Reviews – Page 54 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

Ice Cream Man (1995)

Directed by Norman Apstein [Other horror films: N/A]

I won’t deny that part of my enjoyment of this movie stems from strong nostalgia. I saw this film, or at least pieces of this film, quite a bit as a child, and due to that, despite the somewhat goofy idea, I sort of like what Ice Cream Man was going for.

Most of the time, when horror comedies tend toward the goofier, sillier side of things, my enjoyment wanes. There’s not necessarily a whole lot of overly silly scenes here (sure, the giant ice cream cone with a decapitated head is a bit much, but that puppet play was on point), but there were enough to make me cringe a few times. Even with that, though, I found the movie more charming than anything, which, like I said, is probably the nostalgia talking.

Really, as far as the story goes, there’s not really a whole lot happening. A bunch of kids (such as the beautifully nicknamed Small Paul and, even better, Tuna) think the new ice cream man is creepy, and potentially kidnapping the youngsters, and so set out to prove it. It’s pretty much Summer of 84 twenty years earlier (only with 1/10th of the production budget, of course, as Summer of 84 was stylistic as fuck).

None of the main kids, aside from maybe Anndi McAfee, are that memorable, but there are some quality faces in here, such as Clint Howard, David Warner, Olivia Hussey, and David Naughton. Okay, Howard is pretty fun (as expected), but Warner, Hussey, and Naughton weren’t anything special. Warner (who I recently saw when watching Titanic again, and is perhaps most notable for horror fans from The Omen) didn’t have much of a character, Hussey’s (Black Christmas and It) performance was one of the more cringe-worthy portions, and Naughton (An American Werewolf in London) was mostly forgettable, but hey, it was still nice to see some of these people.

Despite being a rather cheesy film, there has always been one part of the story that legit creeped me out, being the asylum scene toward the latter half of the film, in which two detectives, investigating the allegations against the ice cream man, check out the mental institution he was released from. The whole of the scene is pretty unrealistic (in much the same way the existence of Gatlin from Children of the Corn is unrealistic), but it has a rather unsettling vibe to it, and I remember it actually scaring me a bit as a kid. Definitely a personal high-light for me.

Otherwise, Ice Cream Man is pretty much what you’d expect. A few more gruesome scenes, but nothing overly gory, and definitely a very cheesy movie, which, like I’ve said, adds a bit of charm to it. It’s nothing amazing whatsoever, but honestly, it’s a movie I could see myself watching again and again without hesitation, and because of that, I’d probably throw this one an average rating.

7/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this icy hombre.

Crawlspace (1986)

Directed by David Schmoeller [Other horror films: Tourist Trap (1979), Catacombs (1988), Puppet Master (1989), The Arrival (1991), Netherworld (1992), Possessed (2005), Little Monsters (2012), Puppet Master: Blitzkrieg Massacre (2018), Death Heads: Brain Drain (2018), Carnage Collection – Puppet Master: Trunk Full of Terror (2022)]

Honestly, there’s not really a lot to Crawlspace. Oh, sure, it’s short, at only an hour and twenty minutes long, but more to the point, there’s not a whole lot of story here. Girl moves into an apartment building, girl hears strange noises, girl finds out landlord is a Nazi. I mean, we’ve all been there, right?

Well, perhaps not, but it is true that this movie doesn’t really feel that active. It’s not that there’s really a boring moment here, because I don’t think it drags at any point, it’s more that it just felt, for lack of a better adjective, shallow.

Respect where respect is due, Klaus Kinski gives a great performance (apparently he wasn’t that enjoyable off-camera, which was interesting to learn). It’s not that his character is filled with unique backstory or emotion, it’s just that he plays his role in a very creepy, yet subtle, style, and he’s pretty much all you’re watching when on-screen.

Problematically, he’s about one of the only reasons to go out of your way to watch this, though. It’s not that the other performances are bad, or even lacking (I personally enjoyed the main character, played by one Talia Balsam), it’s just that there’s not a lot to this movie, and Kinski’s character is pretty much the focus for a large portion of it.

Hell, most of the kills themselves aren’t exactly that memorable, save for maybe the chair scene, and while I’ll give credit to the ending for being somewhat suspenseful (a chase through air ducts being both claustrophobic and tense), along with the woman trapped in the cage added an additional uneasy vibe, I just couldn’t find it in me to call this an overly memorable movie.

I think I’ve seen this one maybe three times before, perhaps only two. No matter how many times I saw it before this most recent viewing, though, I don’t think I was ever amazed with it. No doubt that Crawlspace is competent, and occasionally compelling, but it’s certainly not much more than that. Not bad with a single watch, but I really don’t think multiple viewings does this one much good.

6.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen to the wonderful video below to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Crawlspace.

Videodrome (1983)

Directed by David Cronenberg [Other horror films: Shivers (1975), Rabid (1977), The Brood (1979), Scanners (1981), The Dead Zone (1983), The Fly (1986), Dead Ringers (1988), Naked Lunch (1991), eXistenZ (1999), Crimes of the Future (2022), The Shrouds (2024)]

David Cronenberg is a director I have a difficult time with. I respect much of the work I’ve seen from him, and Videodrome is no exception, but few of his movies are films I’d actually call enjoyable, and again, Videodrome is no exception.

It’s not for lack of trying, either – I’ve now seen Videodrome something like four, perhaps five, times. I’ve consistently not loved it, and though many of the visual elements are great, and certainly some of the ideas within the movie are worthy of praise, as a whole package, this movie feels more like a mess.

To be fair, much of this is due to the fact that I simply don’t understand exactly what’s going on. “Long live the New Flesh” is a fun saying and all, but what exactly is the “new flesh,” and how does Bianca O’Blivion’s “new flesh” differ from Barry Convex’s “new flesh”? Brian O’Blivion is interesting, no doubt, and I found his appearance on the talk show quite amusing, but his philosophical ramblings, devoid of any practicality, wasn’t my idea of a good time.

Certainly, science fiction that challenges the viewer with new and sometimes befuddling concepts isn’t something that need be a problem. Much like Triangle, though, I just don’t get exactly what’s going on in this movie (and especially toward the end, which I guess isn’t really the end for Woods’ character, just the end of his arc in his current flesh?), and when a movie has great special effects but a troublingly confusing story, that’s a bit of an issue for me.

Like I said, this isn’t something I went into blind – it’s a movie that I’ve seen multiple times. I was actually hoping for a bit more enlightenment this time around, since before now, I’ve not seen this one in quite a long time. Nothing doing, though, which, while that might be a shortcoming on a personal level, I can’t pretend that doesn’t impact my views on the film.

I don’t have that much to say about the performances. I think that James Woods is decent here (and during the talk-show about violence on television, I tended to agree with everything he was laying out), though not really a stand-out performance. Debbie Harry played one of the more interesting characters (for the screen-time she had), and I certainly wouldn’t have minded learning more about Jack Creley’s Brian O’Blivion, but others fell somewhat flat, such as Sonja Smits and Peter Dvorsky. Overall, there wasn’t much to be amazed by as far as the actors and actresses go, but that’s not really a big issue, as that’s not really what this movie was going for.

What it was going for, or at least by far the most memorable thing about the film, was the special effects, which were pretty solid throughout. Obviously there are some very striking scenes (such as a head going into a television screen, and a man poking his hand into a slit in his stomach), and it’s certainly impressive, but I can’t say that it necessarily made up for any of the perceived issues I had with the story.

In many ways, Videodrome is a cult classic that just never did it for me. I certainly respect the film, but like many of the Cronenberg movies I’ve seen (The Brood being the first that comes to mind), the focus on body horror just doesn’t appeal to me. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that the only Cronenberg movie I actually enjoyed was Shivers, also known as They Come From Within, though of course that may change once I finally get around to watching Rabid or Scanners.

Videodrome is a movie that’s worth checking out if you’re a fan of classic horror or science fiction, and especially if you enjoy off-the-wall movies that make you think. It’s just not something I’ve ever really liked, and as such, have to throw it a below average rating, no matter how much that damns me in the eyes of some.

5.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Videodrome.

I Spit on Your Grave: Deja Vu (2019)

Directed by Meir Zarchi [Other horror films: Day of the Woman (1978), Don’t Mess with My Sister! (1985)]

Making a sequel to the 1978 exploitation classic was ill-advised. I don’t know the story behind why this sequel was made (it may perhaps have to do with the remake which came out in 2015, followed by two sequels), but regardless, it wasn’t a great decision.

I have maybe three good things to say about Deja Vu, but I want to deal with the elephant in the room first, and the elephant is the two-and-a-half hour run-time.

Listen, I don’t have a problem with longer movies if it’s epic length is fit with an epic story. Titanic has long been a favorite of mine, believe it or not. But no matter how this movie is spun, it’s not some revenge epic, and it certainly didn’t need to be as long as it was. Now, to be fair, if it were cut by an hour (easily doable), the movie would still be bad, but the fact that this movie runs so damn long is just an insult to the viewer.

Honestly, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a ponderous journey into such a joyless world.

This movie was frustrating at pretty much every turn, and it was hard to really care about anything. Sure, after Jennifer Hill (played by Camille Keaton, of course) and her daughter (Jamie Bernadette) are abducted, you hope they can get out, but only because the kidnappers were wholly unbearable.

Maria Olsen isn’t a name I know, and I’ll give her limited props for being one of the better performances here. I couldn’t stand the idiocy of her character at all (if you’re husband was a rapist, and you don’t understand why a woman would kill him, thinking may not be an active past-time for you), and I couldn’t help but be reminded of Roseanne Barr (that voice, tho…), but her graveside conversation to her deceased husband was one of the better scenes.

Another name that I have to give major kudos to is Jim Tavaré, who played Herman, the mentally-handicapped father to Matthew (from the first film). I honestly think Herman would have been worth letting go, but after a certain point, I understand the need to protect yourself. On this note, I loved his introduction, pointing to a picture of his son and trying to understand why Jennifer killed him all those years ago.

I don’t know if I touched on this in my review for the first film, but killing Matthew was probably a mistake. He never would have done anything if he had a better circle of friends, and obviously, he wasn’t mentally competent enough to understand exactly what he was being told to do. Here, Tavaré also feels rather sympathetic at times (especially following the rape, in which he tried to stand up to the three lunatics), and he definitely stood out.

Otherwise, Jonathan Peacy was unbelievably annoying, Jeremy Ferdman generally forgettable, Holgie Forrester just terrible, and Roy Allen III just lukewarm. Forrester and Peacy were definitely the worst here, but God, the story itself was so damn awful that I don’t personally blame any of the performances here for how the final product turned out.

It might be fair to say that, save for some okay performances, the best thing about this film was the flashbacks to the original movie, and the fact that they tried as hard possible to let us know this was a continuation to an over forty year old film, what with the references and locations. None of the kills here were great, and much of the movie was just ponderous tripe.

There were some occasionally interesting ideas here, such as the idea of revenge being circular (the ending, for instance, could easily led to a third movie, which would be rather regrettable), and the idea of finding a family member decapitated is pretty horrifying, but much of this is drowned out by just how hard Deja Vu is to sit through.

Two-and-a-half hours.

I don’t know the intention behind this film, but more than anything, I found it an insult to the original, which is a shame, given that they got Keaton back, and it’s directed by the same damn guy. Even so, I thought this was just awful.

2.5/10

This is unfortunately one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. If you want to hear my real pain, listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss I Spit on Your Grave: Deja Vu.

Scare Campaign (2016)

Directed by Cameron Cairnes [Other horror films: 100 Bloody Acres (2012)] & Colin Cairnes [Other horror films: 100 Bloody Acres (2012)]

I didn’t go into this one knowing too much about it, aside from the fact the plot sounded interesting and Olivia DeJonge (The Visit and Better Watch Out) was in it. Otherwise, I went in pretty blind, and overall, I’d say that Scare Campaign was a pretty decent movie. Not amazing, by any stretch, but good.

The plot, dealing with a Scare Tactic-like television crew, was pretty unique and, at times, meta (such as DeJonge’s character’s love of horror films). I think it gets a bit more muddled than necessary toward the end, but it was still decent. I do applaud the fact that they kept the movie played straight, when they easily could have moved to a more comedic direction (think Fear, Inc.), so kudos there.

Olivia DeJonge wasn’t the main star here, but I think she did really well in her role. There were some aspects to her character that didn’t really hit as hard as was probably intended, but she still did great. Meegan Warner (who I know only from the woeful The Veil) played a compelling main character, especially with the direction the movie went in during the second half.

I don’t know Ian Meadows, but I liked him here, despite the fact that his character is pretty on the fence between being pleasantly annoying to being an outright dick. Josh Quong Tart’s character was an interesting one, because some of our expectations are a bit subverted, giving his character a bit more depth than we first might think. Most of the other performances are solid, but few stand out like these four did.

As far as the gore goes, Scare Campaign isn’t mind-blowingly awesome, but there were some occasionally great scenes. There’s not really a stand-out scene of gore, at least in my view, but there’s still enough here to keep the casual slasher fan happy.

Though I think the movie is far from perfect, I don’t have any major critiques of the story. I do think some reveals toward the end were a bit weak, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t welcomed, just that they were anticipated. The turn-of-events about halfway through the film, though, really took me for a ride, and I utterly loved it, so Scare Campaign definitely did some things right.

The movie isn’t amazing, but this Australian film is still pretty solid, and definitely worth at least a single watch.

7.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Scare Campaign.

Blood Widow (2014)

Directed by Jeremiah Buckhalt [Other horror films: N/A]

Blood Widow is a movie that has very little going for it. I mean, very little. Like, almost nothing, if not for okay special effects and Kelly Quinn, who played a stereotypical, yet sometimes amusing, hippie character. Even with that, though, this movie is pretty much a waste.

Obviously lower-budget movies can have a harder time making things work, but honestly, the special effects here were mostly okay. True, a few decapitations and dismemberments looked rather weak, but there were some decent butcherings here. The lighting, or lack thereof, is probably the bigger problem, though, as it rendered some of the scenes rather indecipherable.

Performances were generally weak too. I don’t necessarily fault the actors and actresses for the rather awful dialogue (“Check the other rooms” “I am not checking the other rooms” “Please, check the other rooms.” “Fine, what room?” is a quality example), but the characters fall entirely flat and into stereotypical territory, such as the hippie, nature-lover, acid-taker named Harmony (played by Kelly Quinn). Now, I liked this character far more than anyone else, but boy, talk about a walking caricature.

Otherwise, I guess Danielle Lilley was okay, but the way she just accepted her boyfriend’s (Brandon Kyle Peters) immature behavior and consistent lies rubbed me the wrong way. In general, though, I just felt bad for her. Emily Cutting and Christopher de Padua were entirely forgettable, and I think I only wrote their names down here to take up a bit more space. #Professionalism.

I honestly think that, with a few changes, this movie might have been okay. Not great, mind you, just okay. First, instead of 80 minutes (74 if you don’t count the six minutes of credits), just make this an hour. Cut the fat out, especially if you’re going to go with an ending like this one went for. Secondly, try and write a better script that doesn’t feel like a bare-bones, by-the-numbers slasher. Thirdly, invest in some lighting.

For Blood Widow, I honestly thought there was potential. Now, I didn’t go into this one thinking that they were able to make it work (I had seen the extremely low rating this had on IMDb before starting the film), but it still could have been okay if they tried a bit harder in some aspects. As the finished film is, it’s honestly just somewhat pathetic, and save some special effects and a stereotypical character, Blood Widow just isn’t a memorable movie for anything positive.

2/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Blood Widow.

La casa sperduta nel parco (1980)

Directed by Ruggero Deodato [Other horror films: Ultimo mondo cannibale (1977), Cannibal Holocaust (1980), Inferno in diretta (1984), Camping del terrore (1986), Un delitto poco comune (1988), Minaccia d’amore (1988), Vortice mortale (1993), The Profane Exhibit (2013, segment ‘Bridge’), Ballad in Blood (2016), Deathcember (2019, segment ‘Casetta Sperduta in Campagna’)]

In many ways, this Italian movie (generally known under the title House on the Edge of the Park) is a by-the-numbers exploitation flick, and there’s not much here that’s overly surprising (even for a video nasty). At the same time, if you’re a fan of exploitation films, there’s no reason not to check this out, even if it is a little shallow.

For the majority of the film, some rich, rather snobby, people are humiliated, raped, and otherwise under attack from David Hess’ Alex and Giovanni Lombardo Radice’s Ricky. Hess, best known for The Last House on the Left, does a fantastic job, and for his role, Radice does pretty decent too. Few of the other characters really stood out, save Gabriele Di Giulio (who had The Purge’s Rhys Wakefield swag), Annie Belle, and Brigitte Petronio, but everyone did at least okay.

None of the rape sequences here were as revolting as the scenes from I Spit on Your Grave, but there’s an in-universe reason for that, as we find out toward the finale, so that’s probably not a problem (and certainly not something I’d complain about). Speaking of the end, it was nice for this movie to throw a little bit of a twist to us – it didn’t entirely make up for just how dull much of the previous time was spent, but it did throw a bit of meat into the story, and the ending itself was pretty decent.

That said, I just can’t see House on the Edge of the Park being a movie I go back to all that often. It’s well-made and well-acted for what it is, but what it is is a by-the-number exploitation film, and while maybe fun for drive-ins, and certainly possessing some foreign appeal (the soundtrack here was, as the kids say, dope af), it’s not something I particularly loved. It did get better toward the end (some solid nudity from the attractive Petronio helped), but I still think it’s a bit below average.

Certainly, though, if you’re into exploitation movies, and you’ve not yet seen this one, it’s worth a watch.

6/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. If interested in hearing Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss House on the Edge of the Park, listen below.

Bruiser (2000)

Directed by George A. Romero [Other horror films: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Hungry Wives (1972), The Crazies (1973), The Amusement Park (1975), Martin (1976), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Creepshow (1982), Day of the Dead (1985), Monkey Shines (1988), Due occhi diabolici (1990, segment ‘The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar’), The Dark Half (1993), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), Survival of the Dead (2009)]

This movie is a hodge-podge of different ideas, and I think that’s partially why it came across, at least to me, as a mess. It’s part thriller, part romance, part comedy (I guess?), part slasher, and for the lulz, it throws in some music at the end.

Listen, the fact that Romeo directed this doesn’t bother me. I enjoy Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead (I’ve yet to see any sequels past that), but he’s not someone who I’d rate up there in the best horror directors, and if he wanted to change things up with this one, so be it. It’s just that Bruiser is such a mess that it defies almost any enjoyment.

Hell, it’s an hour and 45 minutes, and I watched every second. I still have exactly no idea what “brusier” even means, and that’s a problem, but just one of many.

Primarily, it could be said that the fact Brusier isn’t strictly horror is my biggest personal issue. Don’t get me wrong, even if it focused more on horror and less on the thriller/romance/fantasy stuff, I’d probably still rather dislike it, but it just seemed all over the place, as if it had no idea what it was going for (some scenes were openly comedic, but that never seemed the main idea either).

The whole premise bothers me, to be honest. This living carpet of a man wakes up one morning and his face is all white, probably because he has no identity (well, an overtly aggressive identity, anyway). Why this is is never explained, or how. Or what. It just happens, and it didn’t interest or intrigue me at all, especially once I found out we probably weren’t getting any answers on that anyway.

Jason Flemyng was decent in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but he doesn’t suit the role here. To be fair, no matter who took on the role, I’d have hated it, but even so, Flemyng doesn’t seem right here. Peter Stormare (Fargo) was unbearable in his over-the-top role, and I hated him. Tom Atkins (The Fog, Night of the Creeps, Halloween III) is here, but it also doesn’t do anything at all for me, given how poor the film is.

Listen, I don’t even want to harp on this anymore – for some people, Bruiser apparently worked fine. It’s straddling the 5/10 rating on IMDb, so enough people found it competent, at least. I didn’t. I legitimately didn’t have a good time at all. I felt it was going for some deep message about identity, but it never really makes it clear, and without a focus, it felt like a mess. Oh, and that last scene? Just shows me that the whole thing is a joke that no one bothered to explain.

I’ll throw it a few points for Flemyng’s recital of a poem, though, and for that scene where he shoots his backstabbing friend. Otherwise, this has little to nothing going for it, at least not in my opinion.

4/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Brusier.

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace [Other horror films: Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982), It (1990), Danger Island (1992), Vampires: Los Muertos (2002)]

Despite being a big fan of the first movie, I’ve never once really wanted to see this one, partly because I am such a big fan of the first. I knew that this had returning characters, but I wasn’t really sure where this one was going to go, and I just knew that while the first movie was fantastic, the second probably couldn’t compete.

After having seen it, I can sort of say I was correct, because I did find this film below average, but to my surprise, I did find this a bit better than I thought it would have been.

A big reason for this is the return of Roddy McDowall in the role of Peter Vincent. He’s just as fun here as he was in the first movie, and it’s obvious that he really cares for the well-being of Charley (William Ragsdale, also returning from the first movie). The two of them share some solid scenes, and while nothing is really too emotionally-moving, it was nice seeing the pair of them again. As far as love interest is concerned, Amanda Bearse was dropped entirely in favor of Traci Lind, which was a move I was okay with, as Lind has a very attractive look (especially wearing those glasses – hubba hubba).

One move I didn’t much care for was having the antagonists being a group of vampires (as opposed to just a single vampire and his assistant, as the first film had). Having four vampires here, led by Julie Carmen’s Regine, wasn’t something that really interested me, and led to most of the more comedic scenes (such as that pointless bowling sequence, and the whole of Jon Gries, a character I really didn’t like). In relation, Ernie Sabella’s character was another one that, while a twist was present, I thought was unnecessary. The best I can say about these antagonists is that Brian Thompson was there, who I know as the Alien Bounty Hunter from The X-Files.

Story-wise, Fright Night Part 2 is decent. It’s not great, but I liked Charley seeing another vampire attack, alerting Vincent, and then finding out that it happened during a vampire-themed party. Vincent in particular during that sequence seemed to be having a fun time (at least until he pulled out his trusty mirror). Lind’s character development throughout was somewhat fun, and the scene in which she goes to the state institution was perhaps her highlight.

I’ll give the movie a few mores props for both the music and special effects. The music they use here isn’t too far removed from the first film, and has that wonderfully 80’s synth feel to it. Definitely brought with it a solid vibe. The special effects were pretty solid throughout too, and though I didn’t care for some of the vampire characters, I can admit they did some cool things with them toward the finale.

All-in-all, though, Fright Night Part 2 isn’t anywhere near as good as the first film. It’s still okay, and it’s not nearly as much a degrade as I was honestly expecting, but I much preferred the story of the first movie to this one. The antagonists here were probably my biggest issue, and I think the best thing this movie did was drop Amy for Traci Lind’s Alex. Not a great film, in my view, but certainly not a disastrous one.

6/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Fright Night Part 2.

Seoulyeok (2016)

Directed by Sang-ho Yeon [Other horror films: Busanhaeng (2016), Busanhaeng 2: Bando (2020)]

Commonly known under the title Seoul Station, this animated prequel to Train to Busan was an interesting experience. It’s my first experience with an animated horror movie, and while I appreciated some aspects of it, overall, I just found this one pretty meh.

I guess it’s worth talking about the animation, which was okay. At times, it seemed somewhat sparse (showing a lot of empty streets with zero zombies shambling about seemed off), but that’s fine. The character designs weren’t great (the faces were what most bothered me), but animation’s not my forte, so I wouldn’t say it really impacted my feelings one way or another.

This movie is oddly somewhat poorly sourced on IMDb, so I don’t really have names to going with the voice actors, but some of these characters were very prone to over-exaggeration, such as the homeless man (who apparently was never named), especially during his “I have no home” wail, which, while somewhat dark, did rather crack me up. I understand that over-acting might be common in animation, but it didn’t make it feel any more realistic to me, which was problematic.

Certainly, I appreciate the attempt to pull in some societal issues to the forefront, such as the division between the homeless and the police (when one officer just assumed all the zombies were just angry homeless people, there’s a problem with the system they live in) and the atrocious reaction of both the city police and the military (a bunch of uninfected people easily could have been saved, but instead they’re just hosed back into their area by police, because fuck the people, amiright?), but I don’t think either of these points are really examined as well as they could have been. Even the tragic lives of sex workers is hinted at, but despite potential, this isn’t expanded on as much as it could have been either.

It could be said that the dismal nature of the story was a bit much (there are few characters who actually survive through the film), but for a zombie movie, I can’t imagine that this is really a surprise. Shim Eun-kyung’s character (Hye-sun) was okay, but I was really hoping for a stronger female lead than what she brought with her. Her boyfriend, Ki-woong (voiced by Joon Lee), was pretty pathetic throughout, and Hye-sun’s father, Suk-gyu (voiced by Seung-ryong Ryu), who brings an actually surprising twist toward the end, was decently efficient. Of course, we see him differently by the end, but at least he was good at killing zombies.

Still, Seoul Station is a bleak movie, and while the same could be said for Train to Busan, I think that this is a lot darker, and there’s not near as many fun sequences here (not that many scenes in Train to Busan set out to be fun, but at least the budget they had made them feel more epic). I don’t hate the story they went with, though I do have problems with some aspects (such as the inconsistent time it takes for people to turn into zombies once being bitten).

For an animated zombie film, while I have nothing to compare this too, it’s not an especially poor film. It’s just not especially memorable or worthwhile either, which isn’t much a positive aspect. If you’re into zombie movies, this might be worth taking the time to watch, but I personally think seeing it once was enough, and it just couldn’t match the enjoyment I got from it’s live-action counterpart at all.

6/10