Tag: 2009

Directed by Corbin Bernsen [Other horror films: N/A]

Dead Air is a movie I’ve seen once or twice before, and though it’s been many years since I’ve last seen it, I remember it being a pretty decent zombie movie. Nothing overly special, but decent. And generally speaking, I think that holds true – Dead Air’s not necessarily a great movie, but I do think that it trends toward solid.

Being someone who has been long interested in politics, I appreciated the political elements they threw into this movie. To be sure, it’s not that surprising they did, as this zombie outbreak was caused by terrorist attacks, but they went further and added elements of a virus that was created by the US government and the potential of the attacks being done by Muslims, obviously topical for the anti-Muslim hysteria following 9/11.

Naturally, a movie that focuses largely on a radio host during an ongoing zombie uprising like this one can’t resist being compared to Pontypool. Pontypool’s a movie I need to revisit, but even with what I remember of it, I can say that this felt far less philosophical in nature. The two may make a decent double-showing, but it’s also fair to say that there are people out there who believe this to be little more than a Pontypool rip-off, which I don’t think is fair.

I do wish that we got a few more concrete answers toward the end, but I also know that in a situation like they were in, actual answers could very much be an unrealistic expectation. I was invested throughout, though, in the backstory of these multiple attacks (the film is set in Los Angeles, but we find out later that a total of 16 cities were attacked), and I found that focus generally more interesting than the zombies themselves.

The movie does feel cheap at times, and I think that somewhat shows with the zombies. We occasionally see large groups, but more often, the movie takes a more personal and focused touch. There’s not really a ton of action, at least zombie-related, which doesn’t hurt, but I think it backs up the idea that this didn’t have the highest budget behind it.

Bill Moseley (House of 1000 Corpses, Exit Humanity, The Horde, Big Top Evil) is solid as the lead. Not all of his dialogue delivery is stellar, but I always dug him as the focal point. David Moscow (Vacancy 2: The First Cut) starts off a bit rough, but he ends up a pretty good character. Something about Joshua Feinman’s personality amuses me, so he stood out also. Of the four main characters, Patricia Tallman (Night of the Living Dead) made the least impact, but that flower pot scene was golden.

Navid Negahban (The Fallen Ones) made for a decent human antagonistic force, though I’d have liked more backstory on him. I have to admit, though, that I thought he made plenty of good points in the latter half of the film. We didn’t see a whole lot of Lakshmi Manchu or Anthony Ray Parker here, but I liked the little that we got.

I think it’s fair to say that Dead Air has gotten somewhat mixed reception – I personally enjoy it, but I know there’s plenty of people out there who rather think otherwise. If you’re into zombie movies, it may be worth checking out, but I can’t honestly say that this would appeal to a much larger audience.

7.5/10

Directed by Alex Turner [Other horror films: Dead Birds (2004)]

It’s been a good eight years since I’ve seen Red Sands, and I have to say, I was quite looking forward to revisiting this one. I don’t remember it being all that good, but I always thought the plot had potential, and seeing it again, I can say that when it comes down to it, the movie’s at best okay.

Part of the issue, I think, is that there’s a bit of build-up before anything happens that’s all that exciting. In some ways, this may have been necessary, as we’re given seven characters who are all quite similar, so we need some time to learn a bit about them, but at the same time, it’s still a bit of a drag early on.

One thing I think this movie has going for it is that the plot is quite unique, dealing with soldiers over in Afghanistan who run amok of a Djinn in a remote, isolated farmhouse. The location is quite beautiful and sparse, and seeing soldiers deal with a situation like this isn’t overly common (I always thought military-themed horror was under-utilized, and, as a matter of fact, so are Djinn-themed films). It’s a fun idea, and they do get some things right, but the overall execution isn’t the best.

It did take a little while for any of the performances to stand out. After a bit, though, I was enjoying Callum Blue, Aldis Hodge, and Leonard Roberts. Shane West, despite being the focus, wasn’t really that fleshed out, and while Mercedes Mason (Quarantine 2: Terminal) was a nice change of pace, she also didn’t have that much going for her (which, to be fair, was sort of the point). Though he only gets a few scenes, we also get some J.K. Simmons, who gives a bit of funny dialogue at times.

Brendan Miller played a rather horrible character (he casually suggests gang-raping an Islamic woman seeking shelter from a sandstorm – you know, because she wouldn’t have anyone to tell, and that makes rape okay). Given that sexual abuse of prisoners of war isn’t at all unheard of by the US military (looking at pictures of the abuse and torture prisoners faced in Abu Ghraib prison should make everyone second guess supporting the troops), having a character with a similar mindset, while sickening, is at least accurate.

The special effects mostly show up toward the finale, and they’re not great. I think more than the effects or gore, the film relies on the growing tension around the isolated farmhouse, as some of the soldiers are more and more concerned their staff sergeant may not be in the best mindset. It’s okay as far as the tension goes, but we only know so much about these characters, and while some are decent, it’s hard to really care for any of them (especially given they’re invading another country to begin with).

Red Sands is a film I wish was a bit better. In truth, it’s not a terrible time – it’s below average, but not disastrously so. Even so, it’s a movie with only so much rewatchability, and I suspect many who spend a night with it won’t be going back to it any time soon afterwards, if they even happen to remember it.

6/10

Directed by Kevin Carraway [Other horror films: Se7en Below (2012), Way of the Wicked (2014)]

I don’t have too much to say about The Fear Chamber because I don’t really think there’s much that could be said. The movie is somewhat functional, but it feels pretty generic and aside from a decent performance or two, doesn’t strike me as memorable whatsoever.

I can say that with at least a little confidence because this is the second time I’ve seen the film, and I didn’t recall too much from my first time watching this. I can imagine it’s partially the plot – a detective searches for a serial killer, all while having visions about the victims. There’s not really much more to it than that, and that twist they throw in at the end was somewhat laughable (the twist itself wasn’t bad, it’s just that it involved a specific character, and as soon as that character was introduced an hour previously, I knew the exact twist they’d go for).

Nothing here really screams originality. The gore is more implied than anything. Only one scene really stands out, in which the killer is removing some teeth from a poor victim. It looked reasonably painful, but still wasn’t that bloody, and other than that, there’s not a lot for the film to offer.

Really, the only thing that I thought was actually good would be some of the performances. The lead Rhett Giles was okay, but of the central actors, I thought he was the weakest. I liked the killer, played by Richard Tyson – he had some strong moments, especially toward the finale. Both Steven Williams (X from The X-Files) and John Duerler were solid too, and it’s sort of odd seeing Williams in a movie with this kind of quality.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think The Fear Chamber is nearly as bad as others seem to. At the time of this writing (for posterity, that’d be October 16th, 2021), this film sports a 3.3/10 on IMDb, with 519 votes. I know that tastes differ, but I don’t think it was that bad whatsoever.

More than anything, it’s just overly generic, and doesn’t stand out well at all. It might be a reasonable way to spend an hour and a half if you’re in a pinch, but this is one of those films that I struggle to see making anyone’s “Underrated horror films” list.

5/10

Directed by Stacy Davidson [Other horror films: Domain of the Damned (2007)]

I wasn’t impressed with Sweatshop the first time I saw it. Aside from the gore, it has nothing going for it. Seeing it again, well, I pretty much feel the same, and though I do think a bit more highly of it (Sweatshop has some really solid gore effects), I still don’t think it’s a particularly good movie.

Primarily this is due to the plot and characters. I don’t even have anything against the spirit of the plot, to be honest. It’s bare-bones, but that doesn’t matter near as much as the fact that there are no likable characters. Like, none. Literally zero. Some people might not care, as that means you can see people dispatched with gory glory and not shed a tear, but I still like to have someone to root for, and there was no one you could really do that for in this movie.

Also, I would have liked some backstory on the killers. There’s three or so – one is a huge, hulking hombre who wears a welder’s mask and carries around what I’ll call a hammer (it’s not a hammer, but I literally have no idea what it is, and so I’ll just refer to it as a hammer, as the poster does), and also some demons. I mean, they’re probably not demons. They’re disfigured women who act exactly like the possessed from The Evil Dead, so I’m guessing off-screen, someone read the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis.

I just wanted something. Even some half-assed scene where one of the characters finds a newspaper clipping about a giant kidnapping two girls 25 years ago would have been something. But we don’t get any explanation at all about the nature of these killers. If it was just the huge, hulking guy, I probably wouldn’t care that much, but adding in some supernatural elements with the demon girls demands some type of explanation, and it bothers me they didn’t even try.

As for the performances, well, given that none of the characters are likable, it’s not easy for individuals to stand out. Some did, of course, but I’ll preface this by saying their characters were mostly horrible. It’s Peyton Wetzel who made the biggest impression on me, and that’s largely because he looks very similar to Jensen Ackles’ character in Ten Inch Hero (among one of my favorite non-horror films). Naika Malveaux looked cool, Danielle Jones looked cute in glasses, and Brent Himes played a redneck with perfection. Melanie Donihoo was also okay.

It’s not the plot, characters, or performances that anyone is coming to Sweatshop for. It’s the gore. And for a lower-budget film, the gore is damn good. For a little taste, you have a couple of decapitations, people smashed with the hammer-thing, some impalement, a glowstick in the eye, some fingers cut off (one by one), and some legs being smashed with aforementioned hammer-thing. I think the best piece of gore here is someone’s jaw being ripped off. It showed great detail, and it doesn’t look fun.

There’s also a bit of a massacre at the finale. See, the primary group of characters were setting up for a rave party-thing, and the party does indeed occur. There’s another guest, though, being the hulking hombre, and so much like Jason introducing himself to the teens in Freddy vs. Jason, the hulking hombre (who is referred to as The Beast, but that doesn’t seem strong enough), just absolutely massacres them. A lot of great gore just in that scene alone, and it’s a good time.

Obviously, there’s a lot about Sweatshop I don’t like, and great gore can only do so much to improve the film’s disposition. If you want to see great gore, though, give Sweatshop a watch. If you want memorable characters or an interesting take on the horror genre (à la You Might Be the Killer or Hush), then look elsewhere.

6/10

Directed by Nicholaus Goossen [Other horror films: N/A]

The Shortcut is a movie I’ve seen once before, quite some time ago. Much of the plot was lost of me, and given the quite tepid rating it has on IMDb (at the time of this writing, a 5.1/10), I went into this one again with the idea that it’d end up being a forgettable affair, and I think that on a whole, that’s what this is.

If there’s any saving grace, and I don’t think it saves it a hell of a lot, at least half of the performances in the film are decent, and gives you at least somewhat likable characters, which may not mean a whole lot given how bored you’re apt to be, but it was something I took note of.

Drew Seeley wasn’t the most interesting central character, and his love interest, played by Katrina Bowden (Tucker and Dale vs Evil, Piranha 3DD), wasn’t really that much better, but the others were solid, such as Josh Emerson as a jock who was actually decent, Dave Franco as comedic relief, and Shannon Woodward (The Haunting of Molly Hartley), a somewhat feistily playful and fun character.

Raymond J. Barry does as well as he could with his role. He doesn’t really add that much, but it’s more due to the fact that I think it was pretty obvious where the story was going, which sort of hindered his effectiveness. William B. Davis (of The X-Files fame) was nice to see, but ultimately failed to leave any type of lasting impression. The only other performance I wanted to mention was that of Nicholas Elia, who didn’t have much screen-time, but is a solid example of a story going exactly how you expect it to – in this case, the conclusion, which was laughable.

Certainly there are some aspects of this film I enjoy, but it takes a decent while to get going (I’d argue that things really don’t get moving until about an hour and five minutes in), and there’s not enough interesting characters to make that time feel like it’s well-spent (even the few flashbacks we get don’t really add that much, which was disappointing). The setting was okay in a drab forest-type way (this was filmed in Saskatchewan, Canada, which would explain that), but not the most exciting stuff you’ve seen.

Even with the not-so-stellar characters The Shortcut had, I think this could have been better if they had moved the story in a different direction, one that, I don’t know, might have actually had some surprising or more thrilling scenes. Oh, and they should have added a little something in the gore department – I liked seeing a hand get absolutely crushed (sledgehammer action for the win), but aside from that, this felt really tepid, which is a description I think could fit much of the film as a whole.

Maybe this is good for a one-time watch (or two, if you’re like me and forgot everything about it the first time around), but I don’t really think there’s a hell of a lot of reason to seek this one out, and overall, while passable, this would be a difficult one to recommend to anyone.

6/10

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

Directed by Ti West [Other horror films: The Roost (2005), Trigger Man (2007), Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009), The Innkeepers (2011), V/H/S (2012, segment ‘Second Honeymoon’), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘M is for Miscarriage’), The Sacrament (2013), X (2022), Pearl (2022), MaXXXine (2024)]

I’ve not seen many Ti West films. Aside from this, Cabin Fever 2 and The Roost have been it (I recall enjoying The Roost, but boy, I didn’t care for Cabin Fever 2 at all). That said, I was still interested in finally seeing this one, especially because it’s generally gotten favorable reaction from most people I know.

All-in-all, though, I have to say that it feels more like a mixed bag than anything else.

The presentation is off the hook, though. Styled after classic movies of the 1970’s, this has an overall great retro, throwback feel that really has to be seen to be believed. It’s just great, and what helps is the sense of unease and tension that permeates throughout most of the film. You get some great style, you get some great tension, and you get a few good performances (Jocelin Donahue being the best), so what’s my hesitation with lauding over this one?

Perhaps the biggest issue here is the nature of the story. Based on what little I knew about this going it, I was sort of thinking it’d be along the lines of 2008’s Babysitter Wanted, though it ended up reminding me far more of Warlock Moon. My preconceptions aside, The House of the Devil is very much a slow-burn, and it’s not until the final 15 minutes that things really pick up. That’s fine in some ways, as you don’t want to spoil where exactly the story is going before you get to the climax, but for an hour and ten minutes, we have a lot of creepy and unsettling vibes, a few scenes of surprising violence, and that’s it.

Really, it’s a case of ‘to each his own,’ because I definitely see the appeal of such a slow-paced film. A bigger issue I had was with the finale overall, though, from the ritual, as it was, to the final shot. Nothing there was particularly shocking or really all that surprising, and I just don’t know if the build-up was really necessary for what we got. Obviously, from Donahue’s character’s viewpoint, this wouldn’t make a difference, but from an audience stand-point, it warrants a mention.

Jocelin Donahue is really the only stand-out here. I really liked Greta Gerwig, and wish that she was more central to the plot, but it wasn’t to be. Affable yet off, Tom Noonan was pretty decent too. The rest of the family, though, from his wife (Mary Woronov) to his son (AJ Bowen) didn’t do much for me, mainly because we never really learned much about them, or saw that much of them to begin with.

This is a well-made movie, with a solid style and shot in an often interesting ways (very stagnant camera angles which worked to this film’s benefit), but when things lean more Satanic and supernatural in nature, it’s easier for me to get turned off. I still think The House of the Devil is probably worth seeing, and I really appreciated the retro feel this had, but I can’t pretend that I loved it, because I didn’t, and while I might revisit this at some point in the future, for the moment, I just find the film average.

7/10

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

Directed by Rob Zombie [Other horror films: House of 1000 Corpses (2003), The Devil’s Rejects (2005), Halloween (2007), The Haunted World of El Superbeasto (2009), The Lords of Salem (2012), 31 (2016), 3 from Hell (2019)]

Boy, this was a surprise. Now, I’ve seen this sequel before, but it’s been years, and I was hoping that, upon seeing it with fresh eyes, it’d have grown on me a bit, and I’d end up rating it equal to, if not better, than Rob Zombie’s first Halloween (which I’ve never been a fan of).

That is, alas, not what happened at all.

Truth be told, this film struck me as overly terrible and shallow. I’ll attempt to touch on my biggest concerns, but the sooner this film is forgotten, the better, as far as I’m concerned.

Story-wise, the movie started strong, mimicking the original Halloween II with Laurie in the hospital and Michael coming after her. But PLOT TWIST – the first twenty minutes are a dream. It’s a shame, because it was probably the most solid segment of the film, but it was all a dream. Great stuff, man. Loved it. Didn’t feel like an utter waste at all. I promise.

Following that terrible dream sequence, we get a bunch of psychedelic segments with Michael and Laurie thinking about family and horses and ghosts appear at the end (or it was a psychotic break, but it’s not made clear, so whateves), and it’s a great story. I mean, we pretty much get no reason to care for Laurie or her friends (Annie, Mya, and Harley), so when they die, who cares? I know I don’t.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say the story was bad. I just personally couldn’t get invested past the annoyingly-long dream sequence, and once they started throwing in visions of Sheri Moon Zombie, that indifference grew. I felt nothing through most of this, which is only made worse due to pretty weak kills, and rather dreary lighting.

While it was a minor pleasure seeing both Richard Riehle (Hatchet) and Octavia Spencer (Ma) in cameos, pretty much no one else does anything for me. Malcolm McDowell (who I enjoyed in Silent Night well enough) played such a terrible character, making it impossible to get behind him. Scout-Taylor Compton, Brad Dourif, and Danielle Harris? Harris was far better in Halloween 4 and 5, Compton was entirely generic most of the time, and Dourif made no impression.

Personally, I think this is on Halloween: Resurrection level terrible, and to be entirely frank, I might like Resurrection more. In fact, it’s not ‘might’ – I do. This movie was just atrocious with very little going for it, and I couldn’t imagine ever wanting to see this one again for any reason.

4/10