Category: Reviews

Penny Dreadful (2006)

Directed by Richard Brandes [Other horror films: Out for Blood (2004)]

One of the many movies that I saw a long time back, and remembered very little of going into a fresh viewing, Penny Dreadful was an okay experience. It’s not a good movie, really, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it does possess some decent elements. I don’t think it’s something I’d want to throw on again in the future, but for a one-time viewing, you could do much worse.

Where Penny Dreadful shines, at least in the first half of the film, is the tension, which is built up well. I do think it falls a bit flat the longer the movie goes on, but it can get pretty suspenseful at points. It’s nothing to shame Hitchcock or anything, but I was surprised by how well the tension was held. There were also some occasionally creepy scenes thrown in, which added to the fun.

Problematically, there’s not really enough meat to the story to justify an hour and a half film. For most of the movie, Rachel Miner’s character was trapped in a vehicle, being tortured by her own personal trauma (she has amaxophobia, or a phobia of cars) and a mysterious and violent hitchhiker. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I applaud the movie for being able to minimize their filming location, but I think it might have worked out a little better had the movie been tighter, maybe just 70 minutes as opposed to 90.

As it was, Rachel Miner did a pretty good job. Though she’s not a name I know (she was in Tooth and Nail, from 2007, but I’ve not seen that film in a long-ass time), Miner definitely had the ability to keep my interest in her character’s well-being alive. I was rooting for her all the way though. Mimi Rogers, in her limited screen-time, was solid. Others, including Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, Deadly Blessing, and many others), Mickey Jones, Chad Todhunter, and Tammy Filor, seemed to just be thrown in to add a little more time, and none of them were relevant at all to the story.

This isn’t a particularly gory movie – we do see some people get stabbed, be it in the foot (which was, on a side-note, probably the best kill of the movie) or multiple times in the back, along with the aftereffects of someone’s toe being cut off – but none of these are done in overly gory fashions. It’s more the suspense and surprise that could make these scenes stand out, though I doubt anything here would end up being that memorable.

Overall, Penny Dreadful wasn’t a terrible time. I think my limited memory of the film was worse than how it actually goes. At worst, this movie could be said to be pretty forgettable. It is below average, but again, I’m impressed with a few elements here and there. I don’t think I’d want to see it again anytime soon, but if you want an okay movie to pass the time with, you might as well give it a shot.

6.5/10

Mahakaal (1994)

Directed by Shyam Ramsay [Other horror films: Andhera (1975), Darwaza (1978), Aur Kaun? (1979), Saboot (1980), Guest House (1980), Dahshat (1981), Sannata (1981), Hotel (1981), Purana Mandir (1984), 3D Saamri (1985), Tahkhana (1986), Om (1986), Veerana (1988), Purani Haveli (1989), Bandh Darwaza (1990), Dhund: The Fog (2003), Ghutan (2007), Bachao – Inside Bhoot Hai… (2010), Neighbours (2014), Gentayangan (2018)] & Tulsi Ramsay [Other horror films: Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche (1972), Andhera (1975), Darwaza (1978), Aur Kaun? (1979), Saboot (1980), Guest House (1980), Dahshat (1981), Sannata (1981), Hotel (1981), Purana Mandir (1984), 3D Saamri (1985), Tahkhana (1986), Om (1986), Veerana (1988), Purani Haveli (1989), Bandh Darwaza (1990)]

For the longest time, I’ve found this film quite the interesting find. It’s not great – at two hours and 13 minutes, there’s little doubt that Mahakaal is overlong. Still, this is an Indian movie I’ve long held appreciation for, and definitely recommend checking out, despite it sometimes being a trying watch.

The reason for this is that it’s an Indian rip-off of A Nightmare on Elm Street. A few elements are changed and added, but for the most part, this follows the first A Nightmare on Elm Street to the dot. Elements of the second (some mild possession in the latter portion of the film), third (digging up the corpse of Indian Freddy, named Shakaal), and fourth (fight with an invisible Shakaal, along with a waterbed sequence) movies exist also, which gives more flavor, but like I said, most of the film is following the events of the first movie.

Also, and this may well be unintentional, during the scene in which Anite (this movie’s Nancy) follows Seema (Tina) in a bodybag, when she finally catches up with Seema, Seema begins laughing exactly like the possessed bodies did in The Evil Dead. It’s that high-pitched giggling, and it definitely gave me some flashbacks. I wouldn’t be surprised if, along with the music and plot of A Nightmare on Elm Street, the directors borrowed from the Evil Dead also.

The original content that they sometimes throw in can be pretty powerful, though. My favorite sequence might be the claw gloves popping out of the floor at the hotel in the first half, and out of a wall in the last twenty minutes. It’s cheap, sure, but it’s such a creepy effect. Related, that aquarium sequence was nice, as so few horror films have aquariums (the only one that comes to mind right now was Night School), and though that scene wasn’t long, I still enjoyed it.

Not all the alterations were great, of course – primarily, Shakaal (who, as I said, replaces Freddy) looks pretty shoddy at times. Also, he lacks personality. Unlike Freddy, who couldn’t shut up past the second movie, Shakaal is entirely mute, though he does chuckle quite often. He can certainly be creepy, and Mahabir Bhullar (credited as Mahaveer Bhullar) did fine with what he had, but Englund brought much more life to the character.

Archana Puran Singh is no Heather Langenkamp, but that’s okay. Singh does just fine, as do most cast-members, from Karan Shah (this movie’s Glen) and Kunika Sadanand (this movie’s Tina) to Kulbhushan Kharbanda (this movie’s John Saxon). I think the biggest problem comes from the comedy relief performance of Johnny Lever, whose character spent most of the time dressed as Michael Jackson, and dancing like him. Also, Dinesh Kaushik (who had no equivalent in A Nightmare on Elm Street) felt pretty pointless at times, and I think the movie would have gone over just as well without his character there.

Though certainly a cheap movie, I will give them props for having some pretty creepy filming locations. Early on, when dealing with Shakaal’s nightmares, these people find themselves in what looks to be an old factory, with chains hanging freely down. The location where Shakaal’s body was buried was also creepy (and we only saw it at day-time – I can’t imagine what it’d look like at night), and again, the aquarium was a nice addition also.

Origin-wise, I did like how here, Shakaal was a dark sorcerer of sorts who kidnapped children for sacrifices in order to gain more power. Adds a quality mystical element to it, and that flashback in which he throws a kid into a pit (which looks like it led to a burning fire) was, as the kids say, neato. It doesn’t quite have the same punch of Freddy’s origin, but it’s an okay facsimile.

One last note, being an Indian movie, there are musical portions. If I recall, there’s only three songs here, and problematically, none of them are really that good (or relevant, for that matter). The second one, involving a picnic, might be the most catchy, but I’ve seen a few Indian movies here and there, and I have to say that the musical bits in Mahakaal are definitely underwhelming. At the very least, just be happy that Shakaal didn’t have his own song.

Mahakaal isn’t a great movie, and I don’t love it, and more so, I don’t have a problem saying that the movie is below average. Even so, if you’re a fan of A Nightmare on Elm Street (and really, how couldn’t you be?), I’d suggest giving this a watch just to see what the same story might look like in a very different culture. It’s not a movie that’s like to amaze you, but at the very least, much like it did me, I do think it could interest people.

6.5/10

The Babadook (2014)

Directed by Jennifer Kent [Other horror films: N/A]

This Australian film is one that I have enjoyed in the past, though that was just with a single watch. Seeing it again, though, I have to say that I didn’t care for it nearly as much this time around. Perhaps I enjoyed the allegorical and interpretative nature of the film more in my youth, because while The Babadook isn’t without value, I just couldn’t really get into it.

Part of it is that I do find the story a bit annoying past a certain part. When it becomes clear to the mother (played by Essie Davis) that she’s not able to care for her son (Noah Wiseman) as well as she should be, she should have immediately checked herself into some type of treatment. Sure, they set up a therapist for the son (though that should have been done long before the time-frame of the movie), but when she’s barely able to get any sleep for days on end, instead of being sensible, she just – stays home and continues to fall apart.

I just found elements here more than a bit annoying. Her son clearly had behavioral issues, but instead of dealing with it in any positive fashion, she ignored it, despite clearly knowing her son wasn’t “normal” (which was made clear during her outbursts throughout the film). Though I can understand it’s a straining time for the pair of them (coming up to an anniversary of her husband’s death), the lack of thought she put into trying to do right by her kid drove me up the wall.

I’ll give the movie kudos for having a cool book, though – that Babadook book was beautifully-made (and from my interpretation, probably made by the mother, if the book was ever really there at all), and I’d definitely want a copy of that in my house. Also, the design of the Badadook was decent, though it’s rare in the film that we really get a prolonged great look at it – I know some may prefer it that way, but decisions like that, while they make sense, can sometimes feel a bit lacking.

My largest problem, though, tends to be just how interpretative the movie is. Some say that it’s an allegory on depression/sleep deprivation, which is certainly possible. I do tend to think that the Babadook isn’t a real entity, and that the mother is just utterly insane, but really, with a movie like this, any point of view is perfectly valid. I’d personally like a few more concrete answers, but that may just be me expecting the unnecessary from movie-makers.

The Babadook isn’t without value, which is clear to me, as I’ve enjoyed the movie in the past. It’s also possible that upon a future viewing of this movie, I’ll gain back some of the enjoyment I lost with this run through. As it stands now, though, while portions of the film were impressive, more often than not, it was filled with awkward conversations and felt like Baby Blues for the final thirty or so minutes.

I’m hoping that I’ll enjoy this more in the future, but for the time being, I don’t really think it’s that great.

6/10

Graduation Day (1981)

Directed by Herb Freed [Other horror films: Haunts (1976), Beyond Evil (1980)]

When I first saw Graduation Day, I found it underwhelming, but quickly forgot about it. I can’t say that I’ll remember it much better with this revisit, but I can at least say that it’s somewhat watchable, though far from a good movie.

One thing I did particularly enjoy about this one is the sheer amount of potential suspects. There’s a lot of characters here, and while the answer to who’s behind the killings isn’t an overly creative one, at least they had potential to do more with it.

What’s mildly more impressive is the amount of performances that I actually liked. It’s not just Christopher George (Pieces, Mortuary, and City of the Living Dead) and Patch Mackenzie (who was kick-ass in her moderately short screen-time); we get some decent acting from E.J. Peaker, Michael Pataki (of Grave of the Vampire; also worth mentioning, one of his scenes just cracked me up), Denise Cheshire, all along with a semi-early appearance of Linnea Quigley (Night of the Demons, Silent Night, Deadly Night, The Return of the Living Dead, and hundreds of others). It’s true that E. Danny Murphy’s performance falters at times, but even so, he was still at least okay.

Also, somewhat surprisingly, some of the sequences here were filmed in somewhat interesting ways. The first five minutes of the movie seem like some sports documentary, what with all of these impressive sporty things (pole vaulting, track-and-field type stuff) and concluding with a traumatic death during a run. There’s also a few other scenes, such as Cheshire’s character doing bar-hopping (I’m not remotely a sports guy – there’s these two elevated bars, and she’s jumping from one to the other in impressive fashion) or a juxtaposition toward the end of Mackenzie’s character running from danger to the opening death of her character’s sister. These are just small touches, but they do feel special, especially in comparison to the rest of this movie.

What isn’t impressive, and this is certainly problematic, are the kills. While there’s a decent body count, there are only three kills I’d personally label decent, and one is just barely counted, being a somewhat weak decapitation. There was a character stabbed through the throat with a fencing sword, though, that looked pretty decent, and another character who practices some pole vaulting and lands on some cleverly-placed spikes. None of the kills here are great, though, which is a damn shame, as the movie did have some things going in other departments.

Another problem is that the film, at an hour and 36 minutes, does occasionally feel padded. This might not have mattered had some of the kills been done better, or maybe less time was spent on red herrings (though I do personally love the cop who hides a joint in the barrel of his service weapon – quality guy), but as it stands, it just felt like it was dragging at times.

All-in-all, Graduation Day wasn’t a bad time. It wasn’t a great time, or even that good, but it was fine for a lower-budget Troma-released slasher. If you’re a slasher fan, I’d recommend giving it one viewing, but for most people, this isn’t something I’d really recommend them taking the time to see.

6/10

Body Melt (1993)

Directed by Philip Brophy [Other horror films: Salt, Saliva, Sperm and Sweat (1988)]

Body Melt is a film that I have a bit of a history with, and by “history,” I mean that I have some odd sense of nostalgia for it, despite not having seen it until I was in my late teens. What is more important, though, is despite that, this Australian movie isn’t one I particularly enjoy or really care that much for whatsoever, despite the potential the plot holds.

Let’s take a trip back to my childhood, though, for a brief moment. For a time, my family lived in a medium-sized house in Northwestern Indiana, and when I was maybe nine or ten, I found an old typewriter in the basement. It still worked, and I remember just copying lists of horror movies from the internet (why, I don’t remember, but it entertained me then, so whateves). Some of these movies, though I’d never seen them, just stuck with me – movies like Jack Frost and Uncle Sam, for instance.

And another one was Body Melt.

When I finally saw this one, I have to admit I was disappointed. Partially this is due to how I hyped this up in my own mind, but another has to be the fact that I hadn’t had many experiences with Australian horror movies, and as anyone who’s seen more than a handful of horror films from that country can attest to, they’re not always normal.

In Body Melt’s case, the movie is an odd horror/science-fiction/comedy mix. It’s not easy for me to tell how intentional some of the comedy was, but suffice it to say that the over-the-top feel this movie sometimes had totally turns me away. A good case-in-point would be the sequences at the gas station with some inbred country folk, sequences which I wholly disliked and just found very hard to get through.

The thing is, the special effects are pretty solid throughout, and there are some really disgusting special effects here. They’re often not pleasant to witness (with a title like Body Melt, though, you should probably know what you’re getting into), but they are done well.

Another thing I have to give immense credit to is the plot, which, while I don’t like the final execution, I enjoy the story well enough. The medical conspiracy elements were interesting, some of the background on why the experiments went wrong decent (such as the gas station guy’s relation to the experiments), and that final tracking shot showing the distributed vitamins, while not surprising, was a fantastic way to end the film.

There’s not really much in the way of great performances here. I think the best would probably be the two police detectives, played by Gerard Kennedy and (?) Andrew Daddo, along with Ian Smith as a doctor involved with the medical testing. None of these three were amazing, but they form an okay backbone of the movie. Regina Gaigalas was suitably sinister, but I just don’t know if we got enough background on her character for her to really make an impact.

Ultimately, Body Melt is a movie that I like the concept of much more than I like the final product. There are some interesting and engaging ideas in the movie that I could get behind, but the way they made this just feels too off-the-wall, and I just don’t find watching this that pleasurable of an experience, underserved nostalgic value or not.

4.5/10

V/H/S (2012)

Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin [Other horror films: Devil’s Due (2014), Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’), Ready or Not (2019), Scream (2022), Scream VI (2023)], David Bruckner [Other horror films: The Signal (2007), Southbound (2015, segment ‘The Accident’), The Ritual (2017), The Night House (2020), Hellraiser (2022)], Tyler Gillett [Other horror films: Devil’s Due (2014), Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’), Ready or Not (2019), Scream (2022), Scream VI (2023)], Justin Martinez [Other horror films: Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’)], Glenn McQuaid [Other horror films: I Sell the Dead (2008), Chilling Visions: 5 States of Fear (2014)], Joe Swanberg [Other horror films: Silver Bullets (2011)], Chad Villella [Other horror films: Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’)], Ti West [Other horror films: The Roost (2005), Trigger Man (2007), The House of the Devil (2009), Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009), The Innkeepers (2011), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘M is for Miscarriage’), The Sacrament (2013), X (2022), Pearl (2022), MaXXXine (2024)] & Adam Wingard [Other horror films: Home Sick (2007), Pop Skull (2007), A Horrible Way to Die (2010), You’re Next (2011), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘Q Is for Quack’), V/H/S/2 (2013, segment ‘Phase I Clinical Trials’), Blair Witch (2016)]

I have to admit that, after seeing this one twice, I struggle incredibly hard to see the appeal. It’s not as though the base idea isn’t worth attempting, but the final product here comes across to me as a total mess.

Obviously, the biggest problem here is that almost none of the stories are good. Even the framing sequence is flimsy (and the low-budget British anthology Screamtime did a similar set-up better), and of the five segments (“Amateur Night”, “Second Honeymoon”, “Tuesday the 17th”, “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger”, and “10/31/98”), only two are passable, and that’s being damn generous.

The only thing “Amateur Night” had going for it were occasionally decent special effects, and they faltered horribly come the ending (those wings, tho). “Tuesday the 17th” struck me as a total waste, if I’m being honest. “Second Honeymoon” tried, what with the plot twist, but as the plot twist had little in the way of set-up, I’d say that it failed horribly. “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger” had the most potential out of all of these, but I found the ending laughably atrocious.

“10/31/98” was decent. I think what really pulled that one miles above the others here were the special effects. I didn’t love the story, but once the guys got to the house, we did see some creepy things (hands coming out of the walls, random birds flying by, that random type of stuff), and I appreciated the vibe. I do think the ending (which is also the final scene of the movie, because the framing story doesn’t frame around the final segment, because of course it doesn’t) was lackluster, but by this point, I’m just happy that the movie has finally ended.

And that’s another thing that needs to be mentioned. Not only are most of the stories severely lacking in enjoyable content, the movie is almost two hours. Most of that just had to be wasted time, as if you edit just the interesting things out of each respective story, there’s no way you get more than 15 minutes of content, and again, that’s being quite generous.

One last thing before hitting on one of the few positives of the film – there are almost no likable characters in this whole film. The framing story just gives us guys who routinely sexually assault women and laughs it off as a joke, which isn’t too different from the guys we got in “Amateur Night.” The characters in “Tuesday the 17th” were more generic-slasher types, and were at least bearable, but aside from a single character, there’s no one in V/H/S who is even worth rooting for.

That person is Emily (played by Helen Rogers), from “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger.” Rogers does a great job with her character, and gives us someone quite sympathetic, and her emotional performance near the end of the segment was great. Really, she’s the only performance in this film that even came close to standing out, so definitely I give kudos to her.

Otherwise, this movie is just awful. For the life of me, I cannot see why there seems to be a decently-sized contingent of people who enjoy this one. On the one hand, I am glad that there exists people who get more out of this movie than I ever have (as I have seen this twice now, and I wasn’t impressed either time), but on the other, I just don’t get it. I don’t see what’s impressive here, and when I wasn’t bored, I just felt that, save for some occasionally-good special effects, the story was uninspired.

V/H/S may just be one of those movies that wasn’t meant for me. I didn’t enjoy seeing it again, and I think it’s safe to say that there’s not many circumstances that exist that’d cause me to watch this again in the future.

3.5/10

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

Directed by Ubaldo Ragona [Other horror films: N/A] & Sidney Salkow [Other horror films: Twice-Told Tales (1963)]

As many of you may know, Vincent Price is one of my favorite actors in the horror genre. It’s hard to imagine not liking one of his movies, and The Last Man on Earth, based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend, is not only a quality movie, but one of the finest of the 1960’s.

Not only that, but it has to stand out as one of the most dismal. True, I think the ending of Night of the Living Dead is ultimately more depressing, but the tone of this film throughout is just one of hopelessness and solitude. It has a fantastic aura – the city void of any living beings, which just looked amazing – and for some quality atmosphere, you need search no further.

Of course, Vincent Price is great here. In fact, this is probably one of his best performances (at least out of the movies I’ve seen), and his internal monologue (with perhaps some of the best first-person narration in horror) was just depressing. There’s a scene where he’s watching some old home videos of his now-deceased family, and begins wildly laughing, only to soon turn into uncontrollable sobbing. A damn strong and emotional performance here, Vincent Price knocks this out of the fucking park.

Also worth mentioning is how the story is told. For the first 28 minutes, we get a look into Price’s current life, and how he fills his days (throwing bodies into a burning pit, getting some fresh garlic, searching for the hidden vampires to put a stake through their hearts – all that monotonous fun), and then we’re given a 24-minute flashback as to how the world got to the deserted husk we’ve been seeing. Once the flashback’s done, we come back to the present-day, and Price learns that he may not be as alone as he thought.

None of this is necessarily groundbreaking in terms of story-telling, but I did think that it worked out really well, and just gives a little more flavor to this movie (as though it really needed any).

Another unique aspect of the film is the nature of the antagonists. Technically, they’re vampires, and share many of the traits (can’t stand their reflection in a mirror, unable to operate in daylight, rather dislike garlic, need to be staked through the heart), but really, these things feel a bit more like Romero zombies (and as it’s four years before Night of the Living Dead is released, that is impressive). One thing I personally don’t care for is how these vampires can talk – one just bangs on a door all night and screams at Price’s character. It’s sort of funny, but the idea that this has been going on every night for three years borders on ridiculous.

There’s also something of a twist revealed in the last quarter of the movie, and while I didn’t necessarily love where the movie went afterward, the twist itself was fantastically dark and demoralizing. It’s something that Price’s character doesn’t have a lot of time to dwell on at the time, but it’s such a kick in the face, and I love it (and following the kick in the face that I didn’t love, being the dog, I appreciated it).

I don’t love how the movie ends, which is a shame, as I utterly adored most of what came before. Once Franca Bettoia’s character shows up, while it brings with it the aforementioned twist I love, along with some interesting ideas, I just don’t dig the movie as much, probably because Price is no longer the sole focus, and the sense of isolation (especially in the last 15 minutes) is entirely gone.

One last note is that I really enjoyed the conversations Price had in the flashbacks with Giacomo Rossi Stuart’s character – both are scientists, but Stuart’s character is more willing to believe fantastic theories and in fact, uses garlic and mirrors to repel the vampires before it became fashionable. I wish we had seen a bit more of that guy, because I enjoyed his chemistry with Price.

Were it not for the fact that I don’t love the finale (and never have – this is probably the third time I’ve seen this, if not fourth, and I never cared much for the last twenty or so minutes), this movie would be close-to-perfect. As it stands, it’s still a very strong movie, and I have a hard time imagining any top 15 horror films of the 1960’s not having this smuggled somewhere within it.

8.5/10

I Saw What You Did (1988)

Directed by Fred Walton [Other horror films: When a Stranger Calls (1979), April Fool’s Day (1986), Trapped (1989), Homewrecker (1992), When a Stranger Calls Back (1993)]

This television movie, a remake of a 1965 William Castle movie of the same name, is surprisingly decent. Television horror films can be a mixed bag, especially outside of the early 70’s, but this one is quite solid, and though maybe the build-up does take a bit of time, I was quite satisfied come the conclusion.

Now, I have seen this one once before, but like other films I’ve seen recently, it’s been a long-ass time. If I had to guess, it’s been at least eight years since I’ve seen I Saw What You Did, but twelve years certainly isn’t out of the question. All of this is to show that while I had some vague recollections of this one, I didn’t know exactly just how enjoyable I’d find this one.

A large part of my enjoyment has to come from the performances, especially those of Shawnee Smith and Tammy Lauren. Smith (The Blob and Saw) was fantastic as the goody two-shoes type, and playing the opposite personality was Lauren (who pops up nine years later to star in Wishmaster), who also does a fantastic job. I really liked the growing relationship between these two, and though I’d have liked a bit more on their friendship at the end, I still dug it. Also, as far as Shawnee Smith is concerned, I loved her facial expressions in this film. When surprised or shocked, her eyes and mouth really sell it, and her expressions alone were enough to crack me up at times.

Playing Smith’s little sister was Candace Cameron (now Candace Cameron Bure), who many might recognize as D.J. from Full House. Now, I’ve never watched Full House, but I guess I caught an episode or something once, because I also thought Cameron looked familiar. She’s a little sister, so she is sometimes annoying, but she’s got some amusing zingers and emotional lines in there.

The antagonist here is played by Robert Carradine, and he does a pretty good job playing a character with undefined mental issues (I think it’s some form of schizophrenia), and I definitely felt for him. Playing his brother was his actual older step-brother David Carradine (of Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat fame – oh, and Kill Bill), and he also did well as a concerned brother. I bought their relationship, though the final scene was a little silly.

Quality performances aside, I also felt that the dialogue in the television movie was pretty tight. Dialogue isn’t something I notice all that often (unless there’s a lack of variety, such as Gutterballs), but here, it seemed pretty snappy. I loved the teacher’s pompous statement early in the film (his exact quote being: “You are a distinguished addition to our school, Miss Fielding; however, when you shine you expose the dullness of the rest of the students. Like Gatsby’s sight across the bay, a shrill reminder of our own mediocrity”), and there’s a decent amount of lines that I found quite amusing (such as “I hope you liked it,” and “He had teeth, Julia”). Just made for a funner experience.

Being a TV movie, there’s not much in the way of violence or special effects here. Some of the attacks are decent – the first slow-motion one perhaps more amusing than anything else – but this isn’t the movie to go to for that type of stuff. There was a fire toward the end, but this movie is more the set-up than the action.

Which I can imagine wouldn’t enamor some people, and I couldn’t blame them if they left this one feeling disappointed. For me, though, given I loved the central performances, I can’t really complain about too much here. I’m not saying that this remake is amazing (and to be fair, I’ve not even seen the original Castle version as of yet), but I did really get a kick out of a lot of it, and that’s all that matters to me.

8/10

Nine Lives (2002)

Directed by Andrew Green [Other horror films: N/A]

So at the time of this writing (7/22/2021, should the reader be interested), Nine Lives has a rather poor rating on IMDb. Sporting a 2.3/10 with 3,372 total votes, Nine Lives is probably one of the worst received British horror movies ever made. I know when I first saw it, it didn’t do much for me.

Seeing it again, though, I personally think that maybe people are being a bit harsh.

Don’t get me wrong, this is certainly not a good movie in many senses (aside from the setting, which is pretty solid, and the occasional decent performance), but I found a lot of it moderately tolerable, and again, while it’s not good, I don’t really understand exactly why this has gotten such terrible ratings. I mean, yeah, it’s not great, but is it as awful as 2.3/10? Maybe to some people, but I don’t see it.

The biggest issue I have with this movie is how it just throws nine characters into our faces with little context, and it took about thirty minutes for me to really get the characters and their relationships down. True to the title, there are indeed nine lives, so look forward to meeting Emma, Jo, Laura, Pete, Tom, Tim, Andy, Lucy, and Damien.

Of these nine, I actually enjoyed four of them, being Amelia Warner (Laura), Patrick Kennedy (Tim), James Schlesinger (Damien), and David Nicolle (Pete). Warner was pretty cute here, and she had some strong scenes, but out of all of them, I think Nicolle stood out the most. A big part of this, I’ll be entirely honest, is that I liked his Scottish accent, and he reminded me of Iain De Caestecker (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) consistently.

When it comes to the other five, none are terrible, but they don’t do anything for me. Lex Shrapnel (Tom) was fine, but didn’t do that much. Paris Hilton (House of Wax and Repo! The Genetic Opera) was playing the same character she always seems to, so yeah, that’s fun. Ben Peyton, Vivienne Harvey, and Rosie Fellner didn’t have much in the way of personality, but like I said, they’re not terrible.

The story is somewhat weak, what with a body-hopping spirit (?) going through a group of friends and killing them (with some weak-ass kills, such as simple stabbings that aren’t even on-screen), and while we get some backstory on this spirit, it just feels shallow a lot of the time. I think that part of it might be that Nine Lives is around 85 minutes, and just feels too long. If ten minutes, hell, even 15, were cut, I think it’d help things out.

Also worth mentioning is the final scene, following the chaos of the finale. We get some first-person narration from a survivor, and it’s just so damn dramatic that it’s legit funny. I mean, I laughed twice during it, and then rewatched it. It reminded me of the final scene from Bates Motel in just how corny it was, but like Bates Motel’s ending, I really enjoyed it. It was terrible, but it was funny, so no complaints.

Nine Lives isn’t a good movie, but honestly, I don’t get the hate. Personally, while I think it’s weak in plenty of aspects, I could easily see myself watching this in the future just for the entertainment value. It may put me in the unenviable position of having to give this one an almost okay score, but screw it; I’ll find a way to live.

6/10

Death Warmed Up (1984)

Directed by David Blyth [Other horror films: The Horror Show (1989), Red Blooded American Girl (1990), Wound (2010)]

This New Zealand production is such a madcap movie. I don’t necessarily mean that it’s zany or even fun, but it does have a bit of a wild feel to it, and while it’s definitely not what I’d call a good movie, at least Death Warmed Up has flavor.

Luckily, the plot never feels too out there, as we have a good idea of what’s going on from the beginning. Things get a bit hectic toward the end, what with an outbreak of mutated people causing havoc, but the story never gets overly confusing or at any point nonsensical, which I can appreciate.

Also, while it’s hard to say that anyone really stands out as far as performances go in this movie, most of the central actors and actresses were at least decent. Michael Hurst had a pretty unique look to him, and his character was pretty tragic (that opening was just beautiful). Margaret Umbers, William Upjohn, and Norelle Scott all worked well as friends, and I bought their performances. Gary Day did great as the amoral scientist, and as a lesser antagonist, David Letch (who was also in Mr. Wrong, as was Umbers) was notably threatening.

The special effects and gore were never the biggest focus, but there were plenty of mutated patients (though they were never really in focus, so the extent to their mutations weren’t that clear), some gory skull removal during some operations, a few slit throats here and there, aftereffects of a massacre. None of it was great or really memorable, but at least it was there, and more so, at least it all seemed competently done.

One thing that amused me was the fact that some of the scene transitions used what I’d refer to as Powerpoint slideshow transitions – it didn’t take away from the movie or anything, but it just looked sort of funny, and I can’t think of many movies that use transitions quite like this one did.

The opening, as I alluded to earlier, was pretty solid. You have a guy using a shotgun against two people, and the results looked quite gory. Not that the movie dragged later on or anything, but I think the beginning to Death Warmed Up did a good job at making us, as the audience, wonder what’s coming next, because for this movie, it’s not always that easy to tell.

I find the movie amusing, though there wasn’t much in the way of humor actually in the film proper. It just seemed all over the place, and though there was a coherent story, Death Warmed Up just felt weird. I’ve seen this once before (I own it on the Pure Terror 50-movie pack from Mill Creek Entertainment), and the only scene that I remembered vaguely (as it’s been at least ten years since I’ve seen the movie before this rewatch) was the chase in the tunnels, which was a bit dark as far as lighting was concerned, but moderately suspenseful.

Truthfully, I don’t really like Death Warmed Up, but I can’t find it in me to really dislike it. I do think the movie is a bit below average, but at the same time, this is one that I could easily see myself diving into again in the future, if just due to how odd some of it is. If you’re into New Zealand-based horror, give it a look. You could certainly do worse than this.

6/10