Jiggy's Horror Corner

Directed by Tom Holland [Other horror films: Fright Night (1985), Two-Fisted Tales (1992, segment ‘King of the Road’), The Langoliers (1994), Thinner (1996), Tom Holland’s Twisted Tales (2014), Rock, Paper, Scissors (2017)]

This classic flick gets many things right, and very little wrong. Despite the nature of the movie, believe me, it’s not at all as silly as you might think (or what later sequels would lead you to believe). I won’t have a lot to say on this, so bear with me.

The story is pretty fun and captivating throughout, not to mention original. Certainly didn’t really feel like other movies around the time, and still stands out to today (despite some not so great sequels, such as Bride and Seed). Both tense and well-paced, everything seems to work out fine in this department.

The acting is pretty top-notch all-around, also. Catherine Hicks does a fantastic job as a mother worried sick for, at first, the mental health of her child, and then about a doll trying to take over her son’s body. Hicks has never been a big name, but she does beautifully here. Chris Sarandon, as a police detective, does a fine job also. It actually took me until this re-watch to realize he’s also in the 1985 classic Fight Night. Big duh moment then. He was a fun character though, and certainly got his licks in.

Despite being a young kid, Alex Vincent does extremely well as Andy. The scene in which Chucky’s coming for him while in the institution is perhaps one of my favorites in the film, and Vincent shows very strong acting both there and pretty much throughout the film, all without turning into an annoyance, which I appreciated. And need I mention Brad Dourif? His voice makes Chucky the memorable mofo that he is, and really helps the movie stand out from it’s peers.

As aforementioned, there’s more than a few kills that aren’t great (keywords: window, house), but others make up for it, such as that voodoo scene. The car scene too, with Sarandon, was a fun ride (for us, not Sarandon), with Chucky trying to stab him through the seat (another scene that’s stuck with me since I was a kid).

There’s very little that Child’s Play doesn’t get right. I suppose at times Chucky could be a bit much, but really, that’s part of his nature, it seems. The movie doesn’t waste any time, and just throws us into the action, which I always appreciated. It never really lets up, either. A solid movie all-around, Child’s Play is one that, if you’ve not yet seen, you no longer have an excuse to avoid.

8.5/10

We covered this classic on Fight Evil’s third podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss the movie, and you shouldn’t be surprised by how much both of us enjoy it.

Directed by D.W. Griffith [Other horror films: One Exciting Night (1922)]

One of the earliest full-length horror films, and one of the USA’s first of note, this D.W. Griffith feature, while enjoyable, is a mixed bag.

The main problem is that this is a moderately meandering, melodramatic morality tale (alliteration FTW!). Murder is bad, and thou shalt not kill, and all that rot, but it doesn’t make for an amazing story. Still, for the most part, things worked out okay.

The first 55 minutes were all solid, with a few seemingly-less necessary portions, but after a certain point, things felt as they were dragging. It picked up again at the end, with a twist of sorts (though really, it makes sense in the context of the story), and I rather enjoyed the conclusion.

Henry B. Walthall did a good job as a young man on the edge of sanity – you could tell that toward the end, his character was drenched in uncertainness. Walthall, overall, did quite well here. His uncle, played by Spottiswoode Aitken, was memorable also, though I wish we saw a bit more of him. While no one else stood out to me, everyone played their roles fine.

Making many references to Edgar Allan Poe (constantly quoting ‘Annabel Lee’, and alluding to both The Cask of Amontillado and The Tell-Tale Heart), portions of The Avenging Conscience do come across as perhaps darker than you would think. The score, at times jovial, at times almost frantic, really helped to make some scenes more suspenseful.

The Avenging Conscience: or, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ may not come across to many as a real horror movie, despite both murder and revenge from beyond the grave, because of the amount of romantic drama, but I’d urge any fan of horror to still give it a shot. It’s far from perfect, and not even close to the best silent horror flick, but it’s still solid despite the flaws, and is definitely a piece of horror history.

7.5/10

Directed by Tobe Hooper [Other horror films: Eaten Alive (1976), The Dark (1979), Salem’s Lot (1979), The Funhouse (1981), Poltergeist (1982), Lifeforce (1985), Invaders from Mars (1986), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986), Spontaneous Combustion (1990), I’m Dangerous Tonight (1990), Night Terrors (1993), Body Bags (1993, segment ‘Eye’), The Mangler (1995), The Apartment Complex (1999), Crocodile (2000), Shadow Realm (2002), Toolbox Murders (2004), Mortuary (2005), Djinn (2013)]

Six years after the low budget hit Night of the Living Dead, and two years after Craven’s gritty debut, The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre follows in it’s predecessors footsteps as a gritty, violent, unforgettable experience.

My problem has always been, though, that I don’t find the experience altogether enjoyable.

So many things about this movie are amazing: Leatherface’s screen presence is off the charts – all his kills are memorable. And his first on-screen appearance still scares the shit out of me. The room with the bones, feathers, and nightmarish furniture was truly horrifying. The chase scenes are tense, and feel quite real (as virtue to the lower-budget, in my opinion). Marilyn Burns does an absolutely amazing job as a woman who has been thrown off the cliff of sanity. And those final ten minutes? Still stands up amazingly to today’s standards.

So given all of those positives, what’s my problem? It stems basically to the fact that while memorable, I just couldn’t enjoy this. It’s gritty, dark, occasionally uncomfortable, and dreary as hell. And sure, while the first thirty minutes are slow (I’ve never been a fan of the hitchhiker scene), my main issue is that I just don’t find this all that enjoyable.

A masterpiece in it’s own right, I recognize the contributions Hooper made to the genre with this flick. But as good as many of the portions are, and as great an actress as Burns was, this isn’t a movie I find myself willingly re-watching all that often. I’d take Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, hell, even Leprechaun, any time over this. A solid movie that stands out a gritty piece of history, but still, I have to give it just below average, which is what I’ve consistently given this flick every time I’ve seen it.

6.5/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, so if you want to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one, look no further.

Directed by Travis Zariwny [Other horror films: Intruder (2016), World of Death (2016, segment ‘Manicure’), The Midnight Man (2016), Lensface (2020), Punk Rock Cannibals (2021)]

Prior to reviewing this, I wanted to make sure that everyone knows I have little love for the original Cabin Fever. Aside from a cute actress, I thought it was a good idea butchered by a sloppy direction and overall needlessly comedic. For this remake, a few of the problems are fixed, but it’s not altogether that much better a movie (though I do feel it’s a better movie).

What they did right: most of the comedic elements are taken out of this version (though some of the stupidity remains, such as the Pancakes kid), which is a step in the right direction. The last twenty minutes went in a different direction, and while there were problems (I’ll get into them later), overall, I felt the ending was decently stronger.

Onto the bad, the main issue is that the first half of the film is a scene-by-scene, line-by-line copy of the original, give or take a few lines, which really should not be the point of a remake, in my opinion. Still, it was a better first half than the original, which at the very least is something. Deputy Winston, the party cop, was a major problem I had with the original, and while the character (played this time by a female) still has those party tenancies, there’s a slight redemption near the end. The same hillbilly idiots in the original film are present here also, and do the same idiotic actions.

On the upside, the local authorities seem to be actually dealing with the contagion as opposed to covering it up. Really, the end as a whole is better, but there were two portions that seemed unnecessary, one including the Pancakes Boy and a post-credit scene that seemed beyond pointless.

The main problem with this remake is that it tries to be the original movie, keeping the script, as opposed to using the ideas from the original and crafting a new story, which would have had been ideal. This remake wasn’t something we needed, but it was moderately welcomed. At the very least, it was better than the original. Still lacks much of what I’d have wished for in a movie about a flesh-eating disease, though.

5/10

Directed by Kenneth Zollo [Other horror films: N/A]

At the time I watched this (around March 2018), this movie came out of nowhere, and I’m guessing it must have been added to IMDb sometime within last six to eight months of that date – had it been there any longer, I would have ran into it (as I often scour IMDb for previously unknown horror flicks).

Straight to video (that much, the quality can attest to), The Toxic Slime Creature is such an obscurity I’ve thus far not found much information on it. A few sources call it an “extremely rare Vidimax release,” and that certainly seems plausible. The origins of this movie aside, let’s see how it actually is.

Made up of a limited cast (all of whom, at this point in time, have no additional credits on IMDb), this movie keeps things simple and to the point, going as far as only giving us brief, one-second glances of the titular slime creature at a time, which, given the special effects, is probably only a positive.

The only actor who really stood out was Charles Ward, whose character is one of the few who manages to keep calm throughout. Some of the dialogue is laughable (“How can it not have legs? What doesn’t have legs” being rebuffed by two suggestions, that of a snake and fish), but not as much as you might think going in.

With a run-time of just an hour (more like 57 minutes, truth be told), being holed up in an office most of the time and occasionally trying to fight the creature doesn’t make for an enthralling film, but even a banana held more dread than the climatic fight at the conclusion. There’s not that much to this movie, and it’s probably not worth seeing, but hell, it did possess some charm. At the very least, the title’s amusing.

6/10

Directed by Michael Taylor Pritt [Other horror films: Fun Time (2015), Are We the Waiting (2017), Night Howl (2017)]

Miles Before Sleep has a lot of heart, in my estimation. It’s a short film (under an hour, and the last six minutes or so are outtakes anyway), but does a good job of not waiting until the end to pick up. Which is a minor complaint also; while the fun might be in the chase, I’m not sure how much fun I had watching these individuals trying to escape the two brothers (plus their mute sister) over and over again.

Around the forty minute mark, I did feel as though it was dragging a bit. But that aside, the ending was an okay one (and the flashbacks strewn throughout the film were welcomed, because while we didn’t need background information on the killers and their family, I thought it was a nice touch).

A funny thing I wanted to point out: Valentine, who is the hesitant third brother (and infinitely more civilized) was played by the director of the film, Michael Taylor Pritt. No matter how much I tried, every time I saw Pritt on screen, I couldn’t help but think of John Bradley (who portrays Samwell Tarley in Game of Thrones). Doesn’t really change my thoughts on the film at all, but thought it was worth mentioning.

The two insane brothers (being Christian is one thing, but they take it to another level) did their jobs well, and overall, despite the low budget of the film, I thought everyone did a pretty decent job. The story’s nothing overly creative, but I had fun with it (the outtakes themselves were quite enjoyable also), so I’d recommend seeking this out if lower-budget movies are your thing.

7/10

Directed by John Sjogren [Other horror films: N/A]

There’s basically only two reasons, as far as I can tell, to really seek this movie out. One, if you’re a slasher fan, and two, to see if Oscar Lusth can act (the answer is not really).

Oscar who? Well, many years back, I was a fan of the reality show Survivor, and Oscar, or Ozzy, has been a repeat contender, well-known for his strong athletic ability, outstripping almost every peer. In fact, since he first appeared on Survivor back in 2006, I’m surprised this DVD copy I have doesn’t milk the fact that they have Ozzy in the movie.

As it is, while it’s nice seeing a familiar (and unexpected) face, the novelty doesn’t really take long to wear off. That said, his character, Steve, is a decently fun guy. Other actors worth mentioning include the killer Kerry Wallum (not great acting, but a somewhat charming personality) and Joe Estevez (who has had well over two hundred roles). On the flipside, Elizabeth Jauregui had some of the worst delivery I’ve seen in a while. Part of the fault might lie with the script-writer (seriously, she was expected to tell a serial killer that the law says he shouldn’t kill her with a straight face?), but bad script aside, she was pretty weak.

None of the kills in the flick are excellent. Some quick-paced hammer attacks are nice, and an individual gets his arm chopped off in what’s probably my favorite scene, but overall, nothing really comes across as that memorable (including a dismemberment). And that final kill just didn’t look good.

There’s not really much to this movie, when all’s said and done. Some funny lines, some hammy acting, and sure, seeing half naked women is never bad, but the meandering start to the film, along with unspectacular kills, really don’t make this film one that stands out. I saw this first in October 2017, and for all the good a re-watch has done, I’d have been better served watching a plethora of other flicks. Not terrible, but below average.

6/10

Directed by Michael Dougherty [Other horror films: Trick ‘r Treat (2007)]

I didn’t have a whole lot of expectations going into this one, despite having seen the trailer a few times, and overall, that may have been a positive thing.

Krampus does many things right – the atmosphere is appropriately bleak and frigid, with multiple well-done scenes depicting the cold Hell this extended family has found themselves in. Most of the comedic elements are decent, and I’ve no complaints about the acting of any of the characters, which is of course another plus. The flashback, as narrated by the grandmother, was done in a rather enjoyable animation, and thoroughly enjoyable to witness. The Krampus’ design was pretty solid. Even most of the ending worked for me.

Of course, few movies are totally without flaws. At times, the amount of dangerous creatures got a bit much (a teddy bear, gingerbread cookies, an evil angel, a Jack-in-the-Box, and a toy robot, for instance), and while I’ve no complaint about most of these, I thought the gingerbread men were a bit ridiculous. Toward the end, when the pit to Hell (presumably) opened, I was finding it more difficult to care than I’d hope for (if only because I expected some twist to come up, rendering the whole thing moot).

And while the ending scene itself was actually pretty cool (the snow globe workshop was indeed fun), the last split second was a jump scare, with a bunch of evil toys coming at the screen. I abhor endings that try to scare the audience (not a character in the movie, but the audience) in the last split second. It’s over-done, and ruins any chance that the movie could be spectacular. All-in-all, Krampus is a good slice of Christmas horror. Plenty of the actors and actresses stand out (notably Emjay Anthony, Adam Scott, Stefania LaVie Owen, and Conchata Ferrell), and while not the best Christmas comedy-horror film out there (Santa’s Slay, anyone?), it was certainly worth a watch.

8/10

Directed by David Arquette [Other horror films: N/A]

As a critique on both the Reagan and, at the time, present Bush administration, The Tripper rather falls flat. As a slasher, with occasional splatter influences, the film fares a bit better, but not amazingly so.

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what about this movie doesn’t entirely work. Part of it, in my opinion, is the somewhat inconsistent tone. At times, the movie is certainly tongue-in-cheek (though few scenes are outright comedic; this isn’t Broken Lizard’s Club Dread, people), but other times, the Tripper comes across a serious slasher, and hell, even between the characters Samantha and Ivan, there was a pretty sweet scene present.

What this movie somewhat lacks in tone, though, it makes up for in most kills. The first few kills are quick, clean, and efficient (a snapped neck and a decapitation) – these were perhaps my favorites. But some individuals get killed by multiple stabbings, or disembowelment, so there’s fun to be had all around. The final kill in the movie didn’t do much for it, as the special effects looked a bit worse for the wear. That could be said for more than a few kills, though, as it wasn’t uncommon for the blood to look more than a little brighter red than it should. Still, the kills overall were strong.

In the political realm, I certainly would have preferred more discussion of the character’s feelings on then-current president George W. Bush, as you would think a movie that hits you over the head with the idea that “Republicans are bad” would have a little more substance, but aside from some weak criticism of Bush and just stating some facts about Reagan’s actions while president (cutting off federal funds to mental institutions), we get little to really chew over. Perhaps that’s not the point, but when one is making a political satire, of sorts, I feel like no punches should be pulled. This movie could have had something to say, but didn’t attempt it.

None of the characters aside from Samantha (Jaime King) and the killer really stood out. The design of the killer was pretty cool – loved his straight-laced appearance and suit (even though the mask was ehh). Really, while the movie might be okay for a single watch, having watched it twice now, I don’t think there’s much to go back to it for. Not a particularly memorable movie. I’d never watch this one if I had the chance to re-watch Uncle Sam.

6.5/10