Category: Reviews

Directed by Michael Curtiz [Other horror films: Alraune (1919), The Mad Genius (1931), Doctor X (1932), The Walking Dead (1936)]

I can’t say for sure how long it’s been since I’ve last seen this one, but I definitely know it’s at least been six years. I think I’ve seen it twice before, making this my third time watching this classic, but from my faulty memory, you wouldn’t know it.

Part of this may come from the fact that House of Wax, a 1953 remake of this movie, is just naturally fresher in my mind. Not only have I seen it moderately recently, but the story itself is a bit more striking (in that film, Price’s character has a wax house of horrors – here, it’s more beautiful wax figures without the horrific charm).

All that said, I was deeply interested in revisiting this one, and while it didn’t quite hold up as much as I was hoping it would, I had a decent time. I think the story is a little bit more streamlined in the 1953 movie, and of course, they had Vincent Price, so that’s going to be hard to beat anyway.

What Mystery of the Wax Museum did have, though, was beautiful color. To be sure, we’ve seen color before (in fact, the director of this film, Michael Curtiz, also directed Doctor X, another early horror film in color), but it looked a lot fresher here, and I imagine that’s partly due to the restoration the print has had done to it.

Though not all of the elements of the story come together (I’d have liked more background on the revenge Lionel Atwill’s character got on Edwin Maxwell’s), the little mystery here is pretty solid, and having a reporter running around and trying to figure things out does keep things decently engaging. Of course, the main problem then becomes that the woman running around, being Glenda Farrell, wasn’t playing the most likable character.

Which isn’t to say that Farrell didn’t do a great job. As a snappy, witty reporter, she did quite well, but her character irked me far more than she endeared me. Somewhat amusingly, though, Fay Wray bothered me more – she was no doubt a beautiful woman, but honestly, 90% of what she did in this movie was scream. It wasn’t her choice, I imagine, but the point remains. Lionel Atwilln (Murders in the Zoo, Doctor X, The Vampire Bat, etc.) did great as the tragic character that was Ivan Igor, and I definitely felt for him.

It’s hard for me to quantify the nature of my issue with this one. I don’t dislike it – Mystery of the Wax Museum possesses a good, quick story, and things move along at a nice pace with occasionally great scenes (not to mention beautiful color) – but I didn’t love it either. I think it stood out to me more positively the first time I saw it than it did this time around.

As rough as the Technicolor looked in Doctor X, I think that story was perhaps just a bit more fun. And while I ultimately might enjoy House of Wax more than this original story, Mystery of the Wax Museum is still worth seeing, but personally, at least with this viewing, I wasn’t overwhelmed with glory.

7/10

Directed by Jim McCullough Sr. [Other horror films: N/A]

With a title like Mountaintop Motel Massacre (which is quality alliteration, by the way), I’d sort of expect the film to be a bit more cheesy. As it is, this film isn’t terrible, but it doesn’t feel at all like most 80’s horror, and almost possesses a bit of a somber feeling to it.

It also stands apart by not being the natural slasher that one might expect by reading the plot. There is some slashing, but beforehand, we’re given something like twenty minutes to get to know the killer, an older woman recently released from a psychiatric institution. It feels more like a character piece at the beginning, the horror not fully kicking in until would-be victims rent a cabin from her.

And because of that, things don’t really pick up until forty or so minutes into the film. It doesn’t help that, at the beginning, our insane woman is content with just scaring her many guests (by letting snakes, rats, and roaches into their rooms). It sort of helps with creating a dark atmosphere, what with her creeping around in underground tunnels and letting bugs loose into peoples’ cabins, but it’s not always the most enthralling material.

Anna Chappell was perfectly acceptable as a woman who’s lost it, but after a while, with little character insight, I can’t say she made an amazing impression. Most of the rest of the cast are in the same boat, sadly. Amy Hill and Virginia Loridans looked good in white, wet t-shirts, and Will Mitchell rocked a solid moustache, I guess. I did sort of like Major Brock in his sole movie role, and Bill Thurman did have some feeling, but these two are the only ones that really stand out.

If it weren’t for the sluggish nature of a lot of the film, I think I’d like the movie more. Once the killing starts, it’s not too shabby. Chappell’s character uses a sickle to kill, which is an inspired choice, and the special effects aren’t half bad. A woman gets badly struck in the face, someone loses a hand, another has their throat slit. When things actually start going down, they go down well. It’s just getting there that’s half the battle.

Now in this movie’s defense, I do appreciate how it attempts to stand out from many of the other horror films at the time by avoiding 80’s sensibilities, such as fun. That might sound like an insult, but it’s more me trying to say that this movie feels much more like a product of the late 70’s than it does the early 80’s. It’s not campy whatsoever, and while there’s an amusing line here and there, the whole atmosphere is somewhat oppressive and somber.

Even so, it’s not my piece of cake. When I first saw this one many years back, I think I was similarly befuddled, because I don’t recollect too much about my reaction, and seeing it with fresh eyes, I can get why a younger me would be confused. Mountaintop Motel Massacre is a movie that should be a cult classic, and perhaps it even is, but it’s not my thing. It’s still worth seeing, to be sure, but if you go in expecting a traditional 80’s slasher, you may not be in for a good time.

6/10

Directed by Lynn Silver [Other horror films: N/A]

I first heard about this over ten years ago from a VHS-collecting friend of mine, and it’s from him that I also heard last about this. That may be written poorly, but my point is that Ghost Stories: Graveyard Thriller is quite obscure, and after finally seeing it, it’s not difficult to see why.

If you’re familiar with An Evening of Edgar Allan Poe, then you’ll understand what this straight-to-video movie was going for. If you’re not, here’s a little background: An Evening of Edgar Allan Poe was a 50-minute movie in which Vincent Price recited four stories written by Edgar Allan Poe. They weren’t normal anthology stories – it was purely spoken word. And because Vincent Price was reciting them, it’s a nifty experience.

This movie was going for the same thing – we have a host (Bob Jenkins) who is walking around the Tuesday Hill Boneyard (classy cemetery name) and introducing extended family members (cousins, a brother-in-law, that type of thing), each of whom have a story to tell. They tell their story – occasionally with props (such as a coffin, a bolt, or a severed hand) – and it’s onto the next tale.

Overall, the whole thing lasts 56 minutes or so, and while perhaps the most low-budget thing I’ve seen in my life, I can’t say I wasn’t occasionally entertained. Only two of the five stories are really worth it, but it’s more the whole of the product than the individual pieces, and this was just fascinating.

Though it’s not listed anywhere in the credits, I believe this was filmed in South Carolina. Not only was South Carolina mentioned at least three times throughout the film, but also the production company is named Alamance Entertainment – Alamance is one of the counties of South Carolina. That goes a long way to explain some of these accents, some of which are quite southern, and adds a little spice to the recited stories.

Of the five stories (‘Where Have You Been Billy Boy, Billy Boy,’ ‘Mr. Fox,’ ‘Buried Alive,’ ‘Hunting Werewolves for Uncle Albert,’ and ‘Reunion’), the only two that I’d recommend based on content would be ‘Where Have You Been Billy Boy, Bill Boy’ and ‘Mr. Fox.’ ‘Mr. Fox’ is narrated by one Laura Kay, and while she’s not great, the story itself is sort of fun. ‘Where Have You Been Billy Boy, Billy Boy’ is nicely narrated by Ralph Lucas (who also wrote the story), and the story is perhaps the best written, what with an asylum, disfigured patients, and rats who sexually assault women.

‘Buried Alive’ isn’t the most original nor most interesting tale, but it does possess a deeply amusing aura, as it’s narrated by one Sandra McLees (who in fact not only wrote ‘Buried Alive,’ but also wrote ‘Mr. Fox’). McLees is a Southern woman through-and-through, and her dramatic recital of this story is just great (“Oh God, they’re gunna bury me alive!!”). It’s what men refer to when they speak of the ‘higher arts.’

‘Hunting Werewolves for Uncle Albert,’ which is actually a story told by our host Bob Jenkins, is just too silly to really get into. It has some okay portions (such as Uncle Albert telling the host that if he were a jaybird, “it’d fly backerds” [my attempted phonetic pronunciation of how this guy pronounces ‘backwards’]), but it also has Frankenstein’s monster chewing tobacco with the main character, and just has a terrible ending.

Somewhat related, the final story, being ‘Reunion’ recited by Maria Hayden, was occasionally funny, but mostly a generic yarn about witchcraft.

I probably enjoy this more than I should, but that doesn’t mean I’m fooling myself into thinking it’s a good movie. No doubt it’s interesting, and were it a play, it might go over well, but despite some good recitals (Sandra McLees and Ralph Lucas) and an animated, occasionally-amusing host (Bob Jenkins), this really isn’t a movie I think would appeal to many.

Because I love cheap, SOV horror films, I knew I had to see it, and I’m happy I did. Even more, it wasn’t near as dull as I thought it’d be. Despite all of that, though, it’s definitely not a good movie, and more a curiosity than anything else.

5.5/10

Directed by Philip Ford [Other horror films: N/A]

Possessing a somewhat misleading title, Valley of the Zombies is an okay way to spend 56 minutes. It’s a lower budget film, to be sure, but it still has that snappy dialogue that made the time period so fun, and an occasionally interesting (if not original) plot. 

From the title, one might expect some voodoo shenanigans (as that was the cause of zombies pre-1968, the most classic examples being I Walked with a Zombie and White Zombie), but that’s not what this is at all. There is someone who might count as a zombie, and there is in fact a reference to the “valley of the zombies,” but the bigger culprit is occasional hypnotism.

I don’t know the name, but Ian Keith did a pretty solid job as the menacing killer. He just has that face, and despite the cheapness of the film, did have a good presence. Not unexpectedly, Robert Livingston (Riders of the Whistling Skull) was a bit generic, but he still worked well with Lorna Gray, and the pair had some good snappy dialogue, which is always a joy to hear.

Of course, this being an older movie, Gray didn’t have that great of a range. She was great with her quips, no doubt, but she also got scared at the sound of a windowblind crashing down, not to mention fainting when she heard the word ‘zombie.’ Fainting. sigh Sometimes the sexism and racism (as Gray here took the place of someone like Mantan Moreland à la King of the Zombies) in these older films are hard to swallow, and I just wish they didn’t have to throw in “Oh, the woman is scared of everything” trash. It just gets old.

Otherwise, Valley of the Zombies is competent. The finale (taking place on a fog-covered building roof) was pretty solid, and like I said, Ian Keith did really good in his threatening role. It’s also quite digestible, at a solid 56 minutes. To be sure, there’s nothing spectacular here, but there’s also not anything making the film unworthy.

Really, this isn’t a good movie, but it’s definitely not what I’d call a bad movie. Even for the time, it might have been a bit outdated, but it was serviceable, and while below average, when it comes to 40’s horror, you could certainly do a lot worse.

6.5/10

Directed by J.S. Cardone [Other horror films: The Slayer (1982), Shadowzone (1990), Shadowhunter (1993), The Forsaken (2001)]

I can’t say that I love Wicked Little Things, because I don’t, but I do find it a moderately enjoyable film a lot of the time, and though I don’t think it’s great, at the very least it’s a movie that might be worth seeing a couple of times.

The emotional turmoil the main characters are going through (a mother with two daughters who has recently lost her husband) adds a lot of feeling to the film. Lori Heuring works great with Scout Taylor-Compton, and I buy the mother-daughter relationship. Throw in some political messages, and Wicked Little Things shows it has a bit more to offer.

Luckily, I don’t have much cause to speak about my politics in the course of reviewing movies. It may be relevant on occasion (The Thaw, for instance), but for the most part, the fact I’m on the far-left doesn’t really come into play. Here, though, we have children that were killed in a mine accident in the 1910’s coming back for revenge, which I certainly can’t fault them for.

Labor laws in the USA are still quite horrible (look at the lack of power so many unions have – any union that has a no-strike clause is functionally pointless), and if capitalism could get away with it, children would still be working in mines. You can work at 14 years old in many places (with restrictions). God bless capitalism, amiright?

Now, I think a fair point could be made that Wicked Little Things didn’t focus on this that much – even facing a descendant of the mine owner, none of this was on the forefront. Still, if you enjoy the eight-hour workday and the end of the worst of child labor, thank your local socialists and communists, as it’s due to their fight that we have those nowadays.

I wasn’t blown away by Lori Heuring (Hunger), but she did decent, and shined in her scenes with Scout Taylor-Compton (who went on to play Laurie in the Halloween remake). Taylor-Compton was perhaps my favorite performance here, on that note – she did great with the emotional scenes, and possessed a good strength. Chloë Grace Moretz (who later played Carrie in the 2013 movie, and also starred in 2018’s Suspiria) was decent as a child actress, though it’s hard to say that she really stood out.

Not a lot of other performances need be mentioned. I admit I liked seeing Geoffrey Lewis (The Devil’s Rejects), but he didn’t have a whole lot to do. Ben Cross did an okay job, and no doubt Martin McDougall did well as a dickish rich guy, but I do think his character could have done with, well, more character.

I do wish the movie had a bit more oompf come the finale, I admit. There were some elements that I was hoping would be delved deeper into, such as the miner’s lease or the relationship the Tunny family had with the mine-owners (the Carlton’s). I just got the sense a little more could have been fleshed out about some of this, and though the ending was okay, I feel it was weaker than it could have been.

Wicked Little Things isn’t above average, but I don’t think it’s really below average. I guess it’s fair to say, then, I think it’s average. I’ve seen this once before, and I think I enjoyed it more the first time I saw it, but that said, I didn’t have a bad time revisiting this. It’s not great, but it’s not awful, and certainly someone could do a lot worse.

7/10

Directed by Danny Pang [Other horror films: Gin gwai (2002), Gin gwai 2 (2004), Gin gwai 10 (2005), Gwai wik (2006), Sum yuen (2007), Chung oi (2007), Tung ngan (2010), Tong ling zhi liu shi gu zhai (2015), Mo jing (2015), Wang xiang zheng (2016), Warning from Hell (2022)] & Oxide Chun Pang [Other horror films: Bangkok Haunted (2001), Gin gwai (2002), Gin gwai 2 (2004), Sei mong se jun (2004), Gin gwai 10 (2005), Gwai wik (2006), Mon seung (2006), Tung ngan (2010)]

More than anything, I think The Messengers strikes me as being a particularly tepid movie. There’s an okay story here, sure, but the execution is quite weak, and if you leave this movie finding much of it forgettable, I don’t think you can really be blamed.

Part of the problem is that elements of the story aren’t well expanded on, such as the presence of William B. Davis’ character, or the full extent of John Corbett’s character, or why some of these spirits took the actions they did. This stuff wouldn’t be hard to flesh out (well, most of it – trying to make sense of Corbett’s character might take a bit of work), and I think any mainstream horror film wouldn’t have a problem doing such, but for some reason, that’s just not the case here.

As always, the flaws of the plot are of no fault of the performances. Dylan McDermott (Hardware) is perfectly solid as the father here, and Kristen Stewart (Underwater) does quite well as the troubled teenage daughter. Penelope Ann Miller (The Relic) didn’t really do that much for me, and William B. Davis (of X-Files fame), while nice to see, didn’t really add anything but more confusion, but hey, at least John Corbett shone a few times.

The jump scares generally didn’t do much for me. They felt just way too Hollywood, and while the spirits looked occasionally okay insofar as design goes, that stuttering way they moved got sort of old quick. Related to the ghosts, their angle here just sort of bothers me. It’s not the concept, which is okay, and has been done before well, but the execution just struck me as quite weak.

Really, The Messengers might be okay for a single watch – I certainly had an okay time when I first saw this movie. But it really doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny with a second viewing, and just feels quite tepid and disappointing, which is a shame, because the setting at least has some potential.

5.5/10