For the first time since 1991, we have a good Chucky film, and luckily for us, barring a few minor problems, this is rather better than Child’s Play 3.
The story was appropriately dark and had a rather somber tone, something we’ve not seen in this series since at least the third movie. Taking place entirely over the course of one night, it’s an atmospheric and confined movie, even more so because our main character, Nica (played by Brad Dourif’s daughter Fiona) is wheelchair-bound. It’s a nice change of pace from Bride and Seed, and even Chucky’s antics seem very much muted.
Pretty much everyone in the film did a good job, with my highest compliments going to Fiona Dourif, who played her character amazingly. Danielle Bisutti did the whole bitchy sister act really well, and playing a bit of an airhead with a secret, Maitland McConnell stood out also. Everyone else was fine, but these three deserve the highest praise.
Filling in Chucky’s background a bit was nice, and I thought it worked out decently well, but there are portions which seemed to disregard previous movies (such as Tiffany’s account in Bride of Chucky vs. what we saw here). That’s not a big deal, especially considering that this movie is better than Bride by a long shot, but I still couldn’t help but notice it.
This is a tense, dark movie, which is certainly a great addition to the series and a great viewing to any horror fan. While gore wasn’t the strongest point of the film, there were still solid instances that stood out. The endings, with a few surprise guests, were also nice, but the post-credit scene seems to disregard the sequence right before it, at least as far as I could tell.
Some small continuity issues aside, Curse of Chucky is the third-best entry to the series, with the firsttwo edging it out. I liked it when I first saw it, and am glad to report that, to me, at least, it still stands strong.
Directed by Ernie Barbarash [Other horror films: Stir of Echoes: The Homecoming (2007), They Wait (2007), Abduction (2019)]
An inside look, if you would, of the operators of the Cube, Cube Zero is a very interesting and very flawed movie.
The concept of this film, looking at the Cube from the outside perspective as opposed to an inside one, is cool, but it sort of negates the purpose of the firsttwo movies. More so, it brings even more questions to the table that are never answered.
Philosophically, this movie does have something to offer up to think about, most prominently at what point does just “taking orders” go too far. Still, there are some other questions, such as if an individual does a bad thing, but forgets about it, should they still be punished, and similar thoughts. There’s certainly more to this movie than what’s on the surface, in short.
Insofar as acting goes, it was a bit of a mixed bag. I liked the main character Wynn (Zachary Bennett) well enough, but part of me wonders why he even went for a job working in the Cube to begin with (which is, as I mentioned earlier, one of the many additional questions this flick brings to the forefront). Wynn’s partner, Dodd (David Huband) was decent, though was a bit shaky at times. And as for almost everyone else? They were passable, but not really memorable.
Aside from the character Jax, played by Michael Riley. He was moderately over-the-top, a bit goofy, and really felt out of place in a movie like this, in my opinion. Many other commentators have said that he’s the high point of the film, but I just don’t see it. He just seemed so ludicrous as to take away from the interesting aspects of both this governmental agency and the society as a whole. Cube Zero asks some good questions, but throwing in a character like Jax just doesn’t do much to lend credibility to the more serious aspects of the film.
The gore, though there’s not a whole lot, is good. At the very least, it’s better by far than the second film, and the body melting scene near the beginning can rival any death in the Cube series, as far as I can recall. True, some CGI looked really hooky, but for the most part, as far as deaths go, this movie did okay.
The ending was a mixed bag, much like the movie as a whole. I sort of liked what they were going for, but at the same time, it doesn’t really add anything to the mix. Cube Zero took a bunch of interesting ideas and deep questions, and blended together, unfortunately it comes out 50/50. The movie certainly isn’t bad, and I do find it better, generally speaking, than Hypercube, but it doesn’t match anywhere close with the original 1997 flick.
Directed by Ronny Yu [Other horror films: Jui gwai chat hung (1983), Lung hei bik yan (1984), Meng gui fo tiao qiang (1988), Freddy vs. Jason (2003)]
I will admit, this was a deeply disappointing rewatch.
Much of the gore and death sequences in this movie are solid. Electrocution scene, well-done. Nails to the head, pretty good (though I could’ve done without the Pinhead reference). Waterbed death – good idea, not that great an execution. Overall, though, the movie is best when it focuses on these scenes.
Because nothing else is really worthy of much praise.
Jennifer Tilly’s voice annoys me, I won’t lie. But what annoys me so much more is all of the in-jokes this movie had, from the aforementioned Pinhead reference, to a joke about the amount of sequels this series has, and even throwing in artifacts from other famous slashers (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, etc.). It felt off. Not stupid exactly, but just too close to parody.
An even bigger problem is the story, though, which I just didn’t care for all that much. Because of it’s lighter tone, it’s missing almost all of the suspense that the first three movies possessed, and because of the nature of the plot, it felt extraordinarily ridiculous at times, pretty much all stemming from Tiffany’s character.
Acting was a mixed bag, with some good (Katherine Heigl and Lawrence Dane), some eh (Nick Stabile and Gordon Michael Woolvett), and some atrocious (Michael Louis Johnson is the biggest problem here). John Ritter’s character was a piece of trash, but it was nice to see a friendly face. Brad Dourif did just as good in this performance as he has before, but the script really didn’t help him out. And as much as I don’t want to bash on Tilly, I didn’t care for her character whatsoever, even before her soul went into the doll.
This is a steep decline from the first three movies. The third certainly wasn’t perfect, but it’s tone was still pretty menacing at times. This flick just felt glossy, a bit ridiculous, somewhat vapid, and aside from the gore, not really worth that much. And the ending was just terrible, I thought. Perhaps the most disappointing rewatch in a while, Bride of Chucky didn’t really do it at all for me this time around.
5.5/10
Bride of Chucky is one of the film’s Fight Evil has covered on our podcast, episode #31. Give Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I a listen as we discuss this sequel.
Directed by Lauro David Chartrand-DelValle [Other horror films: N/A]
This was an overly generic movie through-and-through. Basically, it’s as if Wrong Turn, with the occasional element of The Hills Have Eyes remake, was made 13 years later. It’s just a poor shadow of these older films, really, with not much going for it.
Some of the main characters are okay, and seeing Lochlyn Munro (of Freddy vs. Jason fame, also in 2015’s The Unspoken) was decently nice, but the plot has been done to death. Escaped mental patients stalking down college kids can be a fun experience, but this added nothing to the table. Some okay blood (if CGI’s your thing), but the only decent kill is a blowtorch to the face, which wasn’t so much gory as it was painful to witness.
Some portions of this film just felt too glossy, also, especially during the origins of the escaped mental patients. Didn’t care for the sappy ending. Didn’t care much for most of the film, really. Honestly, the opening is moderately solid, but it all goes downhill from there. A really generic movie, with unimaginative killers (sorry Ken Kirzinger – you were better as Jason) and a completely forgettable experience.
Directed by Sheldon Wilson [Other horror films: Shallow Ground (2004), Kaw (2007), Screamers: The Hunting (2009), Carny (2009), Mothman (2010), Red: Werewolf Hunter (2010), Killer Mountain (2011), Scarecrow (2013), Shark Killer (2015), The Hollow (2015), The Night Before Halloween (2016), Neverknock (2017), Stickman (2017), Dead in the Water (2018)]
What an interesting film. The Unspoken, a Canadian film, plays out much like an average haunted house horror movie. A mother and her mute son move to a small town, living in a house that has a reputation for being haunted. Angela (played by Jodelle Ferland) takes the job of babysitting the son, charmed by him despite her nervous disposition and the creepy house. However, three chauvinistic rednecks in town have hidden a stash of drugs in the basement of the house, not expecting anyone to ever move there, and attempt to get it back, causing problems for Angela.
The Unspoken isn’t your normal ghost movie, however much it seems to be. Near the end, some twists occur that shine a whole new light on the strange ongoings at the house. To say that this threw me for a loop would be understating it – never in a thousand years did I see it coming. In fact, it’s reminiscence of another new-ish horror film, though I’ll not mention it to be safe. As for this movie, ignoring the ending sequence for now, it’s decently high quality.
Save for a few special effects issues, The Unspoken is decently solid in the production department. Insofar as actors are concerned, there’s more good news: Jodelle Ferland is a talented young actress with the looks of Navi Rawat (best known for both Feast and Numb3rs), and really sold herself as a nervous babysitter with her own personal problems. Her father was played by Lochlyn Munro (Freddy vs. Jason fame), and while he didn’t have a hell of a lot of screen time, his face was a friendly sight. Lastly, Anthony Konechny played a very well-done Southern bad boy, with fingers in drugs and guns. His figure was a threatening one, and his dickish behavior was on par with what you might expect.
But as decent as some of these actors and actresses are, that won’t be the main talk of the movie – that honor goes to the ending. While I obviously won’t divulge any twist, I will say that I think it has the potential to be controversial. Whether or not that’s a positive thing isn’t my call, but as for myself, I thought it was moderately welcomed. Certainly mind blowing to an extent. Though I will say I cringed as the very last scene of the film went down a predictable path.
Also worth mentioning, this film has a bit more gore in it than you might initially expect. The blood’s not flowing by any means, but you see a skeleton of a dog rip off a man’s jaw, along with a man impaled in multiple places by nails sticking out from the floor and the aftermath of more than a few knives flying into one unlucky fellow.
Overall, The Unspoken is a surprisingly decent movie. Certainly went a unique route, and I applaud it for that (though there were also some unanswered questions throughout). Would I recommend it? Without much hesitation. An above-average movie, and if you’re into haunted house movies, give this one a go.
Directed by Paul Lynch [Other horror films: Humongous (1982), Mania (1986, segments ‘Have a Nice Day’ & ‘The Good Samaritan’)]
I’ve seen this movie around five times now, and I can finally appreciate it more than I’ve been able to in the past. My main problems stemmed from the fact that many of the characters seemed interchangeable – the difference between Kelly and Jude and Vicki and even Jamie Lee Curtis’ Kim never stuck with me, and so I lost track of who’s who and what relationship between everybody was as the movie dragged on, which wasn’t helped out by the fact Nick and Alex didn’t look all that different from each other either. With this most recent viewing, though, things were cleared up, and while it doesn’t save the film, it goes a long way in increasing my rating.
Aside from Jamie Lee Curtis (who, by the way, had some fantastically cheesy dance scenes toward the end), there weren’t a whole lot of stand-out performances. I liked Nielsen well enough, along with Eddie Benton (mega-bitch Wendy), Michael Tough (Kim’s brother, Alex), Joy Thompson (Jude), and Sheldon Rybowski (Slick, a deliciously fun character), but none of them blew me away. Which is sort of a shame, because for the first two acts, next to nothing horror-wise occurs to keep us otherwise occupied.
Which is my biggest gripe of the film – it’s drags on too long at the beginning. Once we get an hour in, I start having a great time (that decapitation is still a favorite of mine), but getting there is, more than anything else, a chore. It feels like Carrie (1976), in many ways, actually, as it just drags on and on until we finally get to an epic finale.
I did like the end, which was actually rather somber. There were plenty of attractive ladies throughout, and while nudity wasn’t high, it was still a nice plus. Again, Jamie Lee Curtis did a good job (even though that disco dance is so dated), though her role in Terror Train, also from 1980, stuck with me more. Lastly, the song that bled into the credits, ‘Fade to Black’ by Gordene Simpson, was beautifully sung, and though I didn’t notice it during my first viewings of this flick, it really is a nice song that I’ll not forget.
Prom Night, despite the problems I have (not mentioned, but I feel the killer’s absence would have been noted, for instance), has a lot of charm. It drags, but it is still a decently well-done slasher that is just outclassed by others from the same time (such as My Bloody Valentine, which came out a year later). I still don’t love this flick. But I’m closer than I have been before.
6.5/10
This was covered on Fight Evil’s second podcast, so you can listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this.
Directed by Andy Muschietti [Other horror films: Mama (2013), It Chapter Two (2019)]
I’m a giant fan of the novel It – I read it annually. It’s all-around a fantastic book. I have great memories of the television mini-series from 1990, but let’s be honest: it certainly was lacking most of the great things the book brought us. And so when I went to go see this in theaters when it initially came out, I had my fingers crossed that we’d get a better adaptation. And though It was not without flaws, we basically did.
Let’s talk about the main seven kids, first. All actors did a good job, but the biggest kudos go to Finn Wolfhard (Richie), Jaeden Lieberher (Bill), Wyatt Oleff (Stan), and Sophia Lewis (Beverly). Richie was a crowd-pleaser, and for good reason. He had a plethora of fantastic lines, hilarious quips, and was overall a great character. Bill was as solid as you’d hope he’d be, and Lieberher did well to show the pain of losing his younger brother. Stan was a favorite of mine from the book, and Oleff played his careful nature (that bike stand scene gets a kick out of me) perfectly. And as for Lewis? Does wonderful with this new version of Beverly, who is so different from the mini-series.
While Mike, Ben, and Eddie were well-acted, I had a few gripes with some of their storylines. Mike no longer being the historian, that role instead going to Ben (in reality, both characters sort of filled the role in the book to a certain extent) really reduced the potency of Mike’s character, There wasn’t even a race-element, that we saw, of Henry’s bullying him. Mike just seemed like he had nothing much to do throughout the film. Ben played his lovesick puppy act well, but really, he was more a punching bag for both Henry and Pennywise than anything else. Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) was well-done, and while I prefer the four listed above, he was the fifth best-done kid.
Bill Skarsgård brought Pennywise to life in a whole new way. I’m not going to say that Curry didn’t do a good job. But I will say what another individual said about comparing the two: Curry seemed like an evil clown, moderately charming, even, and not much more. Skarsgård had moments that made him seem alien (the beginning with George, where his smile and laughter suddenly died, for instance), and he honestly felt more threatening than most of Curry’s performance. Playing more like a kid, also, was a great addition.
Patrick needed more scenes to show the extent of his insanity (such as in the book), and honestly, I thought all of the bullies, Henry included, needed more characterization. Showing Henry’s father embarrassing him once in front his friends doesn’t do it for me.
While there were certainly a high amount of jump scares, and occasionally some not-so-great CGI, there were some standout scenes I really liked, such as Stan’s encounter with Pennywise near the end, Georgie’s encounter at the beginning, and the projector scene (overall). The Neibolt House sequences were certainly enjoyable also.
As for drawbacks, I have a few: the run-time, even at two hours and 15 minutes, was too short, some portions feeling rushed. I feel as though another 30 minutes, to carve out a few more characters, such as Patrick or Henry, wouldn’t have gone amiss. What they did with Mike’s character just felt off, as they gave most of what he was known for to Ben, which gave Ben a bit more to do, but really left Mike in the dust. I do have to mention also that I dislike that they moved the children’s portion from the late 50’s to the late 80’s. I get why they did it, and it came out alright, but I still don’t particularly like it.
Some of the classic scenes of the book, such as Richie and Bill’s journey to Neibolt House, Mike’s encounter with the giant bird, and the Killer Eye in the sewers, were nowhere to be seen. Hell, the Smokehole would have been extremely cool also, and bringing up the Ritual of Chud should have been mandatory. Exploring more of Derry’s past too, would have been welcomed.
Overall, though, I think that It was a fine adaptation. Not as great as could be done – we’d probably need an HBO mini-series to get something even close – but very enjoyable indeed.
8.5/10
This was one of the movies covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, episode #12. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one.
Directed by Steve Beck [Other horror films: Ghost Ship (2002)]
This is only the second time I’ve seen this film (which I possess on DVD for some reason), and again, I find it underwhelming. There’s plenty of good elements: the setting (a futuristic, mechanical house), many of the actors, and half the humor all make for a fun film. But what’s lacking is some additional background, along with the answers to some questions that came up. I’ll not give anything away, but the ending doesn’t exactly strike me as a positive one, despite what one might think. And having some background origins on these ghosts would have been nice, but absolutely none is given. Many of the ghost designs are cool, but without cemented origins, it just falls flat.
Tony Shalhoub has never been a favorite actor of mine, but he does decently well here. As prone to overreaction as he was, Matthew Lillard had some of the most amusing lines throughout the film. And Shannon Elizabeth (who played Shalhoub’s daughter)? I’d buy that for a dollar. She was an attractive actress, though she didn’t have all that much screen time. Thir13en Ghosts is a fun enough midnight movie, I suppose, but there’s not much substance to it, and overall, it’s not that memorable of a film. I feel it could have been better under the direction of another writer or director. As it is, Thir13en Ghosts is below average, but only just. You could certainly do worse.
Directed by Marc Evans [Other horror films: Trauma (2004)]
Maybe back in 2002, this movie was fresh, but this is the second time I’ve seen it, and still, it doesn’t do a hell of a lot for me. Horror movies based off reality television can often be risky – you get a lot of bad movies, such as Reality Check (2002) and Cruel World (2005). This isn’t nearly as bad as those two, but it is very average.
Plot twists you see coming a mile away. Atrocious early 2000’s techno music played incessantly toward the end. Unnecessary slow motion scenes. Heck, I don’t even think the conclusion is all that satisfying.
There are some good parts, though – some of the characters are bearable, and one of the kills (though annoyingly done in night vision view) was sort of cool. Overall, though, while My Little Eye is, by some people, called a gem of the time (which may be true), this is the second time I’ve been disappointed by it, and I don’t anticipate that to change with a third viewing.
Directed by Eddy Matalon [Other horror films: N/A]
First thing’s first – this is a very low-quality transfer that I watched. I’ve heard better quality versions of this film exists, though they’re in French without subtitles. *Shrugs*. So this is a pretty bad print, and if you’ve seen the most common version of Cathy’s Curse out there (one released on Mill Creek Entertainment’s Creepy Classics), I’m sure you’d agree.
In a way, though, I think it brings the movie additional charm. I’ve never been to a drive-in, but I can imagine this is the exact type of movie that would be great to watch at one, and while the quality has faltered, it’s a pretty fun romp.
Cathy’s Curse is one-part The Bad Seed, one-part Burnt Offerings, and one-part The Omen – in it, a little girl is possessed by her father’s deceased sister, and one by one, people around her start dying or going mad. All things considered, it’s a pretty simple film.
Three things about it stand out, though: Firstly, the music has a charming quality to it. Sometimes eerie, sometimes not, the music stood out and enhanced some of the scenes. The acting too was noticeable. It wasn’t always great – Beverly Murray sometimes went a bit overboard portraying the panic-stricken mother. But both Alan Scarfe and Roy Witham did pretty decent jobs (despite Witham only having been in three other films). And lastly, you had some occasionally creepy scenes (along with, of course, some rather ridiculous scenes, but that’s half the fun).
Some of the quotes are pretty classy too – at the beginning, a father tells her daughter “Your mother’s a bitch – she’ll pay for what she did to you.” About halfway through the film, a drunk Roy Witham (playing the groundskeeper as a kindly older man) and gleeful Cathy scare a medium away from the house, shouting, “Get out you old bitch,” and calling her a “fat dried-up whore.” The delivery of these lines were excellent, in my ever-humble opinion.
Cathy’s Curse can at times be a bit of a mess, that much I can say. But I did enjoy it more this time around as opposed to the first time I saw the film, and really, it’s not all that terrible. It doesn’t really drag on, it’s amusing, and is undeniably a product of the 70’s – what more could you want?
Jiggy's Horror Corner 