Silent Night (2012)

Directed by Steven C. Miller [Other horror films: Automaton Transfusion (2006), Scream of the Banshee (2011), Under the Bed (2012)]

Sort of a remake-in-name-only (from 1984’s Silent Night, Deadly Night), Silent Night is a decent amount of fun, and includes some memorable characters, decently gory deaths, and a cast that mostly makes things work, along with a light tongue-in-cheek feel.

Malcolm McDowell was great here. I didn’t love his portrayal of Loomis in the Halloween remake, but here, his character was a lot of fun and had some great lines. The over-the-top style he sometimes took brought with it a lot of chuckles, and he definitely outstrips the main character, played by Jaime King (who, it should be noted, still did a fine, and sometimes emotional, job). Otherwise, we have Donal Logue (whom I know best as Detective Bullock in the Gotham series), who is great to see, but doesn’t appear enough, along with Ellen Wong (a familiar face from The Void) and John B. Lowe, who played my second favorite character in the film.

There’s not really as much mystery behind the killer in this film as I sort of wish there was. Oh, people wonder who the killer is, but it’s far from a focus, and the audience finds out via a flashback at the conclusion, so no on-screen characters quite figure it out. The good thing is, though, that Silent Night is heavy on gore, and there are some pretty solid kills here. A few stand out as weak (the electrocution scene, for instance), but others make up for is, such as the flamethrower kill, and the wood-chipper scene.

Like I mentioned, there’s a light tongue-in-cheek feeling throughout the film. I wouldn’t call much of the film outright comedy-horror, but a few scenes definitely caused solid laughter, such as a pre-teen girl cussing out church, or a priest who does all the things priests probably shouldn’t be doing. Even some of McDowell’s lines illicit chuckles, such as his ‘Don’t put avocado on a burger’ talking point. This is not at all like Krampus or Santa’s Slay, but there are some amusing bits spread throughout.

There’s a lot of Christmas-themed horror out there, and a lot I’ve not seen as of yet, but it seems to me that many of them don’t quite hit the mark. Views on this loose remake seem to be mixed, and I suspect that’s partially because, as a slasher, Silent Night doesn’t really add anything into the mix. Even so, it’s a film I’ve had fun with during multiple viewings, and while I’d tweak a few things, Silent Night’s a film I enjoy a decent amount.

8/10

The Clown Murders (1976)

Directed by Martyn Burke [Other horror films: N/A]

While there are some horror aspects to The Clown Murders, fundamentally, this is a melodramatic flick with far too much talking and far too little killing.

As for the positives, there was a cool shotgun blast through the chest. Also, someone’s hand got stabbed in what was probably one of the most action-packed scenes in this otherwise kill-me-now-I’m-so-bored movie. I mean, this movie was just dull. It had potential, but it meandered and just entirely blew it.

Oh, I’m supposed to be talking positives? Well, I did like William Osler and his character, who had a thick Irish accent. He didn’t appear much, but he was consistently the most amusing thing in this dull piece of tripe.

The Clown Murders is strictly a drama movie for the first hour and five minutes or so. About fifty minutes in, once the group got to the farmhouse, things really could have picked up and gone a more traditionally slasher-esque route, but that’s not what happened. Instead, we got – more talking.

I didn’t get Susan Keller’s character or how exactly she was hoping the prank pulled on her and her husband would go. Half the time, she seems entirely complicit in everything, so when tensions start really rising toward the end of the film, I found myself getting incredibly frustrated.

Pretty much everyone besides Osler is rather annoying in this film. John Candy is probably the worst offender, but Gary Reineke and John Bayliss were pretty bad too. Because of the situation, there’s really no character to particularly root for, and half the time, you just want the characters to shut up and just think through how to best get out of the situation they got themselves into (which shouldn’t be too hard, because as I said, the woman they ‘kidnapped’ seemed to be fine with everything).

There were some slasher aspects for a few minutes, so sure, The Clown Murders is a horror film in my eyes. Many don’t believe it to be, and I entirely understand where they’re coming from. Does a drama that lasts an hour and 35 minutes become horror with just six minutes of horror scenes? Damned if I know, but I thought there was enough to count.

Unfortunately, just because it actually felt like a horror movie at times only makes this atrocity that much worse, since it was obviously marketed as a horror film. And while there are aspects of the genre, it’s really a stretch. I have long-heard this would be a boring movie, and it really is. There’s really nothing here to go out of your way to find this movie for. John Candy was horrible, the film overall was a mess, and there’s nothing to boast about when The Clown Murders is concerned.

4/10

Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001)

Directed by Chris Angel [Other horror films: The Fear: Resurrection (1999), Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled (2002)]

This movie was ill-advised. Of course, I also hold the somewhat unpopular opinion that the second film was also ill-advised, but I promise that in this case, I’m more in the mainstream of popular thought.

If this movie has anything going for it, at least on a personal interest level, it’s that is stars A.J. Cook. Sure, she was in Final Destination 2, Wer, and The Virgin Suicides (which I saw once, and found decent), and also hilariously had a young appearance in an episode of Goosebumps, but I best know her from her long-running role on Criminal Minds, which is one of the few crime shows I regularly watched on television. Seeing J.J. (her character on Criminal Minds) dealing with a Djinn was oddly fun.

Unfortunately, that’s the best I can say about this one. It’s true that Jason Connery (who was in one of Colin Baker’s better stories during his stint on Doctor Who, Vengeance on Varos) was moderately entertaining, but the rest of the cast, such as Louisette Geiss, Aaron Smolinski, and Tobias Mehler, did little to nothing for me. I don’t really blame the cast, though, as the story strikes me as far more troubling.

Like I mentioned, I wasn’t a fan of the second movie, and I don’t even know if this is that much worse, but I do think the story here was lackluster. Now, the story wasn’t great during the first half of the film, but it took even a worse turn as soon as St. Michael the Archangel took possession of Tobias Mehler’s body. Our lead wished for St. Michael’s help, and so, by God, we got it, which lent a strong fantasy feel to the second half of the film (including a magical flaming sword) but did nothing to cause any more enjoyment for myself.

The base of the story was almost interesting, or at least as interesting as a low-budget Wishmaster movie can muster, but I don’t think there was all that much heart in this. The movie is noticeably cheap, the college doesn’t really seem like a college to me, and some of the more amusing scenes (such as Connery, who is possessed by the Djinn early on into the film, berating a bunch of history students for not accepting the importance of the Djinn during the war over Helen of Troy) are scarce indeed.

A.J. Cook aside, I can’t think of any good reason to really give this a watch, but obviously, you do you. Just don’t expect this to rival the first film, or come anywhere close.

4/10

Run (2020)

Directed by Aneesh Chaganty [Other horror films: N/A]

I wasn’t sure what to expect going into Run – I saw that it had a pretty decent rating (6.7/10 on IMDb as of this writing), and that was enough to get me starting a free trial on Hulu so I could check this out, and you know what? It’s actually quite a well-done film.

Though not perfect, this movie has a lot going for it. Certainly elements here do feel a bit like Misery and films in that vein (though the more personal connections here of the people involved lend to increased emotional scenes), but I think it uses those elements in pretty solid ways, with great dollops of tension and suspense. It doesn’t hurt that there’s a surprise thrown in toward the latter portion of the film.

This is only Kiera Allen’s second role (her first was in a 30-minute drama), which is amazing, as she does a phenomenal job. I won’t say that I loved her character in the final sequence, but I was rooting for her throughout the film, and she brought a lot (easily the most) to Run, and she has a bright future in acting should that be her desire. Fantastic performance.

Sarah Paulson does great too, playing Allen’s mother with, perhaps, a dark secret or two. While at times her performance can feel a bit on the been-there-done-that side, I think she did a great job, especially toward the end when things were spiraling out of control. I don’t know Paulson from many other things, but I did find it amusing that with some of the more popular movies and shows she’s been in, I recognize her best from the political drama Game Change. Lastly, though his role wasn’t large, I appreciated Pat Healy’s (The Innkeepers) role and his character.

As things were building up at the beginning, I thought they did a great job with the uncomfortable and dangerous position Allen’s character was in. The whole thing is all the more terrifying given her character’s medical problems, and that she’d have a harder time fighting back if need be than others may. I think it’s a large credit to Allen’s performance that so much of this movie was compelling.

I wasn’t a giant fan of the end, though. I’m not saying that the final scene isn’t potentially deserved or right, but it just didn’t strike me as satisfying as I otherwise would have liked. Certainly seeing Allen’s character walk through the metal detector was heart-warming, but the rest was sort of ehh.

That aside, though, Run had a lot of things going for it, and while it likely isn’t good enough to be a new-age classic, I do think it’s very much worth the watch, as both the performances and the tension throughout the film combine to make this a pretty solid and quality film.

8.5/10

The Invisible Man (2020)

Directed by Leigh Whannell [Other horror films: Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015), Upgrade (2018)]

As soon as I heard this story was being remade, I was pretty interested. The original Universal classic is a favorite of mine, so I was curious as to how such a story could be updated to fit into the modern times, and though I was moderately impressed with this adaptation, it was not enough to see this film as much more than average.

One pretty interesting idea that took me aback (in part, due to it’s simplicity) was the idea that the main character (played by Elisabeth Moss) would be taken as mentally unstable due to her claims that an invisible man was after her. This psychological approach isn’t really present at all in the original, and I thought they did nicely with the idea, and it did lead to some rather tense moments.

Elisabeth Moss (who I know best from her appearances on The West Wing, but she was also in the low-budget outing The Attic) did really solid as a battered yet strong-willed woman, and while I didn’t necessarily love where some of her story went, she did great here. Even better, though, was Aldis Hodge – I don’t know him from anything whatsoever, but he had a calming aura about him that I appreciated throughout the film.

More mixed was Harriet Dyer’s character. I loved how she stood up for her sister for much of the beginning, but once an angry email is sent to her (supposedly by said sister), she entirely shuts Moss’ character out, which just struck me as needlessly vindictive. I mean, I’m pretty sure emails have been hacked in the past, and more to the point, why anyone would think someone would send an email like that and then show up as if nothing happened is just beyond me. Dyer’s character was certainly decent, and she did a good job with that performance (and let’s not forget the rather surprising conclusion to her character), but that little bit of the film did bother me.

Lastly, we have Michael Dorman and Oliver Jackson-Cohen. Dorman (previously in Triangle) consistently had that smug attitude that just made you want to punch him, and especially toward the end, you were likely just so done with his character (that scene in the mental hospital especially was just horrible, yet fitting, for him). Jackson-Cohen didn’t get a lot of screen-time, but I definitely felt that, while palatable, he didn’t give anywhere near as memorable a performance as Claude Rains.

And I think that’s the moderately problematic downside of the film. Certainly there were a decent amount of both suspenseful and emotional scenes (in a movie that clocks in at over two hours, including credits, you would hope so), but how many of them were memorable? Maybe that kitchen scene early on, just due to the way it’s filmed. That attic reveal about an hour in, and of course the dinner scene with Moss and her sister. Lastly, maybe the breakout, which was reasonably fun. But that’s not really enough to make the movie great.

I still think this version of The Invisible Man is decent, though. While I think it runs overlong, and some sequences don’t interest me as much (such as going back to the coastal house and finding the invisibility suit), and while the gas lighting aspect was suitable for the story, the whole of the conclusion just didn’t sit entirely right with me (though I don’t judge Moss’ character whatsoever).

Overall, I enjoyed the film. I don’t think it was great, and I honestly don’t think it’ll turn out to be memorable, but it still provided a decent time. Naturally, I prefer the 1933 original, which I find a much more fun and enjoyable time, but this adaptation had solid things going for it. I just pretty much think it broke even with some story issues and it’s unnecessary length.

7/10

Nightworld: Lost Souls (1998)

Directed by Jeff Woolnough [Other horror films: Strange Frequency 2 (2002), The House Next Door (2006)]

Known best as just Lost Souls (if it’s known at all), this television movie didn’t reinvent the wheel, but in it’s low-budget tackling of a somewhat common story, I found the movie quite serviceable.

Now, I saw this once before many years back, and about the only thing I remembered was the conclusion, so I didn’t get to relive the surprise, but even so, I like how the film focuses on the mystery of unsolved murders and throws multiple suspects out at us, many of them feeling like real possibilities. The idea of supernatural forces from beyond the grave helping people solve an old murder isn’t new, but it was done well, and with feeling.

Communicating through an autistic girl was a nice touch, because both parents here (played by John Savage and Barbara Sukowa) got to see their daughter do more than she’s been able to do (such as sing), and though it’s just a cheap television flick, I still liked that this had heart.

On that note, the horror here isn’t nearly what many fans might be looking for. It might even feel more like a supernatural drama at times, but when you throw in mystery and the decently suspenseful conclusion, I don’t see why all that many people would have an issue seeing this as a horror film, light as it might be.

John Savage is a bigger name, though I’ve only seen him in a handful of low-budget horror movies (such as The Attic). He does pretty well here, and I love the lengths he goes through to both figure out the answer to the old crime and protect his family. His wife, played by Barbara Sukowa, didn’t nearly interest me as much, but both children (Nick Deigman and Laura Harling) are solid, with Harling’s performance perhaps being the best. Richard Lintern was pretty good too.

Nightworld: Lost Souls isn’t anything that special, but I find myself enjoying it more than expected. I definitely liked it the first time I saw this, and it’s pretty much had the same impact on me this time around. It’s not stellar as far as made-for-television horror goes, but hell, I liked it. Sue me, brahs.

8/10

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

The Brain (1988)

Directed by Ed Hunt [Other horror films: Point of No Return (1976), Bloody Birthday (1981), Halloween Hell (2014)]

I wasn’t really expecting to enjoy this film all that much (despite the fact that it’s long sat in a ‘want-to-see’ list of mine), but while I didn’t absolutely love it, The Brain was still a decently fun and enjoyable film, and not nearly as goofy as one might think.

It’s hard to say exactly why the film works better than expected. The story itself is somewhat interesting, true, and most of the main performances are competent, but even so, it lacks that flair that’d truly make it amazing. The fact that the film takes itself more seriously probably goes a long way to explain why I personally enjoyed it more than I initially thought I would, so there’s that.

Tom Bresnahan does well as the sympathetic main character, and Cynthia Preston, playing his girlfriend, does pretty good also. Preston, on a side-note, later appeared in Prom Night III: The Last Kiss, which I’ve yet to see, but thought it was worth mentioning. Otherwise, she’s not done that much for the genre. David Gale, however, well-known for his role in Re-Animator and Bride of Re-Animator, has both done a bit more for the horror genre, and more so, does pretty memorably in The Brain (though toward the end, his plot sort of runs thin). As a threatening presence, George Buza puts up a good performance.

There were a few issues I had toward the conclusion of the film regarding main character Jim’s actions, such as approaching his mother (in hopes, I guess, that she hadn’t been brainwashed somehow), something like ten minutes after criticizing another character for wanting to do the same thing. I was sort of expecting a Halloween III: Season of the Witch twist with Preston’s character, but one was never even hinted at, which felt off. Lastly, I got a slight sense that things were a bit anticlimactic, and while I sort of liked the final scene, it definitely threw me off-guard.

Where The Brain really shines is in their psychedelic hallucination sequences. The one that opens the movie is fantastic, and there are a few throughout the film that really show promise. In a way, it felt like watching some of the more trippy dreams from A Nightmare on Elm Street. It gives a very ‘what the hell am I watching’ feel to the film.

Overall, I don’t think The Brain is amazing, but I do think it’s a pretty fun slice of wild, 80’s horror, and probably worth at least one look-see, because I think that this would make quite a few fans of the genre reasonably happy.

7/10

This was covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, so if interested, listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this below.

The Stepfather (1987)

Directed by Joseph Ruben [Other horror films: Dreamscape (1984), The Good Son (1993)]

I might not be surprising anyone when I admit to being a big fan of this movie. Both my my banner here, along with my signature on HorrorMovieFans.com, use a ‘Who am I here?’ image of the movie, and perhaps more than any other movie (aside from maybe Burnt Offerings), I wear the fact that I love this one on my sleeve for all to see.

And I don’t feel a bit ashamed.

I’m not going as far as to say this movie’s perfect, but I will say that Terry O’Quinn’s performance is without flaw. I love the idea of an insane man trying to encapsulate the perfect, Leave It to Beaver family unit, only to undoubtedly become disappointed, kill them, and start over again. He tries his best to create the picture-perfect family, one without discord, one with strong traditional values, but he’s never able to, no matter how wistfully he looks at other seemingly-happy families.

O’Quinn’s performance here is fantastic. He seems a clean-cut guy, whistling and shaving while the bodies of his discarded wife and kid are sprawled on the floor. He can’t take much in the way of criticism (just look at the house showing sequence with Charles Lanyer), and he’s corny as all hell (‘I sell the American Dream’), but he’s also pretty intimidating. When he’s having his mini-breakdown in the basement (unknowingly in front of his shocked step-daughter, Jill Schoelen), he’s obviously furious and mentally unstable (at the mere thought of his happy world crumbling down), and god, that breakdown at the end, resulting in the ‘Who am I here,’ line?

Perfection.

Really, the only character here that didn’t really blow me away was Jim, played by Stephen Shellen, whose main mission in the movie was to find the killer of his sister and bring him to justice. He certainly had a solid motive, but I don’t know if his scenes add all that much to the film (though certainly, without his persistence of getting the story of the murder ran again, there wouldn’t have been a story to begin with). He was still a decent character, and I felt bad for him throughout, but he was the least interesting individual here.

I sort of wished Jeff Schultz was more involved in the story, but after attempting to rape Schoelen’s character, I can see why he stepped out. 😛 Charles Lanyer, playing Schoelen’s therapist, was very solid, and when she said that her step-father scared her, you could tell he was devoted to helping her out, and boy, did he go the extra mile for her (speaking of which, when Jerry’s beating the guy with a four-by-two, talk about a solid sequence). Shelley Hack was decent as the mother, and she shared a touching moment or two with her daughter, but she was far from a crucial player here.

Once we move past O’Quinn, Jill Schoelen is the second-best performance here. She’s a troubled girl in a bad situation with almost no one on her side (her therapist being the one exception, and when she’s told that he died, you can’t help but feel for her), but she finds the strength to fight back, and it’s just solid stuff. It didn’t hurt they threw in a bit of nudity for some reason, but what the hell, it was welcomed. Even without that, she was a stand-out character, and it’s great to see her finally be vindicated come the end.

Related, she has a somewhat solid resume of horror films, such as the somewhat underrated Popcorn, co-starred in the 1989 Phantom of the Opera with Robert Englund, along with appearing in Curse II: The Bite, Cutting Class, Chiller, and When a Stranger Calls Back. She never seemed to reach A-list status, but she certainly had her fans, and though I’ve not yet seen many of her other movies, I suspect this was one of her finest roles.

Personally, I don’t know exactly why I love this one as much as I do. At times, I can’t deny that this feels more like a television movie than one that got theatrical release, because it can be a bit tame, and perhaps sluggish, but I still adore every second of it (and like I said, the ending as a whole is spectacular). The idea of a disappointed father quitting his job, scoping out a new family, then killing his existing family in order to move on was engaging, and I sort of wonder how many times Jerry’s done that before (I suspect the opening to the film was not his first infraction). In fact, much of Jerry’s history is uncovered, which only intensifies the mystery (aside from the fact he had a self-admitted strict upbringing, we’ve got nothing).

The Stepfather is a movie of high value, and certainly a movie that I’ve always enjoyed, and always will. All we need is a little order around here, and this movie brings it.

9/10

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

The Brood (1979)

Directed by David Cronenberg [Other horror films: Shivers (1975), Rabid (1977), Scanners (1981), Videodrome (1983), The Dead Zone (1983), The Fly (1986), Dead Ringers (1988), Naked Lunch (1991), eXistenZ (1999)]

I’ve seen this Cronenberg film once before, and it wasn’t quite my thing. That didn’t really surprise me, as I was similarly lukewarm toward Videodrome (despite it’s classic status). I’ve not yet seen many of Cronenberg’s other movies, but only one (Shivers, or They Come from Within) was something I actually liked.

All this said, I enjoyed The Brood a little bit more than when I first saw it. It still seems all over the place, and doesn’t quite get close to reaching an average rating from me, but it’s still an unique experience that’s perhaps worth seeing at least one time around.

At times, the story here seems muddled, and it’s not always clear where exactly the plot is going. At first, I thought there was going to be a big issue made of the grandmother abusing Frank’s (Art Hindle) daughter, but instead, the old woman gets killed by a mutant child, who then kills another character, and eventually kidnaps the daughter herself. All this is going on while Hindle’s character is investigating a controversial therapy method that his wife is undergoing, and it doesn’t necessarily seem to all fit together, even by the ending.

Performance-wise, Art Hindle is okay as the lead character. I think that psychologist Oliver Reed made more an impression, but I wasn’t moved much by Samantha Eggar whatsoever (even during the somewhat surprising and very odd finale). Susan Hogan played a nice character addition, but aside from a solid death sequence, she wasn’t that relevant to the story. I think a surprising stand-out, as far as performances go, is Henry Beckman. There’s a scene in which he’s drinking and reminiscing about his recently deceased ex-wife. That was somewhat emotional in itself, but the conclusion of that scene just ensures it’s one of the better sequences in the film.

There were some aspects I liked about this movie. Hindle’s character encounters a mutant child-type thing, and informs the police, who actually proceed to have an actual useful autopsy on it, which points out what an odd mutation this kid is. Just seeing the authorities actually having no choice but to believe a bizarre claim is a nice change of pace, though ultimately, I don’t think it really leads anywhere.

The conclusion itself is decently suspenseful, regardless of the fact I didn’t much care for where the story went. I wouldn’t go as far as to say the ending validates the rest of the movie, or makes it worth watching alone, but it’s solid. Even so, the whole of the movie doesn’t impress me (a big part of this, aside from the flaws in the story, stem from the fact I’m really not a fan of body horror), and while I did enjoy it more this time around, I doubt that I’ll grow much fonder of this one down the line.

6/10

This is one of the film’s covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. If you’re at all interested in the hidden mysteries of the world, listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this film.

End of the Line (2007)

Directed by Maurice Devereaux [Other horror films: Blood Symbol (1992), Lady of the Lake (1998), Maléfices (1998), Slashers (2001)]

I saw this flick many years ago when the Chiller channel was still a thing, and got a rather large kick out of it. Flash-forward five years, if not longer, and the film still stands out strong, despite the somewhat low-budget feel and unknown actors and actresses.

For what they were, most of these performances were decent. Main characters played by Ilona Elkin and Nicolas Wright do well together, and have decent chemistry. Emily Shelton was both cute and highly effective with weaponry, so she’s a keeper. Nina Fillis did well with her conflicted role, Neil Napier was decent, though I sort of wished he did a bit more, and Robin Wilcock was great as a scummy, religious, would-be rapist.

What really makes End of the Line transcend budgetary concerns is the frightening realism of the plot. Religion is still very much prevalent in the USA, and the idea of an insane religious cult with significant membership deciding to go on a killing spree to ‘save souls’ is not outside the realm of possibility. Religious beliefs on their own are questionable enough, but when religious beliefs hit this level of fundamentalism, it’s damned dangerous.

The cult, named Voice of Eternal Hope, is damn terrifying, as all these seemingly clean-cut men and women, not to mention indoctrinated children, brandish daggers in the shape of the cross in order to massacre those who don’t share the same faith (or even those in the same cult who’ve lost faith in the mission) mercilessly, singing hymns and smiling while doing so, are definitely creepy. Because of their insane bloodlust, there’s some decent gore in the film, and while that’s not really the focus or most interesting thing about End of the Line, it certainly does help on occasion.

Related, there are some very solid scares in the film. Some are are bit much, but I will admit that the first few scares in the film really got to me, and definitely helped set up a creepy and somewhat ominous feel to End of the Line.

Pretty much from beginning to end, the movie moves at an acceptably quick pace. There are some questionable dialogue pieces toward the beginning, and a few things aren’t necessarily made clear (especially regarding the reality of the ongoing situation, and whether or not the muffins alluded to were directly related to anything), but some of the confusion and uncertainty only makes sense in such a chaotic scenario.

End of the Line is a very acceptable movie, and there’s a lot going for it that allows it to stand out of the crowd of post-2005 low-budget horror flicks, many of which are decent, but a far larger number of which are around average to far below average. End of the Line isn’t by any means an amazing movie, but it does stand up to my rather appreciative memory of it, and I certainly recommend it to fans of slashers or films revolving around insane cults.

8/10

This is one of the films reviewed on Fight Evil’s podcast, so if interested, listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.