Tag: Canada

Bruiser (2000)

Directed by George A. Romero [Other horror films: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Hungry Wives (1972), The Crazies (1973), The Amusement Park (1975), Martin (1976), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Creepshow (1982), Day of the Dead (1985), Monkey Shines (1988), Due occhi diabolici (1990, segment ‘The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar’), The Dark Half (1993), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), Survival of the Dead (2009)]

This movie is a hodge-podge of different ideas, and I think that’s partially why it came across, at least to me, as a mess. It’s part thriller, part romance, part comedy (I guess?), part slasher, and for the lulz, it throws in some music at the end.

Listen, the fact that Romeo directed this doesn’t bother me. I enjoy Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead (I’ve yet to see any sequels past that), but he’s not someone who I’d rate up there in the best horror directors, and if he wanted to change things up with this one, so be it. It’s just that Bruiser is such a mess that it defies almost any enjoyment.

Hell, it’s an hour and 45 minutes, and I watched every second. I still have exactly no idea what “brusier” even means, and that’s a problem, but just one of many.

Primarily, it could be said that the fact Brusier isn’t strictly horror is my biggest personal issue. Don’t get me wrong, even if it focused more on horror and less on the thriller/romance/fantasy stuff, I’d probably still rather dislike it, but it just seemed all over the place, as if it had no idea what it was going for (some scenes were openly comedic, but that never seemed the main idea either).

The whole premise bothers me, to be honest. This living carpet of a man wakes up one morning and his face is all white, probably because he has no identity (well, an overtly aggressive identity, anyway). Why this is is never explained, or how. Or what. It just happens, and it didn’t interest or intrigue me at all, especially once I found out we probably weren’t getting any answers on that anyway.

Jason Flemyng was decent in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but he doesn’t suit the role here. To be fair, no matter who took on the role, I’d have hated it, but even so, Flemyng doesn’t seem right here. Peter Stormare (Fargo) was unbearable in his over-the-top role, and I hated him. Tom Atkins (The Fog, Night of the Creeps, Halloween III) is here, but it also doesn’t do anything at all for me, given how poor the film is.

Listen, I don’t even want to harp on this anymore – for some people, Bruiser apparently worked fine. It’s straddling the 5/10 rating on IMDb, so enough people found it competent, at least. I didn’t. I legitimately didn’t have a good time at all. I felt it was going for some deep message about identity, but it never really makes it clear, and without a focus, it felt like a mess. Oh, and that last scene? Just shows me that the whole thing is a joke that no one bothered to explain.

I’ll throw it a few points for Flemyng’s recital of a poem, though, and for that scene where he shoots his backstabbing friend. Otherwise, this has little to nothing going for it, at least not in my opinion.

4/10

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

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Directed by Zack Snyder [Other horror films: Army of the Dead (2021)]

Perhaps one of the best zombie movies of the 2000’s, this remake does a lot right. I happened to see this before I caught the original, and while I do like the original more, this version is no slouch, and it’s a solid ride throughout.

I think a large part of this is how some of the characters here develop, such as Michael Kelly’s CJ, who started off as an utter jackass, but then becomes quite a valuable team member. It’s accurate, actually, to say that most focal performances here are solid, from the lead actress, Sarah Polley, to the sarcastic rich asshole, Ty Burrell (who cracked me up throughout).

With such a large cast, I want to at least give kudos to most of these performances. R.D. Reid, Boyd Banks, Jayne Eastwood, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Mekhi Phifer, Kevin Zegers, and Michael Barry (who I randomly know from the Goosebumps two-parter The Werewolf of Fever Swamp) were all solid in their roles. I didn’t care much for Lindy Booth (though her actions may play a role in that) or Inna Korobkina, but it was nice seeing Ken Foree and Tom Savini here.

Being a big budget film, the special effects and cinematography were pretty top-notch. I don’t think I have a favorite scene of gore, but some of the shots early on in the film, showing the destruction of Sarah Polley’s suburban life, are shot beautifully. The chaos there is fantastic, and you have to love it. Also, throwing on what may be one of Johnny Cash’s best songs (“The Man Comes Around”) during the title sequence was a solid choice.

There are some scenes throughout the film that personally never did that much for me, such as the baby sequence, and, in relation, the degradation of Mekhi Phifer’s character, who was somewhat interesting at the beginning. It makes sense in context, but I still don’t care much for it. Lindy Booth (who, if she looks familiar, you may remember from Wrong Turn) plays a character who suffers multiple losses, but still ends up making a rather stupid mistake late into the film. Still, the parking garage scene in fun, and their escape attempt, with their decked out buses, was quality too.

Dawn of the Dead is a somewhat longer film (the version I went with was an hour and 50 minutes or so), but it doesn’t really drag at any point, even when some characters are thrown in who never really get screen-time (such as those played by Jayne Eastwood, R.D. Reid, and Kim Poirier). We get some time lapses of their life in the mall, which are equal parts amusing and realistic. And when the action comes around, it sure do come around, brahs.

This is a fun movie throughout, and there’s a reason why so many fans of the genre give it such props. Like I said, I don’t think it’s as good as the original Dawn of the Dead, but this is still a well-done zombie movie well worth the respect it’s gathered.

8.5/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. If you want to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Dawn of the Dead, just look below.

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

Directed by James Wan [Other horror films: Stygian (2000), Saw (2004), Dead Silence (2007), Insidious (2010), The Conjuring (2013), The Conjuring 2 (2016), Malignant (2021)]

I wasn’t the biggest fan of the first Insidious whatsoever. Oddly, I find this sequel mildly more enjoyable, though, odd mostly because it feels almost more Hollywood and conventional than the first. I’m not saying it’s even a good movie, but marginally better? I can roll that way.

What struck me as consistently interesting was how the film was peppered with flashbacks, both scenes explaining more of the history of Josh Lambert’s childhood experiences with the supernatural, along with some scenes from the first movie given more detail here. It was all easy enough to follow along with, and an interesting way to expand the story.

As it was, the mystery behind the entity that seems to have taken over Josh was generally engaging. While they may have gone into over-explanation mode, I still found it decent. And to be fair, there were other solid sequences too, such as the can-on-a-string scene, which was suitably creepy, or perhaps the best sequence, Josh Lambert being questioned by Carl near the end, which was unbelievably tense.

Still, like I said, the movie isn’t amazing. The performances are all fine enough, we see a surprise face returning from the first movie, but even so, nothing here really blows me away at all. It’s not a poor watch, by any means, but there’s not enough here to warrant much in the way of a re-watch.

Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson had a solid chemistry, as always. Steve Coulter (Carl) was a fine additional, and I enjoyed his dice-based mediuminess. Neither Rose Byrne nor Barbara Hershey wowed me, but Patrick Wilson put in a very solid performance, and as always, Lin Shayne was nice to see, in a slightly more background role.

I have to say, though, that the ending here was just terrible. Perhaps it’ll be carried on into the third movie, but even if it is, that ending was just horrid.

Insidious: Chapter 2 is marginally more enjoyable than the first part (I know I may be one of the few who believes this, but there you go), but it’s not that good a movie, and it’s not something I could see going back to that often.

6/10

This is one of the films covered by Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss Insidious: Chapter 2.

The Thaw (2009)

Directed by Mark A. Lewis [Other horror films: N/A]

Here’s a somewhat interesting movie. I saw this some years back, and it didn’t work with me. Something about it felt off, despite the story itself being perfectly valid. Seeing it again confirms my previous feelings, and while I can’t really put words on exactly my problem with this one, I do know that I find it underwhelming.

Let me get this out of the way first, though, given this movie is centered around the dangers of climate change: I 100% accept that climate change is man-made, and that the governments of the world must find a way to combat it, be it shutting down the worst industry offenders or throwing CEOs of oil companies into prison. Taxing them into oblivion or nationalizing them, I don’t care. I just know something needs to be done, or this planet is just doomed.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think anything can happen that will set changes that are necessary in motion. I truly don’t think, at this point, we can do anything, especially when, in my country of the USA, both the Republican and Democratic Parties are okay with the continuation of capitalism, which, in turn, will only allow for more profit to be made despite harm to the environment, and so we’re screwed.

That’s just my potentially negative view, and I say all of this because, when it comes to the plan of Dr. Kruipen (played by Val Kilmer), I honestly can’t really blame him for his actions. It’s obviously not ideal, but on the other hand, he was pushed into a wall, and if this was the only way to cause the necessary changes to help stop man-made climate change, then that’s on the system and not on his actions.

This isn’t a political blog, of course, and if it was, I’d have many less readers. If you want to read rants from an angry socialist, then I’d recommend my personal Twitter page. Some movies, though, need some political context. If someone reviewed this one, and didn’t believe in climate change, or thought it was the natural order of things, that may well leave a negative view on the film. I do accept man-made climate change, I do accept it’s harm, and I still don’t much care for this movie.

Part of this is due to my disinterest in Val Kilmer. To be honest, he never gets much screen-time, but something about him just really rubs me the wrong way (and, to be fair, it may be because I can’t see him without thinking about a terrible movie I once saw called The Steam Experiment, which actually wasn’t too different in theme from this one). 

So I don’t much care for Kilmer. Most others do fine, though no one really does great. Aaron Ashmore instantly struck me as familiar. I have seen him once before in a television movie titled Fear Island, but it’s more that his twin brother Shawn Ashmore played Iceman in the X-Men movies. Aaron Ashmore was solid here, and he even sympathized a bit with Kruipen’s plan. Martha MacIsaac, Kyle Schmid (also in Fear Island), and Viv Leacock are all decent too.

At times, The Thaw was solidly harrowing. There is a scene in which a character’s arm is cut off with a meat cleaver at the elbow, which was a pretty painful scene. Other instances worth mentioning are various insect-in-body portions, which has always been a sort of creepy idea. A bug getting into your body and planting eggs? Yeah, no thank you. Special effects throughout were decent, and though the bugs themselves sometimes looked too heavily CGI laden, it wasn’t deeply detrimental.

Despite positive performances, a story that’s not too shabby, and solid special effects, though, The Thaw just doesn’t do it for me. Something about it almost feels hollow, and while I appreciate more than a few things in the film, I don’t really enjoy much of it, and that’s the problem. It may well be worth seeing – the movie, in of itself, is well-made – but it’s not my cup of tea, and there’s many other things I’d rather throw on than this.

5.5/10

Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004)

Directed by Brett Sullivan [Other horror films: The Chair (2007), A Christmas Horror Story (2015)]

I didn’t particularly love this sequel when I first saw it, and while I enjoyed it a bit more this time around, this still isn’t a movie I’d see myself going back to too often. In truth, I might find Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning more an enjoyable movie, but with that all said, this isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not great.

Emily Perkins is pretty solid, of course, and in her limited role (simply as a vision Brigitte often has) Katharine Isabelle was too. Perkins does come across as pretty desperate throughout the film, and while I have qualms with the story, I think she puts in a good performance. Tatiana Maslany’s Ghost was an interesting character. Half the time I was interested, half the time I hated her. Still, Maslany herself did good with the role. I do wish that Brendan Fletcher (Freddy vs. Jason) appeared more, Janet Kidder made no impression on me, and Eric Johnson’s scummy character was eh.

The first half of the film, much of which took place in a rehab facility, was pretty enjoyable, but once Brigitte escapes with Ghost, I wasn’t as enamored. I think part of this is due to Ghost’s character, who I found pretty odd and disconcerting throughout. It was sort of nice for Brigitte to find a new “sister”, and I do appreciate their budding friendship, but even so, Ghost was a strange character. Also, while I like the idea of a werewolf hunting Brigitte down to mate, I wish we got actual confirmation as to who that werewolf was.

What’s most questionable here is the conclusion. I’ll say that on the surface, I rather dislike it, but if taken as a dream, or a fantasy of one of the characters, it’s almost bearable (but then, if you choose to look at it that way, there’s not much of an actual ending at all). I don’t know how much it hurts the movie as a whole, which I found around average even before the ending hit, but it wasn’t really the direction I’d have gone.

A bigger part of this is that I’m not entirely sure Ginger Snaps really needed a sequel to begin with. What brought the first movie to life was the entirely believable sibling relationship between Brigitte and Ginger, which is obviously lacking here. Ginger Snaps 2 does fine, I guess, but it just lacks the magic of the first movie, which is disappointing. Like I said, though, I think I actually enjoy The Beginning more than this one, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

6.5/10

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

Candyman (2021)

Directed by Nia DaCosta [Other horror films: N/A]

I can’t exactly say that I’m disappointed in Candyman, as I’ve consistently heard somewhat mixed reactions to this one, but I was personally hoping that it’d have done a bit more for me than it ultimately did.

Part of this is because I rather love the 1992 Candyman – I think it’s a fantastically strong movie with a lot going for it. This sequel, though certainly more enjoyable than something like Candyman: Day of the Dead, just didn’t have near the magic a story like this should have.

Now, I do think there were some strong elements. I love the more modern perspectives – there’s crucial plot points revolving around the violence committed against the black community by police officers, along with there being a rather fun gay couple in the film. It’s the type of movie that, because of some of the elements, certain segments might be turned away from.

Even without being a bigot or a racist, though, I don’t think it’s an unfair criticism to call the film a little bit of a mess. I don’t think it’s disastrous, and I did rather love how they tied this story into the 1992 classic, but I also found the finale a bit disappointing. I mean, I got it, and aspects worked (such as the continuation of the myth that is the Candyman, along with a brief Tony Todd appearance), but I just didn’t really care for Colman Domingo’s character.

Otherwise, it was a decent cast. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was a pretty strong lead, though I can’t say I exactly love how his storyline goes. Teyonah Parris had some solid moments later on, and while never a crucial cast member, Nathan Stewart-Jarrett was pretty fun. Vanessa Williams also pops up, which is nice – the movie already had strong connections to the 1992 film, what with pictures of and references to Virginia Madsen’s Helen, but throwing in a returning character was a nice touch.

However, I don’t love the body horror. I never really did like body horror, of course, and I just personally didn’t see why they added it here. Especially when a character was able to pull one of their fingernails off, it felt like I was watching Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, and the less I’m reminded of that movie, the better, as far as I’m concerned.

I certainly thought the movie had a lot of potential going in. I loved the opening scene, and I love how it’s expanded on later to show it in a far more tragic light. I love them not pulling any punches when it comes to the abuses of the police department, and I naturally loved that minor massacre during the finale of the film.

Actually, while I think the overall movie is below average, most of the kills throughout are solid. There was a stylish scene of a woman being murdered, the audience seeing the violence through a window at a distance. There was a pretty solid double murder at an art gallery. Even better than the final massacre was a scene in a prep school, in which some young girls get #Candymanned, which I appreciated, and I felt was somewhat ballsy.

Also, I absolutely adored the use of shadow puppets during some flashback sequences. It had a very unique appearance, and I was never for a second disengaged when those scenes popped up, even during the credits. And on a side-note, I loved the variation of the original Candyman music used during the credits – certainly this version of the music is more subtle, but I noticed it almost immediately, and I loved hearing it again.

Even so, I found the experience ultimately lukewarm. Elements worked, and certainly other elements were appreciated, but on the whole, I can’t say that I thought Candyman was good. It’s certainly serviceable, and it’s quite possible that I’ll enjoy it the more I see it, but for the time being, I think it just missed it’s mark.

6.5/10

Visiting Hours (1982)

Directed by Jean-Claude Lord [Other horror films: The Vindicator (1986), Summer House (2008)]

I’ve seen this perhaps three times now, and I could swear that I enjoyed this a decent amount the last time I saw it. I still think it’s an okay slasher movie, but boy, this isn’t the forgotten B-flick I remember it being.

Hospital-based slashers always interested me, mainly because I just find the idea of a killer chasing someone around a brightly-lit (or rather dimly-lit, depending on the realism) place of healing rather amusing. Halloween II is of course the best one, but Hospital Massacre (also known as X-Ray, which, on a side-note, is a God-awful title) has a little charm too. I enjoy the chase scenes in this film toward the end, but a lot of the time, Visiting Hours just sorta drags.

The cast is solid, for what it’s worth. Sure, William Shatner was pretty much a waste (I think the best horror film I’ve seen him in was Kingdom of the Spiders, and that wasn’t even good because of him), but star Lee Grant was decent, and Linda Purl too. Michael Ironside (Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II) probably made the best impression, as a woman-hating psychopath. He certainly had persistence, I’ll give him that.

Overall, Visiting Hours’ story is okay, but it takes side-tracks that don’t really do it for me (such as Ironside’s character beating up a woman but not killing her, or going after Purl’s character). I enjoyed seeing Ironside’s mostly-silent killer try to outmaneuver the police to finish off his victim, but the extra stuff felt more like filler to me than anything else.

I have no objections to the kills, though I don’t think any particularly stood out. The setting, as I sort of alluded to, is on point, and I think the final twenty minutes are perhaps my favorite in the film (along with the opening attack). Also, I like the little snippets of the killer’s past that show why he’s enraged with strong women who stand up to abusive men (some context: Lee Grant’s character is an outspoken feminist journalist), which made the film slightly more interesting.

In the end, though, Visiting Hours is just okay, and a moderately-below average slasher that does some things well, but might lean toward the tedious side (and it doesn’t at all help that the movie’s an hour and 45 minutes). It’s still worth a watch, but it’s not near as good as I recalled it being.

6/10

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

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.

Rise of the Gargoyles (2009)

Directed by Bill Corcoran [Other horror films: The Unquiet (2008), Vipers (2008), Death Warrior (2009)]

This Sci-Fi film is one that I’ve seen before, and while I can’t much speak on my original impressions (mostly because the movie’s so forgettable, I barely remembered anything about it), I can say that Rise of the Gargoyles is spectacularly generic and uninspired.

I certainly think that the story had potential, to be fair, if only because there are so few gargoyle horror films out there (off the top of my head, three come to mind, being a movie I’ve not yet seen from 1991 titled Soul of the Demon, then one of the segments from Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, and lastly the 1972 TV movie Gargoyles), but even with that niche monster checked off, the movie didn’t work.

Why that was isn’t easy to pinpoint. Though certainly questionable at times, I don’t think the CGI was really that terrible (save for maybe a somewhat laughable decapitation in the first half of the film). The gargoyle itself was decent, though (perhaps luckily) we didn’t really see it in full, out of the shadows, all that often.

A larger culprit would probably be a combination of the story itself and the cast. The story was uninspiring, to be sure, and void of many interesting add-ons, but the cast was somehow worse. I think most of them knew what type of movie they were making, and that didn’t much endear themselves to strong performances. And in their defense, to be sure, stronger performances wouldn’t have done that much to improve the film.

I only know Eric Balfour from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and a very small appearance in The West Wing. Even so, Balfour consistently reminded me of other actors, be it Adrien Brody or (amazingly) Sylvester Stallone. He’s neither, though, and really felt off at times as the lead here. Other performances, such as those by Caroline Néron, Nick Mancuso, Justin Salinger, and Ifan Huw Dafydd, were similarly uninspired, with Dafydd doing the best (though still being a stereotypical untrusting foreign police detective).

Honestly, I don’t really think Rise of the Gargoyles warrants that much more discussion – certainly the movie’s not terrible, but especially given the fact it’s a gargoyle-based horror film, there’s virtually nothing about this one that really stands out, which is a damn shame.

On a slightly interesting endnote, presuming the dates I’m seeing are correct, this was probably one of the last original movies put out while Syfy was still Sci-Fi (this was released June 21st, 2009 and the name change went into effect July 7th, 2009). It’s not a mind-blowing fact, but nor is this movie exceptional, so it fits in.

One could certainly do worse than Rise of the Gargoyles, but as stated, the film’s definitely sub-standard, and I really don’t think most who see this will find it overly memorable one way or the other.

5/10

Black Christmas (1974)

Directed by Bob Clark [Other horror films: Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1972), Dead of Night (1974), Murder by Decree (1979)]

This is a true classic of the genre, and one of the first real slashers, coming out four years before Halloween. It’s a movie that, to be honest, I’ve only seen once before sitting down and revisiting it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t adore Black Christmas and the approach the movie took.

While it could perhaps rightfully be said that the plot here isn’t anything to celebrate that heavily, Black Christmas was one of the first movies to really throw together your typical slasher situation. Sure, a few movies prior had similar ideas (such as the British oddity The Haunted House of Horror, also known as Horror House), but this one cemented many of the core elements (including the final girl finding bodies of deceased friends and a first person point-of-view from the killer). The plot may not read like anything special, but it really is.

And taking a step back from the importance of the movie itself, the cast here holds some rather interesting faces, among them Olivia Hussey and John Saxon. Hussey, I won’t lie, I know purely from the 1990 mini-series It, but she looks pretty much the same, and I just loved seeing her here. Saxon’s been in quite a few horror films, A Nightmare on Elm Street being the finest, and he too brought a lot to the film, though he was far from a central character.

Lynne Griffin was one of the earlier casualties in the film, but given she played one of the main characters of the slasher Curtains nine years later, it was, much like Hussey, fun to see her. Both Margot Kidder and Marian Waldman were solid in this too, though Waldman’s character was mainly for comic relief, which, while funny, did feel off at times.

It is true that there’s not many great kills here – the best one, and I think this is beyond dispute, would be the stabbing with the glass unicorn, which was well-done due to it being spliced in with Christmas carolers blocking out the screams. The death wasn’t amazing, but I think it was still solid. What’s more effective is how an early victim in the film would keep popping up, just a body on a rocking chair with her head wrapped in plastic (which, if it sounds familiar, I’d recommend you check the poster). Not sure why, but that just had a creepy aura to it.

Another aspect that certainly merits mention is the somber finale. It’s not entirely dreary, but it is definitely downbeat, and I think that final scene is one of the more memorable things about the movie. It’s a good cherry on top of an already delicious dessert.

I said at the beginning, though, that Black Christmas isn’t perfect. When I think of 70’s horror I love, Black Christmas doesn’t often make my top ten or fifteen. No doubt it’s a good movie, not to mention an important one, but it’s never been my go-to. That said, if you’ve not yet seen this one, I highly recommend giving it a watch, because it’s well-regarded by many for good reason.

8/10

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