Tenement (1985)

Directed by Roberta Findlay [Other horror films: Take Me Naked (1966), Mnasidika (1969), Janie (1970), The Altar of Lust (1971), The Slaughter (1971), Angel Number 9 (1974), Snuff (1975), A Woman’s Torment (1977), Mystique (1979), The Oracle (1985), Lurkers (1987), Blood Sisters (1987), Prime Evil (1988), Banned (1989)]

Tenement is a film I’ve seen perhaps three times now, maybe even four. At first, I didn’t care for it – it was far too gritty and the antagonists far too disorganized for my liking – but after taking a few other chances with it, I have grown to respect what this movie was going for.

Also known under the titles Slaughter in the South Bronx and Game of Survival, and a hybrid of action/crime/horror, Tenement is very much a product of the 1980’s. Filmed in New York City (and taking place in the Bronx), this movie shows just how terrible urban decay can touch communities. It’s a dirty, gritty film, with a bit of a grindhouse feel to it, so it’s definitely not a movie for everyone.

It’s also quite violent, and in fact, was rated X by the MPAA solely for violence, which is generally uncommon. To hardened horror fans, there’s not much here that’s really shocking, but much of it is pretty decent, from throat slittings to electrocutions to injecting rat poison into one’s veins. There’s a lot of violence here, and it generally keeps up a good pace.

One of the things I had issues with, when I first saw this one, was the antagonists. It’s a group of seven gang members, and as they go after the tenets in the building, floor by floor, I feel they do it in such a disorganized way. That might sound silly – these seven people are likely all high on cocaine, angel dust, and God knows what else, so it makes sense they wouldn’t be aiming for efficacy – but it stood out to me when I first watched it, and I admit it bothered me.

To be fair, I first saw this when I was no older than 14, if I had to guess, and likely didn’t have much experience with gritty exploitation movies. Certainly after having seen my fair share of those, the fact that the antagonists here are a bunch of drugged-up lunatics doesn’t dissuade me quite as much.

We are sort of thrown into this movie, which has a decent amount of characters, with little in the way of introduction. Of the tenets, we have Sam Washington, Ruth Edelstein, Rojas, Carol, Poppo, Mr. and Mrs. Wesley, Anna, her three children (Anita, Charlie, and Maria), Mr. Gonzales, and Leona and her daughter, Jeanne. Some of these names are only said once, and the DVD copy I have doesn’t have captions, so it took a bit to figure out who was who, which could be annoying.

Related, the seven members of the gang are Chaco, Rudy, Chula, Hector, Sal, Monk, and Nines. I swear, they didn’t call Nines by name until the final 15 minutes, and we’re not really introduced to any of these people on an individual level, so it took a while to match up the names with the faces.

And I understand, when there’s this many characters in a movie, it’s hard to go into too much backstory. I personally kept hoping that they’d mention that Washington had been to Vietnam or something, just because he sort of felt the type, but we don’t really learn much about anyone aside from the surface of their lives. It makes sense, but it also feels a wee bit shallow.

Joe Lynn made for a solid lead. He’s not been in many things, and apparently died just a handful of years later in 1987, at the age of 40, but he did well here. Mina Bern was fun as a scrappy, older woman who wasn’t averse to beating gang members with a baseball bat. Walter Bryant had some good scenes toward the end, Larry Lara was annoying throughout, and Alfonso Manosalvas seemed a nice guy. Others playing tenets worth noting are Angel David, Corinne Chateau, and Rhetta Hughes, who I personally really liked, but she doesn’t last all that long.

Of the seven gang members – Enrique Sandino (Chaco), Dan Snow (Rudy), Karen Russell (Chula), Paul Calderon (Hector), Nick Iacovino (Sal), Joe Montefusco (Monk), and Manuel Cotto (Nines) – only three honestly stand out, being Sandino, Snow, and Russell. Sandino definitely had a striking and threatening aura, despite him having no real character. Karen Russell looked cool, I guess, and Dan Snow (The Toxic Avenger) had a tough feel to him, though that may not have entirely panned out.

I think that fans of 80’s exploitation – movies like Class of 1984, Ms. 45, Savage Streets, Naked Vengeance, and Siege (or Self Defense) – would have a pretty good time with Tenement. I don’t think it’s a great movie, but I do find it consistently entertaining, and there is some solid tension throughout the film, so it may be worth checking out.

7.5/10

Horror House on Highway Five (1985)

Directed by Richard Casey [Other horror films: Horror House on Highway 6 (2014)]

Horror House on Highway Five is a movie I’ve wanted to see for a long time. I never deluded myself that it’d be a good movie, but it’s still something I wanted to scratch off my list for years, and I can say now that I have seen it, and unsurprisingly, I was disappointed.

Which is sort of amusing, because the film is more ambitious than I would have thought, but it’s in that ambition that it lost me. See, all I knew about this film was that there was a killer in a Richard Nixon mask and he terrorized some college kids.

What I didn’t know is that this Nixon-masked killer isn’t the only killer – there’s two other antagonists who kidnap people as part of some unspecified sacrifice, and there’s also some stuff dealing with a Nazi scientist who came to the USA. It’s also moderately comedic, which is something else I wasn’t clear on.

Look, if the film had been just a single guy in a Nixon mask going around and killing college kids, it might have been uninspired, but at least it’s a plot I can get behind. What this movie had was just too out there – I don’t know why they decided to deal with a Nazi scientist, some brothers who were ineffectual half the time, and brain parasites (?) that may or may not be a delusion of one of the characters. It just complicated things unnecessarily.

So with the bizarre plot out of the way, it’s time to talk about what few performances did something for me. Max Manthey was occasionally amusing. Michael Castagnolia worked okay with Susan Leslie, and Irene Cagen could dance with the best of them.

There are some funny scenes here, of course. A man and woman driving by encounter the Nixon-masked killer, leading to some great lines, from ‘Is he giving me the fingeroo?’ to ‘he sure is a big motha.’ It’s partially the delivery, partially the dialogue, but it’s funny. There’s also Gary’s (Max Manthey) dance, which reminded me of Crispin Glover’s classy dance in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. There’s also a character who finds a dead cat in the back of their van, and the other character there literally doesn’t seem concerned at all. It’s just wacky.

I can imagine in some situations Horror House on Highway Five can be a fun movie to watch, but most of those situations involve drugs and alcohol. It can be funny, yes, but personally, that’s not enough, and while I sort of dug the final scenes, this isn’t a movie I particularly enjoyed, and though I’m happy I finally saw it, I can’t say it’s really worth seeing unless you’re into bizarre and possibly drug-influenced movies.

5/10

They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore (1985)

Directed by Nathan Schiff [Other horror films: Weasels Rip My Flesh (1979), The Long Island Cannibal Massacre (1980)]

Among the most repulsive films I’ve witnessed, They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore is somewhat of a classic, in my eyes. The gore effects here, while often looking exceptionally fake, are absolutely gruesome, and if you want an extreme movie, this is one you have to see.

The plot here is pretty much non-existent. Two southern gardeners in a well-to-do northern community kill and mutilate people. And that’s it. It’s 70 minutes of these two gardeners killing and mutilating people, occasionally taking time off to go to the movies to watch other people kill and mutilate. It’s a good time.

Nathan Schiff is a director I’ve long respected for this movie alone. I’ve not seen his other films (most well-known ones including The Long Island Cannibal Massacre and Weasels Rip My Flesh), but I saw They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore a long time ago, and while I never loved it, it stuck with me, because the gore effects are simply as tasteless as one could imagine.

I won’t spend much time talking about the gore – you have to see the movie for yourself. I can tell you that if you want to see people’s legs and arms cut off with chainsaws and handsaws, then They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore is your movie. If you want to see intestines pulled out of peoples’ stomachs and vaginas and then beat to an unrecognizable pulp, They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore is your movie. And if you want to see faces ripped and torn up, all the way to the bone, with the jaws ripped off and the tongues ripped out, their eyes squeezed from their sockets (and they always made a point of squishing them in their hands), then I need only repeat myself once more:

They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore is your movie.

The dialogue is often quite flat and stale, but it’s also some of the most hilarious stuff I’ve ever heard. From the weak and utterly without emotion “Please don’t rape me,” to the way these two women get out of captivity – wait, no, I need to explain this scene in detail.

See, two women have been captured by the maniac gardeners, but luckily, one of the women is a psychiatrist. She knows how to deal with the mentally disturbed (“You are in great need of psychiatric help”), and will use those skills to get out of the situation. So when one of the men comes in, she asks him to grab her mirror and look at himself. Once he does, and he looks into the mirror, she says, her tone helpful, “Look, look how fucking ugly you are. You’re a disgrace.”

I lol’d. A lot.

Or when two cops are discussing a murder – they’re standing over a body (we don’t see the body – we don’t see an inkling of a body – but it’s apparently there), and one of the cops is quite negative when considering the killers, thinking that the boxcars happened 40 years too soon (referring to the Holocaust). The other cop says they still need to solve the crime, and the cop replies “Fuck that, I’m going home to listen to my Billie Holiday tape.”

I lol’d. A lot. It’s funnier because these cops literally never show up again. They were in this single scene that had zero relevance, and that’s it.

Another point here – we get some musical numbers. One is a song that is played on the radio that these two women are listening to. The song, sung by a woman, is about how stupid she [the singer] is, and the catchy chorus goes “That’s why he calls me Dumb Dumb Yummy Yummy Dumb Dumb.” I couldn’t make that up if I tried.

Also, toward the end of the film, the killers are laying back and relaxing, one of them strumming a guitar, the other playing a harmonica. And they sing for us, and here’s the whole song:

“We came up here from Texas / But it didn’t work out for us / We met a lot of fine people / But they ain’t around no more / We were professional gardeners / But it got to be a bore / So seek some new adventure / Cause we don’t cut the grass no more.”

Genius.

Oh, and I forgot one of my favorite lines in the movie. While a woman is attempting to defend herself, and beating on one of the gardeners (played by John Smihula, who does beautifully), the gardener says “Keep this up, bitch. There’s going to be a lot of irate neighbors complaining about their uncut lawns.”

I lol’d.

This movie is a mess, and it’s not a good movie, but it can be quite an amusing movie if you’re into low-budget, ultra-gory films. They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore is something special, and while I can’t honestly give it a high rating, I can say that it’s a treat in many ways.

6/10

Phenomena (1985)

Directed by Dario Argento [Other horror films: L’uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970), Il gatto a nove code (1971), 4 mosche di velluto grigio (1971), Profondo rosso (1975), Suspiria (1977), Inferno (1980), Tenebre (1982), Opera (1987), Due occhi diabolici (1990, segment ‘The Black Cat’), Trauma (1993), La sindrome di Stendhal (1996), Il fantasma dell’opera (1998), Non ho sonno (2001), Il cartaio (2003), Ti piace Hitchcock? (2005), La terza madre (2007), Giallo (2009), Dracula 3D (2012), Occhiali neri (2022)]

Earlier this month, I watched Tenebre for the first time, leaving Phenomena as one of Dario Argento’s most popular works that I’d not yet seen, and now that I have, I can say that Phenomena was a very solid time, which, if I’m being honest, sort of surprised me.

It’s not that I was expecting to hate it, but I thought mixing in some subplot of the central character being able to control insects (which isn’t exactly what’s going on, but my limited knowledge of the film did lead to that misconception) would be too off-putting. Well, as my parents said, I’m wrong 95% of the time, and so was the case here, as this was a delightfully fun film for it’s hour and 50 minute runtime, partially due to the solid performances.

Jennifer Connelly (Dark Water) did a fantastic job as the lead, and her character was wonderfully brave and strong throughout the film. Of course, seeing Donald Pleasence (Halloween, The Flesh and the Fiends, The Mutations) warmed my bitter heart, and seeing him with a monkey was even better. Other than these two, both Daria Nicolodi (Deep Red) and Federica Mastroianni did well also.

The story here was about what you’d expect from a giallo – mysterious killings are happening in Switzerland, and insects lead to identifying the killer. Okay, well, the second part might be more unique, and I was skeptical myself, but I dug how they approached it (because if Pleasence was involved, how could it be a bad idea?), and though the movie is a lengthy one, it never really felt like it was dragging at all.

Also, the soundtrack is killer. I’ll be honest – when I saw both Iron Maiden and Motörhead among the “special musical artists,” in the opening credits, I wasn’t sure. I love Iron Maiden, but I didn’t know if their music would suit a movie like this, and again, I was wrong, as the soundtrack is just excellent, especially the piece titled ‘Phenomena’ by Claudio Simonetti, which is just insanely catchy, and definitely going onto my iTunes.

I will say I made a mistake attempting to eat during portions of the film. Somewhat early on, police detectives brought a rather maggotty decomposed head to be examined, and it didn’t shy away from showing the head in detail. In fact, larvae and maggots were a common sight, especially toward the end – that bathroom scene was hard enough, what with maggots on a bar of soap and a towel – and especially with that pit. You know the pit. I know the pit, and I wish I didn’t. In fact, I’ll go ahead and say I’d rather be thrown into the syringe pit in Saw II rather than the pit at the end of Phenomena.

So yeah, the movie can be a bit off-putting at times, but it never fails to be entertaining, and given the length of the film, the fact that it never once felt as though it was dragging is an impressive feat itself. The kills were somewhat scarce at times, but when they did pop up, we got some quality decapitations and stabbings, and though it’s not as impressive as past Argento works, it wasn’t shabby whatsoever.

In fact, I think this ranks pretty highly for me when it comes to the films I’ve seen by Dario Argento. I still need to see some of his films, of course – The Bird in the Crystal Plumage, The Cat o’Nine Tails, and The Stendhal Syndrome are among them. I’ve seen most of his major works, though, and I think this is pretty good. It may not be as flashy as Suspiria, but I liked the plot more. Tenebre is a movie I personally expected to like more than I did (I enjoyed it, but I was hoping to love it), and though I’d usually enjoy the straight-up giallo more, Phenomena had a better finale.

All of this is to say that among the Argento works I’ve seen, I think Phenomena is my second-favorite. Let’s be real – I gave Deep Red a 10/10, so that’d be exceptionally difficult to beat. Phenomena is a great movie, though, and I enjoyed it far more than I’d have anticipated.

8.5/10

Murderlust (1985)

Directed by Donald M. Jones [Other horror films: Deadly Sunday (1982), Project Nightmare (1987), Evil Acts (2015)]

Murderlust isn’t a movie that I think about often, and it’s not really worth more than a couple views in my estimation. Even so, it’s not a bad film, though it does tend to be a bit dry at times, and almost feels more like a 70’s film than one from the mid-80’s.

One strong point in this movie’s favor is the setting. Filmed partially in the Mojave Desert (in fact, the killer in the film, played by Eli Rich, is dubbed the Mojave Murderer), this has a great deserty feel. The setting is quite beautiful, and even in suburban areas, when you see more sand than grass, it just feels different than so many other films. Mikey had the same thing, but unlike Mikey, the desert plays a big part of this film (that’s where Rich’s character hides the bodies), and it just gives Murderlust a bit more feeling.

Which was badly needed, I hate to say. The story here follows Eli Rich’s character as he goes through his day-to-day life, from being a Sunday school teacher to his failed attempts to hold down other jobs, from a watch guard to a janitor. In his spare time, he kills women by strangulation, primarily ladies of the night. That is, when he’s not arguing with his bosses or his cousin and drama-like things of that sort. This movie can be quite dry, and the fact it runs for an hour and 38 minutes doesn’t help matters.

I’ll give Murderlust props for Eli Rich, though. I think he makes quite a strong lead, and has a very good, strong look (that moustache occasionally reminds me of John Ashton’s Taggart). He can go from kind and sweet to menacing and deadly quite well, and his performance does lend this one a lot of weight. Others in the film, such as Rochelle Taylor and Dennis Gannon, are fine, but it’s really Rich who is the focal point of most of this.

None of the kills are overly shocking, but they’re mostly filmed well (when they’re filmed at all – a couple are just off-screen) and they get the job done. As it is, Rich’s character has a pretty decent body count, and he does have some rather young victims (one of whom he forces into pleasuring him), so if they focused a little more on the kills than his day-in-the-life drama, he could be a quality threatening force.

As decent as the central performance is though, Murderlust is still a bit dry. It’s luckily not that bleak – Rich’s character has a bit of a cavalier attitude when it comes to his personal and business relationships, which does lead to some amusing scenes – but it can be as arid as the desert they filmed this in. It’s still worth catching at least once, but I have to say, now that I’ve seen it twice, I don’t know if it’s a film I’d want to see again anytime soon.

6.5/10

Blood Cult (1985)

Directed by Christopher Lewis [Other horror films: The Ripper (1985), Revenge (1986)]

This early shot-on-video horror film is a bit of a mess. I mean, story-wise, it’s almost fine (aside from largely sucking), but with the quality of the overall film, Blood Cult doesn’t really cut it. It’s a somewhat tedious film with little to recommend, and I can think of plenty better SOV horror films to spend your time with.

In fact, this film is somewhat well-known among SOV fans as reportedly being the first shot-on-video horror film. It’s not – unless I’m deeply mistaken, I would think films such as Sledgehammer, The Toxic Slime Creature, and Day of the Reaper predate it. I should say, though, I’m no expert on SOV horror films, so perhaps there’s something about these earlier movies that disqualify them. Even if Blood Cult was the first, while an interesting historical note, it wouldn’t make the film any more palatable.

And it’s now I should mention that I watched this under the title Slasher. There was no cast listing, and in fact, no credits, aside from some link to an internet website, I believe. Also, the copyright date at the end was 1997. Not only this, but the copy I saw was 83 minutes, whereas IMDb lists the film as 89 minutes.

I go into that detail because while I doubt seeing an original print from 1985 would have deeply improved my enjoyment of the film, I want to be forthcoming in admitting I likely saw a marginally cut version. Slasher is just an awful retitling anyway, so I don’t know what they may have removed, but if I am able to see a better version of Blood Cult in the future, maybe I’ll appreciate it a bit more.

Charles Ellis made for an interesting lead, being an older gentleman (his character was the sheriff, and also running for Senate). He probably did as well as he could with a movie that was shot in nine days. Same with both Juli Andelman and James Vance. I didn’t love any of these performances, but with a movie like this, you’ve just got to give them credit for showing up.

The gore isn’t too bad, though. While a far cry from H.G. Lewis, there were some decent scenes in Blood Cult, such as the kill toward the beginning (following an excruciatingly slow POV sequence, to be fair) when a woman gets hacked to death with a cleaver. There’s a severed hand, a severed head, and this unlucky woman finds some severed fingers in her salad (admittedly, her screams of horror did amuse me). It’s not amazing or even necessarily impressive, but at least Blood Cult did have something to offer.

With muddled audio, though, along with less-than-stellar plot (and a somewhat horrible finale), there’s not that much here that’s worth seeing, at least not in the cut of the film I saw. What amazes me most about Blood Cult, actually, is that they managed a sequel in 1986 titled Revenge (and if IMDb can be believed, Charles Ellis actually reprised his role). Maybe that sequel fixes up some of the issues with this.

As Blood Cult, or Slasher, stands alone, though, I have to say that I didn’t have a good time with this, and found it more tedious than anything else.

5/10

Cat’s Eye (1985)

Directed by Lewis Teague [Other horror films: Alligator (1980), Cujo (1983), The Triangle (2001)]

This is either the second or third time I’ve seen this King-based anthology, and I’m not any more fond of it now than I was the first time I saw it. Cat’s Eye isn’t without promise, and I appreciate they decided to adapt some of King’s lesser known stories, but the movie is too comedic for me to really fully care for.

The first two stories here (all connected, as the title implies, by being witnessed by a cat) are based off short stories written by Stephen King, “Quitters, Inc.” and “The Ledge,” both published in King’s first collection of stories, Night Shift (a copy of which I’ve owned for years, and as such, it’s quite threadbare, really on it’s last legs). If you’ve read early Stephen King, you know that his writing style, especially in his short stories, can come across as clinical, very matter-of-fact. Not dry, but almost reminiscence of 70’s horror – bleak and without much in the way of hope.

Cat’s Eye throws that out the window and instead brings a lot of comedic influences into both of these stories. For ‘Quitters, Inc.,” we get an utterly ridiculous hallucination sequence with cigarettes (and quality singing from Alan King’s character), and for “The Ledge,” Kenneth McMillan’s Cressner is a lot goofier, almost a spoof of a classic mob boss.

It’s also worth mentioning that the conclusion of “The Ledge” was far better in the short story than it was in this adaptation, and that’s even discounting the dodgy special effects.

My disappointment with how they choose to adapt these stories notwithstanding, I think most of the main cast was okay. Not great – no one here really stands out exceptionally well, aside from maybe, and I say maybe, Alan King – but passable. James Woods (Videodrome) was a bit dicey, but likely did the best with the role he had. Robert Hays felt a bit uninspired as the lead in “The Ledge,” and Kenneth McMillan had potential. I was sort of surprised to see a young James Rebhorn (The Game and Independence Day), but his character didn’t really do anything, so it doesn’t really warrant this mention.

The third story, about a girl and her troubles with one trolly boi, wasn’t based off a King short story. As far as the special effects went, especially concerning the troll, it was probably the best of the three, but I also felt that it really went on too long. Candy Clark was pretty decent as a somewhat hateable mother, and Drew Barrymore (previously in Firestarter) was okay, but I didn’t care for the story.

Honestly, that sums this up. We get three stories here spanning an hour and a half, and while I like the source material for the first two, I just didn’t enjoy how they brought them to the silver screen. Also, while some might find such references cute, the opening which winked at both Cujo and Christine made me groan. It just felt forced, similar to the reference of Pinhead in Bride of Chucky.

Cat’s Eye has it’s place, and the movie certainly has it’s fans, but I can’t say I’ve ever been one, and I doubt the style they go for here will ever really work for me.

5/10

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

Directed by Danny Steinmann [Other horror films: The Unseen (1980)]

By-and-large, I feel that this film’s been unfairly maligned since it’s release. Some of my feelings stem from nostalgia, no doubt, but even so, I have always found this a very solid and definitely acceptable entry into the series. Also, I should say that, unlike most of my reviews, there are spoilers here, so be warned.

I mean, look at how many memorable characters are here.

Who can forget Demon (Miguel A. Núñez) and his enchiladas? Joey (Dominick Brascia) and his love of chocolate bars? Reggie (Shavar Ross) and his recklessness? Roy (Dick Wieand) and his son? Violet (Tiffany Helm) and her dancing? Robin (Juliette Cummins) and her breasts, and related, Jake (Jerry Pavlon) and his amazing come-on? Ethel (Carol Locatell) and her stew?

See, I remember all of this stuff, and most of them I’ve remembered since childhood. And none of that even includes the plethora of great kills, such as a guy impaled by a pole or someone’s skull getting crushed by the tightening of a belt. Slit throats, gut stabs, even a solid axe murder to open things up – this movie has both the memorable characters and the gore to back it up.

John Shepard (who plays Tommy years after the events of The Final Chapter) was interesting in that, while he was one of the main protagonists, he rarely felt like it, given the fact he had very few lines and didn’t pop up in a significant way until the finale of the film. He knew how to fight, though, I’ll give him that. Melanie Kinnaman was more an action-oriented woman toward the end, but I sort of thought she never got the character that many of the others got, so I can’t say I found her entirely satisfying.

Otherwise, you have a strong and memorable cast here. Miguel A. Núñez (who, along with Mark Venturini, was also in The Return of the Living Dead) was fun for his short screen-time, and of course Shavar Ross was great as Reggie, as we don’t often see younger kids go against Jason* (aside from Tommy, of course). I sort of wanted to see more of both Tiffany Helm and Juliette Cummins, but even with what we got, they were good characters.

And who doesn’t want to see more of Carol Locatell calling her mentally-challenged son a dildo?

*And as for the final twenty minutes, I can agree that some of it, I didn’t care for, whereas other portions I thought were entirely fine. Spoilers are in these upcoming lines, to be clear: the fact that Jason wasn’t actually Jason but someone using the legend in order to get revenge wasn’t something I found problematic at all. If anything, I thought it was a novel use of how scared the community still was of Jason, and that even a normal individual could use the legend for his own benefit.

[Still spoilers here] The thing I didn’t care for was Tommy’s ascension at the end to seemingly becoming a killer in his own right – no, luckily, this wasn’t carried on into the following film, but it just rubbed me the wrong way, and I wish that, after his dream sequence, he’d have woken up and been done with the troubles Jason caused him his whole life.

Aside from that, this is a hard movie for me to dislike, and in fact, I couldn’t ever imagine giving this lower than a least an 8/10, especially given the fact I’ve seen it so often and enjoy so much of it. You have great kills, some great breasts, great music (Violet’s dancing to “His Eyes” by Pseudo Echo was beautiful – and also beautiful is the chorus to that song, going “There is a man with no life in his eyes,” which is perfect for a Friday the 13th movie), and overall a great atmosphere.

The ending could have used a different direction as far as Tommy’s character went, but if I’m being honest with you, and I see no reason not to be, that’s really my only problem with this one. Otherwise, it’s a fantastic entry into the series, and is about as good as Part 2 and The Final Chapter.

8.5/10

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

Directed by Dan O’Bannon [Other horror films: The Resurrected (1991)]

One of the best examples of a movie firmly with it’s feet in the 1980’s, The Return of the Living Dead has long been a favorite of mine. I don’t usually go for zombie comedies, but this one is a classic, and I do rather enjoy it.

It helps that the humor isn’t usually too goofy. There are a few scenes I could have done without, but for the most part, while the film certainly has comedy in it, it’s a lot more tame as opposed to an all-out goof-fest, which I am quite happy about, and personally makes it an easier film for me to get behind.

Also, that music – those funky beats that pop up whenever something goes down are just great. After that body is cremated, and the ashes rise into the air as the rain starts, and that music starts up, it just sounds great. It has a dark vibe to it (which lends the movie great atmosphere at times), and related, you gotta love the movie’s conclusion, from the solution the general has to the rains afterward.

I won’t spend much time on the performances, because most of them are fair in this film. James Karen and Thom Mathews’ (Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives) antics that started the whole thing were sort of funny (“This is completely solid,” slaps it and it breaks open – cracked me up). I didn’t care for Clu Gulager’s (A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge) character at first, but he grew on me a bit throughout the film. Don Calfa played his role pretty straight, which was impressive, and I also liked him.

Most of the teen characters were interchangeable. I don’t know how Beverly Randolph’s Tina started hanging out with that bunch, but whateves. Jewel Shepard was rather attractive at times, but none of that matters when Linnea Quigley strips naked early on in the film and stays in stages of being undressed throughout. Her character was odd anyway (with some really interesting and memorable lines of dialogue), but boy, does she have a cute butt. I could watch her in the graveyard naked for longer than I care to admit.

This is just one of those easy films that you can throw on at almost any point and have a fun time with. There’s nothing too deep here – just pure 80’s fun, with a bitching soundtrack, decent characters through, solid zombie design (need I even mention my homeboi Tarman?), and a great conclusion.

Even if you’re not a typical fan of zombie films, I’d recommend checking this one out, as it really is a ton of fun.

8.5/10

House (1985)

Directed by Steve Miner [Other horror films: Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), Friday the 13th Part III (1982), Warlock (1989), Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), Lake Placid (1999), Day of the Dead (2008)]

House holds a special place in my heart. It’s not an overly special movie, but it’s a movie I remember very vividly seeing bits and pieces of as a kid, and though it’s not particularly frightening nowadays, this movie really scared me when I was younger.

To tell the truth, some scenes here still got my heart racing, as pathetic as that might be to admit. While the comedy did occasionally veer to too silly a level, it’s the scares here that stood out, such as that ghoul woman attempting to abduct the child or the multitude of monstrous hands attacking the protagonist from the mirror.

Really, I find the whole concept of House intriguing. The main character (played by William Cobb) is dealing with both the trauma of his experiences in Vietnam along with his recently losing his son, who has gone missing. The house in question, which contains within it different dimensions (or something akin to that – it’s not much touched on), looked quite grand, and the whole mirror sequence onward were true quality to see again.

Cobb did sometimes get a bit goofy, but he was still a very solid main character, and I enjoyed the conclusion, which ended somewhat like the first A Nightmare on Elm Street. None of the side characters really added as much as you’d hope for (be it George Wendt or Mary Stavin), but as the movie’s really a personal journey for Cobb’s character, I think that could be excused. Richard Moll made for a solid antagonist, though.

The way House was put together really works, too. With many flashbacks to Cobb’s time in Vietnam setting up the conclusion, and plenty of ghoulish attacks (that overweight ghoul perhaps being the most memorable) and adventures (Cobb’s journey into the mirror onward), the movie really came together wonderfully, and though I wish a few things were added to the end, and some of the humor stripped down, the film’s enjoyable whether or not there’s a blot of nostalgia over it.

Sure, some of the special effects seem a bit goofy, and the comedy sometimes becomes a bit much, but there are some decently funny lines and scenes in here too, and the multiple issues that Cobb’s character deals with works even ignoring the comedic overlay. It’s a movie that scared me as a kid, and seeing this again after some time, it’s a movie I really enjoy now.

8/10

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