Tag: USA

Directed by Roger Corman [Other horror films: The Beast with a Million Eyes (1955), Day the World Ended (1955), It Conquered the World (1956), Not of This Earth (1957), Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957), The Undead (1957), War of the Satellites (1958), The Wasp Woman (1959), A Bucket of Blood (1959), House of Usher (1960), The Little Shop of Horrors (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Premature Burial (1962), Tales of Terror (1962), Tower of London (1962), The Raven (1963), The Terror (1963), X (1963), The Haunted Palace (1963), The Masque of the Red Death (1964), The Tomb of Ligeia (1964), Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unbound (1990)]

I can’t imagine this will take that long to explain, because there’s not really that much here.

We have a story of Cubans trying to steal money from Cuba after the revolution (on a side note, the best part of this movie is being reminded of the Cuban Revolution – throwing off the USA-backed government and creating a socialist system) and then being killed by fake and real monsters. I was going to try to describe the film better, but I realized that if they didn’t put that much effort into making this movie, I’m not going to put much effort in reviewing it.

The idea of killing off people and claiming it was done by a sea monster is at least a little interesting, but you have to understand that this film is a comedy/horror mix (as evidenced from the very beginning, during the opening animated credits), and the comedy is generally awful, and none of the characters (and I mean none) are of any interest whatsoever.

You have Robert Towne playing a clueless American spy who narrates the movie (‘It was dusk. I could tell because the sun was going down’ is the pinnacle of his humor), Beach Dickerson, who can imitate animal sounds (and by ‘imitate,’ I mean he opens his mouth and the roar of a lion is dubbed over), which is great, because he meets a woman (Blanquita Romero) who can do the same thing, and they make animal sounds together because it’s love and I hate this fucking movie.

Other people who appear include Antony Carbone (A Bucket of Blood), Betsy Jones-Moreland, Esther Sandoval, and Sonia Noemí González. It doesn’t matter, as none of them do anything to make the movie any more bearable, but they do indeed appear.

Here’s the thing – this is not my type of comedy. There was one amusing line in the movie, and that’s it. Everything else was just awful. And what makes this worse is that Creature from the Haunted Sea is a short movie – the version I saw was an hour and three minutes. Despite that, it was still a struggle to get through. It’s a painful movie, and not one I have any fun with.

Some people can probably get a kick out of this movie. I’ve enjoyed plenty of Roger Corman movies, even loved a few (The Pit and the Pendulum and The Tomb of Ligeia, for instance), but Creature from the Haunted Sea is just a bad time.

3/10

Directed by George Barry [Other horror films: N/A]

Having seen this oddity once before, I was looking forward to revisiting this one. I had to anyway, of course, but I wanted to see if this was as odd as I remembered it being. And certainly, after seeing it with fresh eyes, I can say that it is.

Most horror fans probably know the story behind this movie. After being filmed, the director George Barry wasn’t able to get it distributed or released on video, but a bootleg VHS was created, and it wasn’t until 2001 that Barry found out that anyone save him and those involved in the movie knew this existed. It finally made it onto DVD officially in 2003, and the rest is history.

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats might sound, based on the title, to be a goofy movie, but I don’t really think that’s the case. There are some mildly amusing parts, or some pieces of dialogue that are sort of funny, but there’s very little in here that seems to actually be played for laughs. Really, as ludicrous as the plot is, the movie feels more fantasy than it does comedy.

The reason for that, of course, being that one of the characters in the film is sort of the spirit of one of the bed’s victims who is trapped in a painting. He witnesses all of the atrocities the bed comments, and through his narration, we learn of the bed’s creation and history, with a particularly dry segment detailing some of the bed’s previous victims.

Of course, he’s not the only narrator in this movie. There’s a lot of internal first-person monologue here, which might not be a surprise, given it’s a 70’s film (Let’s Scare Jessica to Death did the same thing), but I almost feel there’s more internal monologue than there is actual conversations here. It’s an odd way to make a film, but given the story this has, which is somewhat bare-bones, perhaps it makes sense.

Only five performances matter here, and that may be a stretch. While the man trapped in the painting is played by Dave Marsh, his monologue is voiced by Patrick Spence-Thomas. Spence-Thomas has a dramatic delivery that adds to the amusement, though much of it may not be intended (‘You [potential victims] gaze at me as a painting on the wall, and I see you as a serving upon some monstrous silver platter’). Even so, it’s good stuff.

Most of the characters, played by Rosa Luxemburg (no, not the revolutionary socialist and Marxist philosopher), Julie Ritter, Demene Hall, and William Russ (Dead of Winter), weren’t really that important. I mean, Luxemburg’s was, but either way, none of them got a whole lot of what you’d actually call character.

Even so, this is a mildly fascinating movie. It’s digestible (see what I did there?), and the special effects can sort of be cool. See, when the bed consumes something, it sort of takes it into it’s digestive fluids. Perhaps one of the more memorable scenes is a man who’s hands get dissolved to the bone before he’s able to pull them out of the bed. There’s also a whole dreamlike atmosphere that permeates much of the movie, which makes sense, as the idea of this film apparently came from a dream of the director.

Those effects paired with the fantasy-feel of the narration and whole of the story make for a rather different movie. It’s not a good one, but it definitely feels unique, and related, totally 70’s. I can’t say it’s a movie I’d watch too often, but it is a somewhat wild ride that should be seen to be believed.

6/10

Directed by Byron Mabe [Other horror films: The Bushwhacker (1968), Mystic Mountain Massacre (1971)] & Donn Davison [Other horror films: Honey Britches (1971), The Legend of McCullough’s Mountain (1975)]

Do you all remember Freaks? It’s a pretty classic movie with a generally solid story and a shocking finale for the time. It’s not a personal favorite of mine, but it’s a pretty solid movie.

As for She Freak, though, which is largely based around the same idea, the best word to describe it is ‘ghastly.’

Quite similar to Freaks in multiple ways, it follows one of the most unlikable protagonists in the history of cinema as she leaves her boring life as a waitress to join a carnival, and try to find her riches there. She’s a terrible character – not only is she okay with getting married to a guy just because he’s rich, and then cheating on him multiple times, but she also has zero sympathy for those in the carnival’s ‘freak show,’ and just sets herself up as a terrible person.

To be fair, Claire Brennen does fine in the role. Lee Raymond doesn’t have much in the way of character aside from being eye candy for the ladies, but Bill McKinney actually had some depth to him (though it took a while to find that out). Felix Silla (Cousin Itt from the classic Addams Family and the Polka Dotted Horse from H.R. Pufnstuf) only has a couple of scenes, but I liked him. Lastly, there’s Lynn Courtney, who wasn’t really relevant whatsoever, but she existed, at least.

If you’re wondering why I found this abysmal, though, it doesn’t have much to do with the likability of Brennen’s character. I mean, it wasn’t ideal, but by far the largest problem here is how insanely dull the movie is. It’s not until the final five minutes that we really feel much in the way of tension, and to be honest, tension is a bit strong.

A lot of the film seems to be devoted to showing off the carnival – not only customers walking by or riding the rides, but also setting up and taking down the carnival. Don’t get me wrong – I’m insanely impressed by traveling carnivals, and how they can do that set-up in the time they have – but it doesn’t make for an interesting horror movie. Might make a good documentary, though.

She Freak is a very boring movie. It’s dull, and the characters don’t generally help that much. The ending (which is completely taken from Freaks) isn’t worth the build-up, and the whole of the film is likely to send you into a stupor unless you’re of strong will-power.

There were two scenes I thought were good – in one, there’s a scuffle between two characters, and one of them gets stabbed in the hand with a screwdriver (providing the only blood in the movie). In the other scene, filmed in what I imagine was a helicopter, we get an overhead view of the carnival at nighttime – the neon lights on the rides, just the atmosphere of a busy carnival season – it looked quite beautiful. Honestly, if it weren’t for that scene, they could have just released this in black-and-white, because nowhere else does the addition of color do the movie wonders.

I can sit here and call the movie boring, but unless you see it, you probably won’t fully grasp just how dull so much of this is. And I certainly wouldn’t recommend you do so, but if you enjoy carnival-based horror, maybe this is worth a shot. It’s not remotely a good movie, though, and I’d just stick with Freaks were I you.

3.5/10

Directed by Wes Craven [Other horror films: The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Stranger in Our House (1978), Deadly Blessing (1981), Swamp Thing (1982), Invitation to Hell (1984), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Chiller (1985), Deadly Friend (1986), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), Shocker (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991), New Nightmare (1994), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Cursed (2005), My Soul to Take (2010), Scream 4 (2011)]

It’s been a long while since I’ve seen Scream 3, and in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve only seen it once. Because of that, going into this one was a treat, as I pretty much forgot everything about it save that it took place in Hollywood. While it’s not quite as memorable as portions of the second movie were, I think Scream 3 is still an okay way to spend your time.

For being an almost two hour movie, I do think it moves at a pretty solid pace. There are segments in which there’s little in the way of murder, and the film focuses more on the investigation and the mystery, but as I was invested in the mystery (and I should say I was incorrect about someone who I thought involved), that wasn’t an issue.

Also, Sidney (Neve Campbell) has a somewhat smaller role in this film, but toward the finale, she certainly puts the work in, so it’s not something that’s really a negative. I think it helped that they brought back both Dewey and Gale – even if it’s not the familiar faces we might want to be focused on, we still care about where their storyline is taking them.

The movie does feel a bit neutered insofar as the kills go, though. I mean, it’s not like the original movie was particularly gory, but this just feels light in the way so many slashers from around the same time period felt (such as Valentine, Urban Legend, and Cherry Falls). Given I was interested in the mystery, and figuring out who the killer is, it wasn’t something that took that much away, but I definitely noticed that this veered a bit more comedic (though still within reason), seemingly in exchange for better kills.

Though she’s not really the focus for half of the film, it’s always nice to see Neve Campbell (The Dark). The movie throws more at her character, and it’s all a good time (especially that chase in the mock Woodsboro). Both David Arquette (Eight Legged Freaks) and Courteney Cox were quality, though I have to admit, I’m still not a big fan of Cox’s character. Patrick Dempsey was a fun character also, and definitely one to make your suspect list.

Because it’s a meta movie that takes place in Hollywood, there are actors here who play counterparts – for instance, since I’m awful at words, Parker Posey plays a fictional version of Gale. It’s a fun dynamic – Posey (Frankenstein) doesn’t get along with her real-life counterpart at all, and Emily Mortimer (Relic) did sort of feel like Sidney circa the first Scream. Though not every actor character does much, such as Deon Richmond (Hatchet) and Matt Keeslar, it was still a fun element to mess around with.

There are some additional familiar faces here – Liev Schreiber (The Omen, Phantoms) reprises his role as Cotton Weary, Jamie Kennedy made a surprising return as Randy via a videotape he made, and Lance Henriksen (Man’s Best Friend, The Pit and the Pendulum, In the Spider’s Web, Damien: Omen II, Gehenna: Where Death Lives, Mansion of the Doomed, Hellraiser: Hellworld) showed up for some reason. I mean, don’t get me wrong, his character is important, but I entirely forgot he was in this movie.

I don’t know Scott Foley, but he was pretty solid here. Two other faces, though, are ones I do know, being Heather Matarazzo in a single scene, and I recognized her immediately from Hostel: Part II, and then we have Patrick Warburton (Better Watch Out, and voice actor in Kim Possible, one of the best cartoons of all time). As soon as I heard Warburton’s voice, I knew it was him, so it was a nice surprise to see him pop up, and not in just a single scene either.

So we have a tamer story that seems to focus more on the mystery than the kills, and while that might disappoint some, like I said, I tend to think this is just as good as the second movie. The finale isn’t amazing, but it got the job done, and though it’s probably one of the most generic of the Scream films, it’s still not a bad sequel at all.

7/10

Directed by Mark L. Lester [Other horror films: Class of 1999 (1990), Blowback (2000), Sacrifice (2000), Pterodactyl (2005), Groupie (2010), Poseidon Rex (2013)]

While not an amazing movie, Firestarter is a pretty decent watch. Perhaps it’s because the finale is so explosive that I can forgive how the film seems to drag at times, but it’s a generally solid movie with some good performances and special effects.

I’ve read the Stephen King novel once before, and enjoyed it well enough. I’ve not read it recently enough to compare it to the film, but I think most of the salient points came across pretty well. Actually, the idea is somewhat similar to Carrie – a young girl must learn to control her potentially destructive powers – and both the book and this movie do a good job with the idea.

Having seen this before, I forget how well Drew Barrymore (Cat’s Eye) did here, despite being as young as she was. There were a few patchy moments, as far as her performance went, but overall, it was a pretty good job. Of course, Martin Sheen (The West Wing, The Dead Zone, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, Grey Knight) was great to see here, and George C. Scott (The Changeling, The Exorcist III) did well as an atrocious individual.

Art Carney only had a scene or two to shine, but shine he did. David Keith (Hangman’s Curse, 2002’s Carrie, Succubus: Hell-Bent, Deadly Sins) consistently reminded me of another actor, perhaps Patrick Swayze, so that’s never a bad thing. Freddie Jones (Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed) had a decent scene, Moses Gunn (Bates Motel) doesn’t do much, but gets blown up with the best of them, and I appreciated a small appearance of Antonio Fargas, who I am very familiar with, having seen almost every episode of Starsky and Hutch.

The finale is when things really pick up. Not that beforehand things weren’t interesting, but the finale is what it’s all about, and it’s certainly a fun time. You get houses and barns being lit aflame or blown up, fireballs flung at people, trails of fire chasing people, helicopters blown up – and the best part, there’s not a single innocent person there, so they can all roast and it’s a-okay. The special effects look quite decent, and like I said, the finale is fun, in the same way the finale of Carrie is a good time.

Even so, it’s not a movie that I’d go out of my way to watch all that often. Having seen it twice now, it’s a good movie, but it’s not a personal favorite. I can definitely appreciate it, though I still think the ending is just a bit on the sudden side.

Quite simply, Firestarter’s a good movie, but I don’t think it’s great. Still, though, no doubt it’s one of the better films based off King’s work in the 80’s, I’d have to say.

7.5/10

Directed by David Allen [Other horror films: Ragewar (1984)]

This is a somewhat difficult sequel to compare to the first movie. While I definitely found the finale of the first movie a more enjoyable affair than what this one had to offer, as a movie overall, I tend to think that this moves at a better pace. Both are likely equivalent, though, and I’d probably say this one is around average.

For the most part, that story isn’t too shabby. Andre Toulon is resurrected by his creations (specifically Blade, Pinhead, Jester, Leech Woman, and Tunneler) while the Bodega Bay Inn has more visitors attempting to research what drove Paul Le Mat’s character mad in the first film. I am glad they attempted to connect this to the first movie, though there is a dating issue – Toulon is shown to kill himself in 1939 in the opening to the first film, whereas his tombstone in this movie reads ‘1941.’ Could be a simple in-universe mistake, but it’s worth pointing out.

Also interesting, we get a new puppet in this film (after losing Kahn, who didn’t get much focus in the last movie, but had a memorable look) in the form of Torch. Torch is among one of my favorite puppets, and along with Pinhead, Tunneler, Jester, and especially Blade, there’s a strong puppet cast in this one (I never cared for Leech Woman, and she doesn’t have a whole lot to do in this movie, but she is here too). I do think the stop motion effects look decent, and as always, it’s fun to see the puppets have fun.

I think where my main hang-up with this film lies is in Toulon’s character. After being resurrected, he grows attached to one of the characters (played by Elizabeth Maclellan), who he thinks is his late wife reincarnated. Because of that, he sort of ignores the well-being of his puppets, and I have to admit to feeling bad for the little fellas. I’d just hope his character would care more about his creations than cling on to a past love (Toulon seemed rather close to the puppets in the intro to the first film), but at the same time, after being dead for 50 years, I can imagine his personality could change some.

And to be sure, the finale did have a creepy moment or two, as he tries to transfer both his soul and the soul of Maclellan’s character into life-size puppets. Admittedly, the final scene of the film was a lot less pleasing, but if I recall, that’s not followed up on in any of the sequels, so I can survive a bad ending if I need to.

Elizabeth Maclellan makes for a fair lead, and while I couldn’t much care for her growing relationship with Collin Bernsen’s character, I did like her brother, played by Greg Webb. Steve Welles did decent, rocking a Claude Rains look to him, and has some solid dialogue. Jeff Celentano and Charlie Spradling (To Sleep with a Vampire, Meridian, Mirror Mirror) didn’t have quite as much involvement as I was hoping, nor did Nita Talbot (Frightmare, Island Claws), but George ‘Buck’ Flower (Drive In Massacre, Pumpkinhead, Cheerleader Camp) was fun to see in a single scene.

Most of the kills aren’t great here, though it was always fun to see Torch light people on fire. Blade did some occasional slicing, which was welcomed, and naturally, Pinhead attempted to strangle people here and there, but the finale of the first movie had a pretty epic scene, and there’s nothing here that even comes close to matching it.

I think this movie is about as enjoyable as the first one is, though for different reasons. To be honest, though I’d seen this once before, it’s been a while, and was personally hoping for a bit more bang for my buck. It doesn’t feel quite as special, though, and the story isn’t really exactly A+ material, but the movie has better pacing than the first one, and I think it’s probably worth seeing if you also enjoyed the first entry in the series.

7/10

Directed by Roland West [Other horror films: The Bat (1926), The Bat Whispers (1930)]

While The Monster is a decent movie, I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a classic. It’s an okay silent film, certainly watchable, but when it comes to silent horror, it’s not one that I’d go back to all that often, and I think it falls somewhere around average.

I think my biggest issue is that, for a forty or so minute period, not much seems to happen. Three characters are trapped in a room, and spend that time trying to get out. It’s not quite as dire and dull as it sounds – one of the characters explores a secret passage while the others deal with poisoned wine and a thieving surgeon – but even so, it was a bit trying to get through.

Generally, the story’s not bad, even with the humorous tilt the movie tends to have. I enjoy abandoned sanitariums and creepy doctors (Lon Chaney), and this movie has that in spades. Actually, it’s one of the earliest old dark house mystery-type films (though I’d need to see One Exciting Night to be sure), and for that reason alone, it’s fun. That said, if you have a hankering for comedic old dark house movies, The Cat and the Canary is likely much preferred.

Lon Chaney (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Phantom of the Opera) does make for a threatening mad scientist. I dug his performances, though neither of his minions – the strong mute Caliban (played by Walter James) and the creepy Rigo (Frank Austin) – really got much character. That said, Rigo did have a creepy look to him. Johnny Arthur (The Ghost Walks) was an okay lead, but sometimes it got a bit old with how jumpy he was. Gertrude Olmstead and Hallam Cooley made for fine side characters, and Charles Sellon looked ancient (despite only being around 55 when this came out).

The last twenty minutes of this are pretty action-packed, and despite being a comedy/horror mix, there wasn’t much comedy infused into the antics toward the finale. There was a scene that had Johnny Arthur’s character walk across power lines as though they were tightropes – holding a long stick to help with balance – during a lighting storm. At first, I sort of groaned when I saw the set-up, but that scene wasn’t played for laughs – the score was suspenseful, and though it looked ridiculous, the lack of jaunty music actually helped me appreciate it more.

I have seen this one once before, though I can’t recall too much about that viewing. I suspect I was somewhat bored by some of it, as it didn’t make much of an impression on me. Even today, I do think portions overstay their welcome – though I will admit to being amused when Johnny Arthur’s character accidentally got intoxicated.

The Monster is an okay foray into silent horror. I don’t think it’s a particularly good movie, nor do I think it’s necessarily memorable, but it’s not bad, and as the kids say, that means it’s average.

7/10

Directed by Philip Kaufman [Other horror films: N/A]

Probably one of the more popular horror films I’ve not seen until now, this adaptation certainly had some strong moments, and is generally a solid movie, though I have to say I still enjoyed the 1956 version of the film more.

Based on a 1955 novel written by Jack Finney, this story follows the 1956 movie’s decently well, the most important change probably being the setting – in the 1956 movie, the setting is Santa Mira (a fictional small town); the setting in this film is San Francisco – and I do think that change is troubling.

For one, I think taking over a city of 691,000 (an estimate based on the populations of San Francisco from 1970 and 1980) would take longer than what we see in the movie. It just makes more sense to me for the action to take place in a small town (ironically, the 1993 Body Snatchers had too small a scope – a military base – so perhaps I’m just being picky).

Honestly, most of the movie is pretty good. Aside from the ending (which, because I’ve spent more than a day online, I knew was coming), though, nothing here really blew me away. Everything is pretty well done – some solid tension, some solid performances, and such – but I just didn’t walk away from this one feeling amazed.

To be fair, it’s probably very difficult for me to decouple myself from the 1956 movie, which is a film I first saw as a kid, and have seen many times since. Much like how I enjoy the 1958’s Blob movie more than I enjoy the 1988 movie, and enjoy the original Fly over the 1986 remake, based off this one viewing, I do prefer the 1956 version, and while that could change with future viewings, I’ll fully admit that I may be too entrenched in my viewpoints.

Donald Sutherland (The Puppet Masters, Alone, An American Haunting, Salem’s Lot, Don’t Look Now) was a pretty good lead. Having his character work in the Health Department was a fun choice, and I dug his personality. Honestly, neither Brooke Adams (Shock Waves, Sometimes They Come Back, The Unborn, The Dead Zone) and Veronica Cartwright (The Town That Dreaded Sundown, The Dark Below, Alien) did that much for me. I mean, they weren’t bad, but neither one interested me much.

I did love seeing a young Jeff Goldblum (Mister Frost, The Fly, Hideaway, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Jurassic Park) take on a solid role. He doesn’t leave as big an impression as Sutherland does, but still, seeing Goldblum is a lot of fun. Leonard Nimoy (famously Spock on Star Trek) is interesting, but I don’t know if his character adds all that much. However, in a brief scene, we do see Kevin McCarthy (star of the 1956 movie) and later Don Siegel (director of the 1956 movie), so those cameos were nice.

The special effects were quite solid, and at times, quite unnerving. Undeniably, I do think that’s an improvement over the 1956 film, and the end is certainly solid too. I do think I prefer how the 50’s movie ends than I do this one, but I can’t deny that the ending is effective. Like I said, I saw it coming, as I’ve seen the picture of Sutherland’s character pointing before, but it was still a good final sequence.

When it comes down to it, I think Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a good movie, but nothing here, save the finale, did that much for me. It’s a good story, of course – we already knew that from the 1956 movie – and the performances were overall solid, but with just a single viewing, I think I’ll stick with the 50’s movie for now.

7.5/10