1994 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

Directed by John Carpenter [Other horror films: Halloween (1978), Someone’s Watching Me! (1978), The Fog (1980), The Thing (1982), Christine (1983), Prince of Darkness (1987), They Live (1988), Body Bags (1993, segments ‘The Gas Station’ & ‘Hair’), Village of the Damned (1995), Vampires (1998), Ghosts of Mars (2001), The Ward (2010)]

It’s not easy to figure out what to say about In the Mouth of Madness. The idea behind the film is quite interesting, and portions of this surreal story are definitely good, but despite really wishing otherwise, I can’t say I love the final product.

It’s a damn shame, too, because I’ve seen this one before, and had much the same impression. It’s been over ten years since I’ve last seen it, though, and I was hoping that with fresh eyes, the movie would do a bit more for me. Not that In the Mouth of Madness is a bad film, but I just have some issues comprehending the story, impacting my enjoyment level.

To be sure, given the film deals with topics both otherworldly and sometimes in a meta fashion, that may not be too surprising. Some of the revelations around Sam Neill’s character toward the end are difficult for me to swallow, and I also think that, as the ending indicates, that if the book had been released for six weeks already, society would have crumbled. And related, how could they make a movie based on a book, if that book caused anyone to read it to lose touch with reality?

It’s also possible that, given we see the movie we’ve been watching playing at a theater in the end, that the whole thing is just the adaptation of the book, with none of it being “real.” I don’t even know how to tackle that, or how to even begin to critique that, so I’ll just move on.

Certainly the movie does well with it’s surreal, atmospheric story. There are some legitimately unsettling scenes – the woman with a naked man chained to her ankles, that boy/man on a bike that they keep driving by, hell, even the idea of worldwide riots just because people read literature. There’s a lot of good ideas in the movie, which is why I wish I felt more enamored by it.

Sam Neill (Jurassic Park, Possession, Snow White: A Tale of Terror, Event Horizon, The Final Conflict) is solid in the role, though you could argue that if this whole thing is a meta movie within a movie type thing, then performances don’t matter, but that may be beside the point. Julie Carmen (Fright Night Part 2, Gargantua) was fun, but not too much a focal point save a few scenes.

Naturally, it was great seeing David Warner (The Secret of Crickley Hall, The Omen, Nightwing) here, even in his brief screen time. Jürgen Prochnow (Dark Asylum, The Seventh Sign, The Keep) was pretty solid also, John Glover (Gremlins 2: The New Batch, We Go On) amusing, and seeing Frances Bay (Happy Gilmore) came as a nice surprise, as I forgot she popped up in this movie.

The whole eldritch elements, and the H.P. Lovecraft ideas ingrained with, are fun, but I don’t know if those rubbery monsters toward the end was the best payoff we could hope for. Generally, I don’t really care for body horror to begin with, so the whole thing – with some people changing into monsters, reminding me of both The Void and From Beyond – wasn’t necessarily my cup of tea.

I know that In the Mouth of Madness has a high level of respect in the horror community, some considering it John Carpenter’s last great film. The thing is, I don’t even disagree that it’s a movie very much worth seeking out, and I think it’s decent, for what it’s worth. Having seen it twice now, though, despite truly thinking otherwise, I can’t honestly say I think much more about it. Fingers crossed that a third viewing in the future will do more for me.

7/10

The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994)

Directed by Kim Henkel [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a movie (better known under the title Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation) I’ve long been interested in seeing. I had heard that it wasn’t a particularly good movie, but even so, as long as it was better than the second movie (which is a popular film, but it never sat well with me), I’d probably be okay.

It took a long while to finally watch, though, mainly because the theatrical cut was far more commonly available than the director’s cut. Aside from a scene between Jenny and her step-father at the beginning, I’m not sure what differences there are, if any, but when I watch a movie, I always aim to watch the most complete version possible. With that in mind, even knowing it wasn’t likely to be a good movie, I just bought this one on Blu-ray.

And, well, I don’t know. It honestly wasn’t terrible, at least until the final 25 minutes or so. Otherwise, it was generic; a bit annoying as far as the family element went, but not without some charm. If it weren’t for the final twenty or so minutes, I probably would have enjoyed this a lot more than the second movie. That said, I don’t know if it’s worse – I know my stance on the second film is unpopular, but I probably enjoyed this one just a little more than the second one, and I definitely preferred the family dynamics here.

Speaking of which, while nowhere near as functional as the family from Part III, it was amusing seeing how much fun Matthew McConaughey was having. The family here consists of five members (technically six, if you count the grandfather, but he did very little), being: Vilmer (McConaughey), W.E. (Joe Stevens), Darla (Tonie Perensky), Leatherface (Robert Jacks), and Rothman (James Gale).

Technically speaking, I don’t know if Rothman is in the family. It’s his inclusion in the film that makes this a far less enjoyable affair. He pops up toward the end, driven to the house in a limousine. It’s not clear what his relationship with Vilmer is, but later on, he apologizes to Jenny and drops her at a police station. Oh, and he speaks French. I have no idea who he is, or what his relationship to anyone is, or why he was there, but I didn’t care for it whatsoever.

Another character I didn’t care for would be Darla, who just felt too steeped in comedy to amount to much. I was sort of thinking that Jenny could break through to her – that Jenny’s experience in dealing with her abusive step-father would play a role in getting Darla to help her escape from Vilmer – but it wasn’t to be. She did pick up pizza, though, with Jenny tied up in her trunk, so that was something.

Vilmer, W.E., and Leatherface were all fine. Well, I did think that Vilmer felt a bit too psychotic at times, but at least he wasn’t Chop Top. W.E. didn’t do much, aside from attacking people with cattle prods. Leatherface got a few decent chase scenes in, one kill almost reminiscent of the quick hammer attack from the original movie. His screaming was a bit ridiculous, but this family is all off their meds, so I wouldn’t expect a healthy approach to mental health from them.

What stood out pretty clear to me, and this is something I rarely find the need to speak about, is how atrocious some of the delivery was in this movie. Some of the dialogue was bad anyways, but boy, the delivery didn’t do any additional wonders. It was sometimes amusing – Jenny’s been abducted and attacked by multiple members of this family, and she’s still trying to logically figure out what’s going on. I wouldn’t call this movie necessarily horrible, but I do think those that do have good reason, especially concerning the performances.

Like I said, Matthew McConaughey (Frailty) is having a lot of fun, so there’s no issue there. Delivery aside, I actually rather liked Renée Zellweger (Case 39). Neither Tyler Cone nor Lisa Newmyer did much for me, as their characters were pretty awful, but at least they occasionally provided for some okay violence, when the movie veered that way (which wasn’t very often). Otherwise, it’s tough to find any other performance worth mentioning in a positive manner, as this film doesn’t offer much in that department.

What it also doesn’t offer is much in the way of violence. Sure, the first movie was a bit light on actual gore, but it had a grittiness that stands up to this day. Here, there was a scene of a character being hit over the head with a hammer, and another character got shoved onto a meathook, but that was it. In fact, now that I think on it, while Leatherface was waving his chainsaw around throughout the movie, I don’t believe he ever once hit anything. I guess that someone did get their head crushed with a hydraulic leg, and another got hit with the propeller of a small plane, but this movie didn’t have much else.

I have to admit, with as many negative things as I’ve heard about this film, I’m surprised it wasn’t worse. Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that I often heard having Leatherface dress up as a woman was stupid, but I don’t see what the big deal is about. If he wears the faces of women, I can easily see why he’d want to also wear their attire. Ignoring that, though, while the movie is definitely sketchy, I don’t think it’s awful. Some of the humor was meh, some characters (Darla and Rothman) rather bad, and the ending was complete and utter trash, but I can’t say I hated it.

It’s obviously not as good as the first movie, though, and it’s nowhere near as enjoyable as the third, but honestly, the more I think about it, I might say it’s slightly better than the second. #DealWithIt

5.5/10

Funny Man (1994)

Directed by Simon Sprackling [Other horror films: N/A]

For the right audience, Funny Man could be quite the enjoyable experience. It has a good sense of humor, and is overall quite a unique experience. Personally, the movie is too goofy for me – it’s just too over-the-top for me to get into. If you’re into the type of humor Funny Man focuses on, though, it’s perhaps worth seeing.

The story is marginally interesting, and there are a few standout scenes. After a man wins an ancestral home in a card game, he checks the place out, and shortly thereafter, he and his family are stalked by a jester-demon. It’s somewhat similar to Leprechaun, as this jester (called Funny Man, hence the title) makes a lot of one-liners, but it’s also fundamentally different, as this movie is rather silly, and oftentimes, the Funny Man will look directly into the camera, addressing the audience.

It’s that breaking of the fourth wall that’s partially my issue. If it were only that, it might be okay, but some of the scenes here are just way too silly for me, such as the Funny Man having a gun showdown with one character (the character in question is somehow just using her hand as a gun – no idea how an injection can do that), or doing a strip show for another victim, or having a guy try on a bunch of wigs that each play a different style of music. Oh, and a guy becomes a star or something. It’s just too goofy, and you add that to the breaking of the fourth wall, and it’s really not my thing.

As I said, though, the film isn’t without a few decent scenes and ideas. A fortune-teller character finds a spiral staircase that winds down and down (and sideways, so I don’t know if that’s the safest staircase I’ve ever seen) which leads down to a small village called Sod’s Law (population: 1). I guess this is where the Funny Man usually lives when he’s not mucking about the castle above, and it’s sort of a cool visual.

There’s a kill in which the Funny Man is doing a bit of a ballet dance beforehand – it’s silly, like most of the other death scenes, but it was shorter and more to the point, and while the kill itself (electrocution) wasn’t stellar, the set-up was more fun. Lastly, the final shot is somewhat haunting, so that’s another plus.

Only two performances really stood out, one being the titular Funny Man, played by Tim James. I didn’t care for his humor most of the time, but he did well with the character he was supposed to play. The film also has Christopher Lee (The Gorgon, Horror Express, Nothing But the Night), and he’s occasionally fun. Oh, there’s also a character named Themla, played by Rhona Cameron, who dresses up in a skirt, an orange turtleneck, glasses, and has a cropped haircut. She doesn’t do that much, like many of the other characters, but that distinctive look (almost, just almost, like they were mimicking Scooby-Doo’s Velma) was fun.

For the right audience, this British film might be a lot of fun. It also might help if said audience was either high or drunk, as I imagine if I had seen it in that frame of mind either time I’ve watched this, it would have made for a better experience. The movie isn’t without promise, but personally, it’s just too goofy for me, and that’s what it really comes down to.

5/10

Mahakaal (1994)

Directed by Shyam Ramsay [Other horror films: Andhera (1975), Darwaza (1978), Aur Kaun? (1979), Saboot (1980), Guest House (1980), Dahshat (1981), Sannata (1981), Hotel (1981), Purana Mandir (1984), 3D Saamri (1985), Tahkhana (1986), Om (1986), Veerana (1988), Purani Haveli (1989), Bandh Darwaza (1990), Dhund: The Fog (2003), Ghutan (2007), Bachao – Inside Bhoot Hai… (2010), Neighbours (2014), Gentayangan (2018)] & Tulsi Ramsay [Other horror films: Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche (1972), Andhera (1975), Darwaza (1978), Aur Kaun? (1979), Saboot (1980), Guest House (1980), Dahshat (1981), Sannata (1981), Hotel (1981), Purana Mandir (1984), 3D Saamri (1985), Tahkhana (1986), Om (1986), Veerana (1988), Purani Haveli (1989), Bandh Darwaza (1990)]

For the longest time, I’ve found this film quite the interesting find. It’s not great – at two hours and 13 minutes, there’s little doubt that Mahakaal is overlong. Still, this is an Indian movie I’ve long held appreciation for, and definitely recommend checking out, despite it sometimes being a trying watch.

The reason for this is that it’s an Indian rip-off of A Nightmare on Elm Street. A few elements are changed and added, but for the most part, this follows the first A Nightmare on Elm Street to the dot. Elements of the second (some mild possession in the latter portion of the film), third (digging up the corpse of Indian Freddy, named Shakaal), and fourth (fight with an invisible Shakaal, along with a waterbed sequence) movies exist also, which gives more flavor, but like I said, most of the film is following the events of the first movie.

Also, and this may well be unintentional, during the scene in which Anite (this movie’s Nancy) follows Seema (Tina) in a bodybag, when she finally catches up with Seema, Seema begins laughing exactly like the possessed bodies did in The Evil Dead. It’s that high-pitched giggling, and it definitely gave me some flashbacks. I wouldn’t be surprised if, along with the music and plot of A Nightmare on Elm Street, the directors borrowed from the Evil Dead also.

The original content that they sometimes throw in can be pretty powerful, though. My favorite sequence might be the claw gloves popping out of the floor at the hotel in the first half, and out of a wall in the last twenty minutes. It’s cheap, sure, but it’s such a creepy effect. Related, that aquarium sequence was nice, as so few horror films have aquariums (the only one that comes to mind right now was Night School), and though that scene wasn’t long, I still enjoyed it.

Not all the alterations were great, of course – primarily, Shakaal (who, as I said, replaces Freddy) looks pretty shoddy at times. Also, he lacks personality. Unlike Freddy, who couldn’t shut up past the second movie, Shakaal is entirely mute, though he does chuckle quite often. He can certainly be creepy, and Mahabir Bhullar (credited as Mahaveer Bhullar) did fine with what he had, but Englund brought much more life to the character.

Archana Puran Singh is no Heather Langenkamp, but that’s okay. Singh does just fine, as do most cast-members, from Karan Shah (this movie’s Glen) and Kunika Sadanand (this movie’s Tina) to Kulbhushan Kharbanda (this movie’s John Saxon). I think the biggest problem comes from the comedy relief performance of Johnny Lever, whose character spent most of the time dressed as Michael Jackson, and dancing like him. Also, Dinesh Kaushik (who had no equivalent in A Nightmare on Elm Street) felt pretty pointless at times, and I think the movie would have gone over just as well without his character there.

Though certainly a cheap movie, I will give them props for having some pretty creepy filming locations. Early on, when dealing with Shakaal’s nightmares, these people find themselves in what looks to be an old factory, with chains hanging freely down. The location where Shakaal’s body was buried was also creepy (and we only saw it at day-time – I can’t imagine what it’d look like at night), and again, the aquarium was a nice addition also.

Origin-wise, I did like how here, Shakaal was a dark sorcerer of sorts who kidnapped children for sacrifices in order to gain more power. Adds a quality mystical element to it, and that flashback in which he throws a kid into a pit (which looks like it led to a burning fire) was, as the kids say, neato. It doesn’t quite have the same punch of Freddy’s origin, but it’s an okay facsimile.

One last note, being an Indian movie, there are musical portions. If I recall, there’s only three songs here, and problematically, none of them are really that good (or relevant, for that matter). The second one, involving a picnic, might be the most catchy, but I’ve seen a few Indian movies here and there, and I have to say that the musical bits in Mahakaal are definitely underwhelming. At the very least, just be happy that Shakaal didn’t have his own song.

Mahakaal isn’t a great movie, and I don’t love it, and more so, I don’t have a problem saying that the movie is below average. Even so, if you’re a fan of A Nightmare on Elm Street (and really, how couldn’t you be?), I’d suggest giving this a watch just to see what the same story might look like in a very different culture. It’s not a movie that’s like to amaze you, but at the very least, much like it did me, I do think it could interest people.

6.5/10

The Stand (1994)

Directed by Mick Garris [Other horror films: Critters 2 (1988), Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990), Sleepwalkers (1992), The Nightmare Begins Again (1993), Quicksilver Highway (1997), The Shining (1997), Riding the Bullet (2004), Desperation (2006), Bag of Bones (2011), Nightmare Cinema (2018, segments ‘The Projectionist’ & ‘Dead’)]

This rather lengthy mini-series (four episodes, clocking in at a total of just over six hours) based on Stephen King’s longest novel is definitely something that you need to invest in, but I find it generally an awarding experience.

It’s also a mini-series that I’ve seen quite often as a child. While this didn’t leave near as much an impression as 1990’s It (also, of course, based on a Stephen King novel), I saw this plenty of times as a kid, and I remember my father requesting this one when we rented the VHS (which came with four tapes, of course) from Blockbuster, so it certainly holds good memories.

That said, until this recent rewatch, it’s been at least ten years since I’ve seen it, so I was curious as to whether it would hold up. What made the question more interesting was that this would be the first time since I’ve seen the mini-series since finally reading the novel, and I was also curious as to how close this adaptation was.

And you know what? For a television production (which is pretty noticeable at times, especially in regards to the special effects), not only does it follow the novel decently well (and certainly better than many, if not most, other King adaptations), it’s also pretty solid, and while I wouldn’t call it great, The Stand is a pretty good time.

Just now, I took a deep breath, and that’s because we need to talk about actors and actresses. And believe it or not, given the mini-series is about six hours long, there’s a lot of them. And what makes it even better, most of the central performances were damn good.

Let’s start with Gary Sinise (who I really don’t know outside of this mini-series, though he did have a long-running role on CSI: NY), who played Stu fantastically. He really felt like that generic all-American man, and Sinise pulled off the role as well as anyone could hope to. With a little more of a complex character, Adam Storke did well as Larry, and by the end, you likely couldn’t help but hope for the best.

Ray Walston (Galaxy of Terror) was one of the top-tier performances as Glen Bateman, though his somewhat more critical look at society (as a sociologist, who could blame him?) from the novel was toned down. Peter Van Norden as Ralph was good too, though like the novel, we’re not given too much insight into his character.

Others that definitely need to be mentioned include Molly Ringwald (Office Killer) as Frannie, who wasn’t great but wasn’t quite as bad as some others make her out to be, Ossie Davis (Bubba Ho-Tep) as the Judge was very solid, and one of the best smaller characters. There’s also Miguel Ferrer (The Night Flier) as Lloyd, who took a little to get there, but ended up a fine character. Corin Nemac as Harold also took time to grow, but his decently complex character turned out decent, I thought.

As the Trashcan Man, Matt Frewer was a sight to behold, especially toward the end with the special effects they had. Being mentally unstable, Frewer didn’t have that much to go on, but again, I definitely thought he did the character justice. Truth be told, Kellie Overby as Dayna is memorable for just a single sequence (her getting caught and brought to Flagg), but she was so badass that I had to at least mention her. Shawnee Smith’s (The Blob, Saw) character was memorably crazy, so there’s that.

Finally, let’s talk some of the most memorable performances.

Rob Lowe (The West Wing and 2004’s Salem’s Lot) did amazingly as Nick, a deaf-mute. Fantastic character and performance, Lowe really made Nick someone worth remembering. Jamey Sheridan as Randall Flagg was a sight to behold, fantastically hammy and always fun. Laura San Giacomo (Pretty Woman) as Nadine was an interesting performance, and I thought she definitely strutted her stuff come the finale of her character.

A lot also has to be said about Bill Fagerbakke’s Tom Cullen. Until this day (3/09/2021 should history ever be concerned), I had no idea that the guy who played Tom was the same guy who voiced Patrick on Spongebob Squarepants, and while I never watched a lot of Spongebob, as a 90’s kid who consumed both that cartoon and this movie, I feel it should have clicked before. Here, he has an amazingly solid performance, and as corny as some of his lines are (“M-O-O-N, that spells deaf and dumb”), he’s definitely a character with feeling.

The best performance overall has got to be, though, Ruby Dee as Mother Abagail. She’s quotable (“mayhap she is, mayhap she ain’t) and wholesome in every way. Now, as an atheist, I can do without her religious mumbo-jumbo (and it’s worse in the book), but even so, she’s just great in pretty much every scene she’s in.

Given that very little was changed, and almost none of it was dreadfully important, it’s hard to criticize this adaptation for leaving things out. Sure, I think the way Flagg was more interacting with some of the characters before his time (such as trolling Lloyd on the telephone pole) was a bit off, but like I said, it doesn’t really negatively impact the story, so I didn’t mind that much (though I do think the overly-dramatic scene about Mother Abagial’s departure – entirely unlike the novel’s approach – was somewhat laughable).

What is probably the biggest hurdle for modern-day audiences are the special effects, which become noticeably aged in the last two episodes (those face shifts of Randall Flagg a good case in point), and as even a fan of the mini-series, those instances of iffy effects do hurt, but I don’t think it’s an overly damning quality.

A few other things that can definitely be appreciated include the mini-series’ approach to horror and the soundtrack. Toward the end of the first episode, there’s a dream sequence in a cornfield with a quality scare. What made that really stand out to me was that there was no rising music to indicate tension – there was just a guy walking through a cornfield, and BOOM, his shoulder is grabbed by a demonic figure. It’s that low-key style that really stuck out to me.

The soundtrack too is good. Sure, it’s nice hearing “Eve of Destruction” and of course, “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper” by Blue Öyster Cult made for a fantastically memorable opening, but the rest of the score too really brings back memories, such as the music when Mother Abagail is walking away from the Free Zone. The music isn’t as good as, say, Storm of the Century’s score, but then again, little could be.

For being a television production, and definitely feeling tame in some aspects, I was pretty impressed revisiting this mini-series after reading the book, as they really did keep quite a bit of it as it was in the novel. The performances were pretty great overall (even if you consider Ringwald a weak spot, you have Ferrer, Fagerbakke, and Dee to make up for that), and while it’s not a short watch, I do find the experience worth it (corny Hand of God thing at the end notwithstanding).

8/10

Death Machine (1994)

Directed by Stephen Norrington [Other horror films: Blade (1998)]

Generally speaking, Death Machine is both a well-made and moderately fun movie. My main question is, did it really need to be two hours long?

The story was good, the gore, when it popped up, was solid also. However, since the movie goes more an action route than it does horror, there’s not as many gory scenes as I would have liked to see, especially considering how dangerous and sharp Dourif’s Warbeast looks.

Brad Dourif was, of course, the stand-out here. His character was wacky, yet quite deadly and amoral, and I have to admit, his portrayal here reminds me a lot of Heath Ledger’s Joker. Dourif was just fun in every scene he was in, and his voice was always a pleasure to hear. The two others who really stood out to me were the main actress Ely Pouget and William Hootkins. Pouget does a solid job as the lead character, and Hootkins, though he didn’t have that much screen-time, had a good presence.

There were aspects of this film that didn’t do much for me. The battle suit was a bit too science-fiction for me, and I could have done without all of the fighting sequences. In a related note, this movie runs for just over two hours, and I really think that was ill-conceived. The movie can be fun, but at two hours a pop, who would take the time to rewatch it? I know I probably wouldn’t.

Death Machine is a decently solid piece of 90’s cinema, despite it being more an action science-fiction flick than a horror (make no mistake, though, there are many horror aspects within). But the length strikes me as rather uncalled for (the movie never feels as epic, for lack of a better word, as the length might lead you to believe), and there were a bit too many fight scenes. As it is, it’s a fine movie, just nothing overly special, despite Dourif’s strong personality.

7/10

Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (1994)

Directed by Don Coscarelli [Other horror films: Phantasm (1979), Phantasm II (1988), Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998), Bubba Ho-Tep (2002), John Dies at the End (2012)]

A definite drop-off from the first two of this cult classic series, the third entry still has a lot of solid stuff that makes it worth checking out still.

By-and-large, this film isn’t really that far removed from the second Phantasm. It’s another road-trip, chasing down the Tall Man-type deal, with a few new characters thrown into the mix. It is, however, a bit lighter in tone than the previous film. It takes some odd turns (what they do with Jody – and perhaps Michael – was, shall we say, an interesting choice), and feels somewhat disjointed toward the end. Not even the dreamy disorientation such as the first film, but a ‘I have no idea what’s going on’ type thing.

Before that, though, let’s talk cast: Unfortunately, the stand-outs of this movie are pretty much the stand-outs from the last one: Reggie Bannister and, of course, Angus Scrimm. A. Michael Baldwin came back, but I’m not wooed by his acting. And as fun as Gloria Lynne Henry sometimes was as Rocky, more often than not, she came across as over-the-top. The young Kevin Connors did fine enough, but his character struck me as moderately pointless.

So you put together a, on average, less-than-stellar cast with less-than-stellar plot points (those three zombies that popped up multiple times toward the end rubs me the wrong way), and you get a pretty flimsy Phantasm. Which isn’t to say the film is particularly bad – despite the lighter tone, some of these characters can be pretty fun, such as Rocky – but compared to the first two flicks, this has been a let-down each time I’ve seen it.

6.5/10