Category: Reviews

Directed by William Lustig [Other horror films: Maniac (1980), Maniac Cop (1988), Maniac Cop 2 (1990), Uncle Sam (1996)]

I didn’t love the second Maniac Cop, but I did think it was a bit above average. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, this sequel doesn’t fare nearly as well, and I generally didn’t care for it whatsoever.

It’s not like the movie’s awful or even that much worse in quality from the second, but I didn’t care much for the route the story took, what with a corrupt cop (Robert Z’Dar, our titular maniac cop) trying to protect an injured corrupt cop (Gretchen Baker) while another corrupt cop (Robert Davi, returning in his role from the second film) does other stuff.

The beginning of the film mentions that Cordell’s character was ‘framed’ and sent to prison. I won’t deny that whatever crime he was thrown into prison for might have been a frame-up, but I will point out that Cordell should have gone to prison anyway, as he absolutely partook in police brutality, the same as Baker’s character, it seems. And on that note, Baker had every right to shoot when she did, but she was using an illegal weapon and illegal ammunition (yet she’s still cleared in the mind of her corrupt cop peer, Davi’s character), so Baker’s character also should have gone to prison had her outcome in the film been better.

My point is that there’s no likable characters in the film. Even the one with potential, a doctor (played by Caitlin Dulany), then falls in love with a cop who just literally tortured her patient minutes before. Again, jail time would be nice.

I don’t like cops, and I don’t respect cops, but this hasn’t really hurt my feelings on the first two movies (though from the beginning, I scoffed when Cordell is called ‘sympathetic’, as he’s not at all). Here, though, it grated on me because there’s not one likable character in the bunch, and their behavior appears to have zero consequence (the video that was uncovered that would have ‘cleared’ Baker’s character, again, still showed multiple illegal actions), but that’s par for the course as far as the corrupt institution of the police force goes.

Throughout the film, there are some okay kills, mostly with firearms, but a solid stabbing is thrown in. As it was, the ending rubbed me the wrong way, also, mainly because I absolutely refuse to believe that someone on fire could drive a car for twenty minutes without 1) melting the seat, 2) causing the gas lines to malfunction, 3) effect the engine, or 4) screwing up the steering wheel. Did it look cool? For the first minute or so, but then it just keeps going. And using the burning arm to light a cigarette, eliciting laughs from his new love? Ugh, kill me now.

Despite all of this, I wouldn’t even be averse to watching this again, as there were some decent scenes, but it’s definitely nowhere near as good as the first movie, and doesn’t much come close to touching the second. It’s not terrible, but it’s not good, and I wouldn’t really go out of my way to recommend this unless you’re already a fan of the series, in which case you’re like to be disappointed anyway.

5.5/10

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

Directed by Gus Van Sant [Other horror films: N/A]

Pretty much a scene-by-scene remake of the original classic (perhaps one of the most well-known horror movies that has yet existed), this movie’s not terrible. The problem is, and this is a big problem, that it’s been done before, and it’s been done so much better that this movie just comes out entirely pointless.

I liked most of the principal cast, which is something I can’t say for other films. Anne Heche (from a favorite of mine, Volcano) played a cute Marion Crane. Chad Everett played the best exuberantly wealthy Texan this side of Rex Linn (Better Call Saul). William H. Macy didn’t blow me away, but what can I say, I like the actor (from Fargo to Pleasantville, this guy’s fun), and he was fun to see.

Neither Julianne Moore (Hannibal) nor Viggo Mortensen really worked in my opinion, but they didn’t bring the film down, which is more than I can say for Vince Vaughn. I liked Vaughn in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, but whoever thought he could replace Perkins as Norman Bates went more than a little mad. It’s no knock at Vaughn, who technically did fine. It’s that Perkins felt so much better in the role.

The main problem here isn’t the fact that it’s a remake, nor is it Vaughn’s portrayal of Bates. It’s that this doesn’t feel inspired whatsoever. There are some movies that it’s pointless to remake, and I’ll go ahead and say that Psycho’s one of them. In 1960, the story was surprising and shocking (both the twist thirty minutes in and the finale), but here, we know exactly what’s coming, but despite some scenes being filmed in the exact same way (such as the stairway sequence), there’s no magic here.

Psycho lacks magic, and that’s the problem. It’s such a well-written story, but this version wasn’t able to capture almost any of it, and ultimately just wasted our time when it could be better spent with the 1960 classic.

4/10

Directed by Jack Sholder [Other horror films: A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985), The Hidden (1987), Natural Selection (1994), Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999), Arachnid (2001), 12 Days of Terror (2004)]

This is one of those films that I first saw so long ago that it came across as mostly new with this recent rewatch. I did remember one of the most important scenes near the end, but that didn’t really impact my enjoyment here, and Alone in the Dark is certainly a movie I enjoy quite a bit.

I’ve heard it said by a few people before that Alone in the Dark is slow-moving, and while that might be true (a bulk of the action doesn’t really hit until the finale), I found it engaging and enjoyable the whole way through, much of it likely due to the surprisingly large amount of worthwhile performances here.

You have three maniacs, played by Jack Palance (Without Warning and Man in the Attic), Martin Landau (ditto Without Warning), and Erland van Lidth, Donald Pleasence (Halloween) playing a rather amusing doctor, Carol Levy as a hot babysitter named Bunky, and a family composed of daughter Elizabeth Ward, mother and father Deborah Hedwall and Dwight Schultz, and Schultz’s sister, Lee Taylor-Allan, who was one of the most fun characters here aside from Pleasence, Schultz, and Bunky, not to mention the maniacs.

I love the cast here, so while the action is a bit light at times, and the gore never comes close to what might expect from an early 80’s slasher, it doesn’t matter a bit, because I’m still having a fun time. That said, there can certainly be strong suspense present, such as the scenes in which the family’s trapped in the house by the maniacs. Also, while I did remember the little surprise at the end, that didn’t make it any less effective.

Alone in the Dark isn’t a favorite of mine, but it’s a very solid slasher from a fantastic period of horror. Pretty easy for me to rate highly, as I really find I enjoy this one.

8.5/10

This is one of the film’s covered on Fight Evil’s podcast – listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this movie.

Directed by Sylvain White [Other horror films: I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer (2006)]

Slender Man surprised me a bit. I definitely wasn’t expecting much, especially after seeing the low rating of 3.2/10 on IMDb, but for a good chunk of the movie, I thought there was definite potential. It’s with the second half of the film, though, that this is all flushed down the toilet and instead we’re left with jump scare after jump scare (assuming you can make out what’s going on), along with some pretty bad CGI. In a way, though, I’m in the unenviable position of feeling I need to defend this.

I didn’t think the main performances were particularly bad, but I also don’t think they were that memorable. Joey King was perhaps the best here, but Julia Goldani Telles, Annalise Basso (who is utterly smoking here) and Taylor Richardson all do reasonably. I didn’t see the point in Alex Fitzalan’s character, but I guess he did okay also.

What starts somewhat decently, especially regarding the mystery of one of the girls’ disappearance, turns into a really generic and jump scare-filled movie, and what tops it off to make it worse is that it has that glossy Hollywood look that just gives Slender Man such a tame feel.

Does the Slender Man design generally look fine? Sure. The CGI is really spotty at points, but the Slender Man himself wasn’t God-awful. It’s most of the other effects that fail, such as a few wild dream sequences, little of which looked appealing in any way.

Had they gone a different route, I think this could have been decent. I didn’t love the story past a certain point, but I did mostly like the characters, so with the budget they had, it’s just sad they couldn’t have come up with something better. At the same time, I don’t think Slender Man is near as bad as some of the ratings seem to indicate. I don’t think it’s good, but to me, it falls much closer to forgettable than it does memorably awful.

5.5/10

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

Directed by Michael Cooney [Other horror films: Jack Frost (1997)]

The first Jack Frost was actually decent, in a sort of corny, occasionally ridiculous way. Unfortunately, Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman takes things in a far more humorous direction, much to my displeasure.

I won’t say that I didn’t like many of the performances here. Christopher Allport had an interesting PTSD thing going on, and was somewhat useless come the second part of the film. David Allan Brooks takes over from Stephen Mandel in the role of Agent Manners – Brooks wasn’t terrible, but I don’t think his character was really done justice, and I don’t see why, if they couldn’t get Mandel back, they didn’t scrap the role.

Sean Patrick Murphy was actually okay as the annoying Captain Fun. I just wish more was done with his character. Ray Cooney got a few funny lines in there, as did Tai Bennett, but neither really mattered much, and Chip Heller and Marsha Clark didn’t make an impression on me whatsoever.

What did make an impression, albeit a negative one, was the toned up comedic feel of the movie. The beginning was funny, I’ll give it that, but for as low-budget as the first movie was, this one felt a lot lower. I mean, look at that CGI. And when Jack took the backstage to his little snowball babies, I just couldn’t help but constantly cringe at the stupidity unfolding.

There were a few okay scenes of gore, among them a young woman getting her eyes stabbed with a pair of tongs, or another character getting some fingers ripped off. But some of them were just bad, such as Jack taking the form of an anvil and dropping on someone, or a snowball thrown so hard that it tore a man’s arm off, and overall, despite some scenes of promise, it just wasn’t worth it.

Unlike the first movie, Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman was just too silly, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s a cardinal sin. Fans of the first film may still find enough in this to like it – Scott MacDonald’s voice acting is pretty much as good as the first movie. I just couldn’t find it in me to enjoy this whatsoever when I first saw it, and though I might like it a little more now, the film’s far below what I’d prefer it to be.

4.5/10

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

Directed by Thom Eberhardt [Other horror films: Sole Survivor (1984), Night of the Comet (1984)]

Beyond most anything else that could be said, Naked Fear is a competent film. It’s not a great one, by any means, but it got the job it set out to do done, even if it ends up being a bit on the depressing side.

Part of this is due to the fact that there’s virtually no humor whatsoever to be found anywhere in the film. It’s a dark, bleak movie, and the main character of Diana (Danielle De Luca) is basically forced into becoming a prostitute and exotic dancer with zero recourse for her to pursue. It’s grim and gritty and entirely based in reality.

More so, one of the few characters trying to help, being Officer Dwight Terry (Arron Shiver), is able to do very little in the way of actually making a difference. In fact, I don’t believe a single thing he does really changes the outcome of the film, and given that he was one of the few who actually cared about the multiple missing girls, it just goes on to kick you down.

De Luca and Shiver both have good performances here, with De Luca standing out quite a bit more, obviously, being the hunted woman throughout most of the film. As the antagonist, J.D. Garfield was solid, though I do sort of wish we got a bit more background on him. Jenny Marlowe and Kevin Wiggins were both good, though Marlowe’s character was hard to stomach. Kudos to Wiggins for playing a solid good guy, though.

If there’s one person in the cast who I wish had more to his story, it’d be Joe Mantegna, an actor I have long known for Criminal Minds, and also co-starred in Thinner, a rather forgettable experience. Here, his cop character is more irksome than most other characters in the film, constantly deriding Shiver’s character for wanting to do actual detective work. It was nice to see him here, sure, but I just wish he was a lot more helpful than he ended up being.

As effective as Naked Fear is in creating a grim story, though, I was never really fully invested. There were some good scenes throughout, but as a whole, I just didn’t see that great of a movie, and I think some of that has to do with an almost stark feel that the movie has. It wasn’t as notable as The Wild Man of the Navidad or Deadfall Trail, but it still felt very bare-bones.

But hey, there’s some decently attractive nude women, so it’s not all a lost cause. Of course, most of the nudity is during the women being hunted down like animals, but to each their own.

Obviously, Naked Fear is nowhere near original in it’s story, as The Most Dangerous Game came out 75 years earlier, and the same idea has been done into many other films, such as Bloodust! and the underrated Turkey Shoot, but it’s still a competently made film. I just don’t think it’s that much more than that, and after seeing it a second time, I highly doubt I’d want to see it a third time.

6/10

This is one of the films discussed on Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I talk about this subpar film.

Directed by William Girdler [Other horror films: Three on a Meathook (1972), Asylum of Satan (1972), Abby (1974), Day of the Animals (1977), The Manitou (1978)]

More than anything, this 70’s rip-off of Jaws, while occasionally charming and certainly possessing a beautiful setting (forested Clayton, Georgia), is ultimately a sluggish experience, and though not without positive aspects, ends up only an okay film.

The main issue here is how sluggish the film is. Sure, the setting is indeed beautiful, and there are a few solid scenes here (bear vs. kid, and bear vs. ranger tower being two of my favorite), but otherwise, Grizzly is just drier than the wood of the trees that make up the forest (horrible analogy, sure, but Grizzly’s still dry).

A few of the characters are decent. The main character, played by Christopher George (who went to later appear in plenty of horror films, including Whiskey Mountain, Day of the Animals, Mortuary, Pieces, City of the Living Dead, Cruise Into Terror, and Graduation Day) was perfectly solid, and I liked the differences in personalities between Andrew Prine’s gruff Vietnam vet character (this is just a few year following the conflict, so he’s still young man) and the scientific viewpoint of Richard Jaeckel. Honestly, none of the three add anything that special to the film, though, which is a bit of a problem.

Oh, and Joan McCall (who had a role in Peopletoys, more commonly known as Devil Time Five) was pretty much useless in this. I don’t really know what the point of her character was, because past a certain scene, she pretty much loses what limited relevance she had to begin with.

I don’t know. Grizzly isn’t that poor of a film, and as far as Jaws rip-offs go, it’s not bad. Like I said, it occasionally possesses a little charm here and there, and there are a few decent scenes, but overall, I think it’s a pretty underwhelming experience, and I’ve seen this twice now, so I think I’m somewhat firm in that stance.

6/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, so if interested, listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss the film.