Tag: USA

Directed by Stewart Hendler [Other horror films: Whisper (2007)]

I’m somewhat lukewarm when it comes to The House on Sorority Row. I thought some portions were certainly decent, and the movie does possess that 80’s atmosphere I value, but I wasn’t blown away by most of it. This re-imagining too has some okay parts, but boy, for quite a bit of this movie, I definitely struggled.

A movie following a bunch of bitchy sorority girls accidentally killing one of their own, only months later to be stalked and killed by a mysterious figure wasn’t much my idea of entertainment. This comes partially from the fact that literally none of the sorority girls, even the “good” one, Cassidy (Briana Evigan) are in the least bit sympathetic. Worse still, the most amusing one, Chugs (Margo Harshman) was one of the first to go.

For some reason that eludes me, I just couldn’t care that these terrible individuals were getting killed. A few of the kills were okay, to be fair (such as the tire iron being thrown), but I just didn’t get much a sense of tension for many of them, and when even the supposedly sympathetic characters, such as Cassidy and Maggie (Caroline D’Amore), turn out to be horrible, it just doesn’t do the film any favors.

What also doesn’t help was the identity of the killer, or more particularly, the reason behind the killing. That character always felt out of place to me from the beginning, to be honest, and once they’re discovered as the killer, the personality they have, that uber-crazy, psychotic serial killer à la Urban Legend, I just didn’t care.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but that house fire at the end didn’t look that great. The whole “epic battle while the house is burning down” wasn’t near as fun as I’d have hoped, but that’s this remake for you.

Sorority Row probably isn’t as bad as I might be making it out to be. It was definitely generic and pretty unremarkable, but I don’t think it’s terrible. I just can’t see myself really taking this movie that seriously, and while it might be okay for a watch every now and again, I have a hard time believing I’ll ever really like the movie, and if I want to see something like this, I’ll just stick with I Know What You Did Last Summer.

5.5/10

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

Directed by Larry G. Brown [Other horror films: N/A]

Ever since I first heard the plot to this one (from IMDb: A children’s television show host stalks and murders abusive parents), An Eye for an Eye was an obscure flick I rather wanted to see. Finally having done so, I can’t say that much about the movie surprises or amazes me, but it’s a tolerably dreary, pretty somber film, and definitely a product of the 1970’s.

Sometimes known under the title The Psychopath (not to be confused with the 1966 Amicus movie), An Eye for an Eye isn’t a well-known film, which is a bit of a shame, because I think the idea here is a good one. It’s not a great movie, but I definitely appreciate the atmosphere of the film, so it has to get some credit.

The biggest disappointment here are the kills. I guess more specifically, the lack of gore, because some of the kills themselves are decent. However, when a woman gets ran over by a lawnmower, you sort of expect to see something, but no such luck. Another abusive parent got her back massacred by multiple swings of a hatchet, but again, no blood. This isn’t deeply detrimental, especially given the available print (with, for some reason, Greek subtitles) is already rather shoddy, but still, it stuck out to me.

On a positive note, Tom Basham’s performance as the host going after abusive parents was spectacular. Playing a character with some type of developmental disability, he really connected with kids (and often spoke in much the same way), and he had a good heart, and really, his show (which included puppet shows) was probably quite fun for kids. When he finds out that some kids are abused by their parents, he becomes reasonably upset, and goes after them, which I thought was a positive move.

Being a 70’s movie, An Eye for an Eye takes child abuse very seriously, and there’s a scene in which a nurse is showing a detective the impact of abuse that was really pretty touching (as it so happened, Basham’s character was in earshot of this conversation, which spring-boarded his revenge scheme). What’s more, because abuse is cyclical in many cases, the ending of the film goes a very somber, totally 70’s route, which, had the movie been more well-known, would probably come across as controversial.

Unfortunately this movie’s not that well-known, and it seems that those who seek this out tend to do it due to the fact it’s John Ashton’s first movie. Ashton, of course, is best-remembered for his role in the Beverly Hills Cop movies, and somewhat amusingly, though this came out 11 years before the first movie, he looks pretty much the same here (and also does a few things that, as a police officer, should definitely have got him fired), It’s interesting to see him here, but I don’t know if it’s worth seeking out just for his relatively small role.

As decent as aspects of An Eye for an Eye are, it does begin to drag a bit toward the end. There was a scene I enjoyed, in which a father is about to be killed, but then reveals that he’s definitely not okay with child abuse, and so Bashman’s character lets him live (he may have been mentally unstable, but at least he was consistent). Overall, I wouldn’t say the movie is that great, but it is a nice example of the 1970’s style of horror, and if the plot tickles your fancy, there’s no reason not to throw this one more attention.

6/10

Directed by William Crain [Other horror films: Dr. Black, Mr. Hyde (1976)]

Despite the ridiculous title, Blacula plays itself as straight as any other 70’s horror, and while the movie’s not great, it’s okay, and if you’re into vampire films and have overlooked this one, I’d recommend another look.

The story here is pretty interesting, and casts a very sympathetic light on William Marshall’s vampiric character. Attempting to stop the trade of Africans, William Marshall plays an African Prince who speaks to Count Dracula, who refuses and turns the Prince into a vampire. He returns 200 years later, and the snazzily-dressed Marshall goes after a woman who reminds him of his late wife.

Blacula, as it was shot on location in L.A., really has that 70’s feeling that I appreciate. There’s some socially conscious dialogue I appreciated (such as Rasulala’s mentioning that crimes against African-Americans aren’t focused on near as much as crimes against whites), though their depiction of a homosexual couple (which was progressive for the time, to be sure) was certainly cringe-worthy. Still, credit to Ted Harris and Rick Metzler for playing (however stereotypically) a biracial gay couple.

William Marshall does quite well as a vampire here. Like I said, you can sort of feel for his character, and while he does cause multiple deaths throughout the film, you can’t help but feel just a bit sorry for him, because you can tell from the beginning of the movie that he’s a good person. Marshall had a strong personality here, and it did wonders for the film.

Also doing wonders was the main protagonist, played by Thalmus Rasulala. A pathologist for the police department, his character really commanded his screen-time, and much like how you couldn’t help but feel bad for Marshall, I couldn’t have stopped myself from cheering for Rasulala for anything. He kicked ass, sucker-punched some vampires, and really put in his all.

While it’s true that the presence of Gordon Pinsent, Denise Nicholas, and Vonetta McGee are appreciated, the only other actor that stands out here is Elisha Cook. When I first saw this film, I immediately recognized him as Pritchard from House on Haunted Hill. He definitely looks a bit older here, but he has the same face, so it was sort of nice to see him 15 years older than I usually do.

I think that, if Blacula has a main problem, it’s the lack of scares. There was a pretty good graveyard sequence, and also a scene that took place in a warehouse in which twenty or so vampires jump the main characters, but otherwise, I didn’t really get a big feeling of dread here.

Even so, there’s some funky music here (just look at that animated title screen), and the songs we heard at the club (‘There He Is Again‘ and ‘I’m Gonna Catch You‘ are both performed by The Hues Corporation, a soul trio from the 1970’s) were just really catchy, despite it not really being the type of music I generally gravitate toward at all.

All-in-all, Blacula’s not a great movie, but it can be fun, and it gets the job done competently enough, along with possessing an interesting story. As far as blaxploitation horror goes, I have to suspect this is one of the better ones, and may well be worth a watch in spite of it’s flaws.

7/10

Directed by Gus Trikonis [Other horror films: The Darker Side of Terror (1979), She’s Dressed to Kill (1979), Dance of the Dwarfs (1983)]

I’ve seen The Evil once before, but to be entirely honest, it’s been so long that almost all of this seemed new to me. There was only a single scene I even marginally remembered, which was perhaps one of the better scenes in the film, but otherwise, I don’t think The Evil really turned out that great a movie.

The main problem here was that the film was rather dry and none too exciting. I liked the idea behind the plot (as generic as haunted houses tend to be), but when the excitement starts up, very little of it really makes that much of an impact on me. I think that without the saw blade scene and the finale, this would be a lot more forgettable, but even with those two sequences representing, there’s not a whole lot going here.

Victor Buono makes a small appearance toward the end, and I sort of liked him here, but given the short amount of time we spend with him, he can’t lift the whole of the film up. Richard Crenna (who also starred in the similarly dry Death Ship) reminded me of John Ritter throughout the movie, which was nice, but otherwise, I didn’t find him that engaging a main character. Both Joanna Pettet and Mary Louise Weller stood out decently, Pettet playing a strong female lead, and Weller being the eye candy (especially in that red shirt).

Otherwise, there’s a bunch of people here who make virtually no impression, and we don’t really get to learn that much about any of these people. If you can keep their names straight, more power to you, but as most of them die throughout the film (and the exact people you expect to survive do so), I don’t know if that really accomplishes much.

I wish I remembered my feelings toward this one when I first saw it. Personally, I’d guess that I probably found it worse this time around, as the story and setting (a creepy, rather large mansion) do possess a small amount of charm, but I was pretty bored during this one. The Evil had potential, and I think that the film could have been good, but this final product is very much a lackluster one, no matter how fun Buono or the saw blade scenes are.

5.5/10

This is one of the films covered on the Fight Evil podcast. If you want to hear Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one, look no further:

Directed by Katt Shea [Other horror films: Stripped to Kill (1987), Dance of the Damned (1989), The Rage: Carrie 2 (1999)]

The first Stripped to Kill wasn’t exactly an amazing movie, but it did possess a decent amount of charm, along with a solid conclusion. This sequel isn’t near as good, and though it’s still certainly watchable, I can’t imagine many people thinking it’s better than the first.

One problem I had was that no actors from the first movie appear, or are even mentioned. If you’re making a sequel, even if you can’t get back any of the original performers, you can at least bring them up in conversation once, but no, with one exception, the only thing this movie shares with the first are the strippers.

The one exception is the character Shirl. In the first movie, this character is played by Diana Bellamy, and she stood out as a rather amusing character. The same can be said for Stripped to Kill 2’s Shirl, played by Virginia Peters. They don’t necessarily look alike, but they do have very similar roles (gathering information which is vital to the finale) and attitudes, so I’m pretty convinced this is supposed to be the same person, which makes it even worse they couldn’t do more to connect this to the first movie.

And to be fair, there’s a stripper here named Mantra, played by Debra Lamb. Lamb appeared in the first movie also, as an unnamed amateur stripper, so it’s likely the same character, but that’s not something I realized until checking IMDb credits, and that fact definitely wasn’t mentioned in the film, but still, thought it was worth pointing out.

Ignoring that, though, the story here isn’t quite as interesting or violent as what we got from the first one. We have a stripper who thinks she’s going crazy and killing people in her sleep (and to be fair, there’s somewhat convincing evidence of that), and a city cop investigating the crime, but can’t stop himself from falling for the stripper. It’s not exactly riveting, and I could have done without the elongated dream sequences (though they make sense come the ending), and overall, the story’s just average.

There’s a few things I like about the ending here, what with the identity of the killer, but especially compared to the first movie, this ending felt pretty tame and simple in comparison. I sort of appreciate the artsy dream sequences (which make me partially wonder if this movie was aiming a bit higher than it might seem on the surface), but there’s a handful of them throughout the film, and as this progressed, they sort of lost their charm.

Eb Lottimer was okay as the main detective. He wasn’t anything special, and ultimately pretty forgettable, but he had a sensual soul. Maria Ford (who appeared in a handful of 1990’s horror, such as The Haunting of Morella, The Unnamable II, Slumber Party Massacre III, and Necronomicon) was okay, but given that she thinks she’s going insane, her performance isn’t always the most stable. Karen Mayo-Chandler was decent, though again, as the movie goes on, I was less enthralled with her. As I mentioned, Virginia Peters was pretty fun, Debra Lamb was maybe the hottest woman there, and Marjean Holden was Something Else.

The kills here are far from great, mainly because we never really see them. It’s true that we might see the aftermath, some blood and a corpse, but as poor as the kills were in the first movie, it certainly outstripped this one (SEE WHAT I DID THERE????).

Stripped to Kill probably never needed a sequel, so with that in mind, Stripped to Kill 2: Live Girls probably outperformed expectations, and to be honest, I did like this a bit more than I thought I would. That said, I doubt it’s a movie that will stay with me long, and I’d mainly recommend people just catch the first movie.

6/10

This is one of the film’s covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. To listen to Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this one, check the video out below.

Directed by Oren Peli [Other horror films: Area 51 (2015)]

Overly pointless, I don’t see why this movie gets as much praise is it seems to. I never have. Admittedly, I’ve only seen it two times now, but Paranormal Activity strikes me as entirely unremarkable and has little going for it, at least in my perspective.

I don’t mind that the plot is thin – that’s fine. There were some interesting things that occasionally came up, such as the picture Micah found in the attic, or the fact that the demonologist recommended to the couple doesn’t actually show up (I’ve not seen any of the sequels, but if I had to bet, I’d say he probably appears in at least one of them). Katie being dragged out of bed was solid too.

But boy, does the boyfriend, Micah, get on my nerves. At first, he doesn’t take seriously the idea that his girlfriend is dealing with supernatural experiences (despite the fact that she’s very obviously being impacted by it), and once he grows to accept something’s going on, instead of turning to what passes as professionals in the field (such as the aforementioned demonologist), he acts all macho about it, and wants to deal with it himself.

How he expects to ‘deal’ with an invisible entity is never explained, and I suspect he has literally no idea of what exactly to do, which is why going to someone who might actually know a way to help would be a route worth investigating, but instead he berates the idea, because macho man is strong and masculine.

Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston both do an okay job as far as their performances go. Like I said, Sloat’s character is pretty annoying, and while I suspect toward the end of the film he realizes his idiotic mistakes, that doesn’t make him any easier to swallow. Featherston did fine as a young woman slowly getting terrified into inaction. To her credit, she has a good handle of what to do, but her boyfriend thinks he knows better, so there’s no shot for a happy ending.

As for the ending, I was lukewarm. It wasn’t terrible, but it certainly wasn’t worth a rather dull and aggravating build-up that Paranormal Activity gave us. I would have tried harder to get Katie out of the house than Micah did, but maybe he was just tired and didn’t care about the potential danger.

Though I say this virtually every time I review a found footage movie, I don’t have a problem with the style. I think it presents a lot of potential, especially for low-budget movie-makers, but at the same time, it’s a double-edged sword, because much of the time it’s overdone and automatically called ‘the scariest movie of [insert year here]’ with literally nothing backing the claim up.

I don’t like Paranormal Activity. I remember the trailers hyping it up, but the movie’s a mixture of dull and annoying, with the occasional piece of potential thrown in just to further frustrate the watcher. I also accept that I’m in the minority here, and maybe the series gets better later on, but as for this first movie, it was a waste of time and certainly one of the most pointless horror movies of 2007.

4/10

This is one of the films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast, with my friend Chucky (@ChuckyFE). Listen below to hear my disappointment in the flesh.

Directed by Jean-Paul Ouellette [Other horror films: The Unnamable II: The Statement of Randolph Carter (1992)]

I’m not entirely sure why this one has such a bad rap. I mean, it’s not a stellar film, but I’ve seen this around three times now, and I consistently have a fun time with it.

It’s true that the setting is somewhat stagnant, as most of the movie takes place in a dilapidated house (and what doesn’t occurs on a generic college campus), but I thought that, despite the obvious low-budget, they did well with what they had.

To be honest, a lot of the reason I find this worth watching is due to Mark Kinsey Stephenson’s character, Randolph Carter. His attitude, which is somewhat aloof yet very knowledgeable (almost arrogantly so), just cracked me up. He’s not really the main character (as Charles Klausmeyer’s Howard was involved in most of the action), but he was enjoyable every single time on-screen. I suspect some would be turned off by his demeanor, but I really respect what he was going for.

Certainly, Klausmeyer was decent too, but his character was nowhere near as interesting, and truth be told, perhaps that’s the one big issue, as any scene without Stephenson is automatically less engaging by the sole fact he’s not in the scene. I did like Alexandra Durrell in her role, though I wouldn’t have minded a bit more depth. Laura Albert stood out during her nude sequence, but otherwise, her character was pretty awful. Really, as far as performances go, no one really comes close to Mark Kinsey Stephenson.

As for the design of the titular Unnamable, I thought it was decent. Not mind-blowingly so, but effective, and the little backstory we got on the origin of the creature was fun. Related, while there wasn’t a lot of gore, there were a few note-worthy scenes so one doesn’t walk away empty-handed, which is nice.

On a final note, after the finale, when the credits start rolling, we’re graced with a beautifully somber song titled ‘Up There‘ by Mark Ryder & Phil Davies, a song that really ends the film on a good note, and has been on my iTunes ever since I first saw this movie. Definitely a quality piece of music.

Mark Kinsey Stephenson is a big reason I like this movie, but even ignoring his deeply amusing character, you still have a somewhat fun story good setting, and all-around solid, low-budget, horror story. Having seen this three times now, I can say that it does indeed hit the right spots.

8/10