Tag: 2001

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Directed by Victor Salva [Other horror films: Clownhouse (1989), The Nature of the Beast (1995), Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003), Rosewood Lane (2011), Haunted (2014), Jeepers Creepers 3 (2017)]

I’m not quite sure what it is about Jeepers Creepers that consistently works for me, I just know that it consistently does.

Certainly the first forty minutes or so are insanely tense, and that scene in which Trish (Gina Philips) and Darry (Justin Long) are driving past the Creeper as he’s throwing a body down a pipe is perfection. There’s a lot of suspense in the first half of the film, and they did a great job with it.

When the film moves to a more fantastic creature-feature type route, I still think the movie keeps things moderately decent, though it’s also fair to say that the latter half of the film isn’t always as interesting as the first half. The good thing, though, is that the movie is well-paced, and it really feels like it flies by, making the movie all the more digestible.

It’s also a decently original plot. The idea of some inhuman creature stalking people in order to eat parts of their body isn’t something you hear about every Sunday. The whole “every 23rd spring in every 23 years” thing could be a reference to Pennywise from It (and hey, the main lead even has the name “Darry,” which is close to “Derry”), and I imagine many would compare the beginning of the film with Duel, but for the most part, Jeepers Creepers tends to have an original feeling.

I also think that is was a great idea to feature siblings as the main characters. I can’t begin to tell you how utterly sick I am of every other movie having some romantic stuff thrown in, sometimes under the most ridiculous circumstances, so focusing instead on a brother and sister was great, and I really buy that relationship insofar as their performances go.

Justin Long (Drag Me to Hell, Barbarian) was pretty good here. Again, I bought his relationship with Gina Philips. Philips (The Sickhouse, Deadly Invasion: The Killer Bee Nightmare, Ring Around the Rosie, Jennifer’s Shadow) herself had a lot of emotional material to contend with, and she did well too. I wish we learned a bit more about Patricia Belcher’s character, but she was fun, and Jonathan Breck’s portrayal of the Creeper was the stuff of dreams.

There are a few grisly moments in the movie, but this is all really pretty tame. The suspense is what keeps things going throughout, and though there is some violence at times, that’s never really the point. Late in the film, we even have a somewhat action-packed showdown at a police station, which was a nice sequence.

Worth mentioning also are those fade-to-black cuts. They happened throughout the movie, and felt out of place. Honestly, I thought it felt like something you’d see in a TV movie, and not a feature film like this one. It didn’t hurt the movie or anything so drastic, but it was notable, and just seemed odd to me.

Naturally, I’ve seen Jeepers Creepers before, though I admit it’s been a hell of a long time. It’s a movie that I’ve enjoyed plenty of times in the past, and I imagine I’ll enjoy plenty more times in the future. It’s not a perfect movie, nor is it really a game-changer, but it does feel unique, and I can see why it’s largely lauded as a quality film in the horror community.

8/10

Dagon (2001)

Directed by Stuart Gordon [Other horror films: Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986), Dolls (1986), Daughter of Darkness (1990), The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), Castle Freak (1995), Bunker of Blood: Chapter 5: Psycho Sideshow: Demon Freaks (2018)]

Dagon’s a film that’s gotten quite a bit of respect within the horror community, and after revisiting it, it’s not hard to see why. It’s certainly not a perfect movie, but the atmosphere here is top-notch, as are some of the performances, and if you want a dark story based on some H.P. Lovecraft goodness, Dagon’s a movie worth seeing.

I believe I’ve only seen this one once before, perhaps on the Sci-Fi channel (though I can’t swear to that). What I primarily remembered was the people with fishlike attributes and that much of the film seemed to be in Spanish, without subtitles. As I revisited this, my memory was right on both counts. Though I admit the Spanish sans subtitles was annoying, the whole of the film is quite a solid experience.

Despite pulling ideas from the short story Dagon, the movie’s more based on the novella The Shadow over Innsmouth. I’ve read Dagon once before, though have not read The Shadow over Innsmouth (when it comes to classic horror literature, I admit, I’ve not read much), but after seeing this movie, it certainly sounds like a story I’d like to spend time with.

What’s really striking about this film is the atmosphere. There’s a small, coastal village in Spain that the characters find themselves trapped in. The streets are cramped, it’s raining non-stop, and the villagers have fishlike attributes – sometimes just gills or webbed fingers, other times tentacles – and most can merely shuffle at a slow speed. It’s a dark location steeped in hysterics, a great flashback told by Francisco Rabal’s character explaining the reasons the town’s gone fish. The set-up here is stellar, and then it’s actually executed well, which was great to see.

To be honest, I didn’t think much of Ezra Godden (Soul Reaper) as the lead at first. He just seemed like a whiny little bitch. Still, he grew on me pretty quickly (reminding me of Jeffrey Combs at times), and he had some quite amusing dialogue, which was nice, given that the film is tonally dark; getting a bit of humor was welcomed. Francisco Rabal (who died a few months before the film came out; this movie was dedicated to him) made for a solid character too. I don’t know Rabal (Nightmare City, Exorcism’s Daughter, Hotel Fear), but his character added a lot.

Godden and Rabal are the most important characters by far, but others come into play. Raquel Meroño (The Mark) was decent, Macarena Gómez (Shrew’s Nest, The Black Gloves) creepy, Ferran Lahoz (The Lost) also creepy, and, oh, José Lifante (who was a simple hotel receptionist with minimal dialogue) was creepy too. I really liked Alfredo Villa’s character, and he brought a lot to the flashback, which was already quite good.

There are some disturbing things in this film. Sure, the townsfolk are half-fish/half-human, and they have a alarming quality to them (which, again, helps beautifully with the atmosphere), and given this was directed by Stuart Gordon, certainly these elements of body-horror make sense. More so, we see flesh hanging up like a coat, and someone’s face getting removed in a somewhat graphic scene (which made me flash back to Faceless). It’s a creepy movie anyway, and the violence adds to the charm.

If you’ve not seen Dagon, I recommend that you do. It’s a dark movie, it’s a bleak movie, but it’s also a well-made one. Even the CGI doesn’t hurt the film much, and I found most of the finale, which is where movies can easily lose me, quite decent, almost dreamlike. Dagon’s a good movie, and definitely worth a look if you enjoy the sea and what resides within.

8/10

Route 666 (2001)

Directed by William Wesley [Other horror films: Scarecrows (1988)]

I have to say that Route 666 surprised me. Though by no means would I call the film good in a traditional sense, it can be oddly fun, and I think a lot of that comes from the performances involved here.

To be sure, I have seen Route 666 once before, though like many of the films I’ve watched recently (Swarmed and Hard Ride to Hell, for instance), it’s been so long that I only remembered the vaguest outline of this. In fact, I thought it was a zombie movie going in – which might be an easy mistake to make – only to be surprised that it’s more ghostly in nature.

While pleasant in some ways, which I’ll touch on shortly, it does fall flat in some areas, mostly the story. One of the characters here has a relationship with one of the ghosts, and late in the film, we have a situation where this ghost has to decide whether or not to turn on his ghostly hombres. That comes with the occasional psychic flash a character suffers, and while there’s not many of them, I wasn’t overly impressed with those sequences.

Also, a lot of the action here is quite jerky. I don’t know if I can explain it better than that – the ghosts move in jerky motions, and the action is often in the same vein. It’s not headache-inducing or anything, but it was notable, and not in a positive way, but an annoying one. Lastly, as far as complaints go, I felt some of the antagonists that pop up toward the end could have done with a bit more reasoning behind their actions, and what they were attempting to accomplish struck me as a bit extreme.

Those elements aside, Route 666 isn’t a bad slice of entertainment. A lot of this comes from the central performances of Lou Diamond Phillips, Steven Williams, and Lori Petty. Phillips (who I know from his recurring role on Numb3rs, along with the TV movie Hangman and films such as Bats and Carny) was a lot of fun in this action-oriented film, and worked great with Lori Petty (a couple of episodes of House and Bates Motel, randomly, is where I knew her best from) and Williams (from The X-Files and The Fear Chamber). All three of them were great – I loved Petty’s sassy attitude, and Williams was just fun – and really added a lot to this film.

Out of the rest of the cast, I guess it’s fair to say both Dale Midkiff and L.Q. Jones were decent. Midkiff (of Pet Sematary and Nightmare Weekend fame) took a bit to really stand out, but once he did, I enjoyed his character, and while I didn’t love where Jones’ (The Brotherhood of Satan, The Strange and Deadly Occurrence) story went, it was fine. I did love seeing a brief appearance of Dick Miller (The Howling, Gremlins, and many other films) at the beginning, and Mercedes Colon, who popped up much later in Malignant, appeared, which was sort of random.

If anything makes the movie work, it’s the performances, because the story, while okay, doesn’t entirely cut it, and the gore is pretty non-existent, even when they had a chance for some violent jackhammer action. Someone did get their hand slammed in a door, which did look reasonably painful, and there was some occasionally fun gun-play (many of the characters are in government agencies, so much of the beginning is more action-oriented), but it’s not at all what I’d describe as gory.

Even so, I can’t say that I didn’t find a lot of the movie serviceable. I definitely didn’t love the conclusion, and elements that came up every now and again were less interesting, but overall, I had a better time with that than I thought I was going to. Of course, it being so long, I can’t remember what I thought about Route 666 when I first saw it, but I am pretty sure I enjoyed it a bit more this time around.

Honestly, Route 666 is still below average, but if you want a movie to have a good time with, you could do a lot worse than this one.

6.5/10

Horrorvision (2001)

Directed by Danny Draven [Other horror films: Hell Asylum (2002), Cryptz (2002), Deathbed (2002), Dark Walker (2003), Urban Evil (2005), Tales from the Grave (2006, segment ‘Beyond Death’), I, Vampire (2006), Ghost Month (2009), Reel Evil (2012), The Dead Reborn (2013), Weedjies: Halloweed Night (2019)]

Horrorvision is perhaps one of the most dated films I’ve seen, and it wasn’t necessarily sensical at times, but it still has a bit of charm. It’s a Full Moon movie, and that certainly plays a part, but it’s also a somewhat interesting concept despite the rather poor execution.

I liked some portions of the plot, dealing with a website that, when seen, caused madness and mass murder. It featured early 2000’s technology – QuickTime was referenced, and someone boasted about hacking AOL and sending a virus through someone’s email – and it had that nostalgic charm.

To put a finer point on this, I was born in 1993, so I was pretty young in the early 2000’s, but I remember bits and pieces, especially post-9/11. Remember that site MadBlast? Or perhaps the game site PopCap, with games like PsychoBabble? Bonus.com, one of the best Flash game sites? The early 2000’s is my childhood, and a lot of movies from that time, despite not being good, do hold an appeal to me.

Horrorvision is a good example. It’s a poor film, and probably way too ambitious in it’s goals (it’s partially apocalyptic, which is seen primarily through news reports and via characters hearing about it), but seeing hideous technological monsters (which looked like cheap rejects from films like Hardware and Death Machine) pop out of technological devices (watches, beepers, that type of thing) and cause mayhem can be a decent amount of fun.

There’s also a sequence which features a creature/person called Wetwire that looked like some really bad Doctor Who antagonist. It looked ultra shitty, and I didn’t entirely get the point of this thing, but hey, it had heart. The special effects overall are quite poor, but if you find lower budget films from this time period charming, it might be worth it.

Len Cordova’s overacting at times was a bit much, but it was also funny at every turn, so I dug it. James Black (Zombie Cop) had a Morpheus from The Matrix thing going for him, and he was a fun character. Both Brinke Stevens (The Slumber Party Massacre, Nightmare Sisters, October Moon, and a hundred other movies) and Maggie Rose Fleck get a few good scenes in, especially Fleck, so they were reasonably enjoyable also.

[This is the paragraph where I would possibly compare this to Feardotcom, which has a similar idea, but I’ve not seen Feardotcom in over 15 years, so I’ll just leave this here to remind myself to watch it later on.]

Two more quick notes about Horrorvision: the runtime of this one is quite short, at around an hour and 12 minutes, and a good six minutes of that is traveling sequences (the one that takes place in a desert is the most unnecessary one), but it’s still a quick film, and also, the soundtrack of this was decent. It’s sort of a dark, electric rock type thing – “Strawberry Gashes” by Jack Off Jill played during the credits, which is a band I’ve not thought of in years, which was cool.

In many ways, Horrorvision is a bad movie, but I can’t say I didn’t occasionally feel a glimmer of enjoyment. It’s certainly below average, but I also think it’s somewhat certain I wouldn’t mind giving this another go in the future.

6/10

Katakuri-ke no kôfuku (2001)

Directed by Takashi Miike [Other horror films: Ôdishon (1999), Tennen shôjo Man next: Yokohama hyaku-ya hen (1999), Tajuu jinkaku tantei saiko – Amamiya Kazuhiko no kikan (2000), Bijitâ Q (2001), Koroshiya 1 (2001), Gokudô kyôfu dai-gekijô: Gozu (2003), Chakushin ari (2003), Sam gang 2 (2004, segment ‘Box’), Aku no kyôten (2012), Kuime (2014), Kamisama no iu tôri (2014), Gokudô daisensô (2015), Terra Formars (2016)]

Known as The Happiness of the Katakuris, Katakuri-ke no kôfuku is a movie I’ve long wanted to see. I’ve never been the biggest fan of Japanese cinema, but I thought this looked quite interesting from the first time I heard of it.

And certainly it is an interesting movie; a memorable one, too. Portions of the film were quite decent and occasionally innovate, but I can’t say I actually enjoy that film that much, truth be told.

I think the main reason for this is that the story is more steeped in comedy than I thought it would be. It’s not always over-the-top stuff, but there’s a lot more humor here than horror, and while there were some standout scenes and sequences, for the hour and 53 minute runtime, I don’t know if there were enough.

At times, it almost feels like an Indian movie, what with all the songs popping up. I liked the concept – there are plenty of Indian movies I enjoy – but here, a lot of the songs don’t strike me as that catchy. Some certainly are, such as the final song, but even that karaoke potion felt sort of weak, though again, I liked the idea.

So here’s a movie with many songs I don’t personally find catchy along with more comedy than I’d have liked, and the fact that it is as long as it is only stretched out my relative disinterest. It’s not fair to say I ever became disengaged – the story of the movie is interesting throughout – but past a certain point, I didn’t think the movie was able to truly capture my appreciation, and that happened something like halfway through once I got a better idea of what this film was.

The characters are all reasonably fun. My favorite performances are those of Tetsurô Tanba and Shinji Takeda, especially Takeda, who got some strong scenes near the end. I never really felt that Kenji Sawada’s character came into his own, but he still did fine, and the other central performances, from Keiko Matsuzaka to Naomi Nishida, were good. I can’t say Tamaki Miyazaki’s narration did that much for me – she barely had a role in the events of the film – but it was an interesting touch.

So too were the moderately hideous claymation portions. They were impressive, and I can imagine that it took a while to do, but boy, did they look ugly (I imagine partially by design). The opening claymation didn’t seem to mean too much, but the final use of the style was decent, and it had story relevance, so I can’t complain there.

I would imagine few people really know what they’re getting into when they start The Happiness of the Katakuris up. I was expecting the musical portions – in fact, looking forward to them – but the movie is so much more than that. It’s partially a drama, partially horror, largely comedic, occasionally tragic; it’s all over the map, and while a lot of people enjoy that, especially given Takashi Miike directed this, it wasn’t really my cup of tea.

By no means did I have a horrible time with the film, though. It kept me entertained, and I was consistently curious as to what would happen next. I just expected a little more from it, and while I appreciate some things about the film, it’s simply not as enjoyable as I wish it were.

5.5/10

How to Make a Monster (2001)

Directed by George Huang [Other horror films: N/A]

So this is one of those films that’s oddly special to me. How to Make a Monster isn’t that good of a film, but I’ve seen it quite a few times, and I definitely enjoy it. It’s partly the story, partly the performances, and partly the fun. No matter where it’s derived from, I really enjoy this one.

A remake-in-name-only of a pretty decent 1958 film, this film follows a bunch of video game designers being killed off by a monster they were hired to create for a game. That’s partly where the title, How to Make a Monster, plays into the film, and with some low-budget special effects and a rather shoddy looking game, it’s as campy and perhaps horrible as you might think.

The story is a bit janky, but you know what? I don’t care. I never did. The only real issue I have with the film is the conclusion, and that’s just because I don’t like Clea DuVall’s character arc. Even though I don’t care for it, though, it also plays well into the title of the film, and shows how damaging the capitalist system can be on humanity (technically, the movie is talking about greed, but as greed is what capitalism is based on, it works out).

There’s a lot of performances here that I love. I’m a big fan of Clea DuVall – in films like Ten Inch Hero and But I’m a Cheerleader, she’s a lot of fun – and I think it started with this movie. She’s such a sweet and kind character here, and though I don’t like where her story went, she’s just great. You have Karim Prince (“The name is Sol. As in Solomon. As in the King That Is Wise”), who plays a fantastically fun and arrogant character. And then there’s Tyler Mane (Sabretooth from X-Men), who is literally Hardcore and quite quotable (“Scary is as scary does”).

Those were always the three that impressed me most, but that’s not to say that the others didn’t #BringIt, as the yooths say (My Cousin Vinny reference FTW). Jason Marsden got a few emotional scenes into the mix, Steven Culp (who appeared in The West Wing a handful of times) had some strong scenes, Colleen Camp (Clue) got destroyed at the end, and for some nudity, we have Julie Strain, playing herself.

While there is some blood and gore here, most of it is either downplayed or implied. There are some dismembered limbs and a decapitated head, but it’s definitely not a gory film. The monster, based off the video game the characters were designing, does look pretty cool, especially when it comes to life and adds pieces of the people it kills (my favorite touches are the metal jaws, the viking helmet, and the Baoding balls it has in it’s eye sockets).

I’ve always dug this. I saw it when I was quite young (if I had to guess, between 9 and 11 years old), and it’s always entertained me, which is all you can ask of a movie. Sure, it’s not necessarily a good movie, but at the same time, it’s definitely above average, and I’m glad to own this one on DVD.

7.5/10

Tremors 3: Back to Perfection (2001)

Directed by Brent Maddock [Other horror films: N/A]

While not as strong a sequel as Aftershocks was, the third film in the Tremors series is okay. It definitely feels more average than either of the previous films, but there are some strong portions also, and is still worth seeing if you’re a Graboid fan.

Personally, I loved seeing Perfection again, with old faces (Charlotte Stewart, Ariana Richards, Tony Genaro, and Robert Jayne) and references (to Nestor, Rhonda, and of course the picture of Walter Chang). The setting of Mexico was fine in Aftershocks, but it’s great to be back to where it all started, and to bring back so many of the classic faces.

It’s certainly a cheaper movie, but I don’t think that really does much harm. The special effects are as decent and gooey as ever (that scene in which Burt is cut out of the graboid is just slimy af, as the kids say), and the design for the new creature in the cycle (appropriately labeled Ass Blasters) is decent, though it’s not too far removed from the Shriekers.

Of course, Michael Gross coming back as Burt is a big win. Honestly, he’s not as memorable here as he has been in previous films, and doesn’t have any quips that come to mind as the first and second movies provided, but he’s still that anti-government right-wing gun-nut you know and love, and Gross does beautifully with it.

I liked Susan Chuang, and I thought her Jodi made a good new character, but I have to say that Shawn Christian was more on the generic side. I guess that Christian is okay, but I sort of wish they used Grady (Chris Gartin) from the second movie instead of throwing another new character in. Still, he did okay, but I don’t think he’s near as memorable as Kevin Bacon or Chris Gartin.

Others who are worth mentioning have mostly been mentioned. Reprising their roles from the first film are Charlotte Stewart (Nancy) and Ariana Richards (Mindy), and you know what, I’m surprised they used the same actress for Mindy. It’s just really nice seeing as many returning faces as we got, especially since Tony Genaro (Migeul) got more screen time. What they did to Robert Jayne (Melvin) was an interesting choice, but not everything can be on the side of angels.

I also enjoyed the ending to this one. Being stuck in a junkyard and having to defend yourself with makeshift weapons, I always thought that was a fun situation. Much like the first two movies, I saw this one when I was a kid, and I always got such a kick out of the finale, not to mention seeing the unfortunate and ironic demise of Burt’s home.

For as cheap as Tremors 3 is, it’s still Tremors done largely right. I enjoyed the character additions for the most part, and though I don’t think it’s near as strong as the second movie (I would have loved a quick Fred Ward cameo), it’s still a lot of fun, and I personally dig it.

7.5/10

The Attic Expeditions (2001)

Directed by Jeremy Kasten [Other horror films: All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos (2005), The Thirst (2006), The Wizard of Gore (2007), The Theatre Bizarre (2011, ‘Framing Segments’), The Exorcist Files (2011), My Haunted Vacation (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013), The Dead Ones (2019)]

This is a movie that I wish I liked more. The first time I saw The Attic Expeditions, I was probably too confused to form any opinion other than that I found it a disjointed mess, but seeing it again, I really wanted to appreciate what it was going for. In part, I think I do, but I still found it a movie that leads to far more unsatisfying scenes than satisfying ones, and that ain’t good, as the kids say.

It’s hard to critique the story because it’s difficult to tell what the story here really is. Certainly that’s part of what makes this film memorable, but even so, being as jumbled up as it was, with various different solutions that may be partially or fully true, it makes the film occasionally seem as though it was over-reaching and rather too ambitious.

I don’t really have a complaint about the performances, though. Andras Jones is perhaps the most unremarkable, but for a lead character in a movie like this, he does fine. I hated that haircut, though. Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator, From Beyond, and most importantly, the voice of The Question from Justice League Unlimited) obviously brings some quality here – I mean, who doesn’t like a doctor who smokes joints while talking to his patients?

Seth Green (who I mainly know from Without a Paddle, The Italian Job, Rat Race, and, atypically, It) is really fun here, and I enjoy pretty much any time he talks. His line, “Well, that’s awkward for you” cracked me up, and his on-screen presence was on point. Ted Raimi looked really familiar to me, and to be sure, I’ve seen him in a few movies (Wishmaster, The Midnight Meat Train, and Candyman), but none of those roles seem to warrant my immediate recognition of his face, so that’s bothersome. Also, one of the nurses looked really familiar too, but after scanning all applicable characters in IMDb, no dice.

To be sure, there are some interesting ideas and elements here, such as the fact that after Green’s character caught the doctor with the blank book, she uses another patient who writes to supplement the material she can’t read from the book anymore (it’s explained marginally better in the movie). That’s some good paranoia, which is a lot of what this movie’s based around. It doesn’t make for a necessarily coherent story, though.

[This is the paragraph where I was going to compare this movie to other asylum-based horror films from the time period, such as 1997’s Asylum and 2004’s Madhouse, but despite seeing both of those films, I literally don’t remember a single thing about either, so I’ll just use this paragraph instead to insult my weak memory and note that I need to get to revisiting the both of those.]

I wish I liked the Attic Expeditions more. Even though I don’t care that much for it, though, I do admit that it has an atmosphere about it that makes the film unique, and the story, whatever the real story may be, is interesting enough to at least keep the movie moving along at a good pace. It’s something that I’d probably recommend for the experience, but it’s not something that I’d call a good movie at all, I regret to say.

5.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil, and if you’d like to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this oddity, by all means, give us a listen.

Valentine (2001)

Directed by Jamie Blanks [Other horror films: Urban Legend (1998), Storm Warning (2007), Long Weekend (2008)]

Life sometimes strips away the finer things, and leaves but a burnt out husk in it’s wake.

That’s how I see Valentine.

There was a time in my life when I really enjoyed this movie, and would place it alongside Urban Legend, Cherry Falls, and I Know What You Did Last Summer as great post-Scream slashers. My recent visitation with Urban Legend has already removed it from that list, though, and unfortunately, the same has happened with this one, which is a damn disappointment.

Valentine is a movie I really wanted to end up enjoying as much as I used to, but I just couldn’t. It certainly had it’s strong elements, such as the design of the killer (and not just the mask – the overall dark clothing was, as the kids say, off the chain-hook), the small comedic scenes (such as the speed-dating or the argument between Benita Ha and Jessica Capshaw), and the solid opening (Katherine Heigl being stalked by the killer). Hell, most of the kills are actually pretty decent (my favorite perhaps being the bow-and-arrow murder).

Even with all of these positive portions, I found the whole of the film somewhat, for lack of a better word, shallow, and definitely, by the end, somewhat under-cooked.

Most of the acting is fine. I don’t think anyone is particularly great, mind, but most of the main performances (such as Marley Shelton, Jessica Cauffiel, David Boreanaz, Daniel Cosgrove, what-have-you) are competent enough to not cause any issues. If there was one moderately iffy performance, I’d have to point at Boreanaz, but it may be more because I disliked his character than the actual ability behind his acting.

It’s largely the conclusion to this one that really lets me down. Some of my issues are small things (for instance, I do not believe for a second that, at a party of something like a hundred people, only one person would be in the hot-tub, and no one would be in the game room), but the reveal of the killer’s identity also strikes me as weak. It didn’t help that I was reminded in part of Alone in the Dark, which is a much better movie than this one in most ways.

I’m not saying that Valentine can’t be a good watch, and to a certain extent, I enjoyed a decent amount of the film. The ending just doesn’t really do the rest of the film justice, which is a shame because I think Valentine had a lot going for it.

Oh, and one more point which I thought was somewhat amusing. I mentioned earlier that I recently rewatched Urban Legend, and found it lacking. It’s a better movie than this one is, to be sure, but it still felt just as tame and held back as Valentine feels, at least to me.

As it turns out, and I honestly didn’t know this until after finishing Valentine this time around, this film and Urban Legend share the same director, being Jamie Blanks. Given that piece of information, it makes sense that this rewatch went about as poorly as Urban Legend, which, again, is a shame.

No doubt there are worse movies out there, and I also don’t doubt that I’ll see this one in the future, and perhaps I’ll even see Valentine in a moderately kinder light with my next viewing. Right now, though, I think it’s below average, but not disastrously so.

6/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. It’s a quality podcast, if only because I’m there. As such, if you listen to the video below, you can hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Valentine.

Spiders II: Breeding Ground (2001)

Directed by Sam Firstenberg [Other horror films: Ninja III: The Domination (1984)]

Pretty much a sequel-in-name-only to the previous year’s Spiders, Spiders II: Breeding Ground is about as terrible as you’d expect an early 2000’s Sci-Fi spider movie to be. Of course, it does possess a little charm, and some aspects are almost interesting, but overall, there’s not a whole lot here that makes the film worth seeing.

There’s only four performances worth noting, and none of them are really that stellar. Stephanie Niznik wasn’t great, but she was a lot more believable than Greg Cromer. Daniel Quinn was okay, though I really thought his character could have done with a bit more depth. The best here was probably Richard Moll (who I recently saw in House). His character was over-the-top evil scientist corny, but at least he knew what this movie was.

I mean, to be honest, the movie’s not exactly horrible if you know what it’s going to end up being anyway. The first Spiders was awful, but somewhat charming at the same time. While this definitely wasn’t as enjoyable, the setting (a run-down ship) was interesting, and there was occasionally an intriguing mystery.

Ultimately, though, there’s nothing special here, especially toward the end, in which we’re bombarded with really terrible CGI spiders. I mean, they’re really bad. It doesn’t help that by this point, most of the interesting story elements were thrown out the window. I guess I’ll give the movie some props insofar as the special effects with the spiders bursting from the bodies, but it really wasn’t anything all that original to begin with.

Spiders II is an early 2000’s Sci-Fi film, and that’s all it is. I don’t hold that against the movie too much, because I’d definitely take this over much of their post-2010 animal movies (such as the atrocious 2-Headed Shark Attack series). It doesn’t make it good, but there are far worse movies out there.

5.5/10