Category: Reviews

Undead (2003)

Directed by Michael Spierig [Other horror films: Daybreakers (2009), Jigsaw (2017), Winchester (2018)] & Peter Spierig [Other horror films: Daybreakers (2009), Jigsaw (2017), Winchester (2018)]

I want to be as fair as possible, so I need to first say that as I write this, I am both sick and tired – I don’t mean figuratively, I mean I am literally sick and extraordinarily tired. I don’t really feel that bad – my throat is a bit rough, but otherwise, I’m okay. Still, I’m exhausted, and just wasn’t in the mood for this movie at all.

Undead is a lower-budget zombie science-fiction comedy movie. It has interesting ideas, I guess, but I hated the comedy, so I really can’t find it in me to care that much. Certainly zombie comedies can be done right – even ignoring larger budget films, check out New Zealand’s Last of the Living, which was pretty okay. The comedy here, though, wasn’t at all something I cared for in the least.

Also, while I can’t describe this fairly, the music was horrible. I can’t explain why. It sounded cheap and silly. That’s the best I can do. It was just shitty throughout, and that alone cost the movie something like two points. Godawful.

Look, the idea was interesting – instead of a generic zombie movie, Undead tried to do something new by throwing in acid rain, aliens, and giant walls made of metal. Even come the end, I didn’t really get what they were going for, and the story still confuses me, but I can appreciate that they tried to do something new with a sub-genre that’s overwrought with repetition.

I respect it, but I just can’t like it.

Only one performance did anything for me, being Mungo McKay’s. I didn’t get his character, but I didn’t get any of the characters, many of whom were over-the-top in their silliness, which of course makes me rather dispositioned to despise them.

Also loved all the ammunition wasting. It wasn’t until 40 minutes into the movie that they discovered they should aim for the heads. It made me think that zombies weren’t something people in this universe had a concept of. As it turns out, they did – later on, one of the characters admits that the people walking around are zombies. If they had a concept of zombies beforehand, why didn’t they just immediately try and focus on headshots?

Some people might call that a small nitpick, but that type of thing really annoys me, and it just gave me cause to dislike this movie more.

Even so, Undead, at the time of this writing (March 11th, 2022), has a 5.4/10 on IMDb (with 14,188 votes). Enough people found it decent enough to rate it above a 5/10, which personally amazes me. I get it – throwing in aliens and acid rain was a neat idea, and if it landed for some people, then glory be to God.

I’m just tired and bitter. I didn’t care for the comedy of this movie at all, nor most of the characters, and as interesting as some of the concepts here are, I don’t think they were explained all that well. I didn’t have a good time at all with this, but if it sounds like your type of thing, it may be worth a watch.

3.5/10

The Conspiracy (2012)

Directed by Christopher MacBride [Other horror films: N/A]

The Conspiracy isn’t an easy movie to rate, the reason being that while some portions are taut and compelling, as an overall experience, it feels, at least to me, just a bit of a let-down.

When I first saw the film some years back, I didn’t hold an altogether different opinion, as I found it average. I mostly still feel the same way – the movie does get some things right, and I think it’s a clever idea and a good usage of found footage – but I can’t help but feel that I wanted a bit more from the finale. I wouldn’t go as far as to call the ending unsatisfactory, but I definitely feel that it lacks that punch I was looking for.

Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, or, at least I don’t consider myself one. Even so, much of what Terrance’s character (A.C. Peterson) said was stuff I can understand. The Gulf of Tonkin was most certainly a ploy by the US government to get us stuck in the Vietnam War, which was an utter atrocity. That’s not a conspiracy, but fact. I have friends who have dabbled in some conspiracies about 9/11, some of which can even be compelling at times, but ultimately, the idea that Islamic extremists attacked the USA seems logical to me.

I want to be clear, though, that if it comes out that the US did indeed orchestrate 9/11, I wouldn’t be surprised – my feelings toward the USA aren’t positive whatsoever (look at how many leaders we’ve overthrown – Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, João Goulart in Brazil, Salvador Allende in Chile, Maurice Bishop in Grenada, and Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala). It’s just that, in this case, I don’t necessarily think it’s the US’s doing (in the normal sense; certainly the way we’ve treated the Middle East throughout history personally leads me to seeing 9/11 as potential self-defense on their parts).

This, however, is not meant to be a political blog. I am a socialist, I do despise the USA, I do despise capitalism, and I encourage voting for third parties, but for the most part, none of this matters when it comes to movies. In The Conspiracy’s case, I think it’s important to point out that while I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist, I also don’t think that they’re without warrant in many cases. I’ll grant you that the FEMA camps and New World Order sorts can be a bit much, but I honestly feel that people who gravitate toward conspiracy theories are mostly good people trying to understand the world.

I rather loved the idea of the Tarsus Club, which really does sound like Bohemian Club (an all-men’s private club) and the Council of Foreign Relations (a US think tank), and the addition of the worship of Mithras, along with the pageantry and rituals, makes it feel like it could be a real organization out there. The movie does feel realistic, which is true to the very conclusion, which may partially explain why it has a somewhat anticlimactic feel.

There’s really only three performances I wanted to mention. Aaron Poole (not to be confused with Aaron Paul, though he looks remarkably similar to him) and James Gilbert made for good leads, Poole (The Void) having a bit more character than Gilbert (The Corridor), but both giving a realistic performance. Bruce Clayton was also decent, though we almost never saw his face. Such is the life of those who research secret societies.

The ending of the film is pretty intense, at least for a bit. There are some good scenes, some frantic scenes, and while few scenes were scary, certainly some were suspenseful. And to be fair, though I don’t personally love the way the film ends, it sort of makes sense in context, especially after we see more editing being done to the pre-existing film.

Overall, I don’t dislike The Conspiracy. I also don’t particularly like it. It just exists, as if it were a rain cloud on a day with no breeze. It’s there. It’s nice to look at if you want a balm to this pointless existence, but it’s little more than that. All of this is to say I think the movie is fine. It’s not good, it’s not bad, and while it definitely had potential to be great, it simply just is, and for that, I have to rate it around average.

7/10

Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)

Directed by Paul Morrissey [Other horror films: Sangue per Dracula (1974), The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978)] & Antonio Margheriti [Other horror films: Il pianeta degli uomini spenti (1961), La vergine di Norimberga (1963), Danza macabra (1964), I lunghi capelli della morte (1964), Nude… si muore (1968), Schreie in der Nacht (1969), E Dio disse a Caino… (1970), Nella stretta morsa del ragno (1971), La morte negli occhi del gatto (1973), Killer Fish (1979), Apocalypse domani (1980), Alien degli abissi (1989)]

Flesh for Frankenstein, sometimes commonly known as Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein, isn’t a movie I enjoyed at all. It had some disgusting gore and sexual depravity, which is all good and well, but I personally found the acting quite horrid and the story rather meandering.

As it is, I’ve actually seen this film before. I can’t imagine under what circumstances, though – I couldn’t have been older than 14, as I barely remembered any of this. And in fact, the idea that I actually sat through this movie at that age, if accurate, is a testament to my devotion of the genre. Well, either that, or the idiocy of my youth.

Yes, that may well sound like a dig at the movie. I know it’s a film that some people do rather enjoy, and I can partially see why. The gory sequences are pretty solid, and even I will admit that the finale was overall enjoyable. Some of the dialogue is rather quotable (from “You filthy thing!” to the classic line “To know death, Otto, you have to fuck life in the gall bladder!”), and certainly the horrible acting can add to the charm, but even so, I generally found the film tedious.

Udo Kier (who I know from films such as Pray for Morning, Love Object, and Shadow of the Vampire) was just awful in this. Half the time, he literally reminded me of Tommy Wiseau, which was amusing, but probably not good. Just as good was Arno Jürging (Andy Warhol’s Dracula). Joe Dallesandro (The Gardener and Black Moon) was at least fine, and while I couldn’t stand her character, Monique van Vooren was serviceable, at least when she wasn’t sucking on someone’s arm (I’d say it makes sense in context, but I’m not sure that it does).

Certainly there are some WTF scenes, such as one where the Baron is rather involved with a corpse (after shouting at his assistant to look away, calling him a filthy thing), and that scene certainly is disturbing. It leads to the classic line about life and fucking gall bladders, so there you go. There’s certainly plenty of nudity and gore here, and while that might help in some cases, it doesn’t really impact things much here.

Don’t get me wrong – I liked seeing the gore, and it’s especially solid near the end, in which a door is slammed on a character’s hand, cutting it off (and that dismembered hand is later thrown at another character, amusingly enough). That was quality gore, as was an amusing decapitation early on in the film. The blood certainly runs free in the film, which is far from a bad thing.

The problem, though, is that much of the film, save the enjoyable finale and tense final minutes (which I rather enjoyed) feels like a soap opera. There’s a husband who has no time for his wife, who is a sex maniac, and thus seeks companionship elsewhere, such as farmhands. The farmhand in question has a friend who is considering becoming a monk, so he tries to get that friend laid in order to show him what he’ll be missing. Oh, and there are children mucking about also, but they aren’t really important until the final twenty minutes of the film.

Oh, also worth mentioning, the husband and wife are also brother and sister. I was confused at first, wondering if I was hearing that right, but it became obvious that I was indeed accurate in my hearing. Talk about a messed up family, what with some Targaryen shit going on here.

I can see why Flesh for Frankenstein would appeal to some people, but I just couldn’t get that much enjoyment out of it, save a few scenes. It’s not a movie I found utterly unredeemable, but I really didn’t care for a lot of it. I felt so much of it was tedious, and overall, it wasn’t what I’d personally call a good time.

5/10

Cry Wolf (2005)

Directed by Jeff Wadlow [Other horror films: Truth or Dare (2018), Fantasy Island (2020)]

So Cry Wolf is one of those movies that I’ve wanted to see for quite a while. And to be clear, by ‘a while’, I mean since around 2009. Way back in the day, I made a list of horror films I wanted to check out, and this was on that list from the very beginning.

I never went out of my way to check it out because I thought I knew the type of movie it was going to be, and there were more interesting selections of films out there. As it is, I had an enjoyable time watching Cry Wolf, but I’d be lying if I said it ended up differently from what I expected.

It’s not really a case of all flash and no substance – the story here is sort of fun. The twists, while few are really surprising (come the finale, I was almost completely right, but made one mistake in my assumptions), keep the movie moving at a nice pace, and past a certain point, there are enough suspenseful scenes and mysteries to keep you interested.

What sort of didn’t do it for me, though, is just that it felt like they really badly wanted to make this a Saw movie, what with the twists, and that overly dramatic finale which threw a bunch of flashbacks at us (obviously with some additional context). I mean, don’t get me wrong, it was still enjoyable, but it almost felt like they were trying a bit too hard.

Performances all around were decent. Julian Morris (Donkey Punch, Something Wicked) is watchable enough, but he’s far from what makes the film enjoyable. Better are Lindy Booth and surprisingly Jon Bon Jovi. Booth (Wrong Turn, Dark Honeymoon) certainly had an interesting personality, and was playful enough, whereas Jon Bon Jovi’s (Vampires: Los Muertos) performance as a prep school teacher reminded me a little of Robert Englund’s role in Urban Legend.

Also, while I’m not a Supernatural fan, it was sort of nice seeing Jared Padalecki (also from House of Wax and Friday the 13th) here. His character is never super important, but he has a nice, clean-cut face. Gary Cole (who played a Vice President during some seasons of The West Wing, along with voicing a character Kim Possible, a favorite animated show of mine) was fun to see in a few scenes, and though her character was even less important than Padalecki’s, Kristy Wu had some zap to her.

What I think this all comes down to, though, as far as my feelings go, is that nothing in this movie really surprised me. Oh, some of the twists were unexpected, but I wasn’t once close to being blown away. I liked the conclusion well enough, but I think I probably would have liked this a lot more if I had seen it all those years ago when I first heard about it, as opposed to now when I’m #jaded.

Certainly I had fun while watching Cry Wolf, but I don’t think it’ll ultimately leave a large impression on me. It’s a stylish, occasionally clever movie with an okay mystery and a killer poster, and I do think it’s a decent film, but I don’t honestly think it’s a lot more than that.

7/10

Don’t Answer the Phone! (1980)

Directed by Robert Hammer [Other horror films: N/A]

This isn’t the easiest movie to examine. In some ways, Don’t Answer the Phone! is definitely generic and underwhelming, but it’s also occasionally competent trash, and that has to count for something, whatever that may be.

To preface this review, I have to say that I didn’t watch this under ideal circumstances, and by that, I mean I own it on a 50-movie pack, specifically Mill Creek’s Pure Terror release. The quality isn’t that poor, but I know the film came out on Blu-Ray in 2017, so I can’t say that this copy isn’t possibly missing something.

As it stands, the movie isn’t a violent one, at least not with the print I have – plenty of women get strangled, and to add to the spiciness, many of these women are topless – but it’s not at all gory, and while I couldn’t go as far as to call it dull, I will admit a lot of this feels familiar.

I think that’s one of the bigger problems, if I’m being honest. Films such as City in Panic, Naked Massacre, Murderlust, and even Forced Entry all have similar elements – granted, two of those films came out after this one, but even so, we’re not talking ground-breaking entertainment here. It’s competent for what it does – if you like seeing topless women strangled, I’d recommend you look no further – but it’s definitely not a film that’s all too memorable.

I can personally attest to that, as I’ve seen it previously, and came into this viewing with very little memory of what I’d seen before. As far as I can tell, the most memorable part of the film is Nicholas Worth’s role as the killer. Not that his performance is good; in fact, at times, it’s somewhat laughable. But whether laughable or not, I can’t say that he’s not captivating when on-screen, which has to count for something.

Otherwise, it’s hard to say that others stand out. The two central police officers, played by James Westmoreland and Ben Frank, were both okay, and they had some solid scenes (such as the rather amusing visit to a brothel disguised as a health spa), but not overly relevant. The same is true of Flo Lawrence (Schizoid), who seems important at first, but fades into the background, only to sort of come back into prominence toward the finale.

A few others are worth mentioning, though to be sure, none of the characters they played were important. Chris Wallace (who you might recognize from New Year’s Evil) had an amusing sequence as a psychic. Playing an amusingly sleazy magazine owner was Chuck Mitchell, and there was also a pimp played by Stan Haze who had a moment to shine during the aforementioned brothel sequence.

Really, Don’t Answer the Phone! isn’t without a few strong points. The nudity throughout doesn’t go amiss, and there can be an amusing scene or two. I didn’t care whatsoever about the romantic subplot thrown in, and the finale wasn’t that great, but there are moments when the film almost seems like it’s worth watching.

Even so, I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a good film. It’s not terrible, at least not in my eyes. But it’s also one that I don’t suspect I’ll watch again any time soon, and if it sticks with me better this time around, that’s probably the best the movie can hope to ask for.

6/10

Route 666 (2001)

Directed by William Wesley [Other horror films: Scarecrows (1988)]

I have to say that Route 666 surprised me. Though by no means would I call the film good in a traditional sense, it can be oddly fun, and I think a lot of that comes from the performances involved here.

To be sure, I have seen Route 666 once before, though like many of the films I’ve watched recently (Swarmed and Hard Ride to Hell, for instance), it’s been so long that I only remembered the vaguest outline of this. In fact, I thought it was a zombie movie going in – which might be an easy mistake to make – only to be surprised that it’s more ghostly in nature.

While pleasant in some ways, which I’ll touch on shortly, it does fall flat in some areas, mostly the story. One of the characters here has a relationship with one of the ghosts, and late in the film, we have a situation where this ghost has to decide whether or not to turn on his ghostly hombres. That comes with the occasional psychic flash a character suffers, and while there’s not many of them, I wasn’t overly impressed with those sequences.

Also, a lot of the action here is quite jerky. I don’t know if I can explain it better than that – the ghosts move in jerky motions, and the action is often in the same vein. It’s not headache-inducing or anything, but it was notable, and not in a positive way, but an annoying one. Lastly, as far as complaints go, I felt some of the antagonists that pop up toward the end could have done with a bit more reasoning behind their actions, and what they were attempting to accomplish struck me as a bit extreme.

Those elements aside, Route 666 isn’t a bad slice of entertainment. A lot of this comes from the central performances of Lou Diamond Phillips, Steven Williams, and Lori Petty. Phillips (who I know from his recurring role on Numb3rs, along with the TV movie Hangman and films such as Bats and Carny) was a lot of fun in this action-oriented film, and worked great with Lori Petty (a couple of episodes of House and Bates Motel, randomly, is where I knew her best from) and Williams (from The X-Files and The Fear Chamber). All three of them were great – I loved Petty’s sassy attitude, and Williams was just fun – and really added a lot to this film.

Out of the rest of the cast, I guess it’s fair to say both Dale Midkiff and L.Q. Jones were decent. Midkiff (of Pet Sematary and Nightmare Weekend fame) took a bit to really stand out, but once he did, I enjoyed his character, and while I didn’t love where Jones’ (The Brotherhood of Satan, The Strange and Deadly Occurrence) story went, it was fine. I did love seeing a brief appearance of Dick Miller (The Howling, Gremlins, and many other films) at the beginning, and Mercedes Colon, who popped up much later in Malignant, appeared, which was sort of random.

If anything makes the movie work, it’s the performances, because the story, while okay, doesn’t entirely cut it, and the gore is pretty non-existent, even when they had a chance for some violent jackhammer action. Someone did get their hand slammed in a door, which did look reasonably painful, and there was some occasionally fun gun-play (many of the characters are in government agencies, so much of the beginning is more action-oriented), but it’s not at all what I’d describe as gory.

Even so, I can’t say that I didn’t find a lot of the movie serviceable. I definitely didn’t love the conclusion, and elements that came up every now and again were less interesting, but overall, I had a better time with that than I thought I was going to. Of course, it being so long, I can’t remember what I thought about Route 666 when I first saw it, but I am pretty sure I enjoyed it a bit more this time around.

Honestly, Route 666 is still below average, but if you want a movie to have a good time with, you could do a lot worse than this one.

6.5/10

Hard Ride to Hell (2010)

Directed by Penelope Buitenhuis [Other horror films: Killer Bees (2002)]

This is another of those movies that I’ve seen before, but it’s been a pretty long time. I believe I caught Hard Ride to Hell on IFC about ten years ago, and while I didn’t like it, I didn’t hate it. Seeing it again, I can sort of understand that feeling, because as much as I like portions of the film, overall, I can’t say it’s a movie I’d want to see too often.

Shaky is a good way to describe the story – elements are reminiscent of popular films from the 70’s, such as Race with the Devil, as the movie deals with a Satanic motorcycle gang, the leader of whom was cast out of Aleister Crowley’s inner circle for his depraved practices. I didn’t hate the story, until we got to the final thirty minutes or so, when another element was thrown in that I just didn’t care for whatsoever.

To the movie’s credit, there are a few pretty solid performances. Among them is Brent Stait (who had Robert Patrick swagger). I don’t know Stait (who appeared briefly in Final Destination 5), but his character here is fantastically bad-ass, and he reminded me of Henry Rollins’ character from Wrong Turn 2, which is a compliment, believe me. Also appearing was Katharine Isabelle (Ginger Snaps, Freddy vs. Jason, American Mary, and 13 Eerie), who I entirely forgot was in the film. Isabelle’s performance is quite amusing at times, and has a good quote or two (“I don’t know, maybe the demon people-eating biker monsters can’t go in a church!”), so I dug it.

Other performances aren’t as strong. To be fair, Miguel Ferrer (The Night Flier, The Stand, Sightings: Heartland Ghost, and DeepStar Six) wasn’t bad, but I just didn’t get a great feel for his character. He was nice to see, regardless. Brandon Jay McLaren (Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon) also had some strong moments. Laura Mennell, though, felt weak at times, as did both Sebastian Gacki and Brendan Penny. Luckily, Stait, and Isabelle are more than enough to make up for their mild shortcomings.

Another element Hard Ride to Hell brings with a vengeance is the gore. It’s not over-the-top or anything, but there are plenty of violent portions. A man gets his arm cut off (and cauterized shortly thereafter), someone gets their face drug across a highway, another is forced to walk through glass. Toward the end, there’s some chainsaw action, and someone gets both of their hands cut off, which was also fun. Also, there’s a lot of knife action, mainly coming from Stait’s character, so the movie isn’t afraid to give us a little something something.

That’s not enough to make the movie good, though. Honestly, I enjoyed it a bit more than I was expecting, especially after an opening which I found rather weak (it’s about six minutes of characters speaking in Spanish, all without subtitles), but the finale was generally not great. In fact, without the gore and a few good performances, the movie wouldn’t really be worth it. I can’t say Hard Ride to Hell is worth it even with those elements, but they do make the film a lot more palatable.

I didn’t hate Hard Ride to Hell, and given the rather low rating it boasts on IMDb at the moment (3.8/10 with 1,140 votes, as of 11/29/2021), that’s an accomplishment in itself. It’s not a movie that I think I’d gravitate toward too often, but I’d be lying if I didn’t think some characters and gore made it almost worthwhile. I just wish the story had gone a better direction.

6.5/10

Swarmed (2005)

Directed by Paul Ziller [Other horror films: Pledge Night (1988), Snakehead Terror (2004), Beyond Loch Ness (2008), Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (2008), Troglodyte (2008), Ba’al (2008), Iron Invader (2011), Ghost Storm (2011)]

Swarmed is one of those films that I think will be largely forgettable. I have this on somewhat good authority, given I’ve seen it before, and most of the movie still felt new to me. It’s not an overly poor TV movie, though – it’s entertaining at times, and some performances are fine – but it’s not a film that I’m likely to ever watch again, either.

I can’t say when I first saw this movie. I know I watched it back on SyFy when they were still Sci-Fi, and I wasn’t any older than 14. Given I’m 28 at the time of this writing, it has been quite a long time. I’ll say that, in defense of the film, it’s a more enjoyable film than many post-2010 Syfy movies, which counts for something.

The story isn’t anything particularly interesting. Dealing with a pesticide that inadvertently improves the surviving wasps’ strength and venom accidentally unleashed on a small town, it’s the average fair when it comes to these types of films. There’s even a coroner who is exactly like Roy Brocksmith’s coroner from Arachnophobia – eating nonchalantly while dealing with corpses. So much of the film is stereotypical, and the ending is also exactly what you’d expect.

One thing I have to give the film minor props for, though, is the fact it takes place in southern Indiana. No doubt the town is fictional, and the movie is filmed in Canada, but an Indiana setting does warm my Hoosier heart, so though it doesn’t add much, it’s sort of fun seeing my state representin’.

None of the performances here are great, but I think some of the central performances were admirable enough. Michael Shanks (who is likely most recognizable as Dr. Daniel Jackson from Stargate SG-1, but also starred in Mega Snake) was decent. Richard Chevolleau’s character, despite his errors, ended up being pretty decent. Tim Thomerson (Unseen Evil and Fade to Black) was sort of funny (“How about them apples?”) in a generic way, and Carol Alt (Snakehead Terror) was serviceable.

On the flip-side, there was Ellen Dubin. I don’t blame the actress, but boy, her character went downhill quickly. Her boss is killed by a wasp, and she basically loses it. She attempts to kill the wasp with a shotgun, and even after she does that, she begins thinking that there are more wasps around, and drowns in paranoia. These portions weren’t particularly fun to me, and while they don’t last long, the performance was just painful.

As you might be able to imagine, the special effects here aren’t what people would generally describe as ‘stellar.’ Don’t get me wrong – they’re leagues above the atrocities you might see in films like Sharknado and 2-Headed Shark Attack – but they’re not great. There was a decent scene of a wasp stinging someone’s eye, and another had a wasp winding up in someone’s mouth, so there are occasional glimpses of something interesting, but for the most part, Swarmed doesn’t have a lot to boast about.

It’s not a movie that I had a terrible time with. It’s below average, of course, but it’s not nearly as bad as many other horror films can be, and though Swarmed isn’t going to be a movie that I’ll likely watch again, for some classic Sci-Fi, it’s not the worst time.

6/10

Razorback (1984)

Directed by Russell Mulcahy [Other horror films: Tale of the Mummy (1998), Resurrection (1999), The Curse of King Tut’s Tomb (2006), Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)]

I’m never quite sure what to make of many of the Australian horror films I’ve seen. While some can be perfectly normal, so much of the output I’ve seen from Australia tends to be, for lack of a better word, odd.

Certainly that could be a label placed on Razorback also, but I think in this case, that’s not at all a problem.

To be clear, I can’t honestly say I enjoyed Razorback in a traditional sense – it’s quite a dusty, dirty movie, sometimes rather bleak, and portions don’t always enthrall me. That said, I did rather appreciate a lot of it, and though it’s not a film I personally enjoyed a whole lot, it’s definitely a movie that’s worth seeing, and I can understand why I see primarily positive posts about the film.

One thing really allows the movie to stand out, which is the occasionally stellar cinematography. There are two sequences in particular that – after I saw them – I immediately rewatched, one being a dream sequence, the other, shots of a man lost and potentially delirious in the middle of the Outback. Captivating doesn’t begin to describe just how stellar that second sequence was, and I truly thought it possessed some of the most beautiful and desolate scenery I’ve seen in a horror film in recent times.

There’s also a surprisingly shocking dream jump scare at one point – I wasn’t at all expecting it, and I’m not too proud to admit I jumped a bit, so kudos to that scene.

As for the story, it’s not overly original – it’s a giant animal that’s going around killing people, and some characters hunt it down – but the approach taken here does lend a certain je ne sais quoi to the final product. Maybe it’s the scenery – the Australian location is used wonderfully throughout. Maybe it’s the aforementioned dusty and desolation, sometimes grimey, feel. Whatever it is, Razorback does have some feeling to it, and I don’t think it’s a movie, as generic as the plot may sound, that’ll easily be forgotten and discarded.

At first, I thought Judy Morris (The Plumber) was going to have a more central role, but that wasn’t quite to be. She did well early on, though, and when Gregory Harrison (1996’s Summer of Fear) takes the reins, he’s pretty compelling. I can’t say I loved Arkie Whiteley’s character, but Bill Kerr (House of Mortal Sin) has that Australian ruggedness I’ve come to appreciate. David Argue and Chris Haywood (Sweet River and The Tale of Ruby Rose) did well with two rather atrocious characters.

One thing that might be worth knowing before going into Razorback is that an uncut version with a bit more brutality exists. Now, I happened to watch the most-commonly available cut version, but found the missing scenes elsewhere online after I finished the film. Unlike movies such as Cut and Run, I don’t think missing the uncut version of this would be a disaster, but it is something that you may want to watch out for.

I’ve known about Razorback for a long time, and while I’ve always been mildly interested, it’s never been a movie that I’ve been dying to see. After having finally seen it, I can say that I wasn’t blown away by the overall product, but the scenes which did bring something special, being the two sequences I refer to above, are utterly stellar, and I don’t say that lightly. I don’t think Razorback is above average – if it is, it’s not by a lot. Even so, it’s certainly worth seeing, especially for Australian horror.

7/10

Scarecrows (1988)

Directed by William Wesley [Other horror films: Route 666 (2001)]

So I have two things to say about Scarecrows before writing this review out: for one, Scarecrows is perhaps one of my favorite scarecrow horror films, and two, I am highly intoxicated at the moment.

This is the 155th movie I’ve seen in October of 2021, which is when this is being written. It’s been a long month, and I thought I might celebrate with some Jack Daniels whiskey that I had in my freezer for over a year. I don’t drink often, but I thought tonight might make a good occasion, and so I did.

I’ll say that Scarecrows is a decent movie, though it does possess some elements I can’t say I care for that much, such as how the scarecrows can somehow mimic other people that their victims know. It reminds me of the plants in The Ruins that mimicked cell phones – I didn’t mind it too much in The Ruins, but here, it felt sort of strange giving scarecrows some type of psychic power.

Even with that minor complaint in mind, I always appreciated the gore of this film. It’s not an overly gory film, but there are some solid moments, such as a scarecrow cutting a character;s hand off, and then stabbing his face after covering it with a burlap sack. That as perhaps the best scene, but you also someone who had their organs removed and replaced with only straw and money, which was relatively gruesome, along with someone who was stabbed through the hand with a pitchfork.

Only a couple performances really stand out here, being Michael David Simms, Ted Vernon (Zombie Infection and Bikini Swamp Girl Massacre), and Victoria Christian. Truth be told, Christian was somewhat generic, but I really liked Vernon here, as he was someone who actively partook in abducting people, but seemed to have a decent moral compass (as he took time to bury someone, and tried his hardest to help Christian’s character). Michael David Simms over-acted horribly at times, and I absolutely loved it.

Richard Vidan (also in the obscure Zombie Infection) is somewhat like Vernon’s character, only he doesn’t last near as long. Others, such as Kristina Sanborn and B.J. Turner, had their moments, but overall, it’s hard to say they really stood out all that well.

To be honest, Scarecrows isn’t a great movie. I talk a bit in my Scarecrow County review about the sad state of scarecrow horror films, so I won’t repeat it here, but there’s so few decent scarecrow horror films that a movie like Scarecrows, which definitely has some holes in it’s plot, can stand out positively.

And I think that stands true. Dark Night of the Scarecrow is perhaps a better example of the suspense that can be created within the framework of a scarecrow movie, but Scarecrows demonstrates the type of gore that could make the topic one worth exploring with a more serious attitude.

7.5/10