Jiggy's Horror Corner

Deadlines (2017)

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

Mr. Wrong (1984)

Directed by Gaylene Preston [Other horror films: N/A]

At many points throughout the film, Mr. Wrong feels like a traditional ghost story, and I think that it’s a feeling that works out pretty well, though it doesn’t leave me feeling utterly wowed.

This New Zealand flick might be a bit conventional at times, and you can certainly see the ending coming from some miles away, but it has that spooky vibe that works. Featuring a woman who isn’t the generic beauty queen also helps out, and gives the film a somewhat more ‘everyman’s’ feel.

Heather Bolton does a good job as the main character, and at times, I think one can really feel the terror she too feels. David Letch has a good, ominous presence, though I would have liked a bit more back-story regarding him.

The biggest detriment this film has is the fact that while it certainly has chills, it’s extraordinarily light on actual kills. While I wasn’t expecting any gore (which was good, as there’s none to be found), I was hoping for a higher body count than what we actually got. Related, the movie occasionally feels as though it has a sluggish pace, and while there are really well-done and suspenseful sequences at times, it does drag a bit.

Still, if traditional ghost stories are your thing, then I think this would work out. It’s certainly nothing overly special, but it’s a very competently-made and compelling film, so if you can get beyond the New Zealand accents, I’d give it a go.

7.5/10

The Territory (1981)

Directed by Raoul Ruiz [Other horror films: La ville des pirates (1983), La maison Nucingen (2008)]

(Note: this review was written like this movie – it starts off competently, but then falls into a mess of stuff that has no context and makes no sense).

Maybe it’s because I don’t have much interest in philosophy, but I couldn’t stand this movie. It just felt aimless, meandering, and pointlessly ontological.

The story had potential, and it’s that potential that lead me to seek this film out, placing it on my ‘want-to-see’ list. It’s the same mistake I made with the 2007 French flick Eden Log, actually. I might have hated that one more, but this wasn’t a walk in the park, by any means.

There were some decent scenes at the beginning before the characters started acting irrationally and ultimately ceased acting like actual people. The idea of wandering lost in what should be an easy location to leave has appeal, but when the approach they take is one like they did here, it doesn’t do a thing for me, and actively irritated me.

I derived no pleasure from this movie. Not from the end (I guess one of the characters died off-screen, or something, because they don’t pop up again, and also, there seems to be a character at the end who never appeared before who was retroactively considered a main character or something), which was horrible.

I don’t even know if my critique is making sense. The cannibalism aspect was fine at the very beginning, but then it became some religious-like ritual for some reason without explanation. And then other stuff happened. I guess. Then a book was written from the surviving characters, despite the fact that the main survivor was utterly incomprehensible half the time.

This movie is Portuguese, though it’s in English, and takes place in France for some reason.

There was one scene where a guy kept yelling “BARBARA SHOULD I HIT HIM AGAIN BARARA WHAT SHOULD I DO BARBARA HES GETTING UP WHAT SHOULD I DO NEXT SHOULD I HIT HIM AGAIN BARBARA HES MOVING WHAT SHOULD I DO” for three, four minutes. Maybe longer. Fun times.

Like suicide, I guess. Purple feathers on blue grass. Long Weekend was bad too, but this was so wurst.

Fun times.

1/10

The Belko Experiment (2016)

Directed by Greg McLean [Other horror films: Wolf Creek (2005), Rogue (2007), Wolf Creek 2 (2013), The Darkness (2016)]

More or less a rehash of Battle Royale in a corporate setting, The Belko Experiment isn’t really anything new or all that special. I do think it’s pretty fun, but if one is left feeling like it’s ultimately pointless and derivative, I understand that also.

For me, the set-up brought a lot of interesting possibilities to the forefront. I certainly enjoyed the social examination aspect of it, with the dog-eat-dog world of corporate America coming down to violent and gory massacres. Very fitting of a system based off competition, in my opinion. I wish a little more of the mindset behind the experiment was explained, but what we got was fine.

So many individuals in the film were, at the very least, good. Of course, John Gallagher Jr. (of The Newsroom and 10 Cloverfield Lane) did great as a character with extraordinarily difficult choices to make. Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, and Owain Yeoman made for a great team of antagonists (that lobby execution sequence was brutal). I sort of appreciated what they did with Melonie Diaz’s character, but Adria Arjona’s didn’t do much for me.

Other stand-outs include Brent Sexton (loved his scene toward the end), Sean Gunn, James Earl, Michael Rooker (God, I wish he was in this movie longer), David Del Rio, and Abraham Benrudi (who I know from one of my favorite episodes of the X-Files).

The conclusion is more-or-less what I was expecting, so no big surprises, but at the same time, it was moderately satisfying. I did like the concluding shot, so no complaints there.

Obviously, The Belko Experiment doesn’t do all that much that hasn’t been done before. It wasn’t even all that gory (there were some good scenes, but overall, the violence wasn’t too noticeable to me), but at the same time, I enjoyed it. It’s one of those films you can just sit back, relax, and watch, without having to really think too much. I liked this one, and while I understand the more tepid reactions to it, I find it above average, and would generally recommend it.

8/10

The Day (2011)

Directed by Douglas Aarniokoski [Other horror films: Animals (2008), Nurse 3-D (2013)]

This post-apocalyptic flick is a lot of fun (despite the despair of the characters), packed with great gore and action.

Shawn Ashmore, who I mostly recognize from playing Bobby Drake (Iceman) in X2, was an interesting casting choice to lead a band of individuals intent on surviving in a hostile post-apocalyptic environment. It works well, though, and everyone else does pretty good also, from Ashley Bell, who is a total badass, to Cory Hardrict, who, despite being sick, is a damn fun character.

It’s not a fun environment, though. The movie is ultimately very bleak, and that’s demonstrated more so by the very faded color palette used. During flashbacks, the world is colorful and vibrant, full of life, but for most of the movie, the palette is so faded, it almost seems black-and-white, which is an effect that I really liked. That, along with the total brutality of the film (kids get shot and decapitated – say whatever you want, but too few horror films cross that ‘taboo’) shows the desperation of the characters in the film.

Honestly, I can’t think of any big problems I had with the film. The final showdown, taking up the last thirty minutes of the film, was damn brutal, and I loved every second of it. Sure, some of the characters weren’t exactly the best people, but in a post-apocalyptic universe like this, who could blame them?

And on that note, I loved how, unlike many post-apocalyptic films, the antagonists aren’t zombies, or the infected population, or anything of the sort. They’re just other humans, intent on survival also, only willing to go a bit further than most (I’m talking cannibalism). It reminded me a little of Tooth and Nail (2007), though I think the cannibals were more human here. To be honest, I abhorred Tooth and Nail, but it’s been years since I’ve seen it, so maybe it’s not fair to fully comment on it.

I will fully comment on this, though, since I finished it just ten minutes ago at the time of this writing. The Day is a fun, gory, gloomy film. With both strong action and strong gore, I don’t see why there aren’t more enthusiastic reviews about this one out. It has a tepid 5.2/10 on IMDb, and that is something I don’t get. I saw this before, and was afraid that it wouldn’t hold up, but I’m happy to report that it did. A very strong movie, and definitely one that I’d not only watch a third time, but actually purchase.

8.5/10

The Shuttered Room (1967)

Directed by David Greene [Other horror films: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991)]

This was a pretty solid watch for the most part, with good atmosphere and suspense, though a bit lighter on horror than I’d have preferred, especially for a movie over an hour and a half long.

The plot is fun, made additionally enjoyable by the setting. Not only are the two main characters on an island off the coast of an undisclosed state (though this is a British film, it takes place in the USA), the focus of the horrors take place in an abandoned mill, which was suitably creepy and run-down.

Unfortunately, there weren’t as many kills as I was hoping. The opening scene was rather engrossing, and so indeed was the rest of the film, but none of the death scenes really grabbed me all that much. The small amount of blood seen was a welcome sight, and occasionally there was a sense of brutality that was never really touched on, as necessary as I thought it was (more on this shortly). It’s really the atmosphere, the moody and ominous feeling throughout, that allows this movie a higher rating than the kill scenes themselves.

Now, this next part was something I wasn’t initially going to speak about, but it was a prevalent theme throughout the film, so if this seems out of place, I apologize.

Taking place on a moderately small and out-of-touch island, some of the male locals have rather backwards views on appropriate behavior and actions toward women they’re unfamiliar with. Multiple times throughout the movie, these men chase and sexually harass, with the intent to rape, Carol Lynley’s character. Of course, being the inbred pieces of trash they are, as soon as she rejects their affection or tries to defend herself against the unwelcomed touches, they get angry at her, only making them want to mess with her more. It’s sexist male entitlement at it’s finest, and I’ve rarely seen locals as undeserving as life as these assholes, especially with their actions toward the end of the film.

The point that’s more important to the movie is that only one of the five of the characters displaying these sickening and backwards actions (which far too many of my male peers would see little problem with) ends up dying. The movie had a solid opportunity to dispatch, with as much brutality as legal in the UK at the time, these utterly unlikable characters. But only one of them dies, and it was too quick to bring much pleasure. Talk about a wasted potential.

Gig Young and Carol Lynley’s characters both were done well. I loved Young’s brawling sequences, defending his young wife against the rapists that populate the island, and they struck me as more authentic than I’d have expected. Lynley, while her character was certainly afraid, never really fell into the whole ‘hysterical woman’ trope, which I appreciated.

Oliver Reed’s character was detestable, and he did quite well in that roll. It may be worth mentioning, too, that Reed has probably done the most for the genre, starring in such horror films as The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), Captain Clegg (1962), Paranoiac (1963), Blue Blood (1974), Burnt Offerings (1976), The Brood (1979), Venom (1981), Spasms (1983), Alan Birkinshaw’s The House of Usher (1989), and Severed Ties (1992), along with having smaller roles in a handful of other flicks. It’s an impressive horror resume, and if his acting in this film is any indication, it’s clear to see how he attained these many roles.

My biggest gripe with The Shuttered Room, despite all that is does right, is the lack of kills, instead focusing on the rapey locals. Certainly, that’s a horror in itself, but I’d have preferred more about the mysterious figure killing people at the mill as opposed to seeing Lynley’s character being continually assaulted. Still, the movie has a great moody feel, and the color is pretty crisp, which is a plus for a film from a decade that hadn’t fully embraced color yet. A solid 60’s flick, this is one that I would tepidly recommend.

8/10

Murder Obsession (1981)

Directed by Riccardo Freda [Other horror films: I vampiri (1957), Caltiki il mostro immortale (1959), Maciste all’inferno (1962), L’orribile segreto del Dr. Hichcock (1962), Lo spettro (1963), L’iguana dalla lingua di fuoco (1971), Estratto dagli archivi segreti della polizia di una capitale europea (1972)]

For a late entry into the giallo subgenre, Murder Obsession isn’t terrible. It’s just not that great.

When it pops up, the gore is decently solid. A good throat-slitting with a chainsaw was the stand-out scene, but there’s a few others strewn about within the last thirty minutes or so. As always, the multitude of suspects made it a bit more fun, but to be honest, the conclusion was generally pretty meh.

Which is the biggest concern with this movie. Oh, the meandering plot and sluggish pacing didn’t help, nor the fact that the first murder doesn’t take place until an hour has gone by, but the ending isn’t that satisfactory. I do like how we got two different possible chains of events, told by two different characters, but it was moderately obvious which one was the one that really happened. Lastly, one of those dream sequences went on far too long – I don’t think we need a ten-minute dream (complete with one of the fakest-looking spiders in the history of cinema) when three minutes would have sufficed.

Stefano Patrizi made for an interesting lead character, what with his uncertainty over his past actions. His character was actually sort of a dick a lot of the time, but like I said, that makes him a bit more interesting. John Richardson (who has been in a quite a few horror films, such as Black Sunday, Frankenstein ’80, Torso, Eyeball, and Nine Guests for a Crime) had a great screen presence, though his character didn’t end up doing that much for me. Silvia Dionisio does moderately well, but past the halfway point of the film, she doesn’t appear that much. Finally, Anita Strindberg was generic through a lot of the film, but really picked up her performance toward the end.

Directed by Riccardo Freda (who was behind 1963’s Lo spettro, a favorite of mine, along with a few other 70’s horror flicks), Murder Obsession lacked some of the mystery I’d have preferred for a giallo. There was no shortage of suspects, but like I said, it was somewhat obvious where it was going. Not a bad film, but for a giallo, this doesn’t really stand out much.

6/10

White Zombie (1932)

Directed by Victor Halperin [Supernatural (1933), Revolt of the Zombies (1936), Torture Ship (1939), Buried Alive (1939)]

Often regarded as the first-ever zombie film, I have to admit, I liked this flick more the last few times I saw it as opposed to this last viewing.

Make no mistake, White Zombie is still a classic film – there are some great sets (both the crypt/graveyard and the castle at the end), some solid performances, quite a bit of creepy imagery, and an overall good story. At the same time, despite running for just over an hour (hour and seven minutes, to be exact), I still felt a bit bored at times.

Made a year after the classic Dracula, Bela Lugosi does really well as the antagonist. Related, Robert Frazer also has a solid presence, and his final act really brings his character arc together. John Harron was an interesting lead actor, mainly because he has a smaller physique than I’m used to seeing, but it still worked well. Lastly, playing his wife, Madge Bellamy does well as both a young, enthusiastic woman and as a zombie, so props to her.

Given the movie’s shorter, whenever I felt the plot drag, it was rather disappointing. What probably made it a little worse is the fact that while the visual print I saw was impeccable (very crisp black-and-white, which isn’t at all like the commonly available print of this one), the audio quality suffered a bit, and because of that, it wasn’t uncommon for it to be difficult to pick up some of the dialogue.

Like I said, though, this movie is still a classic. It was never my favorite of the 30’s horror output, but it was always an acceptable film. It still is, though like I said, I liked it more during previous viewings. Definitely worth a watch, my issues notwithstanding, if you’re a fan of classic horror.

6/10

Witchcraft (1964)

Directed by Don Sharp [Other horror films: The Kiss of the Vampire (1963), Curse of the Fly (1965), The Face of Fu Manchu (1965), Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966), The Brides of Fu Manchu (1966), Psychomania (1973), Dark Places (1974), To the Devil a Daughter (1976), What Waits Below (1984)]

This is a moderately fun black-and-white British production, but I couldn’t help but feel as though something was missing.

The story’s set-up, being a long-standing family feud, was pretty good, and generally, the story was perfectly fine, though I thought it went down a really expected path past a certain point. The crisp black-and-white rendered some of the sequences rather creepy, especially the graveyard scene near the beginning.

As far as the performances go, most of the fun comes from Lon Chaney – though it’s over twenty years since he graced the screen as The Wolf Man, he stills does a good job playing a menacing character. As a lead, Jack Hedley does a fine job also, though he’s not near as mesmerizing as Chaney is. Most others are somewhat pedestrian.

Like I said, though, the story goes down a somewhat predictable path, and while I wasn’t expecting a twist, or anything like that, I was sort of hoping they’d eschew expectations somehow. The whole “this family is good, the other is bad” doesn’t make for an overly-captivating family feud film, in my view.

There are still some creepy scenes through, not to mention some rather suspenseful ones (I rather liked some of the driving sequences – I thought they did that pretty well), but for a flick from the classic decade that is the 1960’s, I expected a bit more out of it. If anything, see it for Lon Chaney. Otherwise, you’re not missing much.

6/10

Interface (1984)

Directed by Andy Anderson [Other horror films: N/A]

I can barely think of an appropriate response to this film.

This conspiracy-driven action/horror/comedy mix is something that was certainly an experience to view. It wasn’t particularly good, and the horror vibe sort of disappeared about halfway through the film, instead feeling like some cheap conspiracy thriller, mixed with comedic quips every other sentence, yet it still maintained a high level of violence.

I’m not entirely sure what this movie was going for. I’ll admit that much of the comedy I found amusing, partially because the two main characters, played by John S. Davies and Lauren Lane, had such a goofy, over-the-top style. Early on, the film was just odd, what with a prankster starting a shoot-out, a man being killed by a phone call, and a prostitute being blown up by a television (talk about sentences you never expect to write).

Which isn’t to say the film wasn’t odd later on – it just followed a slightly more generic route, with a bunch of people attempting to kill the two main characters, almost exclusively with firearms (which is why the film feels much more action than horror past a certain point). This isn’t also to say the film isn’t amusing, because it really can be. The problem is, it’s not consistently so.

The biggest problem, though, is that the plot didn’t seem to know where it wanted to go. If it stuck to a more horror feel, I think that it’d have done more for me. And those Atari/electronic voices annoyed the hell out of me, on a side-note. Interface is a strange movie that might do more for you than it did for me. I’d just recommending watching it, and see how it goes, but don’t expect too much. It’s an 80’s obscurity for a reason.

5.5/10