Category: Reviews

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 Even for the time, it might have been a bit outdated, but it was serviceable, and while below average, when it comes to 40’s horror, you could certainly do a lot worse.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

Directed by William Castle [Other horror films: House on Haunted Hill (1959), The Tingler (1959), 13 Ghosts (1960), Homicidal (1961), Mr. Sardonicus (1961), The Old Dark House (1963), Strait-Jacket (1964), The Night Walker (1964), I Saw What You Did (1965), Let’s Kill Uncle (1966), The Spirit Is Willing (1967), Shanks (1974)]

William Castle’s first delve into horror, Macabre is admittedly a bit light. There are some suspenseful scenes at times, and the atmosphere is on point, but ‘horror’ feels a bit strong. Nonetheless, I’m a liberal man, and have no problem considering Macabre a horror film, and more so, have no problem saying that while not great, it’s certianly a nifty one.

Primarily the film deals with the disappearance and abduction of a little girl who has been buried alive, and a chase to find her location before she dies. It’s tense, and being a mystery, occasionally convoluted, but that’s just part of the fun. Based on a novel titled The Marble Forest by 12 authors (each of whom wrote a chapter of the book), Macabre can feel stagey at times, but I still think it’s worth it.

Partially, that’s just due to William Castle’s charm – we’re warned at the beginning of the film to keep an eye out on those sitting around us, lest they show signs of extreme fright (as always, Castle’s films would have been a hoot to see in the theaters). I also like the story, though, and while the ending perhaps could have been executed a bit better, the overall concept is great, and the ending was definitely a nice surprise. Some flashbacks were also used to decent effect.

William Prince consistently reminded me of another actor, but I never could place who. Despite that, he did a very fine job as the lead. Jacqueline Scott was good as a potential suspect, which is something that can fairly be said for most of the cast, though I was hoping for something more from Susan Morrow’s character. It was sort of nice seeing Howard Hoffman here, a year before he played the butler in House on Haunted Hill. Related, Ellen Corby, who I’ve seen in films such as The Strangler and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte was a nice surprise.

One thing that I do think helped this film is the fact much of it took place in a misty graveyard, with trees, vines, tombstones, the whole works. Some of the better scenes in the film took place in this setting, and I thought it brought with it fantastic atmosphere. This doesn’t come close to beating the creepiness of later Castle movies, such as the aforementioned House on Haunted Hill, but I did like it.

And another addition I found charming – the closing credits list the performances of the film divided into those who were dead at the end, and those who were still living. This was coupled with simple animation of hearses and, once we got to the living characters, people walking by. I mean, we’re talking early, black-and-white animation, but it was still just the thing I’m not surprised to see in a Castle movie.

Macabre isn’t anywhere near the calibre of Castle’s best work, be it House on Haunted Hill, Mr. Sardonicus, or Homicidal, but having seen it twice, it’s a nice little introduction to early William Castle, and for that reason alone, I do think that if you’re a classic horror fan, it’s worth seeing at least once, even if it’s not great.

7/10