2008 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

Saw V (2008)

Directed by David Hackl [Other horror films: Into the Grizzly Maze (2015)]

Ever since I first saw Saw V, I thought it was noticeably lacking. It’s not a bad movie, but you can very much tell it’s a part of a bigger picture, more so than with any of the previous films. Certainly the gore is okay here, and you could probably watch this stand-alone if you don’t mind being confused, but I do think of the first five movies, it’s the weakest.

I should also say that while I strive to not spoil anything in my reviews, I do have to touch on some major spoilers for the fourth movie, and so I state here: if you’ve not seen the fourth movie, then this review may not be for you.

We find out, at the end of Saw IV, that Detective Mark Hoffman is an accomplice of John’s. Much like how Saw III fleshed out Amanda and John’s working relationship through flashbacks, we’re shown in this film how Hoffman came to be one of John’s underlings. We also follow Hoffman present day, as he finds himself in a dilemma.

For those of you who have seen Saw IV, you know that the finale of that film and the finale of Saw III take place during the same time period and at the same location. Many important figures are there, among them Hoffman, FBI Agent Peter Strahm, John himself, Amanda, SWAT guy Rigg, Detective Eric Matthews, Lynn, and Jeff. It’s a crowded time, brahs. The point is, though, that of all the people there, Hoffman was supposed to be the only one to survive (well, technically, John could have survived, but trusting Amanda to not kill Lynn and set off Jeff to not kill John is madness, brahs).

Hoffman wasn’t the only survivor (and to be clear, I’m discounting Jeff and Lynn’s daughter) – Agent Strahm managed to survive. And following events that shortly follow, he becomes deeply suspicious of Hoffman’s actions. Apparently Hoffman has been involved in the Jigsaw case from the beginning (we, as an audience, don’t see this – Hoffman only pops up in a brief scene in Saw III, and we never hear people like Detective Tapp or Kerry mention him beforehand), and being the last of a dying breed, Hoffman could get away clean.

Much of the film is a game of cat-and-mouse. Strahm all but tells Hoffman that he’s suspicious of him, and because of that, Hoffman tries to cover his tracks and frame Strahm for the crimes he’s committed, all while trying to focus on another game that John had set up before his untimely demise.

The thing with the Saw films is that I can’t review them in my typical way. It’s impossible. There’s too many plot and story elements that need to be delved into, and so, despite the fact I rarely dive into the plots of film as much as I have in the paragraphs above, I don’t really see a choice, because for movies like this, you need that information for the whole picture.

One thing I did want to note – I’m delighted that we saw both a picture of Detective Tapp and Sing (both from the first movie). The first Saw sometimes feels so disconnected from the ones that follow, so it warmed my heart to see Sing and Tapps’ faces. Obviously, we’d seen references to Lawrence Gordon in the previous films, and this movie does show more detail regarding the events of the first three movies vis-à-vis Hoffman’s involvement, but it’s great to see the classics representin’.

I guess a lot of this can be boiled down to the fact that much of this film feels like set-up for future films, not to mention it can feel like filler. There’s traps in the film, and people fighting for their survival, but I’m far more interested in what happens to the main characters than I am the random people we see in traps here.

And honestly, the traps aren’t great. Part of it does work thematically, and the final test for the group, which deals with a saw and a toll of blood, is pretty solid, and rather gruesome to boot. The compressing finale was beast also. The rest, however – well, the pendulum at the beginning was okay, but it’s impact is lessened by the nature of whom built it. Otherwise, we don’t have many interesting pieces of gore here – far more of the film is focusing on filling in backstory and the cat-and-mouse aspects than it is the traps.

To be fair, it probably had to come to a point where the movies took more a focus on the increasingly complex story they’re trying to tie together. In the beginning, it wasn’t that bad – there was a guy named John who wanted to play games. But now, John has friends like Amanda and Mark over, and even John’s plans have plans.

Scott Patterson made a decent focus, though I wish his character would have approached some of these things differently. It’s nice to see Costas Mandylor’s character fleshed out. Tobin Bell, as always, is a pleasure to see. Less plot-relevant individuals I rather enjoyed include Carlo Rota, Julie Benz (Locusts: The 8th Plague, Satan’s School for Girls, Havenhurst), and Greg Bryk (Bloodthirsty, Living Death).

Oh, and I wanted to give props to John for another favorite quote of mine: “Killing is distasteful… to me.” In fact, John’s arguments with Hoffman over the philosophy of rehabilitation was all kinds of fun, so though I do think this is the weakest film of the first five, don’t let that deter you from giving it a go.

Certainly Saw V does move the overall story along, and though I think it could have used some work, it’s not a bad movie at all. Compared to the others, though, it does feel decidedly average to me.

7/10

The Ruins (2008)

Directed by Carter Smith [Other horror films: Swallowed (2022)]

It’s been some time since I’ve seen this film. If I had to guess, I’d say around ten years or so. I can’t remember if I’ve seen it once or twice, but I do remember enjoying it whenever it was I last saw it, and I can say that, after seeing it again with fresh eyes, that’s largely still true.

Based on a novel of the same title by Scott Smith (a novel I’ve not read, but am interested in possibly reading in the future), the idea is pretty simple – six unfortunate souls in Mexico decided to go to a ruin that’s not good for their health, largely out of their control. It’s a somewhat bleak film, as there’s very little within their control in the situation they find themselves in, and it’s done pretty well.

The cast is solid – the six performances really worth mentioning would be Jonathan Tucker, Shawn Ashmore, Jena Malone, Laura Ramsey, Joe Anderson, and Sergio Calderón. It’s true that Calderón doesn’t have a lot to do aside from look threatening, but he does it well. Ashmore (who I know as Bobby Drake from the X-Men films, but has also been in Mother’s Day, Devil’s Gate, Wolf Girl, The Day, and Solstice) is more likable than Tucker (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), but Tucker’s character is pretty good.

Jena Malone (Antebellum) reminded me of an actress on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t place her. Either way, Malone was pretty solid, and more stable than Laura Ramsey (Cruel World). I was hoping that Joe Anderson (The Crazies, Abattoir, The Reckoning) would have a bit more to do than he did, as I rather enjoyed his character, but it wasn’t to be.

The gore here can be pretty grisly. See, plants that grow around this ruin can get into your body if you have an open wound, and this happens to a couple of people. Not only does someone have their body cut in multiple places to pull out weeds, another individual has their legs cut off. That particular scene wasn’t too gory, but there’s a later one in which someone, under heavy mental stress, takes a knife to themselves in order to rid their body of the parasitic weeds, and that one can be trying.

It’s at this juncture that I should profess an odd love of plant-based horror. There’s not too many examples that come to mind, but those that do (including the somewhat awful Revenge of Doctor X) are films I have somewhat of an affinity for. I’ve always found malicious plant-life (or not even malicious – it’s just how they evolved) an interesting idea in horror. I have to imagine it comes from my love of Goosebumps as a child – Stay Out of the Basement, both the book and the two-part episode, are favorites of mine.

And on that note, I do wish we had some opportunity in this movie to learn more about these plants. Sure, the terror is in not knowing or understanding what exactly the characters are facing, but even so, it’d have been nice to have a biologist’s perspective, or even one of the Mayans who could perhaps manage some broken English.

Related, I understand where the Mayans are coming from, but wouldn’t it have been better to have a constant guard around the ruins as opposed to just trying to contain the problem after it was too late? Preventative measures, and all that.

I am aware that certainly they tried, but the problem is that the Mayans speak, well, Mayan, and can’t effectively communicate with people who don’t speak Mayan. If you’re trying to prevent people from going near this particular ruin, it might benefit them to at least learn Spanish, as many of those who approach the ruins could at least effectively be warned away.

Oh, and one last thing – did it never occur to any of the characters to possibly burn the plants? Sure, it might have been suicide, but I’d have definitely tried to light the plants on fire as opposed to starving to death with roots and weeds growing inside of me.

Despite those small issues, The Ruins is a well-made film. I don’t know what was changed from the novel, if anything, but it’s a high-budget film that’s somewhat dreary at times (and definitely could have done with an ending packing a bit more of a punch), plenty gory, and an overall enjoyable watch. It’s not stellar, but it is good.

7.5/10

Splinter (2008)

Directed by Toby Wilkins [Other horror films: The Grudge 3 (2009)]

I don’t think Splinter’s necessarily a great movie, but I do think it’s tightly paced and possesses some solid special effects.

I love how simple the film keeps things – there’s four characters, very quickly brought down to three, stuck in a gas station with some spiky fungus making their lives unpleasant, and they have to find a way to survive. And that’s pretty much it. Sure, we get a little time to meet the characters, but once they get to that gas station shortly into the film, it’s that gas station which they’ll stay at. The use of a smaller setting never feels limited, though, and the story works great.

Personally, I love one of the characters, as I did the first time I saw this. Seth (Paulo Costanzo) doesn’t seem like much at the start of the film – he’s somewhat weak, and has a sort of geeky persona. He’s smart, though – he’s going for a PhD in biology, and it’s him who figures out what the mysterious organism is, and also a theoretical way to defeat it. It’s fun seeing him turning into a force to be reckoned with, and I quite like his character.

Of course, all three of the central performances were great. Paulo Costanzo was fun, but Shea Whigham had that attitude to him, and especially in the final thirty minutes, his character is fleshed out nicely. And as is commented a couple of times throughout the film, Jill Wagner was a firecracker, and despite their different personalities, she went well with Costanzo.

The creature here isn’t really seen too clearly too often, primarily because it’s an organism that uses living creatures as it’s host (be it a dog, person, what-have-you), and it has rather jerky movements. It definitely looks creepy, though, with splinterly spikes growing from it, and if it happens to jab you, even if you survive, woe betide you brahs.

One character found that out, to his displeasure. He got a small splinter in a finger, and four hours later, his arm had to be amputated with a boxcutter and a cinder block. Yes, that is as painful as it sounds (though amazingly, not that gory a sequence).

Splinter’s a simple movie of man vs. perceived monster (as the organism wasn’t malicious, and just trying to survive in it’s own, special way), and there’s not much past that. It’s a good way to spend your time, though; just be sure you don’t go in hoping to be blown away.

7.5/10

13 Hours in a Warehouse (2008)

Directed by Dav Kaufman [Other horror films: N/A]

Though certainly a low budget film, and a bit derivative of other movies, I think that 13 Hours in a Warehouse is a pretty solid attempt. The story is decently tight, the mystery behind the ghostly figures is sort of fun, and the film is somewhat enjoyable.

I’m guessing that Reservoir Dogs was a big influence on Dav Kaufman, the director. Most of the film takes place in a warehouse following a robbery. There’s some conversation about popular culture (this one robber is a large fan of Robin Williams, praising films such as Mrs. Doubtfire, One Hour Photo, and Good Morning, Vietnam) and betrayal. Admittedly, Reservoir Dogs didn’t have videotape ghosts trying to kill people, but the basics are there.

Actually, I’m a fan of the ghost designs. You remember the movie Thir13en Ghosts? It’s that film that had some cool looking ghosts, but never bothered to give origins for them or their appearances, because nothing’s better than out-of-context disfigured ghosts. Here, we see why the ghosts look the way they do, and more so, the wavering lines through the ghosts (as though they’re projections from a video camera) is a nice effect.

I thought all of the main performances were fine. I mean, none of the performances are great – I think that Chars Bonin came the closest, as he had a somewhat emotional scene in there – but all of them did competently, and during their Robin Williams conversation, it seemed pretty casual. Cody Lyman, Paul Cram (Dawning), Carson Lee, Chars Bonin, Daniel Jay Salmen, and Meisha Johnson were all solid.

None of the kills are really great. There was a guy who seemed to have his penis torn off, and then his neck snapped on a toilet seat, which wasn’t bad, and another was attacked with a saw blade, but most of the carnage is either off-screen or mere gunshot wounds. For the budget, it was probably fine, but it’s not a movie to go to if you want something gory.

When it comes to real problems I had, only two things really come to mind. One, I think the ending could have done with a bit more oompf. It wasn’t a bad ending, but I think a little more punch could have been thrown somewhere in there. Also, while the movie doesn’t really drag, I do think they could have trimmed a few scenes, especially in the final twenty minutes. The movie is around an hour and a half, and I think that the same story could have been told in ten less minutes. It’s not a long film by any means, but I do think portions could have been cut a little.

Filmed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, this may be a low budget movie, but I think 13 Hours in a Warehouse has a lot of promise. I dug the ghosts, their designs, and their repetition of the number 32362 (which ties into the mystery, of course), and much like the first time I saw this film some years back, it’s solid for a lower budget film.

7.5/10

Lockjaw: Rise of the Kulev Serpent (2008)

Directed by Amir Valinia [Other horror films: Dream Home (2006), Mutants (2008), Alligator X (2010)]

Well, this movie is pretty terrible. On the upside, it’s not a long movie, but on the other hand, it’s still at least an hour and ten minutes, and it’s certainly not one of the better giant snake movies I’ve seen in my time.

Apparently, Lockjaw: Rise of the Kulev Serpent (which is, I guess, at least a memorable title) was later re-released under the rather generic name Carnivorous, but no matter which title you see it under, it’s not a particularly worthwhile film, and unless you really like DMX, it’s not something I’d say is worth is.

I do have at least one story that’s almost amusing about Lockjaw, though. I first saw this film a long-ass time ago off Syfy (and it very possibly might have still been called Sci-Fi when I watched it), and I noticed on my DVR, the recording was only an hour and a half. I’m guessing that most people know when you record a movie off Syfy, most of them are two hours (what with commercials and all), and so I thought that the recording messed up, and I was missing the rest of the movie.

Well, that wasn’t the case. The finale to this film is was just so damn sudden, and doesn’t really feel like the finale. It’s not like it comes out of nowhere, but it also doesn’t seem satisfactory whatsoever. I’m happy I didn’t need to try and find this elsewhere back then to finish it, but whenever I think of this movie, I remember that it’s only around 72 minutes, with something like nine minutes of credits.

As for the story, it’s sort of like Pumpkinhead. A bunch of kids accidentally kill this guy’s wife, and he gets revenge on them via a voodoo alligator/snake hybrid, and only with the help of rapper DMX can these kids survive. As I bet you can imagine, Pumpkinhead is a decidedly better movie.

I didn’t really like any of the performances. I guess that both Lauren Fain and Wes Brown have their moments, but neither character is great. Louis Herthum (Be Afraid) felt somewhat weak, DMX felt somewhat generic, and Caleb Michaelson has no character traits outside of being an asshole.

Honestly, I don’t think the opening is too bad, being a scene where two kids (Brendan Aguillard and Abby Rao) break into the house of a voodoo guy and steal the Kulev box from him. I think it’s a decent scene, if only because the two kids work pretty well with each other (and their adult counterparts just don’t have that same chemistry). It’s a small thing to praise, but never say I’m not merciful.

With some horrible CGI (which can’t be a surprise) and lackluster kills (one of the least satisfactory decapitations I’ve seen in my life), not to mention an incredibly awful finale, Lockjaw: Rise of the Kulev Serpent just isn’t a movie that’s really worth it, and I can’t think of a good reason to seek this out at all.

3/10

Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned (2008)

Directed by Brian Thomson [Other horror films: N/A]

With a title like Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned, you’d hope the film would be more fun. Honestly, it’s not a terrible attempt with whatever budget they happened to possess, but the comedy here isn’t entirely to my taste, and I just found the film a bit rough and occasionally tedious.

The central story isn’t too bad, at least for a film of this caliber. And sure, there are some funny lines and a few okay scenes here and there. The credits can be pretty hilarious (I love the random “fuck you,” they give to George W. Bush for killing habeas corpus), and in fact might be the most consistently amusing thing about the film (“based on a true story. Not loosely, either; ask my brother-in-law”), because otherwise, this just felt too long-winded.

I did like Gregg Aaron Greenberg as the lead. Really, no other performances aside from maybe Joe Testa made any impression. Trina Analee got some funny lines, and Joseph Riker had his moments, but when it comes to the best performance, I’d have to give it to Greenberg.

The special effects weren’t bad (and that scene in which a character removes a splinter slowly was pretty gnarly), but so many of the scenes were dark and really limiting in what exactly you could see. Whether that was intentional or not, I don’t know, but it was pretty consistent throughout, and just added to the rough feel of the film.

Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned is a film I wish I liked a bit more, because I do think they tried as best they could. I just didn’t dig the story, and the comedy at times was a bit too goofy for me. I remember when I first saw this one, I felt pretty much the same, so though I do adore the title, and I think it was a decent attempt, it’s not personally a movie for me.

4.5/10

Martyrs (2008)

Directed by Pascal Laugier [Other horror films: Bonne Nuit (1999), Saint Ange (2004), The Tall Man (2012), Ghostland (2018)]

I’m not one of those who believes that a movie has to be enjoyable to be good, but I do maintain that if a movie is not a particularly enjoyable viewing experience, then those who dislike it have every right to do so. That’s clearly relevant to me here, because while Martyrs is a well-done movie in plenty of aspects, it’s a movie that I have a hard time with, and definitely don’t find that enjoyable.

Whereas other French horror films from the same time period share the same bleak feel this film possesses (such as Frontière(s) and Haute tension), they still have a bit more of a, shall we say, cinematic background, and by that, I mean that while they can be dark, I still find myself entertained, and that’s not something I can truthfully say about Martyrs.

No doubt the film is well-acted, though. Mylène Jampanoï and Morjana Alaoui make for a believable pair of friends, and Alaoui especially does well toward the second half of the film. Though a character of miserable intent, Catherine Bégin does a pretty good job, which might be helped by the fact she really only appears a handful of times.

There’s also no doubt that the special effects are amazing. Honestly, the movie isn’t quite a gory as people might think, but there are plenty of brutal scenes, and especially in the second half of the film, some hard-to-stomach sequences, so though it’s not a gorefest by any means (aside from perhaps the shotgun slaughter toward the beginning), there are some things here that probably won’t easily be forgotten.

Like I said, though, despite some positive and well-done elements, I just don’t enjoy the movie. It’s entirely possible that I liked this a little bit more than when I first saw it years back, but even then, it’s just a smidge. Part of it is the grueling scenes of torture that a character endears (and seems to last at least 15 solid minutes), and part of it is the story and the pseudo-philosophical ideas about the afterlife and forced martyrdom.

I did find myself enjoying the end (though I do quite want to know what was whispered in Bégin’s ear – not enough to go out, capture young women, and torture them into ectasy, of course – but I am definitely curious), but I don’t think it was entirely satisfying, which may well be the point, given the bleak feel that this movie has. The fact the finale is somewhat inconclusive makes the film darker still.

Martyrs is often rated quite highly, and I don’t want to take that perception away from people. I can only say that I personally didn’t love it, and though I can admit that there are elements that I could conceivably enjoy, it’s not a movie that I think I’ll go back to near as often as I would films like Haute tension. Take that how you will.

5.5/10

Eden Lake (2008)

Directed by James Watkins [Other horror films: The Woman in Black (2012)]

The thing about Eden Lake is that it’s a well-made movie with an interesting premise, but it’s utterly demoralizing. It’s not a happy movie, and it’s not something you walk away from without being partially disturbed. That makes for a good movie, but not necessarily a good time.

Like I said, though, it’s certainly well-made. The rising tension and growing escalation between the main characters and a bunch of thug kids is certainly on point. What makes it slightly more interesting is that it’s a scenario that’s somewhat thought provoking in spite of the brutality. Much of this is due to Kelly Reilly’s character being a teacher, and the situation she and Michael Fassbender find themselves in, and she has to defend herself, going on the offensive, against the kids.

And speaking of which, I want to speak a bit on Fassbender’s character. He didn’t seem to have a problem with the kids bullying another kid early in the film. Why? It’s just ‘boys being boys.’ When it personally impacts him and his enjoyment of the day, though, he takes issue, because of course he does.

I don’t mind him asking the kids to turn the music down. I don’t mind him looking out for the kids in town once they cause one of his tires to deflate. But entering another person’s house without permission in order to confront them? Dawg, let it go. But he didn’t, and after his car was stolen, well, we see what happens. Really, past that point, both he and his girlfriend were screwed.

Eden Lake doesn’t take long to get brutal. There’s a bit of build-up, sure, but once the damn breaks, it breaks hard. Some painful scenes throughout assault the two protagonists, from very painful cuts from a box-cutter to someone’s foot being impaled by a rather sharp stick. When said character is pushing that stick out, I cringed. Likewise, when one badly injured character is struggling to keep consciousness, knowing that they are likely to die no matter how quickly help can be brought, it’s pretty dismal.

As is the movie as a whole, to be fair. Like I said, it’s a well-made film, but this is not an enjoyable romp. It’s dark and depressing, and very often more distressing than not. Seemingly good characters turn out to be a bit more ambiguous, and those who move toward a more positive side are killed in generally terrible ways.

To put it as simply as possible, if you had a Baby Blues and Eden Lake double feature, invest in some therapy afterward in order to get through the depression, as both of these are gloomy as all hell.

Certainly, though, Eden Lake is worth seeing. It’s a simple premise, but it’s done fantastically, and as much as a downer portions can be (such as that ending, which just leaves you a mixture of angry and discontent), it’s a great film, and probably one of the better British films in recent times.

8/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Eden Lake. It’s dope, yo.

Gutterballs (2008)

Directed by Ryan Nicholson [Other horror films: Necrophagia: Nightmare Scenarios (2004, segment ‘Blaspheme the Body’), Torched (2004), Hell Hath No Fury (2006, ‘Torched’), Live Feed (2006), Hanger (2009), Star Vehicle (2010), Famine (2011), Dead Nude Girls (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013, segment ‘Goodwife’), Alarming (2013), Collar (2014), Gutterballs 2 (2015)]

In many ways, Gutterballs is a somewhat amateurish effort, and there could be an argument made that it runs a tad long. I’ll admit that it’s far from a perfect movie, but it does have a decent rape-revenge plot with solid gore, all in somewhat brutal fashion, if that’s your thing.

I think the biggest complaint I have about Gutterballs, and I suspect many might feel the same, is that most of the characters we spend significant time with are utterly despicable. Steve (Alastair Gamble) and his friends Joey (Wade Gibb), A.J. (Nathan Dashwood), and Patrick (Trevor Gemma) were really hard to feel even an ounce of sympathy for at any point. Being the rapists in the film, that can be excused, but everything, from their overly childish banter to their aggressive jock attitudes, just screams “I deserve death.”

Sure, we get a little insight into Lisa’s (Candece Lewald) character, who is the victim of the gang rape, but most of her friends, from Sarah (Mihola Terzic), Jamie (Nathan Witte) to Dave (Scott Alonzo), whoever, get very little to no development. These characters seem a hell of a lot better than Steve and Co., but we really don’t see them all that often, which was a problem.

Alastair Gamble did great at playing a horribly convincing jock rapist, and was about as terrible a character as you’d expect (I don’t doubt for one second that he is worse than anyone else in the film, killer or not). Nathan Dashwood and his terribly annoying laugh was pretty bad also, but the two of them certainly worked together well here despite really weak (but potentially realistic) dialogue.

One of the most interesting performances here is that of Trevor Gemma, who was involved in the rape, but was a lot more hesitant than the other three, and in fact attempted an apology to the woman the following night. With that, his heart might be in the right place, but as the movie shows, a simple apology isn’t near enough to exact the required justice. Still, Gemma was someone I wish we saw a bit more of throughout.

A large selling point of this movie is the gore, which couples well with the special effects. I think that most of the kills are okay, but some of the most gruesome really stand out (including the one penis scene, and a head getting obliterated in a ball-waxing machine). Certainly there’s a lot of gore (though that throat slit near the end, not to mention a shotgun blast taking off someone else’s head, might make up a large amount of that), but many of the kills aren’t necessarily highlight material.

Worth mentioning also is that the conclusion is not entirely satisfactory. We’re given a twist or two, what with the identity of the killer (or even perhaps multiple killers), but it seemed a bit overkill. I mean, I get the killer, but then you throw in some accomplices, and it feels a little silly. The final scene itself was also somewhat iffy.

All-in-all, Gutterballs is decent for a lower-budget rape-revenge film, and it’s retro feel (most obvious in it’s musical choices, from Loverboy to Chilliwack) is somewhat appreciated, but it definitely could have been better. I still think I’d rate the film about average because I think it hits above it’s weight, but I wouldn’t blame anyone for seeing this in a more negative light.

7/10

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

Bonnie & Clyde vs. Dracula (2008)

Directed by Timothy Friend [Other horror films: Cadaverella (2007)]

This really shouldn’t have worked, but as surprised as I was, I got a decent kick out of this movie.

One reason that this is the case is due to the actor portraying Clyde, being Trent Haaga. Haaga’s been in quite a few low-budget horror flicks over the years, and I’ve only seen him in one other thing, but that made an impression. Slices, a rather poor anthology movie which also came out in 2008, was a pretty awful movie, the one shining light being – you guessed it, Trent Haaga.

Haaga was great here – I can’t point to exactly why I like him so much, but I do. His chemistry with Tiffany Shepis (Bonnie) was top-notch. Despite what this movie is (a low-budget film with somewhat shoddy special effects), the pair of them still had some emotional scenes that I really appreciated and, more importantly, bought. Luckily, Shepis and Haaga weren’t the only shining lights here.

Jennifer Friend was only in five other movies, but I utterly loved her wacky character here. She had a youthful exuberance and while she was occasionally a bit much, Friend brought a lot to the movie. From playing Ping-Pong when she was supposed to be paying attention to something, or randomly wearing a Native American headdress, or playing with dolls and recording radio shows, she was quite entertaining. She was a lot of fun, if I haven’t made it clear, and I really liked the fact she got a happy ending.

Also, Martin F. Glynn brought a little something too. He wasn’t near as special as Friend was, but he told a pretty funny story revolving around an informant and a goat’s tongue (Haaga’s facial expressions during this story cracked me up near as much as the story itself). The individual who played Dracula, Russell Friend, was decent, as was the sinister Dr. Loveless, played by Allen Lowry (his interactions with Jennifer Friend were always good quality), but it’s really Shepis, Haaga, and Jennifer Friend that make this movie the enjoyable movie it is.

The story itself isn’t really great, and while there’s Bonnie and Clyde and there’s Dracula, it takes something like an hour for them to actually cross paths. That’s okay, because the scenes focusing on just Bonnie and Clyde were, as I said, pretty good, ranging from comical to emotional, and while Dracula himself wasn’t that engaging, the individual trying to bring him back to full strength, Dr. Loveless, had a lot of funny conversations with his sister (Jennifer Friend). When these people all converge, the movie’s still great, but don’t get the idea that beforehand, I was tapping my fingers impatiently.

Bonnie & Clyde vs. Dracula sounds like it would be horrible (God knows I had my doubts), but I was very pleasantly surprised. I’m not saying it’s A+ cinema, but I did really enjoy this, and without a doubt, I could see myself giving this another watch, or multiple, in the future.

8.5/10