Tag: UK

Directed by Kevin Yagher [Other horror films: N/A]

Quite possibly better put-together than the third movie, certainly with more ambitious ideas, my problem with Bloodline has always been that it just feels rather soulless.

Cenobites vs. the Merchant family during three different time periods (late 1700’s France, 1990’s New York City, and futuristic space time) didn’t enthrall me. None of the three ages did much to interest me at all. Part of this is possibly because it seems wholly removed from the previous attempts.

And it brings far more questions than it even gets close to answering, such as why Angelique became a Cenobite after the New York sequence, and why exactly didn’t the finale in New York finish up the Cenobite problem. None of these are really answered, and sadly, that’s not all they brought forth without explanation.

Aside from Pinhead, Angelique, and the Siamese Twins, there’s no additional Cenobites in the film, unless you count the Chatterer-based dog, which utterly sucked every time it was on-screen. Doug Bradley did well as Pinhead, again had some good lines (“Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?”), but Angelique and the Twins bored me to death.

It’s not as though the movie didn’t have potential, especially with such an ambitious story, layered such as it is. There are a few solid performances, such as the aforementioned Bradley, Bruce Ramsay, and Kim Myers (Lisa from the second A Nightmare on Elm Street), but does anyone really stand out? Not quite. Possibly because, like I said, the final product didn’t have much soul.

There was a troubled production behind this film, and the director himself rather disowned it and left before filming was finished, so as to why it occasionally feels as some topics are left untouched on, this strikes me as being the most likely reason.

Regardless, the movie, as it is, isn’t worth much. Many of the death scenes were rather ehh (and that mirror scene was atrocious), and the special effects were, shall we say, not really worth mentioning in a positive light.

I didn’t care much for the third movie. However, if I were asked to choose only the third or fourth to watch again in the future, without much hesitation, despite the ambitions this movie possessed, I’d go with the third. I’ve seen Bloodline something like four times now, and it’s disappointed me for hopefully the last time. Might be worth a watch should you be a Hellraiser fan, but it didn’t do it for me.

5/10

Directed by Bernard Rose [Other horror films: Paperhouse (1988), Snuff-Movie (2005), sxtape (2013), Frankenstein (2015)]

While not a particularly disjointed movie, this early 1990’s classic does at times a disorienting, if not somewhat dreamy, feel to it.

And this works to Candyman’s credit, as the movie certainly feels a bit deeper than the preceding decade of horror. Atmospheric, yet definitely gory, Candyman’s the type of film that I think has a decent amount of appeal.

Based off a short story by Clive Barker, the plot is decently interesting (and feels a more well-rounded look into myths than Urban Legend did six years later), and takes some interesting turns (such as a one month time-lapse toward the end). Really, I think this helped the audience feel as disoriented as the main character was, while also allowing sympathy.

Speaking of which, Virginia Madsen does a fantastic job as Helen. Throughout the film, she was a joy to watch. Xander Berkeley (who has a couple hundred roles on IMDb, and I know best from his appearance on The X-Files) had a good screen presence also, and I rather liked his calm demeanor (along with his emotional scene at the end). And of course, Tony Todd does a great job as the Candyman, and his voice was just creepily well-done.

The movie is certainly not without it’s downsides. Not enough explanation of exactly what Candyman’s angle is really given. We’re left to make assumptions, which is fine, especially for a more fantasy blend of horror, but it’s still a bit annoying. And while I sort of liked the enclosed feeling the movie had (it kept it’s core characters and expanded on few others), a wider scope of sorts might have been nice.

Still, the movie was a fun fantasy-horror mix (on a side note, director Bernard Rose also directed Paperhouse, from 1988, a very dark fantasy/light horror mix, which I loved), and the gore it possesses should be enough to engage fans of more straight-forward slashers. The ending sequences (with the bonfire, the funeral, and the aftermath) worked extraordinarily well together, as rarely I’ve seen horror that ended with real feeling.

Questions still come to mind about what exactly Candyman’s goal was, but overall, this Clive Barker adaptation is very much worth seeing. The calming Candyman theme is enjoyable, the movie’s atmospheric feel is great, so this really stands out as a highlight of 90’s horror no matter how many time you’ve seen it.

8.5/10

Directed by Anthony Hickox [Other horror films: Waxwork (1988), Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat (1989), Waxwork II: Lost in Time (1992), Warlock: The Armageddon (1993), Full Eclipse (1993), Knife Edge (2009)]

A hard movie to speak about, the biggest problem with this flick is that even though it tries to follow the first two Hellraiser movies, Hell on Earth feels entirely different in tone.

The story is fine. Nothing special, nothing terrible. The subplot with Elliot Spencer and Joey wasn’t really all that intriguing, in my opinion. The movie just felt off, and despite connections to the previous films (including a brief scene with Kirsty), it didn’t real feel all that related.

Most of the acting wasn’t that great. Our main character, played by Terry Farrell, was okay. At times, she certainly didn’t do that well, but she was consistently better than Kevin Bernhardt’s J.P., a pale intimation of the original movie’s Frank. I really did like Paula Marshall as Terri, and throughout the film, she had sort of a Shawnee Smith feel to her, which was definitely appreciated. In fact, I think some of the best scenes of the movie are those with Farrell and Marshall, who did decently well together.

Doug Bradley, of course, did well as Pinhead, but although he occasionally had some interesting insights to shine a light upon, he spoke significantly more in this movie as opposed to the previous ones, which sort of dampens his effects. He had some solid lines (the whole mocking Jesus scene was quality, as was the “limited imagination” line), but smaller doses are what the doctor ordered when concerning his dialogue.

The makeup in the movie was serviceable, but the special effects, many of which were done in early CGI, just looked damn awful. And speaking of awful, every single one of those new Cenobite designs were a kick in the face to the horrific simplicity of the original’s Butterball and Chatterer. The CD Cenobite was bad, yes, but every single design (from the fire-breathing Cenobite to Pistonhead to Camerahead) was an ocular assault. They just looked shitty.

The movie was also far too corny, with some really bad lines in there. The acting often didn’t help with this, truth be told. I’m not sure if all of it was intentional, but even so, it just didn’t do much for me.

If you’re a fan of the first two Hellraiser movies, as I am, this one will come as a bit of a shock. Certainly it’s the black sheep of the first four movies (even if it is probably a bit better than the fourth). This has only been the second time I’ve seen it, but I can see why I forgot much of it. Hell on Earth has an odd vibe, and while it’s not really a terrible movie, the first two are very much superior.

As Camerahead said, that’s a wrap.

6/10

Directed by Jack Bender [Other horror films: The Midnight Hour (1985)]

If Child’s Play 3 has any real drawback, it would be that it lacks some of the spirit of the first two flicks, along with possessing some occasionally shoddy acting. To be honest, though, again, I was moderately surprised by just how solid this movie was upon rewatch.

The main problem, as I alluded to, is that this flick lacks much of the magic of the first two. Why exactly that is, I’m not sure. It did, to a certain extent, feel a bit rushed, and while there was a kid in danger, being at a military academy, it’s hard to compare that to Andy being locked in a mental institution with Chucky coming after him. There were some tense scenes throughout, but nothing that much felt like the first two films.

As for the kid, Jeremy Sylvers, he did pretty well with his role, though not nearly as well as Vincent did. And the character Botnick, played by Andrew Robinson (who, interestingly enough, played Larry in Hellraiser) was a bit over-the-top, enough so to make his scenes feel rather ridiculous.

But plenty of other actors did quite well: Justin Whalin (Andy), Perrey Reeves (De Silva), Travis Fine (Shelton), Dean Jacobson (Whitehurst), Dakin Matthews (Cochrane), and Peter Haskell (Sullivan, the only familiar face from the last film) all did varying well with their roles, though somewhat problematically, none of them really stood out one way or the other.

The kills throughout the film were pretty damn good. Some slit throats, a good garbage truck crushing, slow motion bullet wound (during a fantastic war game sequence), Child’s Play 3 didn’t skimp out on gore. Even Chucky’s demise (at least, insofar as this movie goes) was beautifully bloody. And that heart attack scene? I’m still laughing at that. Related, I still get a kick out of the “Hide the Soul” game (originally brought up in the second film); I remember, even as a kid, how funny that was.

The whole ending sequence (from the war games to the carnival) was fantastically fun. The haunted house finale, while not as good as the final fight in the second film, was an absolute blast, which included heavy duty fans, swinging scythes, and a mountain of skulls. While this doesn’t possess the charm of the first two movies, Child’s Play 3 is still a very solid sequel and film, and any fan of the first two flicks would do well to check this one out.

8/10

This has been covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, episode #20. Listen to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and myself discuss this one.

Directed by Richard Stanley [Other horror films: Dust Devil (1992), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996, uncredited), The Theatre Bizarre (2011, segment ‘The Mother of Toads’), Color Out of Space (2019)]

I’ve seen this once before, but since I don’t even know how long ago that was, in many ways, this was virtually a new viewing.

Hardware is an interesting film. Partially, it’s an industrial nightmare, much like Tetsuo from a year earlier (though Tetsuo takes it to extremes Hardware doesn’t touch), and it’s at time’s artsy, but some real suspenseful action and horror sequences are thrown in also. It’s a gritty movie, and while it loses it’s enjoyment factor as it drags on, overall, it’s solid.

Set in one of the best post-apocalyptic Earth’s I’ve seen, Hardware is down and dirty, with a very mechanical, almost steam-punk, type vibe to it. The imagery and surroundings are really breath-taking, and certainly give the film a unique feel.

The acting isn’t always great, but two of the kills were on point. While it wasn’t often this movie voyaged into gory regions, when it did, it took no prisoners, and for those two scenes alone, any horror fan should give this flick a shot if they’ve not already.

As good as the deaths and atmosphere are, though, there are some glaring problems.

While the movie at first is going well, about ten minutes past the hour mark, you sort of want things to start wrapping up, but it’s not until twenty minutes later that they actually do. Part of this was, for me, because the first hour of the film is pretty enjoyable, but as it became increasingly experimental in flavor, I found myself not liking it as much the longer it went on. It just felt too long, and while the conclusion was satisfactory, it could have been 15 minutes shorter, at least, and still come out well.

When I first saw this flick, I probably didn’t like it. It’s not the type of movie a 14 or 15 year-kid would generally enjoy. And now, while I certainly find it an interesting ride, it’s still not amazing. It’s grittiness is well-done, but I didn’t enjoy Tetsuo that much, so this too was a mixed-bag. It’s a good movie with good gore, but as for a movie that I’d give repeated rewatches to? Nah, this ain’t it. Still worth at least one watch, though.

7.5/10

Directed by André Øvredal [Other horror films: Trolljegeren (2010), Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019), The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)]

Directed by André Øvredal, who was behind the cult favorite Trollhunter, this movie has a high quality production, great actors (Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch playing the main characters, father and son), and pretty suspenseful scenes. A moderately unique plot, also.

Prior to beginning the film, I didn’t much know what to expect. I was thinking maybe it’d be a murder/mystery-type thing playing over the course of a month or so. What it actually is happens to be a supernatural journey over a single night, culminating in a downer of an ending, for the most part. Truth be told, I think the film, as good as the first 2/3 of the movie was, ended up being a mixed bag.

The good: Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch play a very compelling father and son. Their scenes together, for the most part, are very solid, and some even moving. It feels as though there’s a real relationship there, and I loved that. Also, some of the implications of the ending are cool. I’d rather not say any specifics, but things that happen in the film aren’t as obvious as they may otherwise seem. Also what has to be praised is the tense, claustrophobic feel of the first 50 minutes. Were there jump scares thrown in? Yes, and those bothered me, but the core of the first 2/3 of the film were great.

Onto the bad, we have a few elements, one being the aforementioned jump scares. I wish that mainstream horror films didn’t rely on these paper-thin jump scares in order to rev up the audience. Now, this film wasn’t nearly as bad as others, perhaps because Øvredal’s not been responsible for many mainstream flicks, but it was still prevalent throughout the film (including the last split second, which I find increasingly annoying).

There’s also the character of Emma, who was Austin’s (Hirsch) girlfriend. Now depending on your perception of the film, her actions seemed rather foolish. And the aftereffects of her actions didn’t seem all that important, in truth. I just don’t think she added much of anything, and that’s not a great thing. At the same time, given the fact she had less than 15 minutes of screen time, perhaps that can be excused.

The last thing, though, is arguably debatable. In my opinion, I don’t think enough, if any, concrete answers were provided. There were some potentially accurate conjectures, but one theory (according to IMDb, the most credible one) just doesn’t make sense to me. I will say, though, that the antagonist in this film was quite unique, and I certainly didn’t expect it to go that route. The Autopsy of Jane Doe was an interesting supernatural horror film – it had some great elements (the relationship between father and son) and interesting choices.

The movie didn’t fall flat at the end; if that’s the impression I’m giving, it’s unintentional. But the final thirty minutes are certainly more an average path than the first fifty. For it’s flaws, the movie’s not atrocious by any means, and is, when all is said and done, above average. Not by a lot, but it is.

7.5/10