Category: Reviews

Directed by Steve Miner [Other horror films: Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), Friday the 13th Part III (1982), House (1985), Warlock (1989), Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), Day of the Dead (2008)]

What Lake Placid lacks insofar as story is concerned, it makes up for it, in spades, with it’s fantastic sense of fun. Lake Placid is a fun movie, and the cast too makes it a stellar watch.

With Bill Pullman (Independence Day), Oliver Platt (The West Wing), Brendan Gleeson (Harry Potter, along with The Guard and 28 Days Later…), Bridget Fonda (a woman I don’t even know, to be honest), and some small appearances from Betty White, Lake Placid has a lot of star-power behind it, and they all work really well with each other, particularly the hilarious relationship between Platt and Gleeson. In a way, it was heartwarming, but the humor was certainly top-notch.

The story itself isn’t necessarily special, but the performances mixed with some decent tension and some mounting friendships really add up to a better movie than might be anticipated, and again, I can’t overstate just how much fun I have with this one.

Another thing I rather enjoyed about this one is the setting. It takes place in a Maine forest, and I thought, while simple, it had quite a bit of charm (and led to a few funny scenes involving Gleeson’s character). It’s always nice to see Maine come up outside of a Stephen King movie.

Lake Placid isn’t a movie that is likely to blow anyone away, and it’s one that some people would likely find more generic than anything else, but I’ve always found it a fun movie with a solid cast, and I always enjoy watching it when the opportunity arises.

8/10

Directed by Mark Robson [Other horror films: Isle of the Dead (1945), Bedlam (1946)]

This is an odd little film that more feels like a cult-based thriller than it does a horror. It’s not a bad movie, and the mystery is a bit interesting, but boy, even as far as 1940’s horror goes, The Seventh Victim probably only just squeezes in, at least in my opinion.

What works really well about this movie is the dense atmosphere. Tracking a missing person through a city, following multiple leads, hearing different stories, and eventually leading to a Satanic cult makes for a somewhat fun film, and certainly engaging at times.

I just didn’t think that too much of it was that memorable. In the moment, sure, you have some creepy vibes and a somewhat engrossing (if not a bit involved) story, but once the credits come up, I don’t think it takes that long for much of the material to fall out of memory.

The performances here were all fine, though honestly, as competent as they were (Tom Conway, Kim Hunter, Jean Brooks being among the best), no one here blows me away at all. Perhaps it’s just that the story, despite being only 70 minutes, felt a bit overlong, or maybe the cult wasn’t entirely convincing, but it just didn’t wow me.

The Seventh Victim had the atmosphere that was commendable, but it definitely felt more like a mystery/thriller than it did a horror, and that may have caused this to drag a bit more than you might expect from the off-set. It’s a 40’s movie that’s probably still worth giving a view, but there are plenty of other films from the decade (such as Bedlam, The Body Snatcher, The Leopard Man, You’ll Find Out) that I’d go to first.

6/10

Directed by Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. [Other horror films: 4D Man (1959)] & Russell S. Doughten Jr. [Other horror films: N/A]

Few movies are as nostalgic for me as The Blob. Ever since I was a kid, my family has owned this one on an old Goodtimes VHS tape, and I cannot even begin to guess how many times I’ve seen it. I won’t pretend that to a modern-day viewer the film wouldn’t have problems (one of them being that Steve McQueen doesn’t much look like a teenager here), but to me, the movie’s perfect.

Watching this now, after seeing much more that the genre has to offer, the first thing that strikes me is the fact that it’s in color, and it’s even pretty decent color. Most American horror movies didn’t switch over to color until the 1960’s, so the fact that this one was color just impresses me more than it might others who already prefer the 1988 remake.

Another thing – the catchy number at the beginning. The credit to the song goes to The Five Blobs (which is a funny artist name to begin with), and while I understand that a song like that might not seem appropriate before a horror flick, I always thought it was a lot of fun, and that song has graced my iTunes for many years now.

The story here isn’t that different from other alien invasion movies of the 1950’s, the only real difference being that the alien here is an amorphous blob as opposed to some type of bipedal humanoid. Design-wise, the blob is pretty simple, but I always liked that purpleish-pinkish shade, and the fact that it’s pretty unstoppable is also impressively horrifying.

Steve McQueen (who famously screwed himself when taking $2,500 for the film, as opposed to 10% of the film’s profits) may not be the best-cast here, but I still love what he brings to the film, and his sometimes overly-dramatic performance (“He was just gone. Just gone”). Aneta Corsaut wasn’t necessarily special here, but I still love her for her unending concern of the old man’s dog.

Earl Rowe and John Benson both brought something to their roles, Benson an authoritarian, teen-hating cop, and Rowe a cop with a bit more of an understanding nature. Their mild conflicts throughout the film were interesting (more so when we found out Benson’s character was in the war, most likely Korea), and Robert Fields’ (Tony) story about moving a friend’s car was pretty funny also (I never quite understood the exact nature of McQueen’s and Field’s relationship, but it always had charm).

I understand that some of my views are purely nostalgia, and I suspect that some people might not be able to take me seriously as a reviewer given I’m perfectly okay with allowing nostalgic value to help guide my rating (though if they’ve been reading my reviews for a while, this definitely isn’t the first time nostalgia has played a role). I maintain that there’s not an issue with that, though – most people have those movies that they’ve loved since childhood, and I certainly have loved this one for a long time.

A great piece of 50’s horror, The Blob has been a long-time favorite of mine, and I’m not the least bit guilty for giving this one the highest of ratings.

10/10

Directed by Tom Savini [Other horror films: Deadtime Stories (2009, segment ‘House Call’), The Theatre Bizarre (2011, segment ‘Wet Dreams’)]

To be honest, I was expecting something more from this remake of the classic 1968 zombie film, as I’ve generally heard positive things about from fellow horror fans, but after taking the time to finally watch it, I was very underwhelmed, and ultimately find the film a bit pointless.

The original Night of the Living Dead has never been a favorite of mine. Oh, I enjoy the movie well enough, and it definitely changed the trajectory of zombie movies, but it can sometimes feel a bit on the slow side. That said, I found a lot more to enjoy in that movie than I did here, and while this version tries to change some things up (such as the route that Ben takes toward the end), I can’t deny that it somewhat fell on deaf ears.

Tony Todd was perhaps the best thing about this movie. He wasn’t as good as Duane Jones, but he still brought a significant power to his character. Patricia Tallman was certainly a more useful Barbara here than Judith O’Dea was, but that’s one of those changes that I didn’t find myself loving. I pretty much think Tom Towles nails it, but still, compared to Karl Hardman, he’s not nearly as strong a personality.

Unless I’m missing something, I just don’t see what all the hoopla about this one is. It’s an okay zombie movie if you’ve somehow missed the original, or if you wish the original was in color, or if you like seeing a young Bill Moseley, but otherwise, I really don’t get it. Now, I understand that director Tom Savini had some clashes with Romero while working on this, and the remake itself was, in part, made to help Romero recoup his losses from the original film, but knowing all of that doesn’t make the film any better, at least not for me.

The original film is a classic for good reason, but this isn’t really anything I could ever see myself wanting to spend time on again. I went into this one hoping for a lot more than what I got, and I won’t say that I’m not disappointed with this one.

5.5/10

Directed by Michael Curtiz [Other horror films: Alraune (1919), Doctor X (1932), Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), The Walking Dead (1936)]

Very much a light addition to the horror genre, The Mad Genius is a decent romantic drama with a few splashes of horror thrown in toward the conclusion. As a whole, I don’t think the movie’s great, and nowhere near an undiscovered classic, but it’s okay, just arguably unmemorable.

The story here is okay, though, what with a crippled individual (John Barrymore of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Svengali) trying to vicariously live through a nimble protégé (Donald Cook), forcing the young man into a life of dancing, and when he’s distracted by love (in the form of Marian Marsh, who also appeared in Svengali, along with The Black Room), he stops at nothing to keep his control over the young man.

As such, John Barrymore does really well as a controlling, somewhat egotistical, individual. Donald Cook and Marian Marsh make a decently cute couple, and manage to hang on to each other through much of their hardships, but I couldn’t help but feel that, during these two’s scenes, the movie was drifting dangerously close to a romantic drama of sorts, and problematically (at least to a fan of horror, primarily), that’s a feeling felt throughout the film.

The conclusion here is certainly good, but I don’t know that it’s entirely worth watching the first hour of the movie for. Really, this works better as a drama than it does a horror, and though the elements are there come the ending of the film, I don’t think The Mad Genius can compete with most other horror films from the 1930’s, and ultimately, while the movie’s okay, it’s not much more.

6/10

Directed by Timothy Friend [Other horror films: Cadaverella (2007)]

This really shouldn’t have worked, but as surprised as I was, I got a decent kick out of this movie.

One reason that this is the case is due to the actor portraying Clyde, being Trent Haaga. Haaga’s been in quite a few low-budget horror flicks over the years, and I’ve only seen him in one other thing, but that made an impression. Slices, a rather poor anthology movie which also came out in 2008, was a pretty awful movie, the one shining light being – you guessed it, Trent Haaga.

Haaga was great here – I can’t point to exactly why I like him so much, but I do. His chemistry with Tiffany Shepis (Bonnie) was top-notch. Despite what this movie is (a low-budget film with somewhat shoddy special effects), the pair of them still had some emotional scenes that I really appreciated and, more importantly, bought. Luckily, Shepis and Haaga weren’t the only shining lights here.

Jennifer Friend was only in five other movies, but I utterly loved her wacky character here. She had a youthful exuberance and while she was occasionally a bit much, Friend brought a lot to the movie. From playing Ping-Pong when she was supposed to be paying attention to something, or randomly wearing a Native American headdress, or playing with dolls and recording radio shows, she was quite entertaining. She was a lot of fun, if I haven’t made it clear, and I really liked the fact she got a happy ending.

Also, Martin F. Glynn brought a little something too. He wasn’t near as special as Friend was, but he told a pretty funny story revolving around an informant and a goat’s tongue (Haaga’s facial expressions during this story cracked me up near as much as the story itself). The individual who played Dracula, Russell Friend, was decent, as was the sinister Dr. Loveless, played by Allen Lowry (his interactions with Jennifer Friend were always good quality), but it’s really Shepis, Haaga, and Jennifer Friend that make this movie the enjoyable movie it is.

The story itself isn’t really great, and while there’s Bonnie and Clyde and there’s Dracula, it takes something like an hour for them to actually cross paths. That’s okay, because the scenes focusing on just Bonnie and Clyde were, as I said, pretty good, ranging from comical to emotional, and while Dracula himself wasn’t that engaging, the individual trying to bring him back to full strength, Dr. Loveless, had a lot of funny conversations with his sister (Jennifer Friend). When these people all converge, the movie’s still great, but don’t get the idea that beforehand, I was tapping my fingers impatiently.

Bonnie & Clyde vs. Dracula sounds like it would be horrible (God knows I had my doubts), but I was very pleasantly surprised. I’m not saying it’s A+ cinema, but I did really enjoy this, and without a doubt, I could see myself giving this another watch, or multiple, in the future.

8.5/10