Category: Reviews

The Thaw (2009)

Directed by Mark A. Lewis [Other horror films: N/A]

Here’s a somewhat interesting movie. I saw this some years back, and it didn’t work with me. Something about it felt off, despite the story itself being perfectly valid. Seeing it again confirms my previous feelings, and while I can’t really put words on exactly my problem with this one, I do know that I find it underwhelming.

Let me get this out of the way first, though, given this movie is centered around the dangers of climate change: I 100% accept that climate change is man-made, and that the governments of the world must find a way to combat it, be it shutting down the worst industry offenders or throwing CEOs of oil companies into prison. Taxing them into oblivion or nationalizing them, I don’t care. I just know something needs to be done, or this planet is just doomed.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think anything can happen that will set changes that are necessary in motion. I truly don’t think, at this point, we can do anything, especially when, in my country of the USA, both the Republican and Democratic Parties are okay with the continuation of capitalism, which, in turn, will only allow for more profit to be made despite harm to the environment, and so we’re screwed.

That’s just my potentially negative view, and I say all of this because, when it comes to the plan of Dr. Kruipen (played by Val Kilmer), I honestly can’t really blame him for his actions. It’s obviously not ideal, but on the other hand, he was pushed into a wall, and if this was the only way to cause the necessary changes to help stop man-made climate change, then that’s on the system and not on his actions.

This isn’t a political blog, of course, and if it was, I’d have many less readers. If you want to read rants from an angry socialist, then I’d recommend my personal Twitter page. Some movies, though, need some political context. If someone reviewed this one, and didn’t believe in climate change, or thought it was the natural order of things, that may well leave a negative view on the film. I do accept man-made climate change, I do accept it’s harm, and I still don’t much care for this movie.

Part of this is due to my disinterest in Val Kilmer. To be honest, he never gets much screen-time, but something about him just really rubs me the wrong way (and, to be fair, it may be because I can’t see him without thinking about a terrible movie I once saw called The Steam Experiment, which actually wasn’t too different in theme from this one). 

So I don’t much care for Kilmer. Most others do fine, though no one really does great. Aaron Ashmore instantly struck me as familiar. I have seen him once before in a television movie titled Fear Island, but it’s more that his twin brother Shawn Ashmore played Iceman in the X-Men movies. Aaron Ashmore was solid here, and he even sympathized a bit with Kruipen’s plan. Martha MacIsaac, Kyle Schmid (also in Fear Island), and Viv Leacock are all decent too.

At times, The Thaw was solidly harrowing. There is a scene in which a character’s arm is cut off with a meat cleaver at the elbow, which was a pretty painful scene. Other instances worth mentioning are various insect-in-body portions, which has always been a sort of creepy idea. A bug getting into your body and planting eggs? Yeah, no thank you. Special effects throughout were decent, and though the bugs themselves sometimes looked too heavily CGI laden, it wasn’t deeply detrimental.

Despite positive performances, a story that’s not too shabby, and solid special effects, though, The Thaw just doesn’t do it for me. Something about it almost feels hollow, and while I appreciate more than a few things in the film, I don’t really enjoy much of it, and that’s the problem. It may well be worth seeing – the movie, in of itself, is well-made – but it’s not my cup of tea, and there’s many other things I’d rather throw on than this.

5.5/10

The Shining (1980)

Directed by Stanley Kubrick [Other horror films: N/A]

I don’t want to spend a long time on this. I just want to get in and get out, while still being 100% honest about my views.

I don’t like the Shining. At all.

At best, I find the movie around a 5/10, certainly below average and definitely not a movie I’d want to watch too often. Now, to put my views in context, I don’t dislike the movie because it deviates from the novel. I’ve not read the novel as of yet, so unlike my views on the 1990 It mini-series, the book has nothing to do with it.

The concept in The Shining is interesting, but there are far too many unanswered questions come the end (Who was that old woman? Who was in that bear suit? Why was there a bear suit? Why was Torrence in that picture at the end? What was the use of ‘Tony’ at all? Why did Windy see those skeletons at the end, and that flood of blood meant what, exactly?) and I frankly didn’t enjoy much of this.

I’ll give it that Jack Nicholson does well here, though elements of his character bother me (such as the idea that he literally didn’t write a single word of his novel, and just automatically went into his “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” repetition). He did decent here. I didn’t like Shelley Duvall at all, though (she pretty much bothered me throughout the whole of the film), and Danny Lloyd did nothing for me (I don’t hold that against him, as he was a kid). And I gotta say, Scatman Crothers doesn’t do much for me either.

Both Philip Stone and Joe Turkel were good, but without an explanation as to exactly what they are (ghosts of previous people who do the hotel’s manipulation is my guess). Regardless, it goes back to unanswered questions, and while I know that the book might touch of some of these, the fact that the movie just doesn’t bother is something I find a problem with.

A lot of people love this movie. That’s cool. You do you. But I’ve seen this three, maybe four times now, and I never loved it, never liked it, never really enjoyed it. It’s a struggle to get through, and once I do, the best I can say about it is that it finally ended. The Shining isn’t a movie I enjoy.

And since I’ve probably pissed off some people already, let me just throw this in: the 1997 mini-series version of The Shining is a lot better in my eyes, and actually worth watching.

As for this one? Yeah, I can do without.

5/10

Broadcast Signal Intrusion (2021)

Directed by Jacob Gentry [Other horror films: The Signal (2007), My Super Psycho Sweet 16 (2009), My Super Psycho Sweet 16: Part 2 (2010), My Super Psycho Sweet 16: Part 3 (2012)]

I had higher hopes for this film after I read the brief synopsis. It sounded like a potentially solid film, and I was more eager to see this one than I have been for many of the movies I’ve seen in the past week. As it is, I don’t think Broadcast Signal Intrusion is a terrible movie, and it will work for some people, but I was ultimately unsatisfied come the finale.

Certainly the movie had a very unique vibe. It felt like a new-age version of Videodrome, almost, with a sort of isolation prevalent throughout the film, and elements of obsession, and paranoia too, playing a part. It’s not even a disengaging story – I enjoyed aspects of what the movie was going for. But I don’t think the finale really did all of these elements justice.

Honestly, it’s not an easy film to discuss. I found the conclusion a bit of a mess, and I was definitely hoping for more, especially given the fact they knew what they were doing as far as production went, as the movie looks quite nice and has solid cinematography. Even so, for a movie that almost lasts an hour and 45 minutes, I was expecting a decent amount more.

Harry Shum Jr. pretty much carried the film. I don’t mean that in a negative sense – he’s the focal character, and appears far more than anyone else. I personally don’t understand elements of his character, but as the film said, grief touches people differently; either way, Shum Jr.’s performance was strong. I also liked both Kelley Mack and Steve Pringle, though neither one really had quite the impact or importance I was personally expecting.

And perhaps a lot of this is on me. I was eager to watch the movie, but I didn’t really know what to expect from it. It’s not that Broadcast Signal Intrusion is incoherent or anything, but it can feel oppressive at times, and while I wouldn’t describe it as ‘confusing’, it can be hectic and heavy. There seems to be a lot of moving pieces, and it’s hard to see where different characters are coming from (such as Kelly Mack’s character, who is a mystery throughout, or Madrid St. Angelo’s character, who I didn’t get at all).

The largest drawback is the ending, which isn’t only inconclusive, but it think it gives us more questions than anything in the film managed to answer. In a way, I sort of get it – we’re warned constantly to not go down a rabbit hole of a potential conspiracy, lest we lose our sense of reality, so maybe not everything has the answers that we might be looking for – but even so, I can’t say that the final few minutes weren’t deeply unsatisfactory.

It’s also worth mentioning that the horror here is a bit muted. I mean, it’s definitely a horror film, I don’t want to give off the impression that it’s not, but aside from a few creepy dream sequences, a rather jolting ending, and a scene of an individual slitting his throat, there’s not a lot of traditional horror here, which is where the oppressive atmosphere (again, think Videodrome) plays a large part.

Another thing has to be said about the nature of the story. It takes place in 1999, and I think it does a good job showing technology as it was back then, from old chat conversations online to clunky video cameras and the like. Also, delving into a mystery of unsolved broadcast signal intrusions (think the Max Headroom hijacking from 1987) is a fascinating idea, and the mystery itself wasn’t bad, save for the ending.

In the end, I think that Broadcast Signal Intrusion had a decent amount going for it, but it’s not an easy movie to really explain and an even more difficult movie to really recommend. It’s probably worth seeing just to feel the vibe of the film, which is increasingly uneasy as it seems that the central character keeps making a mistake in digging deeper into the mystery, but I don’t know if that really makes it an enjoyable experience.

By no means a bad film, ultimately, I do feel that this movie falls a bit below average. It wasn’t without promise, and it did do some things right, but I don’t really think it’s much more than that, as much as I might wish otherwise.

6/10

Inferno in diretta (1984)

Directed by Ruggero Deodato [Other horror films: Ultimo mondo cannibale (1977), Cannibal Holocaust (1980), La casa sperduta nel parco (1980), 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’)]

Commonly known under the title Cut and Run, this Italian movie is somewhat styled after the cannibal movies popular five years prior. Ruggero Deodato directed two of them (Jungle Holocaust and, most famously, Cannibal Holocaust), and came back to do this one, but it’s a surprisingly tame affair.

Make no mistake, if you watch the uncut version of this one, you’re going to get a lot of solid gore (such as a quality decapitation and, perhaps the best scene, a man being pulled apart by the legs), but there’s no cannibalism whatsoever in the movie, and I can’t help but feel the movie’s not near as gritty as it should be.

That may not even be the biggest problem, though. Portions of the story were sort of interesting, but I have to admit to losing interest around halfway through, and Richard Lynch didn’t engage me in the least, especially during his inane philosophical ramblings toward the end. Lynch (who was far better in Bad Dreams) wasn’t a great antagonist, but even the best antagonist here (Michael Berryman) disappeared halfway through the film, and when he popped up again, it was somewhat pathetic.

I just didn’t care that much for the plot. I liked the attacks by the native tribes (that opening sequence was on point), and Berryman made for a very scary opponent (I last saw him in Deadly Blessing, but I’d put this performance perhaps second only to The Hills Have Eyes), but I didn’t much find interest in Willie Aames or Valentina Forte at all. Lisa Blount (Prince of Darkness) was fine, but I wasn’t impressed by Leonard Mann and definitely not by Karen Black.

The gore here was great (and, again, I highly recommend the uncut version), but that’s really all that was great. The jungle setting was good, but why watch a watered down movie like this when you can just go to Jungle Holocaust, Mountain of the Cannibal God, or hell, even Man from Deep River (which I didn’t even care that much for)?

Cut and Run is an okay movie. I think it’s certainly below average, but I’d still recommend it to fans of the classic Italian cannibal movies, even though, in my opinion, this couldn’t quite capture the same vibe of them.

6/10

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

What Happens in the Mountains – Should Stay in the Mountains Part II (2021)

Directed by Stacey Alexander [Other horror films: What Happens in the Mountains – Should Stay in the Mountains (2018)]

I was somewhat surprised to see a sequel of the low-budget 2018 movie come out. I always figured it for one of those one-hit wonders, so when I was informed a new movie came out, I was eager to check it out, especially since it was a tad longer, running about an hour in length.

Overall, I’d say it’s a generally better film. I can’t swear that it’s more fun than the 2018 movie, but I can say it’s probably just as fun, so if you enjoyed What Happens in the Mountains – Should Stay in the Mountains, checking this one out might not be too shabby an idea.

Honestly, the film took a turn that I wasn’t quite expecting toward the final twenty minutes or so. Perhaps I should have been, as portions of the film had suggested it up to that point, but I was surprised nonetheless, which I appreciated. What I also appreciated was more of a story here – the first movie, while fun, wasn’t big on plot, so the fact this film had one was quite nice.

The story is moderately interesting at times. You have increased Bigfeet sightings around this mountain in Georgia, an aggressive police detective (played by Steve Pence) who believes Buck (Stacey Alexander) is responsible, a reporter (Sandy Walton) asking questions about John Tripwire’s character from the previous film, and throughout all of this, life seems more difficult for Buck, who even sees a therapist (Dave Weinthal), which goes about as well as you’d expect.

It’s not a movie with a complicated plot or anything, but it can sometimes feel busy, which I sort of liked, especially after the free-form feeling of the first movie. Naturally, there were some amusing lines, and it’s not easy to choose the funniest.

Of course, there’s the word association (a scene which probably went on too long) one that got me laughing: “Mountain.” “BIGFOOT!”. Or Buck’s character explaining that “Bigfoot raped me,” and when asked where it happens, he replies “It sure didn’t happen in Motel 6, I’ll tell you that.” And how can I not mention “Let’s talk about what’s bothering you, besides my wife drives a Porsche” and another Buck classic question, “Have you ever been tied to a tree in Chattooga County and raped by an inbred that just escaped from prison?”

On the whole, I would say that the movie probably has more humor in it than I’d prefer during certain scenes, but that doesn’t hurt quite as much as there’s also a decent amount more going on in the story, which can partially cover it. Some scenes, such as the conversation with the therapist, could have been cut a bit, but honestly, I don’t have complaints about much of the movie.

Naturally, I think Stacey Alexander’s wild performance is quite amusing. There’s a bit more to his character here too, and while I would have preferred if some of it had been delved into, I appreciate that they wanted to do a bit more with this. Others, such as Wade Ridley and Dave Weinthal, had some strong moments, though it’s important to note that neither is terribly important to the story. Steve Pence was solid also, and I enjoyed his staredown with Alexander’s Buck.

Being a lower-budget film, the kills are about what you’d expect. There was a decapitation, which was technically weak, but oddly fun. Really, that’s probably the most stand-out kill, as the others, while decent (especially the final kill of a man on a boat) didn’t have a lot to them. And I also mentioned this in my review of the first film, but I enjoyed the scenery here – filmed in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, there’s a decent amount of natural beauty to be found in the film.

What Happens in the Mountains – Should Stay in the Mountains Part II isn’t an amazing film, and if you come into this one without really knowing what you’re coming into, you may well find it’s not your type of film. The humor doesn’t always land, and it’s certainly not for everyone. Personally, while I think both films had their strong points (for instance, while the Bigfoot howl I love is in the film, it made far more appearances in the first movie), I think this movie is a bit better, though not amazingly so.

6.5/10

Wrong Turn (2003)

Directed by Rob Schmidt [Other horror films: The Alphabet Killer (2008)]

In some ways, I do view this one as a modern-day classic. It’s not amazing, by any means, but it’s consistently entertaining and solidly gruesome (though honestly, there’s not really a ton of onscreen onslaught), and had we not been over-inundated with sequels, I think this one would stand out more positively to a larger population of horror fans.

The story here is simple, and takes from such classics as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or The Hills Have Eyes (and in fact, I wonder if this movie had anything to do with The Hills Have Eyes being remade just three years later), the only difference being that this movie feels more real than either of those two. Taking place in the dense forests of West Virginia (though filmed entirely in Canada), the setting was solid, and the plot, though simple, quite effective.

I think a lot of this comes from the fact that the characters here are mostly decent people. I think that Desmond Harrington’s (Love Object) performance is a little one-dimensional, but Eliza Dushku was great as a kick-ass female protagonist, and I really liked Jeremy Sisto (Population 436) here too. Emmanuelle Chriqui was the least-engaging of the four main characters, but Lindy Booth was attractive, so there you go.

The action here is also pretty top-notch, with a few chase scenes in tree-tops, and some bow and arrow action. Perhaps my favorite scene is when the three inbred killers are chopping up someone while the four characters are hiding in their shack. We never see much, but it has a gritty, brutal aura to it all the same. Even the conclusion was decently-believable action, and overall, I didn’t have a lot of complaints when it came to the action, or the various tense scenes here (the watchtower too being a scene worth mentioning).

Like I said, I don’t think the movie is necessarily special, and it’s somewhat bare-bones in it’s presentation (though I do think that works to it’s favor), but I’ve always enjoyed this one, and seeing it again after many years only confirms that. I’ve not seen all the sequels (the second, third, and fourth are all I’ve gotten around to, and none come close to this one), but I doubt any of them would be as solid as this one is.

8/10

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

The Incredible Melting Man (1977)

Directed by William Sachs [Other horror films: South of Hell Mountain (1971)]

So I’ll give this movie an A+ insofar as the special effects are concerned. Very solid, gooey, slimey stuff. Beside that, though, this is an utterly dull movie with very little going for it.

Really, the title appropriately pulls you in, but the movie’s not necessarily schlocky or anything. It has that very serious 70’s tone (save for a little comedic relief thrown in by Edwin Max’s and Dorothy Love’s characters) that’s dry as all hell, and while I sometimes appreciate a somber atmosphere, I was more bored than anything. In fact, it reminded me slightly of the awful Another Son of Sam, though this wasn’t quite as bad.

It was still bad, though. Honestly, Edwin Max and Dorothy Love are the only two characters here with, well, character. Burr DeBenning, Myron Healey, Ann Sweeny, Michael Alldredge, Lisle Wilson – all boring as hell. I don’t know how much any of them can be blamed, but boy, talk about stilted performances. Cheryl Smith gave us a little nudity, though, so kudos to her.

Like I said, the special effects here are certainly worth seeing. Even the conclusion is more somber than you’d expect, so there’s a little here that almost make it worth the trouble, but that may be a bit generous. The special effects were great, but when the story’s so damn dull, it doesn’t really make a difference.

The Incredible Melting Man certainly had a melting man in it (and when he fully melts toward the end, again, it’s impressively depressing), but it’s not near as fun a story as you might hope. There were some unintentionally funny scenes (such as that slow-motion run near the beginning), but more often than not, it’s just an excruciatingly slow movie, and save the effects, really isn’t worth it.

4/10

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

Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004)

Directed by Brett Sullivan [Other horror films: The Chair (2007), A Christmas Horror Story (2015)]

I didn’t particularly love this sequel when I first saw it, and while I enjoyed it a bit more this time around, this still isn’t a movie I’d see myself going back to too often. In truth, I might find Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning more an enjoyable movie, but with that all said, this isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not great.

Emily Perkins is pretty solid, of course, and in her limited role (simply as a vision Brigitte often has) Katharine Isabelle was too. Perkins does come across as pretty desperate throughout the film, and while I have qualms with the story, I think she puts in a good performance. Tatiana Maslany’s Ghost was an interesting character. Half the time I was interested, half the time I hated her. Still, Maslany herself did good with the role. I do wish that Brendan Fletcher (Freddy vs. Jason) appeared more, Janet Kidder made no impression on me, and Eric Johnson’s scummy character was eh.

The first half of the film, much of which took place in a rehab facility, was pretty enjoyable, but once Brigitte escapes with Ghost, I wasn’t as enamored. I think part of this is due to Ghost’s character, who I found pretty odd and disconcerting throughout. It was sort of nice for Brigitte to find a new “sister”, and I do appreciate their budding friendship, but even so, Ghost was a strange character. Also, while I like the idea of a werewolf hunting Brigitte down to mate, I wish we got actual confirmation as to who that werewolf was.

What’s most questionable here is the conclusion. I’ll say that on the surface, I rather dislike it, but if taken as a dream, or a fantasy of one of the characters, it’s almost bearable (but then, if you choose to look at it that way, there’s not much of an actual ending at all). I don’t know how much it hurts the movie as a whole, which I found around average even before the ending hit, but it wasn’t really the direction I’d have gone.

A bigger part of this is that I’m not entirely sure Ginger Snaps really needed a sequel to begin with. What brought the first movie to life was the entirely believable sibling relationship between Brigitte and Ginger, which is obviously lacking here. Ginger Snaps 2 does fine, I guess, but it just lacks the magic of the first movie, which is disappointing. Like I said, though, I think I actually enjoy The Beginning more than this one, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

6.5/10

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

Wrong Turn (2021)

Directed by Mike P. Nelson [Other horror films: Summer School (2006), The Domestics (2018)]

Well, I had heard that this remake was quite different from the original, and boy, was it ever.

I thought there was a decent amount to like about Wrong Turn. Certainly there were problems – the film’s around an hour and 50 minutes, and it definitely feels like it at times. Many characters during the first third of the film make utterly idiotic decisions, something that also happens late into the movie with Cory Scott Allen’s character. Also, there’s a sequence during the finale that I disliked

Otherwise, though, I found the movie a pretty good experience.

There’s a bit to this one, given the length. The movie really feels like it has three separate parts, four, if you want to count the finale. It almost feels daunting at times, too, given the uncomfortable atmosphere during some of the scenes. The movie isn’t violent often, but when it veers that way, it can only increase the uneasiness one might feel while watching this.

I’m not entirely sure why they decided to create this film as a remake to Wrong Turn – elements are similar, I guess, though they randomly decide that Virginia is a more reasonable setting that West Virginia. It’s quite different though, and I suspect many who enjoy the Wrong Turn films might find the various alterations here somewhat difficult to swallow.

If I have one large problem with the movie, it’d be that I doubt how realistic some of the film is. There’s a small, secluded, separatist community in the film, one with rather a merciless and unbending moral code which applies even to outsiders, and while I can buy that perhaps this community can live side-by-side with the modern world, with little interaction, I have a harder time believing that, in the modern day, they would be able to get away with what they’re up to for long. It just takes a helicopter flying over their home, and it’s national news. In fact, I’d love a sequel in which the FBI swarm the community, and we get a Waco massacre situation.

Regardless of whether or not the community is realistic in the modern day, I was deeply interested in the foundation of this community, and the reason they separated themselves from the rest of society. I won’t spoil anything, but I personally thought it was a pretty cool idea, though it did lead to a somewhat predictable choice that Adain Bradley’s character makes.

And speaking of the cast, it’s pretty strong. The movie first focuses on six friends (Vardaan Arora, Charlotte Vega, Dylan McTee, Adrian Favela, Emma Dumont, and Adain Bradley), but really, out of these six, only Vega and Bradley are really important. I did sort of like Dumont’s (The Body Tree) character, but most of these individuals have obvious flaws, such as the aggression displayed by Dylan McTee’s (The Wind). Boy, did I feel bad for Adrian Favela’s character, though.

I can’t say Adain Bradley moved me much in any way, but I did find Charlotte Vega’s (The Lodgers) role quite strong. She did great, and had plenty of good moments throughout. Playing her father was Matthew Modine (47 Meters Down), who was great during all his scenes, and Tim DeZarn (The Cabin in the Woods and Grave Matters) had some layers to him. Bill Sage (American Psycho, Fender Bender, The Dinner Party, We Are What We Are, and Ascent to Hell) doesn’t play the nicest guy, but it was a pretty good performance.

Only a few other performances really made an impression. One of them was Cory Scott Allen, who unfortunately died December 13, 2021. I don’t think his character is used to great effect, but I liked the performance. Also, there’s Amy Warner, and again, I really think they could have done more with her character.

I mentioned briefly that there were a few violent scenes, and though they don’t pop up often, when they do, you notice. I think the most disturbing might revolve around burning people’s eyes out with a hot poker, but there was also someone who met the wrong end of a tree, and another who may have gotten their head bashed in. Other examples, such as people being stabbed or shot by arrows, aren’t usually graphic, but some scenes here are somewhat harrowing.

On the finale, while I mostly found it suitable, and in fact, I did love the final scene (which played as the credits began rolling, which I found a solid choice), there was a sequence which was purely a character’s imagination. It personally felt somewhat jarring, and I would have cut that. Otherwise, I dug the ending, especially with the slow rendition of “This Land Is Your Land”, performed by Ruby Modine (daughter of Matthew Modine, and also from Happy Death Day). It was a beautiful rendition, and I dug it’s inclusion.

Wrong Turn can be a challenging movie at times. I really wish it had been cut a little in places, as it’s not exactly approachable (nor do I find it quite as captivating as films like Apostle or The Wicker Man), but I did find it a good movie. Some scenes were creepy (such as the friends being stalked in the woods, along with the designs of the animal head costumes), the gore gruesome, and the ending actually decent. It won’t be for everyone, and it’s definitely different from the 2003 movie, but I think that this Wrong Turn works.

8/10

Spiders II: Breeding Ground (2001)

Directed by Sam Firstenberg [Other horror films: Ninja III: The Domination (1984)]

Pretty much a sequel-in-name-only to the previous year’s Spiders, Spiders II: Breeding Ground is about as terrible as you’d expect an early 2000’s Sci-Fi spider movie to be. Of course, it does possess a little charm, and some aspects are almost interesting, but overall, there’s not a whole lot here that makes the film worth seeing.

There’s only four performances worth noting, and none of them are really that stellar. Stephanie Niznik wasn’t great, but she was a lot more believable than Greg Cromer. Daniel Quinn was okay, though I really thought his character could have done with a bit more depth. The best here was probably Richard Moll (who I recently saw in House). His character was over-the-top evil scientist corny, but at least he knew what this movie was.

I mean, to be honest, the movie’s not exactly horrible if you know what it’s going to end up being anyway. The first Spiders was awful, but somewhat charming at the same time. While this definitely wasn’t as enjoyable, the setting (a run-down ship) was interesting, and there was occasionally an intriguing mystery.

Ultimately, though, there’s nothing special here, especially toward the end, in which we’re bombarded with really terrible CGI spiders. I mean, they’re really bad. It doesn’t help that by this point, most of the interesting story elements were thrown out the window. I guess I’ll give the movie some props insofar as the special effects with the spiders bursting from the bodies, but it really wasn’t anything all that original to begin with.

Spiders II is an early 2000’s Sci-Fi film, and that’s all it is. I don’t hold that against the movie too much, because I’d definitely take this over much of their post-2010 animal movies (such as the atrocious 2-Headed Shark Attack series). It doesn’t make it good, but there are far worse movies out there.

5.5/10