Canada – Page 9 – Jiggy's Horror Corner

We Are the Missing (2020)

Directed by Andrew J.D. Robinson [Other horror films: The Monster Pool (2015, segment ‘One Giant Lepus’)]

In the vein of such films like The Poughkeepsie Tapes, Lake Mungo, and Hell House LLC, We Are the Missing is a fake documentary focusing on a young woman who went missing, and the impact it has on her community. Well, at first, anyway – the scope is pulled back a bit around 40 minutes in, but suffice it to say that this movie is well-made, though may not entirely be that memorable.

The documentary feel was pretty authentic throughout. At times, it felt like I was watching a lower-budget version of Searching (2018), and the acting here was generally pretty decent, and probably more stable than what we got from The Poughkeepsie Tapes. Some portions were maybe a bit problematic (an almost four-minute montage of police calls about an hour into the movie, for example), but overall, this felt as authentic as expected.

There are two issues that really sort of irked me, I have to admit. This first one may be a bit nitpicky, but then again, no one ever accused me of not picking apart movies, so there you go.

Firstly, the time-frame is somewhat confusing, at least to me. This is evidenced by a goof near the ending of the film. I won’t belabor the point, as I did mention this to Andrew Robinson, the director, who did admit that it was a mistake. Even so, it was something I noticed, and something I thought I should point out. At this juncture, I also want to make clear that I watched this movie upon request, which I am always happy to do should anyone out there be interested.

To move away from my shameless self-promotion, though there’s another thing that stood out – during the montage of police calls, multiple people state that “no one believes them” about their experiences with what seem to be ghosts. If this thing is going on all over the city, though, even a large city (and another individual even said that people quit coming to work or leaving their houses because of it), I find it hard to take in that “no one” believed so many of these people.

Even if it’s a big city, if a 5% chunk of people are reporting these experiences (and it does indeed seem wide-spread), and if people are actively staying home and avoiding work, then I would think only a minority of individuals would still remain skeptical. It ties into someone said at the end, about how this tragedy pulled people together – as far as I could tell, most people suffered through this alone.

If I was in a city which was going through mass disappearances and unexplained experiences, I would be around as many people every day and night as possible as opposed to locking myself up alone in my house. I would throw a block party (which the local authorities would be inclined to approve, as safety would likely been seen as more likely in large numbers). What I wouldn’t do is stay in my small apartment alone and make videos. I’d want to be with people, and if this city is a bigger city (and it certainly looks it), that shouldn’t at all be a problem to organize.

Also, the lack of national media presence, at least referenced national media presence, seemed odd. If half a hundred people disappeared over such a short time-span, then I’d expect the area to be crawling with media outlets of all types, but that doesn’t really seem evidenced in what we see.

Here’s the main question, though – do any of these issues really harm the movie? Mostly, not so much. Sure, I do think the way these people react to this incident (bolting themselves inside as opposed to saying in large groups) is unwise, but large groups of people do unwise things all the time (just look at presidential elections in the USA). None of this takes away from both the subtly disturbing atmosphere and the authentic feel of the film, which I think are some of We Are the Missing’s highlights.

I can’t say that this movie will have a high amount of rewatchability (though some, for sure, may exist), which is a bit of an issue. Look at Hell House, LLC – that movie, you could watch as many as three times and notice new things each time. This film has a different focus, of course, and one more worldly (missing people as opposed to Halloween haunted houses), but even so, if there’s not much bringing people back for a second watch, it’s hard to call it a great movie.

This is a good movie, though. Obviously we’re not left with an actual answer here, which is to only be expected, and it leaves the viewer with the potential thought that this may easily happen again in a new city at a new time. The atmosphere and authenticity work well to this end.

Prior to giving this my final rating, I did want to give some props to my two favorite performances, being Mark Templin (Riley’s father) and Willow Mcgregor (Mackenzie). Good performances in a movie like this are of paramount import, so I’m glad that these two especially were here.

I don’t think anyone would honestly claim that We Are the Missing is breaking any new boundaries, but it is a competently made film in this style, and while overall I found the film around average, I do think that there’s a lot of potential here. Give it a watch (it’s free on YouTube, so why not?) and see how it goes, though, because the authenticity here alone is worth the watch.

7/10

The Wicker Man (2006)

Directed by Neil LaBute [Other horror films: House of Darkness (2022), Fear the Night (2023)]

Even to this day, I don’t think the original Wicker Man gets the respect it so totally deserves. It’s a classic that really has a lot going for it. This remake isn’t altogether dissimilar, but for entirely different reasons.

I have to get this off my chest first, though: I just cannot take Nicholas Cage seriously. I just can’t. I love his character in National Treasure, but as an actor, Cage is a hard person for me to see in serious light – I think Next (2009) was the only time I remember his character coming across as a bit more normal, for lack of a better word.

Because of his presence, what really is an interesting and almost mostly-well written story (even with it being a remake of a far better film) just comes across as silly much of the time. It’s not just some of Cage’s more questionable lines, either, be it ‘What’s in the bag, a shark or something,’ or his yelling at the end about ‘goddamn honey.’ His actions are just as ridiculous, such as that scene where he punches out one of the women without comment, or kicks another one (while wearing a bear costume) into a wall.

If they had gone for someone a bit more generic, but brought less unintentional camp into the film, it’s possible The Wicker Man wouldn’t be as memorable, but I also think it wouldn’t be nearly as panned as it has been.

I have little complaints about others in the film. While few of them really stood out, Kate Beahan was moderately decent in her role. While by no means a big actress, Leelee Sobieski was nice to see, as I know her from starring in the 2006 British film In a Dark Place. Even James Franco has a small (and unexpected, as when I first saw this, I had no idea who Franco was) appearance at the end. Otherwise, no one really did much for me, aside from Cage, who I’ve already spoken extensively about.

The Wicker Man is a hard movie to talk about because of the fact that Cage’s performance overshadows so much of the actual story, which, like I said, is decently enjoyable. I rather loved the conclusion (though, as always, I thought the original did a better job), and generally, I think the story’s both somewhat interesting and fun.

Truth be told, this is a difficult one to rate. It feels really ridiculous at times, but I cannot pretend that I wasn’t amused or engrossed with the story playing out on-screen. On one hand, I think it could have been shortened by at least ten minutes, but on the other, that’d mean ten minutes less of Cage’s antics.

Love him or hate him, ultimately, this is the Nicholas Cage show, and while I really didn’t care for what his presence did to an otherwise pretty interesting plot, this is one that I’d watch again just due to the sheer amusement it brings forth.

6/10

Devil’s Diary (2007)

Directed by Farhad Mann [Other horror films: Nick Knight (1989), The Lost Treasure of the Grand Canyon (2008)]

This Canadian made-for-television horror film definitely feels like it’s on the lower spectrum of movies. Devil’s Diary isn’t really terrible, but it does feel overly generic and derivative, and personally, while some scenes were fun, I don’t think I’d go out of my way to watch it again.

You can really tell that there was a limited budget on this, and you can obviously tell it’s a television production, what with the hideous commercial cuts (screen flashes red) apparent in the film. The special effects, such as they were, were somewhat laughable, though we did get a few scenes that bordered on decent (such as the slow-motion car sequence as a vehicle slammed into someone’s legs).

If there’s any high point to the film, it’s in the performances. Alexz Johnson and Magda Apanowicz, when together, reminded me a lot of Brigitte and Ginger (Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabella from Ginger Snaps), and I rather liked their friendship. Johnson’s character herself (Dominique) was actually pretty sympathetic, with a recently-deceased father and a borderline sexually abusive stepfather (there’s a scene in which she’s talking to her father’s gravestone, which I found particularly touching), though she loses a little bit of sympathy as the movie drags on.

While I abhorred their characters and everything they stood for, Laura Carswell, Deanne Casaluce, and Mariam McDonald all did great as the stereotypical bitchy cheerleader types, so much so that I hated their very existence from virtually their first scene. The three of them take somewhat interesting routes through the film, but I don’t think any of them come out particularly redeemed for their bullying. Brian Krause, as a priest, didn’t really leave an impact on me, but for a character who appeared only a few minutes total, I did like Malcolm Scott. Andrea Brooks’ character had a lot of potential, but they never really did much with her.

Plot-wise, I do appreciate how they threw in a few turns, and the movie did sort of shift gears around halfway though (I’m not overly pleased with the resulting scenes, but at least they tried). At the end, they sort of threw in a twist that came as a surprise, but I wish that more time was spent on why it exactly happened. Also, I really didn’t care for the enchantress powers one of the characters gained toward the back-half of the film, in which every guy desired this girl, and went to foolish lengths to make her happy. Still, generally-speaking, I think the plot’s okay, just not great.

The biggest issue I really have with this is that it feels like the type of film that could have been made much earlier, and feels a lot like fellow television movie Satan’s School for Girls (2000). There’s nothing terribly unique about this film, and the deaths and accidents are mostly bland and forgettable (a strangling being perhaps the worst, an attempted crucifixion the best). For a television movie, I think it’s okay, bordering on bad. Ultimately, though, despite some potentially bold routes the film took, I think most people would forget this one shortly after finishing it. Oh, and the ending was pretty awful, which is probably to be expected.

6/10

The Banana Splits Movie (2019)

Directed by Danishka Esterhazy [Other horror films: Slumber Party Massacre (2021)]

Tra-la-la la-la-la-la-la-la, tra-la-la-la-la-la-la-la

I didn’t go into this movie with high hopes, though I sort of knew what to expect. I’ve seen a lot of hype about this on Twitter, and read somewhat lukewarm reaction to it (which the current IMDb rating of 5/10 seems to bear out), and so I found it surprising that The Banana Splits Movie is one of the funnest films I’ve seen in awhile.

TAA-DAAA!!

This movie consistently cracked me up. It seems to me to be a mix of the video game Five Nights at Freddy’s (which I’ve played a handful of times in the past) and the new Child’s Play movie (robots going wild, anyone?).

Cast-wise, I don’t think The Banana Splits Movie does much wrong. It’s true that the main kid, played by Finlay Wojtak-Hissong, was a bit generic (though he does have a few touching scenes with Snorky), but the other young kid, Maria Nash, was amusingly snarky (snarky, not Snorky, for she has no trunk). Romeo Carere was funny as a burnout teen, and he has great dialogue with Naledi Majola (who I also particularly liked).

Kiroshan Naidoo and Celina Martin’s characters were a bit too odd for me to really get into, and Steve Lund played a complete dick, but Dani Kind did great as the mother, and got really kick-ass toward the end. Lastly, kudos to Richard White, who cracked me up with his role here.

There’s a lot of painful imagery in this movie, including a very unfun-looking broken finger (or perhaps multiple broken fingers), a guy sawed in half (TAA-DAA!), a dude getting ran over by a banana buggy, and perhaps my favorite sequence, a man who gets his arms and legs torn off in front of a bunch of children. Certainly, in this department, The Banana Splits Movie has a lot going for it.

I had a lot of fun with this, definitely more fun than I was expecting. The humor was present, but it was never too over-the-top, and under the outlandish imagery of giant animal robots going wild and killing people, trapping kids and forcing them to watch gruesome murders, the movie’s a lot darker than you might expect, especially with such a catchy song.

God bless Snorky, by the way. He’s the real MVP here.

Tra-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, tra-la-la-la-la-la-la.

8.5/10

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

Child’s Play (2019)

Directed by Lars Klevberg [Other horror films: Polaroid (2019)]

This re-imaging of the classic 1988 film was, at times, pretty decent, but though I generally found it above average, I don’t think there’s really a whole lot to utterly love about this.

First off, as hard as I tried, I just couldn’t get use to the change in design of Chucky, most noticeably the face. I don’t think it was something that deeply took away from the film, but at the same time, I had a hard time getting the authentic Chucky feel when he was on-screen.

A big part of that too could be explained by the vastly different origin – instead of an insane serial killer trapped inside the body of a kid’s toy, this Chucky is basically a rogue program installed by a disgruntled employer (which isn’t much a spoiler, as that scene is how the film opens). Because of this change, Chucky was never ‘human’ here, instead feeling more like a robot attempting to understand how best to be the best friend he could be to Andy. Of course, this exploration doesn’t end well.

Though it wasn’t as distracting as I thought it’d be, I also wasn’t overly thrilled with the idea that Chucky was in control of not only himself, but of all the products this company linked into, such as hearing aids, televisions, drones, cars, etc. It really gets rid of the more personal feeling that I tend to expect from Chucky, though at the same time, it matches his drastically different origin well.

Many of the performances were perfectly acceptable. Aubrey Plaza certainly came across as a rather young mother, but it worked well. Brian Tyree Henry was pretty fun as a supporting cast member, though I sort of wish they did a bit more with him. I liked both Ty Consiglio and Beatrice Kitsos, and Kitsos was certainly the more memorable of the two, but I wish they had mattered more in the conclusion. As Andy, Gabriel Bateman was good. He was no Alex Vincent, but he was still good, and it’s always great to see Tim Matheson pop up, if only for a few minutes.

There was a solid kill here involving a heated pipe and a saw-blade, but the other kill with potential (lawnmower) was a bit on the dark side, and made it somewhat difficult to see everything. I did enjoy a somewhat jarring scene involving a head, so it certainly wasn’t all bad, but overall, I thought they could have done a lot more with the special effects and gore than what they did.

I’m somewhat hard-pressed to see how anyone could love this over the original film. There were certainly solid aspects about it, but it also lacked some of the scenes that made the original so great, such as the sequence in the asylum with Andy, or the scene in which his mother finds out that Chucky’s actually alive. Much of the film is serviceable, but it doesn’t really go beyond that for me.

I had a decent time watching this (it helps that by the time I saw this in theater, very few others were there to muddle the experience), and I do find it a bit above average, but I definitely don’t think the film’s great, and it sadly falls behind the original, along with at least three of it’s sequels (the second and third films, along with Curse).

7.5/10

On Fight Evil’s fifth podcast, Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I covered this shortly following it’s release. Give it a listen below.

What Keeps You Alive (2018)

Directed by Colin Minihan [Other horror films: Grave Encounters (2011), Extraterrestrial (2014), It Stains the Sands Red (2016)]

With potential to be more, unfortunately What Keeps You Alive both goes on too long and possesses quite a few bad choices on the parts of the characters, making the movie all the more forgettable, though perhaps still worth at least one go.

It starts out pretty well, with a likable couple played by Hannah Emily Anderson and Brittany Allen (yes, they’re a lesbian couple, so should you be a piece of homophobic trash, this may not be for you) spending their one-year anniversary at a secluded cabin. It’s hard to tell where the movie’s going from the beginning, but come a shocking scene about twenty minutes in or so, from that point on, most can probably guess what’s coming up.

As it is, the story is pretty decent, despite a few small elements I don’t care for. The problem is that the story drags past the point of interest, and honestly, though I understand why they added in the last twenty minutes, I think the movie would have been better without it. Really, I’d rather have a pretty good eighty minute movie as opposed to a flawed hour and forty minute one.

The two main actresses do good, at least. Anderson might grate on you a bit as the movie goes on (she felt too similar to a few other characters I’ve seen in earlier horror films), but Allen is consistently fun, despite her utterly horrible choices toward the conclusion of the film. On a side-note, I find it somewhat amusing that both these women were also in 2017’s Jigsaw. Not relevant to this movie, I just found it interesting. Given that only four total individuals are in this film, it’s a good thing that these two main characters are at least bearable.

It doesn’t really matter when it comes to the elongated conclusion, though. Like I said, without the final twenty minutes (which did have an okay scene, at least), I think many people would have liked this movie a bit more. Because of the route it took, though, What Keeps You Alive just hovers around average, maybe even dipping a bit below. Had the story been tightened up a bit, I could see giving this film a much better rating, but it wasn’t to be. Certainly an interesting idea, though.

7/10

Summer of 84 (2018)

Directed by François Simard [Other horror films: N/A], Anouk Whissell [Other horror films: N/A] & Yoann-Karl Whissell [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a movie that I’m not even going to try and write a lengthy take on – it originally blew me away entirely, and if you’ve a thing for movie’s harking back to the 1980’s, I’d highly recommend giving this one a look. With a second viewing, it’s not quite as fresh, but still very much worth a look.

With a story somewhat similar to the Rear Window/Disturbia-type plot, and with the vibe of Stranger Things (I’ve seen only the first episode, but the similar vibe is definitely here), Summer of 84 really had a lot of talent behind it, from cinematography to the absolutely masterful soundtrack, and amazing handle on suspense.

It is true that the story may not lead you to any really big surprises, but it does a moderately decent job at keeping you guessing at times, and the way they handle what they have is beyond enjoyable. That soundtrack alone had me excited every time the music popped up.

Plenty of good performances from all the main actors and actresses involved, from the four main kids (Graham Verchere, Judah Lewis, Caleb Emery, and Cory Gruter-Andrew) to the other characters of import (the beautiful Tiere Skovbye and seemingly-shifty Rich Sommer). I didn’t have a single complaint about any of the acting here, and I thought the four main boys all complimented each other nicely.

As said, the story itself may not seem a thrill ride, but the suspense in this movie is so damn heavy, especially toward the end. Some may argue the last ten minutes or so were unnecessary, but I thought it tacked on something quite memorable, and without it, I feel the movie wouldn’t feel near as complete.

I honestly don’t have many bad things to say about the film at all. Sure, it feels a lot more like a coming-of-age film than a horror movie at times, but other great movies, including the somewhat similar The Girl Next Door (2007), had very much the same feel. Throw in the 80’s vibe this film captured magnificently, and you have a winner. It’s far from the greatest movie ever made, despite the fact that I really loved it when I first saw it, but again, despite it not being as memorable as one might hope, I think it’s worth the watch.

8/10

This was on the 12th episode of Fight Evil’s podcast, so if you care to, listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss it.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Directed by Robert Eggers [Other horror films: The Lighthouse (2019)]

I first saw this film back in October of 2017, and was rather happy with it. Seeing it again only affirms those same thoughts, and more so, places this on a pedestal of sorts, and above many other horror movies of the modern age.

What first has to be mentioned is the strong focus on religious faith throughout the movie. From my perspective, I think the film clearly shows the dangers of religious fundamentalism, and taking one’s religion too seriously. Others, of course, see it a bit differently, but to me, the descent into religious mania was perhaps the most terrifying thing here.

The atmosphere works well with that theme, and it comes across as pretty masterful. The setting and story, too, help increase the feeling of unease, and the dialogue, much of it taken from accounts from the 1600’s (when the movie is based), really bring a realistic feel to this period piece. In relation, while the film is in English, given it’s very archaic style, I’d recommend, at least for the first time watching this, that captions be used.

The cast here is pretty stellar throughout. Anya Taylor-Joy, who later shows up in the 2016 Split, does fantastically in her role, and given this is one of her earliest roles, shows her an actress of high potential. A strong emotional range, you can’t help but feel for her as her family slowly starts perceiving her in a negative light (and the reason they do so, as aforementioned, is an increasing religious mania). Ralph Ineson isn’t a name I’m terribly familiar with (though he does show up in both the Harry Potter films and Game of Thrones), but also shows a strong performance here, and save Taylor-Joy, is my favorite character in the film. Kate Dickie (who was also in Game of Thrones) does great here playing a remarkably unlikable mother.

With as solid as the film is, I’m not entirely convinced with the ending. It’s not bad, by any means, but given the horrors perpetuated already because of the family’s strong religious convictions, it just felt rather unnecessary. It certainly doesn’t give much credence to the family’s actions, and in fact shows that much of what the mother and father thought were wrong. Still, it’s a somewhat eye-opening conclusion, and while I don’t love it, it wasn’t terrible.

For modern-day horror (even though the movie itself took place in the late 1600’s), this movie is a pretty clear win. The atmosphere alone is enough to bring positive attention to it, but throw in the story, the actors and their (well-done) archaic dialogue, and you have a stand-out film. The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (or The Witch, which strikes me as a far more boring title) is a movie I don’t necessarily love above all else, but it is a clear example of a very solidly done horror film in an age where we don’t really see too many others.

8/10

The Void (2016)

Directed by Jeremy Gillespie [Other horror films: Father’s Day (2011)] & Steven Kostanski [Other horror films: Father’s Day (2011), ABCs of Death 2 (2014, segment ‘W is for Wish’), Leprechaun Returns (2018), Psycho Goreman (2020), V/H/S/94 (2021, segment ‘The Veggie Masher‘)]

Generally well-liked by many in the horror community, The Void does a good job of standing out as a different class of film, but at the same time, certain elements are a bit hard to enjoy here.

The story and plot overall are both pretty interesting, in a rather H.P. Lovecraftian way. At the same time, my biggest gripe comes from the fact that much of what actually happens in the film isn’t really explained. Personally, I loved the ending, but I just wanted to understand more of what was going on. The movie certainly keeps the audience engaged, but instead of answering just a few of these questions (where did all of those cult members come from, for instance), we don’t really get much aside from the rambling of a mad man.

One of my favorite things about this film, though, is how suddenly the story picks up. Five minutes into the film, you know you’re in for an exciting ride, and past a certain point, there’s almost no reprieve whatsoever. In some ways, this can sort of make the movie feel as though it’s dragging, but generally, I thought they did well trying to balance out the panicked action with a few ‘taking a breather’ moments.

Of course, the special effects in this film are most of what people talk about. Done with very little CGI, the body horror in this film is pretty high intensity. It’s a bit downplayed in that it’s sometimes difficult, by virtue of lighting, to see exactly what some of these creatures look like, but also keep in mind that in some ways, that could make the situation even worse. Regardless, the body mutations in this movie were appropriately freaky, and certainly the highlight of the film. Also, the costume design of the cultists was simple yet highly effective. I sort of wish they did more in the film than just stand outside the hospital and look menacing, but they had a solid presence all the same.

I’ve seen the movie twice now, and while I do have an appreciation for it, I still don’t love it. If a few more questions were answered, I think I’d have an easier time with the film. Like I said, I thought the ending was pretty decent, not to mention cool, and though the sub-basement sequences at times got a bit much (with multiple hallucinations and the like), I think most people going into this will appreciate the retro feel this sometimes possesses (it sort of reminds me a bit of Prince of Darkness at points). Definitely a movie to give a chance, and certainly a movie that’s above average, but it didn’t utterly blow me away.

7.5/10

It (1990)

Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace [Other horror films: Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982), Fright Night Part 2 (1988), Danger Island (1992), Vampires: Los Muertos (2002)]

I don’t think I can be good judge of this television mini-series. Despite having read the book multiple times, and seeing how tepid of a series this was in comparison, there’s still huge amounts of nostalgia as far as It is concerned, which clouds my better judgment.

My better judgment sees the massive flaws with this adaptation – it’s far too condensed, even in it’s lengthy running time, leaving rather big plot points left out (the house on Neibolt Street, the ritual of Chüd, a clearer picture of both Derry’s history and It’s influence), which isn’t helped by the fact that the budget is clearly that of a television project, so while the book is rather gory, there’s not much to be found here. And the deeply important symbol of love and friendship shown in the book? Of course, nowhere to be found here.

At times, there are changes made here that I sort of like – Ben seeing his father on the marsh (in lieu of a mummy), Stanley facing Pennywise in a creepy house (as opposed to three dead boys in a standpipe), and even Richie’s encounter with the werewolf. Of course, I’d have much preferred the two trips to Neibolt House instead, but the dingy school basement was good also. Lastly, the shower sequence with Eddie always freaked me out when I was younger, so that was welcomed.

I like most of the actors and actresses in this adaptation, really. As far as the kids go, Seth Green (Richie) and Ben Heller (Stan) were my favorite. Emily Perkins (who later goes on to star in the Ginger Snaps series) is nice to see this early on, but I don’t think she really captures Beverly’s essence. For the adults, Harry Anderson (Richie), Dennis Christopher (Eddie), and John Ritter (Ben) stole the show. Pennywise, played by Tim Curry, is of course pretty damn good, and really does a solid job with a creepy performance. Lastly, though he wasn’t relevant whatsoever, it was nice to see William B. Davis years before he was the Cigarette Smoking Man on The X-Files in a small appearance.

Another positive aspect of this movie I have to mention is the score, which is often haunting and rather brilliant. Maybe it’s just nostalgia, but every time I hear the score, I get chills. Unfortunately, it was a bit corny of them to put “It’s All Right” by The Impressions on repeat. Some of the dialogue is a bit awful too, such as the line I often quote, “Why does It hate? Why is It so mean?”, and the whole, “He just knows,” exchange. Just felt a bit ridiculous.

All of this is to say that, as a rather big fan of the book (I read it about once a year or so), this adaptation leaves out a lot, and I mean a lot, of important stuff, from the Turtle to Chüd to Neibolt Street. Some of this is due to budget constraints, and the 2017 movie fixes a bit of this, but it’s noticeably lacking here. Still, I cannot deny how important this film is to my love of the genre – I saw this so many times when I was a kid, and it’s one of the eight or so horror movies that’s crucial to me being a horror fan. Because of that nostalgic value, despite the many flaws, against my better judgment, I’d say the movie is just a little below average. If you don’t have any childhood connections to it, though, it might fare quite a bit worse.

6.5/10

On Fight Evil’s fourth podcast, Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I have an almost twenty minute conversation about this mini-series. Warning: strong nostalgia ahead.