Tag: USA

Directed by Matthew Jason Walsh [Other horror films: The Witching (1993), I’ve Killed Before (1995)]

Filmed in Ohio, this rather low-budget horror-comedy, revolving around a serial killer and a young woman who wants to learn how to kill, is pretty terrible. I mean, it’s bad, from dialogue to story. I’ll be damned if it’s not a hell of a lot of fun, though, and while certainly below average, I’ll admit that I did dig this one.

If there’s one main complaint, it’s that the film didn’t need to be almost an hour-and-a-half. They could have shown some restraint and kept it around 70 minutes or so – there were definitely a few sequences that could have been trimmed a bit. I also wasn’t that fond of the ending (or more specifically, one of the twists, as it was), but I mean, for the most part, this movie is what you’d expect going in.

The dialogue is hilariously awful. I think that James L. Edwards, who plays the serial killer, has some of the best lines, and his hammy over-acting is just a pleasure to watch, but certainly Nina Angeloff (“A threesome?! Far-fucking out!”) and Ariauna Albright get plenty of terrible dialogue too.

By no means is this a dig at them as actors or actresses or at the movie’s script – it was clear that Bloodletting knew exactly what it was aiming for, and personally, as a fan of low-budget horror, I had a blast for a large amount of the time, and much of that is directly related to that lovable, horrible dialogue.

I don’t know James L. Edwards or Ariauna Albright from anything else (though the pair of them have been in quite the variety of lower-budget horror in the 90’s and 2000’s), but I thought they worked well together in this film as a bit of a messed up couple. Edwards, like I said, was my favorite performance of the film, but Albright did a great job too, and she was attractive to boot. The only other performance that I suspect I’ll remember was Nina Angeloff’s, who’s exaggerated southern accent (her character’s name was Bobbie Jo) was just heaven.

Sometimes the movie did focus a bit too much on the blossoming relationship, as it was, between the main characters as opposed to random kills. The kills we got weren’t great, to be sure, but the special effects were definitely okay for the budget, plus a – wait, maybe I shouldn’t spoil it. Let’s just say that maybe, if you’re lucky, a baby meets a terrible end via shotgun.

Yeah, that happened, and it was awesome, as it’s a taboo that few horror films seem to stoop to. Call me an edgelord all you want, but I was #ThereForIt.

Anyhow, Bloodletting was a lot more fun than I ever expected. I do wish it was a bit shorter, but beggars can’t be choosers, else wise winners become the losers. At least that’s what Gandhi said.

6.5/10

Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante [Other horror films: Boo (2005), Headless Horseman (2007), Hansel & Gretel (2013), Sharknado (2013), Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014), Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015), Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens (2016), Forgotten Evil (2017), Sharknado 5: Global Swarming (2017), The Last Sharknado: It’s About Time (2018)]

As you can possibly imagine from the title, Zombie Tidal Wave is another in a fine-line of Syfy originals. It even stars Ian Ziering, of Sharknado fame. And you know what? It’s actually not bad. Well, it is bad, but it’s still almost an okay time.

Combining their love for natural disasters and hideous zombies, Syfy outdid themselves with a zombie tsunami (which, on a side-note, it a phrase said by one of the characters, and I for one do not know how Syfy passed on the chance of using that as their title), and it even happened twice. In fairness, I didn’t think that looked too ridiculous, and the zombies themselves (who bleed blue blood and can only be defeated by electrical shocks) didn’t look terrible, but quality special effects were still obviously not the focus for Zombie Tidal Wave.

For whatever else Ziering has done, I thought he did an okay job in this one. He was the action-oriented leader, which, yeah, is both expected and rather generic, but he did it well. Cheree Cassidy didn’t really get enough screen-time to make an extraordinarily educated opinion one way or the other, but she did fine, I guess. Angie Teodora Dick and Tatum Chiniquy both impressed me (as much as any performances can impress me in a movie like this), and I thought Chiniquy did better than Cassidy (who played her mother), so you go, girl.

Not all performances were good, though. I didn’t understand Randy Charach’s character – he was labeled a ‘crazy loner’, but honestly, aside from being a bit standoffish, he didn’t seem that much a nutjob at all. I don’t know what they were trying to do with his character, but I don’t think they did it. Shelton Jolivette was way too much a comedic relief character, and I would have been okay if they dropped him entirely. And though I can appreciate them trying to throw in a character with depth, Erich Chikashi Linzbichler didn’t do it for me.

Throughout, the film is pretty generic as far as both zombie movies and disaster movies go, and combining them isn’t as much a win as Syfy would probably hope, but it’s still a decent movie to throw on and enjoy if you don’t really have much else to do. Below average no doubt, but passable.

6/10

Directed by John Brahm [Other horror films: The Undying Monster (1942), The Mad Magician (1954)]

I’ve been well-aware of this film for years and years – it used to play on AMC what seemed like every week – but it took until now to see it, and I definitely found it an impressive film.

The story of Jack the Ripper is one that I’ve seen in a few other films, from the 1927 The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog and the 1953 Man in the Attic, and this is probably the best one. Man in the Attic was very enjoyable, and went a very similar route as this one, but since this came first, I’ve gotta give this more credit.

We don’t see any over-the-top murders or gore, of course, given this film is from the mid-1940’s, but we do get some very suspenseful scenes and occasionally great moments leading up to what one can imagine are brutal murders. Great use of setting too – I loved those scenes where the police and civilians were enclosed in a small portion of Whitechapel trying to trap Jack the Ripper in the mist, but just unable to do so. Great, great scenes there.

I don’t know if it’s his slightly larger frame, or just his imposing physique, but Laird Cregar reminded me a lot of Victor Buono, so it should go without saying that his performance was top-notch. The sad thing is, as some of you may know, Cregar died in late 1944 at the extraordinarily young age of 30, his final movie Hangover Square being released after his death. With less than twenty roles, I think it’s a damn shame he died that young, especially since he could have had a long-lasting career in horror had he survived into the 1950’s, 1960’s, and into the 1970’s. Cregar was great here, and it’s just a shame.

Cedric Hardwicke (The Ghoul) was solid, and he had one of the more reasonable characters in the film. As his wife, Sara Allgood was fine, though not necessarily stellar (not that really a whole lot would be expected from a character like hers). Merle Oberon does pretty well in her role, and I like her interactions with Cregar’s character, as they always had an undercurrent of growing suspense. Lastly, George Sanders (Village of the Damned and The Picture of Dorian Gray) was a wee bit generic to really stand out, but got more character in the end, so he turned out well.

I was impressed with just how suspenseful this one became at times, and I was also drawn into the whole “is the Lodger actually Jack the Ripper” plot-line as more and more possible coincidences occurred. The Lodger is a strong film, and definitely a highlight of the 1940’s, so I’m glad that I finally took the time to watch this.

8/10

Directed by Abel Ferrara [Other horror films: The Driller Killer (1979), The Addiction (1995), Siberia (2019)]

This is the third version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the original from 1956 being a long-time favorite of mine, and the 1978 version is a favorite of others), and despite somewhat lukewarm expectations, it wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t great – I think the movie failed to feel as epic as the 1956 version did – but it was a decent way to pass the time.

Part of the reason being the setting shifting from the whole of a sleepy town to a military base. I didn’t mind the military base setting, but it didn’t really carry the same wide-spread panic and paranoia that made the original film so great.

The main cast was decently strong. It’s true that I wasn’t much moved by Terry Kinney (I probably could have been, but I think his character was under-utilized) or Meg Tilly (One Dark Night and Psycho II); Forest Whitaker, and, though he was nice to see, R. Lee Ermey (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) were also somewhat pointless.

Otherwise, though, Gabrielle Anwar (Crazy Eights) was pretty good as the main character. She was cute in a bratty way, and bratty in a cute way, so no complaints here. Christine Elise (Child’s Play 2) was fun in her few scenes, Billy Wirth a solid side-character. If Anwar hadn’t done as well as she did, the movie probably wouldn’t have really made an impact, but she did well.

This said, it doesn’t allow the film to possess anymore of a wide-spread feel. For the last thirty minutes or so, things just felt like they were moving a bit far (and the last five minutes, far too fast). The suspense beforehand was definitely preferable to the action that it become. I thought the voice-over by Anwar’s character was a bit hokey, but whateves, it was fun.

Body Snatchers isn’t going to become a favorite, but I had an okay time with it, and I enjoyed the multiple actors and actresses I recognized popping up (even if their character were of little relevance to the plot, such as Whitaker’s character). It’s an okay science-fiction/horror hybrid, but not much more.

7/10

Directed by Richard LeMay [Other horror films: Blood Bound (2019)]

I wasn’t really expecting much from this remake, but I was pleasantly surprised, at least for a bit. It certainly had the chance to be an okay slasher/mystery, but it sort of loses my interest as soon as overt supernatural events come into play.

To be clear, I wasn’t the biggest fan of the original Dementia 13. I thought it made for an okay proto-slasher, and it did have a better, more gloomy atmosphere than this did, but there was room for improvement. This movie looks like it’s going in that direction, but then throws in ghosts and such, which is not what I call an improvement at all. It could have remained a grounded slasher-mystery and I’d have been content, but that ending, along with the small supernatural stuff sprinkled in along the way, just spoils everything, as Sansa would say.

Before it shoots itself in the head, though, Dementia 13 is okay. I thought most of the performances were decent, the film had a few hints of humor throughout, and the setting was pretty good. It didn’t have the same charm or ominous nature the original did, but it was doing well for itself.

Steve Polites had virtually no character. To be honest, it took me a little bit to figure out he wasn’t a child of the mother and actually one of the daughter’s husbands, which isn’t anything against him as an actor, but his character just didn’t have much to give us. Ana Isabelle was pretty stereotypical, which I’m guessing was called for in the script. She was attractive, though, so there’s that. Lastly, on the negative side, Julia Campanelli didn’t really do much for me, and came across as generic.

The others did reasonably well, though. Channing Pickett had the good-girl look down solid, Christian Ryan had a somewhat predictable but fun arc, Roland Sands made for a decent red herring, and Donal Brophy needed more character, but he was pretty solid the time he was on-screen. Marianne Noscheze and Ben van Berkum were my favorite characters here. Noscheze started off being a bit of a brat, but Berkum’s character throughout was good humor value.

Most of the kills here weren’t really that great, and I don’t think that this would have been a new-age classic had they gotten rid of the unnecessary supernatural elements, but I do think it could have been a decently enjoyable and competent slasher that I wouldn’t hesitate to revisit.

With the addition of ghosts (which is something that horror remakes don’t need to do – the 1999 House on Haunted Hill wasn’t any better than the original because they added ghosts, and the same is definitely true for this), though, just makes the film ultimately blah, and not really worth going out of your way for, which is a damn shame.

5.5/10

Directed by Fred F. Sears [Other horror films: The Werewolf (1956), Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)]

I’ve only heard the vaguest notions about this giant monster movie, but that doesn’t really matter, as many of those late ’50’s giant monster movies aren’t really that different. This one certainly possesses some charm, and I think the science used in the film went all out, but boy, what a regrettable monster design.

I mean, that design looks so, so bad, the main problem being that the face that they use for the close-up doesn’t look threatening in the least, but extraordinarily goofy. It doesn’t do the movie any good when the main focus, the monster, just looks so ridiculous.

Aside from that admittedly large issue, though, The Giant Claw is okay.

The scientific explanation for this giant bird was certainly detailed. I got the whole matter/anti-matter stuff (you’re reading a guy who’s read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown multiple times), but once they got into mesa and stuff, I got as lost as that general. They could have just stuck with a giant bird, but whoever worked on the science in this film just went all out with an explanation I didn’t follow in the least, so I appreciate that.

Really, the only two performances that matter are those of Jeff Morrow (This Island Earth and The Creature Walks Among Us) and Mara Corday (Tarantula and The Black Scorpion), and I have no complaints with their characters. Their growing romance is sort of cute, and their plane banter was fun. I thought the two worked well with each other, and that helped make them feel not so stereotypical.

Oh, I guess you could count the Rod Sterling-esque narrator as another character. Seriously, as the narrator (who probably has a name, but I can’t find him credited) speaks at the beginning, it sounds legit just like the beginning of a Twilight Zone episode, almost hilariously so. And this is before Twilight Zone started, so it makes me wonder if this was more influential than we knew.

The Giant Claw isn’t a great movie, but I didn’t have a terrible time with it, and it’s not like it takes a lot of time to get through either. Also, as horrible as the bird looked, seeing it destroy building or just pick up whole trains like a boss was sort of cool. And that science – some in-depth stuff.

6.5/10

Directed by Ken Wiederhorn [Other horror films: Shock Waves (1977), Eyes of a Stranger (1981), Dark Tower (1987)]

Having never seen this sequel before, I could imagine that it’d be a favorite if I had watched it when I was a kid. There might have been a chance for this to possess a lot of nostalgic charm if this had caught me when I was young. As it is, watching it for the first time now, I just found it regrettably more goofy than the first film, and nowhere near as good.

It’s not an utter waste of time, but almost everything that was great about the first film is somewhat muted here. The story itself is okay, and the setting is decent, but the music isn’t as memorable, the characters are nowhere near as good, and the fact that humor is more at the forefront was a choice that I sensed was coming but didn’t care for whatsoever.

For a young actor, Michael Kenworthy gave a pretty good performance, and it made it a bit easier to like his character when he was about the only one who knew what he was doing. This kid was pretty clever, and I appreciated his initiative. Playing his sister, Marsha Dietlein can yell at me anytime she wants, as she was foxy as fuck here. Dana Ashbrook was decent as an action-oriented guy, but he felt somewhat stereotypical come the conclusion.

James Karen and Thom Mathews (who played similar characters in the first film, which is even alluded to here) were okay, but seeing Mathews in the first movie was enough, as half his dialogue here once he falls ill is the same stuff from the first film. And playing his girlfriend, Suzanne Snyder was extraordinarily irksome. She wouldn’t shut up. Snyder played the character well, but what a terrible character.

With it’s focus more on the humor, Return of the Living Dead: Part II wasn’t near as enjoyable and (ironically) fun as the first movie. It has some okay scenes toward the end (even those terrible electrocution effects have their place), but it was an underwhelming experience throughout, and while I know some out there enjoy this one, I just couldn’t get into it.

5.5/10

Directed by Dan O’Bannon [Other horror films: The Resurrected (1991)]

One of the best examples of a movie firmly with it’s feet in the 1980’s, The Return of the Living Dead has long been a favorite of mine. I don’t usually go for zombie comedies, but this one is a classic, and I do rather enjoy it.

It helps that the humor isn’t usually too goofy. There are a few scenes I could have done without, but for the most part, while the film certainly has comedy in it, it’s a lot more tame as opposed to an all-out goof-fest, which I am quite happy about, and personally makes it an easier film for me to get behind.

Also, that music – those funky beats that pop up whenever something goes down are just great. After that body is cremated, and the ashes rise into the air as the rain starts, and that music starts up, it just sounds great. It has a dark vibe to it (which lends the movie great atmosphere at times), and related, you gotta love the movie’s conclusion, from the solution the general has to the rains afterward.

I won’t spend much time on the performances, because most of them are fair in this film. James Karen and Thom Mathews’ (Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives) antics that started the whole thing were sort of funny (“This is completely solid,” slaps it and it breaks open – cracked me up). I didn’t care for Clu Gulager’s (A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge) character at first, but he grew on me a bit throughout the film. Don Calfa played his role pretty straight, which was impressive, and I also liked him.

Most of the teen characters were interchangeable. I don’t know how Beverly Randolph’s Tina started hanging out with that bunch, but whateves. Jewel Shepard was rather attractive at times, but none of that matters when Linnea Quigley strips naked early on in the film and stays in stages of being undressed throughout. Her character was odd anyway (with some really interesting and memorable lines of dialogue), but boy, does she have a cute butt. I could watch her in the graveyard naked for longer than I care to admit.

This is just one of those easy films that you can throw on at almost any point and have a fun time with. There’s nothing too deep here – just pure 80’s fun, with a bitching soundtrack, decent characters through, solid zombie design (need I even mention my homeboi Tarman?), and a great conclusion.

Even if you’re not a typical fan of zombie films, I’d recommend checking this one out, as it really is a ton of fun.

8.5/10

Directed by William Malone [Other horror films: Scared to Death (1980), Creature (1985), Feardotcom (2002), Parasomnia (2008)]

I love the original House on Haunted Hill. I find it an incredibly fun movie with a great cast, solid story, nice-looking setting, and some genuine thrills. This re-imagining had potential, but I definitely think it lost some of that during the ending.

There’s a little mystery here, and there’s a few elements used from the original film (such as a secret affair between two characters), but as this film is more overtly supernatural than the original, the mystery doesn’t matter as much, and most of the questions (such as why these particular people were invited) get answered in the expected, not necessarily-satisfactory, ways.

Most of the beginning is strong, and possesses an intentionally hokey charm. It helps a little that a character named Mr. Price (played by Geoffrey Rush) doesn’t look too far off from Vincent Price in the original, which I thought was amusing. I just wish that, when they transferred over to more overt ghosts (especially toward the conclusion), it was done in a better way.

Geoffrey Rush gives a pretty decent performance, and Famke Jannsen, who plays his wife, is solid too. The two of them have the same type of rather toxic relationship that they did in the original, so that’s always good fun. Others who stand out include Ali Larter (Final Destination), who wasn’t the most interesting character, but possessed a young and fresh look, Chris Kattan, who cracked me up throughout the film (“It has no morals. Because it’s a HOUSE!”) and played a bit of the same role that Matthew Lillard did for the Thir13en Ghosts movie, and Peter Gallagher, who’s straight-laced look was quality.

There’s a lack of variety as far as the sets go – in the house, most of the time is spent either in the basement or the ground floor, and it’s not until the end that they venture upstairs, and due to the situation they’re in, they don’t really have time to explore, which was sort of disappointing (especially considering how tall the house looks from the outside).

The biggest problem here is how they handle the ghosts. Not only does that conglomeration of ghost look horrible at the end, they then have another ghost save the day (in a manner of speaking) in a pretty corny scene. It doesn’t really matter at that point, because I’m already somewhat turned off by the route the movie took, but boy, do I wish they had done something a little different, because beforehand, it was a reasonably enjoyable film, but that ending just wasn’t.

I was enjoying this film up to a point, but I think the ending was poor, so ultimately, while I could see myself getting behind this one again at some point, I think it’s below average, though I certainly felt that this movie had real potential.

6.5/10