Category: Reviews

Directed by Tim Ritter [Other horror films: Twisted Illusions (1985), Truth or Dare?: A Critical Madness (1986), Killing Spree (1987), Wicked Games (1994), Creep (1995), Alien Agenda: Endangered Species (1998), Screaming for Sanity: Truth or Dare 3 (1998), Twisted Illusions 2 (2004), Deadly Dares: Truth or Dare Part IV (2011), Hi-8 (Horror Independent 8) (2013, segment ‘Switchblade Insane’), I Dared You! Truth or Dare Part 5 (2017), Trashsploitation (2018, segment ‘Truth or Dare’), Hi-Death (2018, segment ‘Dealers of Death’), Zombarella’s House of Whorrors (2019, segment ‘Cosmic Desires’), Sharks of the Corn (2021)]

Tim Ritter’s first film (made when he was a teenager), this is one that I’ve literally wanted to see ever since I first heard about it many years back. It went pretty much as expected, for better or for worse.

Firstly, the story was rather lacking. Part of this was because both the video and audio quality of the copy I managed to see were atrocious, but those technical aspects aside, the story doesn’t have a lot to offer, and toward the end, when things take sort of a supernatural turn (which didn’t seem explained all that well, and felt shoehorned in there), I didn’t care for it.

It’s the gore that would probably interest most people, though, and it’s generally pretty good. A pencil in the eye, a throat-slitting, multiple dismemberments. All decent stuff. I just wish that the camera and lighting had been better, so we could have gotten a fuller effect of the mayhem.

Acting throughout was all pretty stale, though the individual who played the detective was hilariously over-active. I don’t know the actor’s name (he’s not listed on IMDb, and the credits of the film only list the actors, not the roles they play), but the way that man delivered his dialogue, in a long, rambling, “I don’t need books anyway, who needs books?” was beautiful to behold. No one else stands out, but for an extraordinarily amateurish film, that’s not really a negative.

And amateurish it was. Even stripping away the problems with the audio and video, the story wasn’t great, and more so, felt moderately hollow at times. Plenty of lower-budget films possess more feeling than much of this one did, but I mostly chalk that up to this being Ritter’s first film. On a slight side-note, I’ve only seen one other Ritter movie, being the somewhat enjoyable Killing Spree from 1987. I certainly wouldn’t judge his output on this one, as it’s his first outing.

Day of the Reaper certainly has a place in the genre, especially among SOV fans. It’s never quite as gory as some of Schiff’s work (such as They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore), or really as gory as H.G. Lewis’ material, but it still shows promise, despite all it’s shortcomings. Truthfully, though, I wouldn’t say I enjoyed it, but if you’re a fan of early SOV horror flicks, or a major Ritter fan, I’d check it out if you’re able to find it.

5/10

Directed by Steve Hudgins [Other horror films: Maniac on the Loose (2008), Hell Is Full (2010), Spirit Stalkers (2012), The Caretakers (2014), It Lives in the Attic (2016)]

For a low-budget film, this monster movie is generally a pretty enjoyable watch.

While on-screen kills are almost entirely absent, there is quite a bit of blood splatter throughout the film, so while there’s not a high quantity of good kills, the movie still feels rather gory. That, mixed with the memorable characters and interesting story (well, more interesting than what you might initially expect), really meld everything together well.

Plenty of the performances here were pretty fun. I won’t say many of them were good in the traditional sense, but I had fun all the same. Amanda Stone was sassy, with an enjoyable screen presence (I just wish that she had become more relevant to the plot than she eventually did). Randy Hardesty played an interesting character, and could perhaps be called the hero of the film. Overall, a good performance.

Emily Fitzmaurice had one of the shrillest screams I’ve ever heard, and did well playing the dumb, blonde bimbo. And Tom Dolan? He stole every scene he graced us with. Loved his over-the-top style. Overall, though, I don’t think anyone here really stuck out in a negative fashion.

Firmly tongue-in-cheek, GoatSucker took some interesting routes, threw in some deeper characters than you might expect in a lower-budget flick, and wrapped it up with some decent suspense. It is true that the film felt a bit long at times – maybe they could have cut it down by a bit, like five or ten minutes. Still, if you can get past some of the downsides, and revel in the fact there aren’t many chupacabra flicks out there, you may have fun with this one.

7/10

Directed by Michael Butt [Other horror films: Yetis (2012), This Woods Is Cursed (2015), This Book Is Cursed (2017)]

This is a low-budget, low-quality, ridiculous film, yet at the same time, I’ve not had this much fun in a while.

In many ways, this low-budget film (apparently, the budget was around $700) seems a love-letter to the B-movies of the past, such as Attack of the Giant Leeches (and I will say, this movie had a lot more feeling than the 2008 remake of that very title). It has questionable, yet fun, acting, a paper-thin plot, and special effects that maybe aren’t that special. I will say, the blood in particular looked bad (basically just water dyed red most of the time; it was that thin), but really, in a movie like this, I don’t see how that’s a big problem.

As far as actors go, I pretty much liked everyone. Most of them were horrible, which brought a lot of charm. I loved it when some of them couldn’t keep a straight face, and one of them couldn’t help but smirk every time he was on-screen, which was especially funny when another actress actually got into her role, and kept crying. Terrible acting, and I loved it. My favorite was Charley Guaren, who was the opening kill. His over-the-top attitude, his lines, his delivery, everything about him, I absolutely loved. I just wish he had gotten more screen-time.

The movie ends on a somewhat serious note. While the credits are running, it shows interviews with people who believe they’ve seen UFO’s. These look authentic to an earlier time period, and if I had to bet, I’d say wherever the director got them, they’re probably real interviews. Just a small touch that felt slightly out of place, but was cool regardless.

Toward the end, there was a small element of the film I didn’t care for, but it shortly led to a really interesting conclusion, one that a big-budget film likely wouldn’t have the balls to pull off (mostly because it’s so damn ridiculous). Still, I thought it was a lot of fun, and really helped cement the feeling of the movie.

No doubt, Vampire Ticks from Outer Space isn’t an amazing film, but it is both entertaining and amusing. It has that drive-in movie feel, and most everything about it, from the terrible acting to hilarious dialogue/delivery, horrible special effects, and the story, was fun. I had a hoot watching this one, and I would gladly give it another go in the future. When it comes to rating a movie, what matters more than that?

8/10

Directed by Kurt Neumann [Other horror films: She Devil (1957), Kronos (1957), The Fly (1958)]

This is a pretty fun flick, solid 30’s horror movie.

The story here is pretty fun, what with a room that, if one sleeps in it, they end up dead. A good plot idea to play with, which leads to a rather satisfying conclusion. At the same time, they could have added a little more meat to the movie, and as it’s only an hour and six minutes, they certainly had some time, should they had wanted to use it. Good video and audio quality, too, of a movie from this time period.

The cast is pretty solid throughout. Lionel Atwill (who appeared in plenty of other horror films, such as The Vampire Bat, Doctor X, Mystery of the Wax Museum, Murders in the Zoo, Mark of the Vampire, and about six or so others) has a good presence here, and really shows why he’s often cast in these types of films. Gloria Stuart did pretty okay here, though she was overwhelmed with the hysterics often placed on female characters back in these films. The fact that she later played the elderly Rose in Titanic is really the most interesting thing about her appearance here. Paul Lukas, who played a rather straight-laced character, gave a great performance also.

Edward Arnold (who did very little for the genre, but has a solid resume overall) had a really fun character with snappy dialogue, and virtually every time he was on-screen, I had a fun time. Onslow Stevens, William Janney, and Robert Barrat all stood out also, and as they make up a large amount of the main characters, that’s only a positive thing.

Kurt Neumann, the director, didn’t do a lot of the genre (aside from directing The Fly, he only did a handful of other horror movies), but this was a pretty good movie. Digestible, enjoyable, and while they could have added a little more to the film, still a good time.

I liked a lot of things about this film – the mystery, the conclusion, the overall story. I certainly feel that this one is overlooked, and I recommend it highly if you’re a fan of those early mystery-horror films that made the 1920’s and 1930’s a special time.

8/10

Directed by David E. Durston [Other horror films: N/A]

This grindhouse exploitation flick isn’t nearly as gory and wild as I remember it being, but it’s still a moderately fun ride.

The story, in which Satanic hippies are infected with rabies as a form of revenge, was pretty fun. At times, it was reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead, which came out just two years prior, as multiple mindless people were wandering around, committing violent acts, and some others board themselves in to protect themselves.

It also has a decent amount of gory violence. While there weren’t too many notable gory portions, there was a solid decapitation, along with a few dismemberments (one by an electric knife), and an impalement by pitchfork. Despite all of this, though, it never reaches the H.G. Lewis level of bloodshed, which is sort of a shame.

Really, the only issue I have with the film is the length – I know that when this first came out, theaters dictated their own cuts, and thus, a lot of versions of this film exist. I think that the theaters had a better idea than the director, because at an hour and 24 minutes, I felt the film went on a bit long. Cut out just ten, maybe 15 minutes, and I think it’d have been both more digestible and less dragging.

For an early piece of 70’s exploitation, I Drink Your Blood can be pretty entertaining. If the gore had been a bit better, and the length a bit more bearable, then I think the movie would have ultimately been more memorable. Still, it’s certainly a movie that’s worth watching, especially if 70’s flicks are your thing.

7.5/10

Directed by Darin Scott [Other horror films: Dark House (2009), Something Wicked (2014), Deep Blue Sea 2 (2018), Tales from the Hood 2 (2018), Mr. Malevolent (2018), Tales from the Hood 3 (2020)]

So, we have random ghosts with no discernible backstories killing bitchy sorority girls (who are illegally hazing new pledges), and along with this, there are also some dumb fraternity jocks around. Because of course there would be.

I first saw this film back in the 2012 October Challenge for HMF (Horrormoviefans, a forum I’ve been a member of for many years), and I rather disliked it back then also. Really, there’s not that much to say about this Syfy affair. There is occasionally some okay gore, but otherwise, the movie’s void of any pleasant additions and feels overly vapid.

None of the characters, aside from maybe Alessandra Torresani’s, have any value whatsoever. When they get killed, you just find yourself shrugging. Why would I care one way or the other if a sorority clone gets killed? If the kills were more impressive, sure, but this movie can’t really boast that.

Speaking of clones, the ghosts got a bit old. There were more than a handful, but we never really got much a read on any of them, excepting the main ghost, who, *SHOCKER* somehow is still around at the end, and should Syfy ever want to, they have room for a sequel.

As I said, there’s not really a lot to say about this film. It was bad the first time I saw it, and American Horror House does not increase in value over time. It’s just not that enjoyable or good a movie whatsoever. Part of this may be that I see absolutely no value in either frats or sororities. Why would you want to join an organization that abuses and humiliates you? I don’t get it at all. And given how horrible most of these characters are, it makes these people pretty hard to be sympathetic for. Nothing much here, and I wouldn’t recommend this.

4/10

Directed by Martin Green [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a rather low-budget flick, and it’s drowning in unnecessary melodrama, but it’s not altogether a terrible movie. No doubt, though, is it definitely below average.

Having a main character with alcoholism was interesting, and adding a little something special to her character (while also adding drama that was a bit much). It’s this drama that holds the movie back, though, and it’s not just on the main character. The whole small subplot about the husband’s troubles at work strike me as entirely unnecessary, and though the conclusion to that was sort of funny, it didn’t really add much to the movie.

The main actress, Kory Clark, did decent playing a slightly more complex character than you might expect. Given that this was her only role in anything, I’d say she did a decent job. Aldo Ray was a genial presence, despite his rough background, and made the movie just a bit better by his pretty solid performance.

For a slasher, though, the main problem this movie has is it’s rather noticeable lack of kills, and when there are kills, there’s not much in the way of gore, or, more troubling, suspense. Also, while I sort of liked the route they went with who the killer turned out to be, it felt sort of soulless, as though it was just superficial and lacking something. Still, it tried, I’ll give it that.

Dark Sanity isn’t a terrible film, but there’s almost nothing here, aside from Ray’s presence, that really stands out one way or the other. Definitely on the lower-end of slashers from the early 80’s, I’d recommend that you pass on this, unless something about it seems to tickle your fancy.

5/10

Directed by Tracy Lee Staton [Other horror films: N/A]

In many ways, this movies comes across as a very low-budget version of Storm of the Century, and while it’s not a bad film, it really didn’t do that much for me.

The story is perfectly fine, though there are some questions left unanswered when we reach the end, so it’s not as though the script couldn’t have been tightened up a bit. At the same time, there’s a rather subdued feel to the story (which isn’t shared by actor performances, but more on that soon), and what I mean is that while plenty of horrific things happen, there’s not really a major conclusion, and while people are going mildly crazy, the film doesn’t really focus strongly on that.

Most of the actors and actresses were a bit much. The movie indeed has a few more humorously-inclined scenes, but plenty of individuals in the movie act as though it’s a full-blown comedy. In no particular order, these individuals stood out somewhat negatively: Matthew Ewald, Royce Hobson, John Johnson, Jaclyn Vames, and Robb Barger. Barger, admittedly, had a pretty solid breakdown near the end of the film, and compared to the others, he’s probably the most competently decent actor here.

The movie has been described as a supernatural slasher, which is moderately accurate, but I wish there had been more scenes of slashing as opposed to random characters, who in the end don’t really matter, throughout the town. The gore itself is okay on the occasions is comes up, but that’s not as common as one might hope.

This is Tracy Lee Staton’s first full-length attempt, and it’s not bad for what it is, but some things didn’t work with me. The script, especially regarding John Johnson’s character of the priest, was overly campy, and while that may be intentional, it didn’t fit with what I thought Deadlines was aiming for. Some interesting ideas and decent kills aside, this probably isn’t a movie I’d go out of my way to watch again. Still, for a first-time feature, it’s not too shabby if the story works out for you.

5.5/10