Tag: 1984

Directed by Charles E. Sellier Jr. [Other horror films: N/A]

So I first saw this cult classic under in a less-than-suitable way (I sandwiched it in during a day when I watched eight other movies), so it didn’t make much of an impact the first time I actually saw this, so watching it again was something that I was quite excited for, and overall, while I do find a few issues here and there, I generally found the movie pretty enjoyable.

What really stands out, as far as the opening is concerned, is the amount of time spent on Billy’s character as a kid, playing out almost like a character study. It does make some of the beginning feel a tad sluggish, but it’s not that bad, and things pick up nicely when Billy, now 18, gets a job at a toy store, just in time for the holidays.

Which leads to my all-time favorite montage ever in a movie. I mean, if Jesus Christ and Muhammad worked together with Buddha and The Beatles, they couldn’t have come up with a montage as beautiful as this. The focus is Billy’s hard work, both on and off the clock (and his boss’ smile and nod as Billy straightens that book cracked me up to no end), and set to a song called ‘The Warm Side of the Door’ by Morgan Ames. It’s truly magical.

Robert Brian Wilson did pretty decently as the lead, despite never really doing much else before or after. He had a good sense of foreboding that I appreciated, and when he went off the deep end, he went off the deep end. Though she didn’t add as much as you might hope, Toni Nero was good, though her character does bother me a bit toward her final scenes. Ditto Randy Stumpf, only I never cared for his character.

Aside from Wilson, the second-most important performance might well be Lilyan Chauvin (as Mother Superior), who was a solid showcase of the dangers of religious extremism. Superior was literally a horrible woman, and she consistently abused those children, so it’s a shame that she may have survived the film. Admittedly, Linnea Quigley (Return of the Living Dead and Night of the Demons being among her most important work) supplied the film with quality nudity, so her character may well be more important than Chauvin’s.

For the most part, though, Wilson is the focus. Sure, we get a little Gilmer McCormick trying to find and help Billy, and related, some H.E.D. Redford trying to track Billy down, but we pretty much follow Billy as he kills random people on a rampage, which is good and all, but it does occasionally feel as though it’s lacking a personal touch.

I think it’s here that the movie fails a bit, as much of Billy’s killing spree lacks that personal touch that you might expect. I mean, don’t get me wrong, the kills themselves are still decent, but it almost feels hollow at times, which surprised me, if only because that’s not a common feeling I get from the average slasher film (though as said, to be sure, this is far from the average slasher in approach).

Still, that ending. It was both sort of ridiculous and ridiculously funny, so I can’t really complain. Also, on the finale, the fact that it took place during the daytime as opposed to night was an interesting choice, showing again that this movie isn’t the most typical slasher.

I can’t say with honesty that I loved Silent Night, Deadly Night, but I did have a moderately decent time once we got past the somewhat involved opening. It’s not necessarily a movie that I think I’d go back to that often, but there’s certainly a place for it, and for me, that place is probably around average.

7/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. If you’re interested in hearing Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this cult classic, look no further.

Directed by Joseph Zito [Other horror films: Bloodrage (1980), The Prowler (1981)]

Long-considered one of the best of the series by many, The Final Chapter has the elements you’d come to expect from a Friday the 13th movie, and it puts them together well.

With quality special effects (certainly not something new for the series), some memorable characters (just look at Dead Fuck’s – I mean, Crispin Glover’s – fantastic dance moves), and just an all-around solid story (not that it’s hard to mess up script for Friday the 13th), I think that this one is remembered fondly for a reason.

I love the beginning to this one, a compilation of scenes from the previous three films, and the film picks up immediately following the conclusion of the third film, which is pretty fun to see (we don’t get much of Jason at the hospital, but what we did get was pleasantly reminiscent of Halloween II). Given that the third film and this one take place over the course of just a couple of days really brings forth the slaughter.

Some of the characters weren’t that memorable (Clyde Hayes, Judie Aronson, and Peter Barton being the best examples), but then we get gems such as the cute Carey More and Camilla More, the funky fun Crispin Glover (of Back to the Future fame), the unlucky Lawrence Monoson, the innocent-yet-fun Barbara Howard, and all-around quality Kimberly Beck. I didn’t care much for Erich Anderson’s character, but Joan Freeman was good, and Corey Feldman (Gremlins) really gave a great performance as a younger actor.

Plus, Crispin Glover gave us a great dance.

Either the corkscrew or shower kill is my favorite, but there are plenty of decent kills throughout the movie. I also enjoyed the rain coming back during the finale, as rain always felt like a good way for these movies to end. Tommy Jarvis too was an interesting character to challenge Jason, and I enjoyed his decently intellectual approach, as it reminded me of Ginny (Amy Steel) from Part 2.

Both this movie and Part 2 are pretty close in quality, truth be told. I don’t think either one is significantly better or worse in any real way, which is a good indicator that these are the two strongest films this series has to offer.

Definitely The Final Chapter has been a favorite of mine for years, and it will continue to be.

8.5/10

Directed by Fritz Kiersch [Other horror films: Surveillance (2006), The Hunt (2006)]

In some aspects, Children of the Corn has aged somewhat poorly, and it’s not necessarily the best translation of one of King’s short stories (from Night Shift, a copy of which was shown on the dashboard of the main characters’ car at one point) to a full-length film, but despite this, Children of the Corn is a very solid attempt, and one I’ve loved since childhood.

Let’s start with two things – the opening of the film and the music. It opens with a massacre in a diner by the youth of a small town, and a violent massacre at that, with plenty of scythes and the like. And that haunting music, a choir of sorts, belies the notion of the children’s innocence. That is a fantastically effective opening, period. End of story.

Now, few scenes really compete with that sequence, but later in the film, there is another pretty good scene in which a mechanic is being tormented by the Gatlin kids, and ends up getting entirely messed up. These kids know no mercy, thanks to the beast that is Malachai (Courtney Gains).

I want to touch on the interesting concept of the King story, and of this movie, then onto a small examination of the relationship between Malachai and Isaac, as it certainly impacts my view of the film.

Pray tell, why did kids kill adults at the beginning? Interestingly enough, the youth of Gatlin rallied beyond young child pastor Isaac, who held secret meetings in the corn, and decried the depravity of adults. The adults of this small Nebraska town were generally Baptist, but that’s not old school enough for Isaac, who believes that once you’re past a certain age, any hope of salvation is gone.

The solution? Kill off all the adults, form a new religion worshipping ‘He-Who-Walks-Behind-The-Rows’ (in a small farming community, you can see why that title would have appeal), and sacrifice everyone who turns of age for the sake of their soul. Realistically, a small town, even in Nebraska, couldn’t disappear off the map (though apparently, it wasn’t on the map to begin with) – even if you can ignore out-of-town relations, the IRS want their taxes, not to mention eventually the Census.

Still, the idea’s damn cool.

The relationship between Malachai and Isaac (John Franklin) is an interesting one – Isaac is the clear spiritual leader, but Malachai has a strong following, and is seen as doing more for their faith (it doesn’t hurt that he’s more of a hard-liner than Isaac, as music and games are forbidden, but Isaac lets that pass at times). Them Gatlin kids ain’t got no time for Isaac’s ‘mercy,’ and so turn to Malachai. That scene where Malachai revolts against Isaac’s authority (screaming ‘seize him’ didn’t get Isaac anywhere) is another one that pulls this movie to higher grounds.

Also, when he’s holding Burt’s wife (Linda Hamilton) at knife-point in the center of a dead town, crying out for the Outlander, again, fantastic scene.

Of course, it’s not all good, as the movie is somewhat drenched in the aura of the 1980’s, especially the somewhat cheesy conclusion and final scene. Believe you me, the original short story was so much better, and this waters it down just as bad as the adaptation of Cujo did. Also, it does take a little bit for the movie to get going, as a lot of the first half of the film are the two main characters (Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton) looking for any signs of life from the aforementioned dead town, but personally, I thought it had solid atmosphere.

And on that note, while I wasn’t really blown away by either Horton or Hamilton (Hamilton, of course, soon becoming famous for her role in The Terminator movies), both John Franklin (Isaac) and Courtney Gains (Malachai) were fantastic, and I can’t applaud their performances enough.

I think the idea behind this movie (and story) is better than the final product, and I wish this movie touched more upon the religious views of the kids, but still, Children of the Corn has a lot going for it, and while I’d never say it’s perfect, I don’t really understand the hate this one sometimes get. But again, maybe some of my viewpoints are drenched in nostalgia. Still, I find this a very solid movie, and always have a quality time with it.

8.5/10

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

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 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

Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic – that’s something you don’t need Uncle Jiggy to tell you. It’s a movie that I’ve seen many, many times, and though I have no problem admitting that the film has its problems, I can’t deny that I still find it quite a great movie.

Also, it’s fair to say that it’s a very difficult movie to talk about – this is the horror film I’ve seen the most, and I first saw it at a young age (while hiding behind a couch for the finale, as I was terrified), so it’s very much ingrained in me. Truth be told, I probably didn’t need to watch the movie again to write this review, but believe you me, it’s no hardship to revisit this.

It’s not perfect, though. I’ve never thought that it was, because – the silly, incomprehensible ending aside – there’s one sequence that I’ve never, as often as I’ve seen the movie, been able to understand.

After Tina’s death and Rod’s arrest, Nancy has a plan – she wants Glen to watch over her while she sleeps, and wake her up should it appear that she’s having a bad dream. Certainly this is sensible – if it looks like she’s struggling with someone, waking her up would save her life.

The problem is that once Nancy falls asleep and goes exploring the dreamy suburban neighborhood, she hisses behind her for Glen, to make sure that he’s still watching her, and he pops up from behind a tree to indicate that he is.

Now, this is a dream. Nancy knows it’s a dream. And yet Glen is here? Glen’s purpose was specifically to not fall asleep, so even if someone could propose the idea of a shared dream, that doesn’t fly. The only way this makes sense to me is that Nancy’s sleeping, but also partially awake, and is calling to Glen in reality, and he’s, in reality, replying that he’s there, and her mind is interpreting an image of Glen in the dream, despite him not actually being there.

It still doesn’t make much sense to me – given how exhausted Nancy was, how could she guarantee she’d stay partially awake despite being asleep (which is already incredulous, on a side-note) – but that’s the only way that I can make even partial sense of that scene. This has been a question I’ve had for over 15 years, and I’ve never seen a real satisfactory answer for it.

Of course, there are other confusing scenes (again, ignoring the finale), such as how Freddy is able to taunt Nancy near the end with the phone call if Nancy was awake. It’s possible, of course, she nodded off while waiting for Glen, but I’ve always got the sense that she was awake at the time.

I’m not here to harp on the film, but I do think it’s worth taking the time to point out the problems I have with it. Like Hellbound: Hellraiser II, this is a great movie, but it doesn’t always make much sense, which I think many people, even deep fans of the franchise, would be able to admit.

It is a movie of some rather memorable quotes, though. Nancy shouting ‘MOTHER!’ after finding bars on her homes’ windows has never failed to crack me up, and Rod’s unique ‘Up yours with a twirling lawnmower,’ definitely brings an image to mind. Marge’s drunk ‘Locked, locked, locked,’ which I quote often IRL, has a good ring to it, and though it’s from Shakespeare, the quote from Halmet (“O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space – were it not that I have bad dreams”) was used hauntingly here.

Oh, and let’s not forget the ever-classic line “This is God,” said by Freddy, referring to his clawed glove. A simple line, no doubt, but damn effective.

Few of the performances are perfect, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less memorable. It’s just some odd pieces of dialogue, or intonation, small things like that, which pop up throughout the film (and it’s possible I notice only because I’ve seen this one as often as I have). Heather Langenkamp (Home) still made for a great and proactive lead, of course, and stood out wonderfully. Honestly, I’ve never loved Johnny Depp (Sleepy Hollow) here, and I wish that we saw a bit more of Jsu Garcia and Amanda Wyss (Shakma), but again, still very memorable characters.

Naturally, Robert Englund (Galaxy of Terror, Eaten Alive, Kantemir) is a legend here, as is John Saxon (The Night Caller, Tenebre, My Mom’s a Werewolf, The Girl Who Knew Too Much, Hellmaster, The Scorpion with Two Tails, Queen of Blood, Beyond Evil, Black Christmas, Cannibal Apocalypse), despite the annoyances I feel toward his character. Like, you could tell that Nancy had no real faith that he’d be there to arrest Freddy, should she pull him from the dream, and his character could have used a bit more exploring. Ronee Blakley’s role is another example that could have had a bit of depth added, but I think that they did a better job with her than they did Saxon, especially during her monologue of Freddy’s backstory.

I don’t think I can say anything about the special effects that haven’t already been said. I absolutely adore the scene in which Freddy’s pushing himself out of the wall toward Nancy. That blood geyser was gnarly. Tina’s death is the stuff of legends, of course. Nancy running up the stairs, which soon turn to some sludgy material, was quality too.

Hell, this may be controversial, but even one of Freddy’s first full appearances – the one where his arms are elongated with perhaps silly effects – is damn effective. This movie naturally had a lot going for it, and multiple viewings haven’t dampened that at all.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic, but it’s also a flawed movie. I’ve known that for years. Sometimes that’s not enough reason to justify giving a film a below perfect rating, because few films are actually perfect, but in all the years I’ve seen this one, I’ve never given it a straight 10/10. I just don’t think it quite gets there. There’s no doubt the film is a great movie, though, and a classic very much worth watching, flaws and all.

9/10

This classic was covered on episode #27 of Fight Evil’s podcast, so listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.