Tag: 1996

Directed by Conrad Brooks [Other horror films: Jan-Gel, the Beast from the East (1999), Jan-Gel 2: The Beast Returns (2001), Jan-Gel 3: Hillbilly Monster (2003), Gypsy Vampire (2005), Gypsy Vampires Revenge (2008), Gypsy Vampire: The Final Bloodlust (2009), Zombie on the Loose (2010)]

Despite the wild title this film has, this straight-to-video film really isn’t as fun as you might hope. It’s not dreary or lifeless – certainly the people involved in this movie had some fun – but Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf does tend to be a bit repetitive, overlong, and generally, not my type of film.

The budget is quite low here, but you have to give director Conrad Brooks credit for doing what he was able to. The film opens up with a ‘This film is dedicated to the memory of Ed Wood,’ which is then followed by the fakest bat I’ve ever seen as it flies around. If you can’t get into low-budget horror, I can promise you that this is not the movie for you.

I can get into some low-budget horror films, though I generally gravitate toward slashers (such as The Horrible 4 and You’re Not Getting Out Alive). The problems I have with this movie have little at all to do with how cheap everything looks. Well, I guess one problem is related – the audio, while mostly audible, wasn’t particularly great. I don’t think I ever lost track of a conversation, but I don’t think they had much in the way of audio equipment when they made this one.

Otherwise, though, the problem is that the movie is an hour and 44 minutes long, and it’s just dull most of the time. A vampire lady makes a slave of a big horror movie fan, and uses both him and a mute servant to send out and collect blood for her. It’s not until the final 40 minutes that things get mildly interesting, as a British police officer (apparently here in Hollywood because he and another cop traded places for training or something) works with a woman to investigate some mysterious murders.

And that doesn’t mean that the final forty minutes are good, either; just that they had more going for them then the previous material, and I suspect that’s largely to do with Michael Hooker’s character, who I sort of liked.

To be fair, I thought that Don Miller did okay with his role, but it’s hard to stand out when you spend most of your screen-time as as a soulless blood slave of a vampire queen. Before that upgrade, though, he seemed like a pretty fun guy. I can’t say that Jennifer Knight’s portrayal of a hundred year old vampire did much for me, and Annette Perez didn’t add much either, but like I said, at least Michael Hooker was fun.

There’s not really much in the way of gore here. Early on, we do have a guy who’s stabbed multiple times with a hatchet (we get that classy ‘blood-running-down-the-camera-lens’ thing going on with it), and that was a decent scene, but otherwise, I’d say most of the kills are entirely ineffective, and wouldn’t be a drawing point to this movie.

What really should be the drawing point is the heart they put into this. I may not have enjoyed it, but it’s good to see people put hard work into cheap movies – case in point, I despised The Stripper Ripper, but I never once doubted that they had fun making it. The problem is that this movie is an hour and 44 minutes, which is way too long to warrant, and I just don’t think there was enough meat in the story to keep it that engaging.

If you enjoy the occasional lower-budget vampire movie, Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf may be worth a visit. Personally, it’s not the type of movie that I really cared much for, but on the other hand, I’ve definitely seen worse in my time.

3.5/10

Directed by William Lustig [Other horror films: Maniac (1980), Maniac Cop (1988), Maniac Cop 2 (1990), Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence (1992)]

Uncle Sam might be a good example of a movie that’s better in concept than execution. It’s not a bad film, but I think there was a lot more potential here than what the final product displayed, and while portions were solid, I definitely think the movie could have been more memorable.

I think the basic plot is fun, which deals with the resurrection of a soldier who was killed by friendly fire in Kuwait going around his hometown and killing people. Some of the people he kills seems to be for ideological reasons – such as him going after a teacher who protested Vietnam back in the 1960’s – but others seem to be pure revenge, such as his wife who has moved on.

What makes the story mildly more interesting is that there’s a nephew of his, played by Christopher Ogden, who is quite the patriotic youth, and despite the fact his Uncle Sam wasn’t the nicest person in the world, the kid looks up to him, and respects him. He wants to join the military when he’s older, and do whatever the president tells him to, because “he knows best.”

I don’t know if this movie was intentionally attacking the idea of blind patriotism. I’d like to think so, and the poem spoken during the credits – ‘Desert Storm’ recited by William Smith (yes, the actor, who also has a small role in the film) – leads me to that conclusion, but even if the story is just supposed to be a story (fans of Stephen King’s best novel It should catch that reference), I do enjoy what I perceive as the anti-war message, which is best delivered by Isaac Hayes’ character, who was a soldier himself, and lost a leg in Korea.

And this might go without saying, but this movie never could have been made even five years later. After 9/11, patriotism was at an all-time high (along with other delightful things, like illogical wars and xenophobic attitudes toward Muslims, or those who could almost “look” Muslim, such as Sikhs or Hindus), and movies that questioned such fervent and emotional attitudes probably wouldn’t have done too well. None of this makes Uncle Sam a good movie, but it does make it an interesting movie to look at, at least through the political climate of the nearby years.

The main problem here is that the movie is simply adequate. Some of the kills are solid, such as someone being hung from a flagpole, or a cannon being shot at someone, or even someone getting stabbed by a flag, but I’d argue none of these are great kills, and even the decapitation here doesn’t really stand out. A lot of the film feels somewhat tepid, and while it’s nice to see a slasher shortly before Scream brings the subgenre back to prominence, I can see why this might not do a lot to advance love of the genre.

Of course, none of this is supposed to say the movie’s bad, because I don’t think it is. I think some elements are a bit off, such as Zachary McLemore’s wheelchair-bound character’s unspecified relationship with Uncle Sam, but the movie’s still palatable. It’s just that I think the story had a lot more potential, and while I’m glad they veered away from heavy comedy (there’s surprisingly few one liners here from the killer, which I appreciated), maybe that approach would have given the film a bit more flavor. At the very least, Uncle Sam’s costume design was pretty solid.

Christopher Ogden was good as the patriotic kid, and though I didn’t care for his blind worship of the military, he’s a young boy, and made a fascinating main character. Anne Tremko and Leslie Neale weren’t that relevant, but did have one good scene. Isaac Hayes took a bit to appear, but I rather enjoyed him, and while she didn’t do much at all, it was sort of nice seeing P.J. Soles (Halloween, B.O.R.N., and Carrie) here.

Like I said at the beginning, I think the concept of Uncle Sam is stronger than the final product. Make no mistake, this movie is superior to films like The Tripper, but it’s also true that William Lustig made a much more memorable film in Maniac Cop.

7/10

Directed by Jeremiah S. Chechik [Other horror films: N/A]

So I’ve never been the biggest fan of the 1955 French classic this film’s a remake of. The story is fine, but I just think it’s a bit slow. I didn’t expect to care for this any more than the original, but though I hate to say it, if I’m being honest, I do think I marginally preferred this one.

I still think the film overall is around average, but I did find it more palatable. If I had to watch either this or the 1955 movie again in the next ten years, I’d lean toward this one. Things move a bit quicker, there’s a bit more suspense at times, the finale is more to my taste, and though this might not be fair, it’s nice seeing faces I know.

I’m not even talking about the leads Sharon Stone and Isabelle Adjani. Both of them were pretty decent, and I think Adjani did a great job. Chazz Palminteri did well as an asshole, and Kathy Bates added some great humor at times (“what is this, a piece of the true cross?”). In fact, I really liked Bates’ character, and it was a nice update from what Charles Vanel did in the original. It’s other small roles that surprised me – Adam Hann-Byrd (the kid who played Alan in Jumanji), Donal Logue (Gotham), and J.J. Abrams (producer of Cloverfield). Even for smaller roles, recognizing faces does a lot for me.

And it helps that the story isn’t a scene-by-scene remake (as Psycho did two years later) – there’s some scenes added here, scenes they chose not to use from the original, and a more thrilling finale, one that I tend to like a bit more. It’s still a longer film – though it’s ten minutes less than the original movie – but it doesn’t feel quite as bad, as we’re given something both up-to-date and new to chew over.

Even though I did enjoy this more than the original, though, it’s still not the type of movie I’d usually recommend. I think it’s decent, and I personally would rewatch it more often than the 1955 version, but it’s still only average in my eyes. Bates’ character and the finale both add a lot to this, and I don’t take that lightly. Not a great film, but honestly, not near as bad as I was expecting.

7/10

Directed by S.S. Wilson [Other horror films: Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004)]

The first Tremors is a fantastic movie that I watched a lot growing up, and the same can be said here. While not quite as good as the first movie, Aftershocks still has a nice blend of humor and horror, and that, combined with Michael Gross, makes for a quality experience.

Kevin Bacon’s absence makes sense, but for what he was, Chris Gartin was a good replacement, and though he didn’t really have the same chemistry with Fred Ward as Bacon did, I think he did admirably. Ward himself was nice to see as a returning face, and he did work well with Helen Shaver (who herself was somewhat weak in comparison to Finn Carter’s character, but she had her moments).

Really, though, it’s Michael Gross who really makes the movie.

Burt has so many great scenes and lines that it’s hard to imagine what this movie would have been like if they couldn’t get him back. Bacon, I think they could afford to lose, but Gross? Forget it. With fantastic dialogue (“I am completely out of ammo,” “You know, as I lie here, I can’t help but notice…,” “I was denied critical, need-to-know, information,” and of course, “It’s gonna be BIG!”) and just an overall fun character, Gross is fantastic here, and really adds a lot to the movie.

Otherwise, while the movie does feel noticeably cheaper than the first film (losing two of the biggest cast names, Bacon and Reba McEntire, and being made as a straight-to-video film can do that), it still possesses a decent amount of fun moments, along with a clever way to invigorate the story.

Having the Graboids produce Shriekers was a clever idea, as it keeps things fresh and allows them to play with new ideas. I’m sure that, had the Graboids remained Graboids, they probably could have made a perfectly fine movie, but instead, like the underground monstrosities, they evolved, and I really appreciate that about this series (the third movie also has a quality evolution).

Special effects are pretty decent here. There’s not much in the way of gore, of course, but there are plenty of Shriekers getting shot or blown up (or in cases of running into Burt, both), and when others run into the carcass of a dead Graboid, it was disgustingly well done.

It’s also pretty well-paced. The film runs an hour and forty minutes, but it never feels like it’s dragging, and there’s a pretty good mixture between the suspenseful sequences and the humor. The finale was pretty fun (from Burt’s powerful gun ruining their escape plans to using a fire extinguisher to hide from the heat-seeking Shriekers), and that final explosion (as Burt said, “it’s gonna be BIG!”) was on point.

Tremors II: Aftershocks may be a step down from the first movie, but people should feel no shame in enjoying this. It’s a pretty well-made movie for the restrictive budget they had to go on, and I really think it holds up well, and given how many times I saw this as a kid, I can truthfully say that this provided a fun time back then, and still does today.

7.5/10

Directed by Gilbert Adler [Other horror films: N/A]

For a long time, despite quite enjoying Demon Knight, I had a pretty bad feeling about Bordello of Blood. It just looked too goofy and generally didn’t interest me. After finally seeing it, I have to say that I was largely right, but the movie isn’t without a few strong points.

Chief among those strong points is Dennis Miller as private detective Rafe Guttman. Guttman is such a fun character, with so many amusing lines pretty much every time he’s on screen (“You’re reminding me why being married to you drove me to the brink of homosexuality” and the ever-classy “Sorry, Zeke – I’m just not in the mood for a blowjob,”) and I just dug his personality from beginning to end.

Miller was a lot of fun here, which is definitely good, because otherwise, I don’t think the film had a hell of a lot going for it. I mean, the whole vampire-ran brothel idea was done somewhat better in From Dusk Till Dawn, and while the special effects here are decent (save for some hideous mishaps during the “Ballroom Blitz” sequence), most of the story and many of the characters, save Miller’s, didn’t do much of anything for me.

I guess that Erika Eleniak was decent (though I will further say that I didn’t love the conclusion to this movie, and in relation, her character’s story), and Chris Sarandon (Fright Night and Child’s Play) grew on me over time (though his religious nonsense was hard to swallow). The other central performances, though, such as Angie Everhart, Corey Feldman (Gremlins, The Lost Boys), and Aubrey Morris failed to leave me with much in the way of a positive impression.

I think, though, the biggest issue in regards to my failed interest was the story, which was quite light-hearted and pretty ridiculous at times. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mind that much when Miller was on screen, but I didn’t much care for the tone at any other point, especially the framing of this movie, what with the Crypt Keeper presenting this as a story while playing a card game with a mummy. I mean, you can expect something campy and corny – look at the end of Demon Knight – but this just felt like too much.

Which is ultimately my problem with the film. It’s just too goofy, which sort of hinders the better portions of the film from fully taking control. And again, I find this quite sad, as I really did enjoy Dennis Miller here, and I feel like this could have been executed better, but as it stands, while watchable if only due to Miller, this wasn’t what I’d call a particularly good time, and it’s not a movie I could see myself going back to that often.

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), A Nightmare on Elm Street (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 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

I won’t say that Scream is a perfect movie, but I will say that it’s close. A deeply enjoyable and meta slasher, Scream did pretty much everything right, and it’s always a blast to see again.

Wes Craven did a fantastic job revitalizing a dying subgenre of horror, being slashers, and brought a very self-aware, dark comedy aspect with it, combining everything to make Scream a pretty unforgettable experience. The cast works, most of the humor works, the plot works, and really, were it not for his previous film, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven could easily have crowned this one his best.

Pretty much all the main performances work here. Neve Campbell, who was only in a few films before this, including The Dark and The Craft, did great as the focal character, one who is both attractive and highly sympathetic. Matthew Lillard, who is generally too goofy for me (though he was the shining light in Thir13en Ghosts), does absolutely brilliant here, and I pretty much love everything about him throughout the film. Others who merit a positive mention include Rose McGowan, David Arquette (like Lillard, pretty much all of Arquette’s scenes were golden), Courtney Cox, Henry Winkler, and Skeet Ulrich (a name I don’t know, but does quite decent here).

The comedy here really adds something to make the film stand out a bit more. Seeing the killer consistently get knocked down by the would-be victim never fails to cause some laughter. It makes the killer seem human, which is something that many slashers before didn’t do, or if they did, they didn’t do it that well.

Scream is a classic, and for good reason. There’s little to dislike about it aside from some of the annoying teenagers, and the mystery and finale are well worth watching.

9/10

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

Directed by Stephen Williams [Other horror films: Shadow Zone: My Teacher Ate My Homework (1997)]

Okay, this is a movie that I don’t think many horror fans would take a big interest in, primarily due to the fact it’s a movie aimed more toward older kids/younger teens, and it pretty much feels like an hour-and-a-half episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark?, mixed with an element or two of a more kid-friendly Tales from the Crypt.

Having seen this vampire movie twice now, though, I can firmly state that I quite love it.

Some of this undoubtedly comes from the cast. It’s true that most names here are new to me. The main kid, played by Chauncey Leopardi, was pretty decent, in a corny, Goosebumps-main character way. And speaking of Goosebumps, his father was played by Ron Lea, who was in the Werewolf Skin two-parter (which I own on VHS, and always thought added something interesting to the werewolf lore). Leopardi’s two friends are, of course, a black dude and a white girl (typical equality from Are You Afraid of the Dark?/Goosebumps), played by Tony T. Johnson and Natanya Ross.

Johnson I was more lukewarm toward, mainly because he was one of the main comedic relief elements, but I really liked Ross’s character, especially since they threw in that her character had dyslexia (which led to a painful argument between her’s and Leopardi’s character). It might not be game-changing, but how many horror movies throw in learning disabilities like dyslexia? I get it, it’s to show kids that not all kids have it the same, but I still find it somewhat commendable. Oh, and Wes Craven appears for a few scenes, which is sort of fun.

It’s the last actor, though, and the co-star with Leopardi, that makes the film all the more enjoyable, that being Ron Silver. Silver doesn’t seem to be that big a name, but I’m personally a fan of the series The West Wing, which is a politically-based show with a lot of great names and fun plots. Silver plays a recurring character in the show, so seeing him here (with pretty much the same, quietly humorous personality) was an utter blast. At the time I first saw this movie, I hadn’t really gotten into The West Wing yet, so this only increased my enjoyment with a fresh watch.

The plot is, I’ll say it again, much like something you’d see on Are You Afraid of the Dark?, being a little bit silly. Here, a coven of vampires live in the New York City subways, living primarily off rats, and once lead vampire Silver meets Leopardi’s character, works on trying to gain his coven the freedom to roam the city proper. It’s nothing special as far as vampires go, but I did think it was mostly well-done.

It’s worth noting that the budding friendship between the kid and the vampire was touching at times, and though I didn’t shed tears or anything, I did think the conclusion was pretty touching also (not to mention satisfactory even without that). Not everything is quite as explained as you’d hope, but overall, I can’t help but have a good time with this.

There’s not a whole lot in the way of blood here, which can only be expected. To be fair, there are a few surprisingly gruesome vampire deaths here (some of which are quite gooey), but that’s about as far as it goes. I mean, come on, this is made for kids.

Also have to throw a shout-out to the kid’s love of horror movies and that hella beast video store with a beautiful collection of horror posters thrown up on the walls, such as Sssssss and The Mutations, a 1974 British flick with Tom Baker and Donald Pleasence.

Shadow Zone: The Undead Express isn’t a movie that’s likely to impress all that many horror fans who see it. It’s a made-for-kids television movie, but I personally grow up on Goosebumps and Are You Afraid of the Dark?, so it was definitely the type of movie I would have loved if I had seen it back then. The nostalgic feelings are deep regardless, and I find this movie an exceptionally enjoyable watch.

8.5/10

This is one of the movies that was covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, episode #29, so if interested, you can hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.

Directed by Tom Holland [Other horror films: Fright Night (1985), Child’s Play (1988), Two-Fisted Tales (1992, segment ‘King of the Road’), The Langoliers (1994), Tom Holland’s Twisted Tales (2014), Rock, Paper, Scissors (2017)]

Thinner’s a book I’ve not read, unlike many other Stephen King novels (technically, Thinner was written under Richard Bachman, but even so), which may play a part in my review. While the movie is mostly enjoyable, there are a few performance issues, and ultimately, I think the film is missing something.

The story starts out well, but after a certain point, I personally think things drag a bit. It doesn’t help that the main character, played by Robert John Burke, came across as overly hammy toward the second half of the film. Near the end, it was definitely a bit much.

Which is one of the biggest problems with the film. Sure, the story is a bit thin (see what I did there?), but if Burke had put in a better, more serious performance, I think I would have liked the flick at least a bit more. As it is, the highlight of the film is really Joe Mantegna (who I know most from both the 1994 comedy Airheads and a long-lasting role in Criminal Minds). Without Mantegna’s presence here, I really don’t think this movie would have been anywhere near as enjoyable. Michael Constantine puts in a solid performance too.

Perhaps it’s because of Burke’s occasionally hammy acting, but the film felt just a bit on the light-hearted side at times. It’s tone didn’t work too well with me, but once Mantegna’s role becomes more a focus toward the end, things start coming together.

On a side-note, while the special effects were moderately decent for most of the film, there was a lengthy dream sequence that was entirely too goofy, and I definitely could have done without.

I’ve seen this once before, and I wasn’t overly amazed. It’s a good flick to sit back and eat popcorn with, but even for the mid-1990’s, which wasn’t the best time for the horror genre, Thinner just felt as though it was lacking. Good ideas in this one, to be sure, but an inconsistent tone and main performance places this one below average.

6/10

Thinner was covered by Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and myself on Fight Evil’s tenth podcast, which you can listen to below.