directed by John Luessenhop [Other horror films: N/A]

It’s been some time since I’ve seen Texas Chainsaw 3D, and I have to admit, time has been kind to it.

Well, moderately speaking anyways. The first time I saw this one, I remember finding it rather unsatisfactory and generic. Perhaps in my old age, I’ve grown a warmer heart, because while this movie does have some big problems (which I will expound on before too long), it’s probably tied for my third-favorite movie in the series.

Following directly from the 1974 classic, and in fact, showing us some choice cuts of that gritty staple of horror, the film shows the aftermath of Sally’s escape, what with police and vigilante hick folk wanting revenge on the savagery of the crimes. The Sawyer family grew considerably from what appeared in the original movie – there’s something like twenty people crammed in that house. Some are played by old hands, such as Gunnar Hansen (who, of course, was the first person to play Leatherface) and Bill Moseley (who played Chop-Top in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2). I didn’t care for how those family members popped out of nowhere, but whateves, it’s dramatic.

Anyhow, one of the babies makes it out of the attack (and I say ‘attack’ because the family, while armed, was willing to give up Leatherface, or Jeb, but before they could, vigilante hick folk decided to redefine ‘justice’), and years later, in what looks like modern-day to this film, say 2012 or 2013, a young woman inherits a house from a previously unknown grandmother, and her and her twenty-something friends – 

Wait.

Now, I was never particularly gifted in mathematics. Truth be told, I was always more a history and English guy. If this character, Heather, was a baby in 1973, in 2012, she would be at least 39. I know that plastic surgery has done a lot for people over the years, but there is absolutely no way that Heather’s character is anywhere close to that. The actress, Alexandra Daddario, would have been 25-26 around the time this was filmed, and if you look at her character and think that she’s almost 40, you’re #wacky.

Some of you out there might think I’m nit-picking, or perhaps suggest that, perhaps, the date of the events of the first movie was just moved up to the mid-1980’s, which wouldn’t be a bad way to get around this. However, we clearly see on police documents and reports that the event happened in September 1973.

That’s a problem. That’s a big problem. That’s a completely avoidable problem. And honestly, that’s just utterly ridiculous. How they didn’t notice this glaring issue when making the movie is beyond me, but it’s one of the biggest issues with the movie.

It’s not the only issue, naturally. This movie is in 3D. Why? Because it probably sells tickets, and more expensive ones, at that. Otherwise, I don’t have a good reason. I don’t believe any of the 3D shots were of any value, and they easily could have not been in 3D and been just as effective. Other movies were doing it at the time; the My Bloody Valentine remake was 3D, as was Saw 3D and The Final Destination. None of them had to be, but capitalism, amiright?????

Perhaps the last of my issues is how they decide to end the film. For most of the movie, Leatherface is the antagonistic force, understandably so. That’s not the case for the final 15 minutes, though. I can’t get into why without giving away spoilers, but I can give you the most cringe quote I’ve heard in years: “Do your thing, Cuz.”

Oh, and there’s a short post-credits scene that’s void of any value, so be warned. I guess some out there might find it funny, but I just found it awful.

Otherwise, the movie’s not that shabby.

Look, I’m a simple man. Give me a character to root for and plenty of dismemberment, and I might have an okay time. Admittedly, likable characters in this film are few and far between, but the gore, 3D or not, was pretty solid. A guy got cut in half with a chainsaw, which was perhaps my favorite scene of the film. Another got attacked and hacked with what looked to be a hatchet. There were scenes of legs and fingers being cut off corpses, a scene of someone going through some mechanical meat grinder thing, another got stabbed with a pitchfork, and naturally, someone was slammed onto a meathook, in classic TCM style.

The gore here was solid, and I definitely appreciated that. For the few likable characters we got (given to us by Alexandra Daddario, Thom Barry, and Richard Riehle), I thought they were of good value. It’s here that I did want to applaud the film for trying something a little different – though I don’t think the execution was that solid, I did like the idea of the power structure of the town becoming the biggest problem toward the end of the movie.

Alexandra Daddario (We Summon the Darkness, Bereavement, Burying the Ex) was decent throughout. Never amazing, and I didn’t care at all where the story took her, but a decent lead all the same. Her friends – played by Trey Songz (apparently some R&B artist I’ve never heard of), Keram Malicki-Sánchez (Cherry Falls), and Tania Raymonde (Deep Blue Sea 3) – were mostly non-entities. Shaun Sipos (The Sandman) also didn’t do that much, and, while nice to see, Marilyn Burns (Sally from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) didn’t add a whole lot either.

Paul Rae (who I know from the two-part season 4 finale of Criminal Minds) did well with a horrible character. Scott Eastwood was whatever, but it was nice to see familiar faces in both Richard Riehle (Hatchet, Mischief Night) and Ritchie Montgomery (Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators, Trailer Park Shark). I had no issues with Dan Yeager’s Leatherface, and Thom Barry was of good value just because his character was actually pleasant.

It’s obvious that I have some problems with this movie, but I want to state again that, as bad as some of the problems are, I didn’t hate this. It was an okay time. It’s not as good as the original movie, nor do I enjoy it as much as Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part III, but I definitely enjoyed it more than films like The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It’s likely on par with the 2003 remake – neither that film nor this are stellar, but they can be a good way to spend some time, and get the job done.

6/10

Directed by Kim Henkel [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a movie (better known under the title Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation) I’ve long been interested in seeing. I had heard that it wasn’t a particularly good movie, but even so, as long as it was better than the second movie (which is a popular film, but it never sat well with me), I’d probably be okay.

It took a long while to finally watch, though, mainly because the theatrical cut was far more commonly available than the director’s cut. Aside from a scene between Jenny and her step-father at the beginning, I’m not sure what differences there are, if any, but when I watch a movie, I always aim to watch the most complete version possible. With that in mind, even knowing it wasn’t likely to be a good movie, I just bought this one on Blu-ray.

And, well, I don’t know. It honestly wasn’t terrible, at least until the final 25 minutes or so. Otherwise, it was generic; a bit annoying as far as the family element went, but not without some charm. If it weren’t for the final twenty or so minutes, I probably would have enjoyed this a lot more than the second movie. That said, I don’t know if it’s worse – I know my stance on the second film is unpopular, but I probably enjoyed this one just a little more than the second one, and I definitely preferred the family dynamics here.

Speaking of which, while nowhere near as functional as the family from Part III, it was amusing seeing how much fun Matthew McConaughey was having. The family here consists of five members (technically six, if you count the grandfather, but he did very little), being: Vilmer (McConaughey), W.E. (Joe Stevens), Darla (Tonie Perensky), Leatherface (Robert Jacks), and Rothman (James Gale).

Technically speaking, I don’t know if Rothman is in the family. It’s his inclusion in the film that makes this a far less enjoyable affair. He pops up toward the end, driven to the house in a limousine. It’s not clear what his relationship with Vilmer is, but later on, he apologizes to Jenny and drops her at a police station. Oh, and he speaks French. I have no idea who he is, or what his relationship to anyone is, or why he was there, but I didn’t care for it whatsoever.

Another character I didn’t care for would be Darla, who just felt too steeped in comedy to amount to much. I was sort of thinking that Jenny could break through to her – that Jenny’s experience in dealing with her abusive step-father would play a role in getting Darla to help her escape from Vilmer – but it wasn’t to be. She did pick up pizza, though, with Jenny tied up in her trunk, so that was something.

Vilmer, W.E., and Leatherface were all fine. Well, I did think that Vilmer felt a bit too psychotic at times, but at least he wasn’t Chop Top. W.E. didn’t do much, aside from attacking people with cattle prods. Leatherface got a few decent chase scenes in, one kill almost reminiscent of the quick hammer attack from the original movie. His screaming was a bit ridiculous, but this family is all off their meds, so I wouldn’t expect a healthy approach to mental health from them.

What stood out pretty clear to me, and this is something I rarely find the need to speak about, is how atrocious some of the delivery was in this movie. Some of the dialogue was bad anyways, but boy, the delivery didn’t do any additional wonders. It was sometimes amusing – Jenny’s been abducted and attacked by multiple members of this family, and she’s still trying to logically figure out what’s going on. I wouldn’t call this movie necessarily horrible, but I do think those that do have good reason, especially concerning the performances.

Like I said, Matthew McConaughey (Frailty) is having a lot of fun, so there’s no issue there. Delivery aside, I actually rather liked Renée Zellweger (Case 39). Neither Tyler Cone nor Lisa Newmyer did much for me, as their characters were pretty awful, but at least they occasionally provided for some okay violence, when the movie veered that way (which wasn’t very often). Otherwise, it’s tough to find any other performance worth mentioning in a positive manner, as this film doesn’t offer much in that department.

What it also doesn’t offer is much in the way of violence. Sure, the first movie was a bit light on actual gore, but it had a grittiness that stands up to this day. Here, there was a scene of a character being hit over the head with a hammer, and another character got shoved onto a meathook, but that was it. In fact, now that I think on it, while Leatherface was waving his chainsaw around throughout the movie, I don’t believe he ever once hit anything. I guess that someone did get their head crushed with a hydraulic leg, and another got hit with the propeller of a small plane, but this movie didn’t have much else.

I have to admit, with as many negative things as I’ve heard about this film, I’m surprised it wasn’t worse. Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that I often heard having Leatherface dress up as a woman was stupid, but I don’t see what the big deal is about. If he wears the faces of women, I can easily see why he’d want to also wear their attire. Ignoring that, though, while the movie is definitely sketchy, I don’t think it’s awful. Some of the humor was meh, some characters (Darla and Rothman) rather bad, and the ending was complete and utter trash, but I can’t say I hated it.

It’s obviously not as good as the first movie, though, and it’s nowhere near as enjoyable as the third, but honestly, the more I think about it, I might say it’s slightly better than the second. #DealWithIt

5.5/10

Directed by Stephen Hopkins [Other horror films: Dangerous Game (1988), Predator 2 (1990), The Ghost and the Darkness (1996), The Reaping (2007)]

I’ve said before that The Dream Master is where A Nightmare on Elm Street, as a series, started going downhill. Certainly The Dream Master has some flaws, but compared to The Dream Child, it’s a fucking masterpiece.

Ever since I first saw The Dream Child, I’ve been of the opinion that it’s easily the worst in the series. And yes, for those of you keeping track, that includes Freddy’s Dead. Freddy’s Dead is a poor movie in many aspects, but at least it’s fun, whereas The Dream Child is drab and disappointing throughout.

There’s a lot that I could say, but I guess I should start with the fact I have no idea what’s going on. I get that Freddy is using the dreams of Alice’s fetus to reach out and impact the real world, but how did Freddy come back? Well, he says early on that he brought his mother (Amanda) back, so he could be born again. Now, I don’t know how you can bring something back if you’re no longer existing, which is only one of my problems.

Another is that, once he’s back (he was back before, apparently, but not back enough, or whatever), he uses Jacob’s dreams, which is whatever, but what’s his plan? Once he kills off all of Alice’s friends, he pretty much would have to leave Alice alone until she gives birth, so what’s he plan on doing in the meantime? Or, related, was he planning on possessing Alice – explaining why and how he was ‘hiding’ in her, as Jacob tells Alice toward the end of the film?

I have absolutely no idea. I also rather disliked the end – even aside from that utterly stupid baby Freddy look that Jacob briefly rocked, apparently Jacob was given a power by Freddy to destroy Freddy – it didn’t; it just took the souls of Alice’s friends and turned Freddy into a child, which Amanda (again, Freddy’s mother) then took into herself, and held him for all of three seconds.

Beyond whatever else could be said about The Dream Child, this movie is an utter mess. It’s a shame, because it might have had something to it, what with exploring Amanda a bit more (I’m sure most remember that she mysteriously popped up in Dream Warriors, mocked science, and left). In fact, we even saw a portrayal of Amanda being accidentally locked in the asylum with the 100 maniacs, which I thought was pretty nice (though having Robert Englund play one of the maniacs didn’t do much for me).

Actually, it’s that subplot, what with Yvonne and Alice needing to find the body of Amanda, that I thought the film showed the most potential. However, that brings up another question – Mark said that they thought Amanda killed herself (via hanging), but there was no body.

So let me get this straight – they find an empty room, an absence of Sister Amanda, and just assume she killed herself?

Again, this movie is a mess. The point was, though, that the deserted asylum looked rather cool both when Alice first encounters it in her dream and when Yvonne goes there in reality. It was dark, gritty, and a rather menacing building, and it was one of the stronger elements of the film.

One of the weakest elements, though, are the kills. I’d say this movie has some of the worst kills in the series. The ‘bon appétit, bitch’ kill was dreadful, but easily worse was the ‘need for speed’ kill, in which a character gets into his truck, gets attacked, wakes up (???????), looks at his truck, then steals (???) a motorcycle, becomes a motorcycle, gets injected with fuel, becomes a mutant, and rams his truck (???????) into an on-coming 18-wheeler.

My problem with that kill, believe it or not, is that I don’t know what’s going on. Dan gets the call from Alice and leaves immediately, meaning that first time he got into his truck would be the ‘reality.’ He’s then attacked in his truck by Freddy, gets his shirt shredded, and gets thrown out the window of his truck back toward the pool. He then runs out and almost gets in his truck again – but wait. Are we supposed to think that he fell asleep before getting into his truck? It looks like he dozed off before hitting the 18-wheeler, but it seems to me that there’d be no reason for Freddy to corral him to the motorcycle.

Again, this movie is a mess.

Now, admittedly, the Super Freddy death always sort of amused me. It starts out strong – a colorful guy (literally) is walking through a black-and-white factory. Of course, then Freddy starts riding a skateboard, and everything goes downhill, but even toward the end, when Super Freddy is shredding the paper guy, I can dig it. It’s horrible, but at least it’s sort of entertaining, in a way that neither the ‘need for speed’ nor the ‘bon appétit, bitch’ deaths were.

Lisa Wilcox (The Church, Dark Ritual, Savage, and Watchers Reborn) was okay here. I didn’t particularly care about her character one way or the other, really. Same with Danny Hassel’s Dan – I don’t get much in the way of emotion about him. Her friend group, though, was decently solid, what with Erika Anderson, Joe Seely, and Kelly Jo Minter. Now, it did take Minter a bit to really grow on me, but she eventually did, and Anderson didn’t really have that much to do during her appearances, but I still thought she did decent in her brief screen-time with Joe Seely.

Naturally, Robert Englund is always fun, but he’s rather goofy in this film, which isn’t itself necessarily damning, but given that this film feels like it was supposed to be a bit darker and grittier, I definitely could have done without. Nick Mele, who played Alice’s father, got a few decent scenes in there, and Beatrice Beopple, playing Amanda, was almost fine. I don’t have much to say about Whitby Hertford other than that he has a familiar face, and I’m sorry that he had to be in such a shitty movie at such a young age.

It might come as no surprise that I don’t care for The Dream Child, and I never have. It’s probably the movie I’ve spent the least amount of time with, as far as this series goes, and it just doesn’t have much I care for. Certainly, I feel it had potential – a really dark story could have been made about Alice, with the help of ghostly Amanda, trying to protect her fetus – but the execution here was abysmally weak. To quote Shuffle T during his bad bars battle with Marlo, “It’s like I’m the opposite of an industrial cooling system – not a big fan.”

5/10

Directed by Terry Winsor [Other horror films: N/A]

This film came as a surprise to me. It shouldn’t have – I’ve technically seen it before – but as it’s been over ten years, much of this slipped my mind. After refreshing my memory, the biggest question is how I ever managed to get through this one the first time.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever said this, but I have arachnophobia. It doesn’t bother me when watching most spider-based horror films, as so many are laughably unrealistic, such as Spiders, Ice Spiders, Camel Spiders, Arachnoquake, or Lavalantula. If it’s a big, fake spider, I have no problems. Hell, even if it’s something like Eight Legged Freaks, I’m not too worried.

There are a few films that have gotten to me, among them Arachnophobia, Kingdom of the Spiders, Deadly Blessing (those tarantula scenes tho…) and definitely this one.

In the Spider’s Web is utterly awful for someone who doesn’t care for our eight-legged friends. True, toward the end, there are some hideously CGI spiders thrown in, along with some rather fake-looking webs, but for the most part, these spiders look rather realistic. There were plenty of scenes of spiders coming down on webs as people were walking through spider-infested caves, and it was just a horrible experience.

Aside from that, the story’s of moderate interest. There’s a shady American doctor (played by Lance Henriksen) living in an Indian village (technically, this film was made in Thailand, but us Americans are unlikely to tell the difference) and also seems to have an unhealthy relationship with spiders. I did appreciate the minor backstory we got on his character, but at the same time, the circumstances of how we found out was rather ridiculous.

So a woman is bitten by a spider on a jungle tour, and the guides bring her to this village, as they know a doctor’s here. Three of the tour members go back to a small town, and alert the police. It’s a small police station, so one of them goes to a nearby, albeit larger, town. While at that police station, he picks up an outdated newspaper, makes a joke about how old it is, and boom, on the front page is a story about Lance Henriksen’s character. And this happens just in time for the day to be saved come the finale.

So yeah, that was a wee bit far-fetched. If they just had a different newspaper on a table, the ending would have been a lot grimmer than it already was. It’s whatever – I sort of like the gumption – but it definitely felt a bit forced.

Lance Henriksen was okay, but unspectacular. To be honest, I think I see him too often (Pumpkinhead, Hellraiser: Hellworld, Mansion of the Doomed, and Gehenna: Where Death Lives, to name a few) for him to make a large impression, but whatever, he’s okay. Others that tended to be average include Emma Catherwood (Senseless, The Reeds, Spirit Trap), Michael Smiley (The Hallow, Tank 432, Censor, A Field in England, Kill List), and Lisa Livingstone (The Redwood Massacre, Ghosts of Darkness).

To be sure, Cian Barry (Nina Forever, Ghost Town) wasn’t great, but I wanted to mention that his character takes a somewhat unexpected route. What the finale does to his character is somewhat odd – he’s told to stay somewhere, to wait for help, but he doesn’t. Instead, he goes back into a cave full of spiders. I don’t know why – they didn’t give a reason. It led to a somewhat terrifying final scene, but it just felt odd.

Though he didn’t get a ton of screen-time, Mike Rogers seemed like a fun character. Most importantly, though, is Sohrab Ardeshir. Playing a local police sergeant of a small town, Ardeshir seems like a small character at first, but he actually not only becomes rather important to the plot, but also becomes the most likable character in the film. A solid, stand-up guy, I really like Ardeshir’s performance, and while I didn’t think much of the character at first, I totally dug him come the finale.

All of this is to say that, while the story here is a bit lacking – especially when concerning the brother of Lance Henriksen’s character, who wears a spider silk sack over his head – there’s definitely some charm to be found. Most of the spider effects look pretty good, save a few scenes toward the end, and there is a bit of an interesting story at times. It’s still not a good movie, and personally, if only due to the spiders, I didn’t necessarily enjoy myself, but I definitely feel it’s not half bad, and might be worth a watch if it sounds like your type of thing.

6/10