Category: Reviews

Directed by Matthew Jason Walsh [Other horror films: The Witching (1993), I’ve Killed Before (1995)]

Filmed in Ohio, this rather low-budget horror-comedy, revolving around a serial killer and a young woman who wants to learn how to kill, is pretty terrible. I mean, it’s bad, from dialogue to story. I’ll be damned if it’s not a hell of a lot of fun, though, and while certainly below average, I’ll admit that I did dig this one.

If there’s one main complaint, it’s that the film didn’t need to be almost an hour-and-a-half. They could have shown some restraint and kept it around 70 minutes or so – there were definitely a few sequences that could have been trimmed a bit. I also wasn’t that fond of the ending (or more specifically, one of the twists, as it was), but I mean, for the most part, this movie is what you’d expect going in.

The dialogue is hilariously awful. I think that James L. Edwards, who plays the serial killer, has some of the best lines, and his hammy over-acting is just a pleasure to watch, but certainly Nina Angeloff (“A threesome?! Far-fucking out!”) and Ariauna Albright get plenty of terrible dialogue too.

By no means is this a dig at them as actors or actresses or at the movie’s script – it was clear that Bloodletting knew exactly what it was aiming for, and personally, as a fan of low-budget horror, I had a blast for a large amount of the time, and much of that is directly related to that lovable, horrible dialogue.

I don’t know James L. Edwards or Ariauna Albright from anything else (though the pair of them have been in quite the variety of lower-budget horror in the 90’s and 2000’s), but I thought they worked well together in this film as a bit of a messed up couple. Edwards, like I said, was my favorite performance of the film, but Albright did a great job too, and she was attractive to boot. The only other performance that I suspect I’ll remember was Nina Angeloff’s, who’s exaggerated southern accent (her character’s name was Bobbie Jo) was just heaven.

Sometimes the movie did focus a bit too much on the blossoming relationship, as it was, between the main characters as opposed to random kills. The kills we got weren’t great, to be sure, but the special effects were definitely okay for the budget, plus a – wait, maybe I shouldn’t spoil it. Let’s just say that maybe, if you’re lucky, a baby meets a terrible end via shotgun.

Yeah, that happened, and it was awesome, as it’s a taboo that few horror films seem to stoop to. Call me an edgelord all you want, but I was #ThereForIt.

Anyhow, Bloodletting was a lot more fun than I ever expected. I do wish it was a bit shorter, but beggars can’t be choosers, else wise winners become the losers. At least that’s what Gandhi said.

6.5/10

Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante [Other horror films: Boo (2005), Headless Horseman (2007), Hansel & Gretel (2013), Sharknado (2013), Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014), Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015), Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens (2016), Forgotten Evil (2017), Sharknado 5: Global Swarming (2017), The Last Sharknado: It’s About Time (2018)]

As you can possibly imagine from the title, Zombie Tidal Wave is another in a fine-line of Syfy originals. It even stars Ian Ziering, of Sharknado fame. And you know what? It’s actually not bad. Well, it is bad, but it’s still almost an okay time.

Combining their love for natural disasters and hideous zombies, Syfy outdid themselves with a zombie tsunami (which, on a side-note, it a phrase said by one of the characters, and I for one do not know how Syfy passed on the chance of using that as their title), and it even happened twice. In fairness, I didn’t think that looked too ridiculous, and the zombies themselves (who bleed blue blood and can only be defeated by electrical shocks) didn’t look terrible, but quality special effects were still obviously not the focus for Zombie Tidal Wave.

For whatever else Ziering has done, I thought he did an okay job in this one. He was the action-oriented leader, which, yeah, is both expected and rather generic, but he did it well. Cheree Cassidy didn’t really get enough screen-time to make an extraordinarily educated opinion one way or the other, but she did fine, I guess. Angie Teodora Dick and Tatum Chiniquy both impressed me (as much as any performances can impress me in a movie like this), and I thought Chiniquy did better than Cassidy (who played her mother), so you go, girl.

Not all performances were good, though. I didn’t understand Randy Charach’s character – he was labeled a ‘crazy loner’, but honestly, aside from being a bit standoffish, he didn’t seem that much a nutjob at all. I don’t know what they were trying to do with his character, but I don’t think they did it. Shelton Jolivette was way too much a comedic relief character, and I would have been okay if they dropped him entirely. And though I can appreciate them trying to throw in a character with depth, Erich Chikashi Linzbichler didn’t do it for me.

Throughout, the film is pretty generic as far as both zombie movies and disaster movies go, and combining them isn’t as much a win as Syfy would probably hope, but it’s still a decent movie to throw on and enjoy if you don’t really have much else to do. Below average no doubt, but passable.

6/10

Directed by John Brahm [Other horror films: The Undying Monster (1942), The Mad Magician (1954)]

I’ve been well-aware of this film for years and years – it used to play on AMC what seemed like every week – but it took until now to see it, and I definitely found it an impressive film.

The story of Jack the Ripper is one that I’ve seen in a few other films, from the 1927 The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog and the 1953 Man in the Attic, and this is probably the best one. Man in the Attic was very enjoyable, and went a very similar route as this one, but since this came first, I’ve gotta give this more credit.

We don’t see any over-the-top murders or gore, of course, given this film is from the mid-1940’s, but we do get some very suspenseful scenes and occasionally great moments leading up to what one can imagine are brutal murders. Great use of setting too – I loved those scenes where the police and civilians were enclosed in a small portion of Whitechapel trying to trap Jack the Ripper in the mist, but just unable to do so. Great, great scenes there.

I don’t know if it’s his slightly larger frame, or just his imposing physique, but Laird Cregar reminded me a lot of Victor Buono, so it should go without saying that his performance was top-notch. The sad thing is, as some of you may know, Cregar died in late 1944 at the extraordinarily young age of 30, his final movie Hangover Square being released after his death. With less than twenty roles, I think it’s a damn shame he died that young, especially since he could have had a long-lasting career in horror had he survived into the 1950’s, 1960’s, and into the 1970’s. Cregar was great here, and it’s just a shame.

Cedric Hardwicke (The Ghoul) was solid, and he had one of the more reasonable characters in the film. As his wife, Sara Allgood was fine, though not necessarily stellar (not that really a whole lot would be expected from a character like hers). Merle Oberon does pretty well in her role, and I like her interactions with Cregar’s character, as they always had an undercurrent of growing suspense. Lastly, George Sanders (Village of the Damned and The Picture of Dorian Gray) was a wee bit generic to really stand out, but got more character in the end, so he turned out well.

I was impressed with just how suspenseful this one became at times, and I was also drawn into the whole “is the Lodger actually Jack the Ripper” plot-line as more and more possible coincidences occurred. The Lodger is a strong film, and definitely a highlight of the 1940’s, so I’m glad that I finally took the time to watch this.

8/10

Directed by Abel Ferrara [Other horror films: The Driller Killer (1979), The Addiction (1995), Siberia (2019)]

This is the third version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the original from 1956 being a long-time favorite of mine, and the 1978 version is a favorite of others), and despite somewhat lukewarm expectations, it wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t great – I think the movie failed to feel as epic as the 1956 version did – but it was a decent way to pass the time.

Part of the reason being the setting shifting from the whole of a sleepy town to a military base. I didn’t mind the military base setting, but it didn’t really carry the same wide-spread panic and paranoia that made the original film so great.

The main cast was decently strong. It’s true that I wasn’t much moved by Terry Kinney (I probably could have been, but I think his character was under-utilized) or Meg Tilly (One Dark Night and Psycho II); Forest Whitaker, and, though he was nice to see, R. Lee Ermey (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) were also somewhat pointless.

Otherwise, though, Gabrielle Anwar (Crazy Eights) was pretty good as the main character. She was cute in a bratty way, and bratty in a cute way, so no complaints here. Christine Elise (Child’s Play 2) was fun in her few scenes, Billy Wirth a solid side-character. If Anwar hadn’t done as well as she did, the movie probably wouldn’t have really made an impact, but she did well.

This said, it doesn’t allow the film to possess anymore of a wide-spread feel. For the last thirty minutes or so, things just felt like they were moving a bit far (and the last five minutes, far too fast). The suspense beforehand was definitely preferable to the action that it become. I thought the voice-over by Anwar’s character was a bit hokey, but whateves, it was fun.

Body Snatchers isn’t going to become a favorite, but I had an okay time with it, and I enjoyed the multiple actors and actresses I recognized popping up (even if their character were of little relevance to the plot, such as Whitaker’s character). It’s an okay science-fiction/horror hybrid, but not much more.

7/10

Directed by Richard LeMay [Other horror films: Blood Bound (2019)]

I wasn’t really expecting much from this remake, but I was pleasantly surprised, at least for a bit. It certainly had the chance to be an okay slasher/mystery, but it sort of loses my interest as soon as overt supernatural events come into play.

To be clear, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the original Dementia 13. I thought it made for an okay proto-slasher, and it did have a better, more gloomy atmosphere than this did, but there was room for improvement. This movie looks like it’s going in that direction, but then throws in ghosts and such, which is not what I call an improvement at all. It could have remained a grounded slasher-mystery and I’d have been content, but that ending, along with the small supernatural stuff sprinkled in along the way, just spoils everything, as Sansa would say.

Before it shoots itself in the head, though, Dementia 13 is okay. I thought most of the performances were decent, the film had a few hints of humor throughout, and the setting was pretty good. It didn’t have the same charm or ominous nature the original did, but it was doing well for itself.

Steve Polites had virtually no character. To be honest, it took me a little bit to figure out he wasn’t a child of the mother and actually one of the daughter’s husbands, which isn’t anything against him as an actor, but his character just didn’t have much to give us. Ana Isabelle was pretty stereotypical, which I’m guessing was called for in the script. She was attractive, though, so there’s that. Lastly, on the negative side, Julia Campanelli didn’t really do much for me, and came across as generic.

The others did reasonably well, though. Channing Pickett had the good-girl look down solid, Christian Ryan had a somewhat predictable but fun arc, Roland Sands made for a decent red herring, and Donal Brophy needed more character, but he was pretty solid the time he was on-screen. Marianne Noscheze and Ben van Berkum were my favorite characters here. Noscheze started off being a bit of a brat, but Berkum’s character throughout was good humor value.

Most of the kills here weren’t really that great, and I don’t think that this would have been a new-age classic had they gotten rid of the unnecessary supernatural elements, but I do think it could have been a decently enjoyable and competent slasher that I wouldn’t hesitate to revisit.

With the addition of ghosts (which is something that horror remakes don’t need to do – the 1999 House on Haunted Hill wasn’t any better than the original because they added ghosts, and the same is definitely true for this), though, just makes the film ultimately blah, and not really worth going out of your way for, which is a damn shame.

5.5/10