Tag: USA

Directed by Stacey Alexander [Other horror films: What Happens in the Mountains – Should Stay in the Mountains Part II (2021)]

This movie is not that good, and in truth, it’s barely a movie (as it clocks in at around 42 minutes). But it is extraordinarily hilarious, so that has to count for something.

Filmed in Northern Georgia, with a cast of about three people (and multiple Bigfoots – Bigfeet?), this is as low-budget as one could imagine (in fact, at the time of this writing, the film does not have an IMDb entry), and there’s also not really much story. Basically, local Bigfoot hunter Buck encounters Bigfoot (there’s more than one in this area) while hunting. And that’s about it. They come to his house to extract revenge toward the end, and admittedly, that was filmed well, but this movie overall doesn’t have that much in way of a plot.

The main actor is Stacey Alexander (who also directed the movie and wrote most of the music), and I’ll fully admit, he had me cracking up quite a bit. Some of his dialogue was golden, and he came across a colorful character. A reporter who appeared a bit, played by John Tripwire, was less pleasing, though – his gravelly voice was something I couldn’t get used to, and he seemed rather soulless standing next to the soon-to-be-legend that is Alexander.

Being a comedy-horror, more than often the comedic influences overshadowed the suspense. There were multiple text overlays throughout the film I could have done without. That said, my favorite thing about the movie was the Bigfoot shriek. I couldn’t help but laugh until I cried during the multiple times that inhuman shriek popped up. Literal tears were in my eyes because of that. So it’s a low-budget movie, but it could be fun.

The scenery (Northern Georgia) looked rather beautiful, and they certainly had fun with this short feature. Not taken seriously, I could see this being a lot of fun to a small niche of people. I know that most would probably hate it, and that’s understandable, but I was amused, and while I wished it had been more horror than comedy, I just think of that dialogue (“Does a whale have a blowhole?”) and that shriek and start smiling again. Definitely not a good movie, but a solid viewing experience all the same.

6/10

Directed by Robert F. Hill [Other horror films: Shadow of Chinatown (1936, serial), Shadow of Chinatown (1936)]

Another dark-and-rainy night mystery movie? Yes, please. This B-picture, maybe even C-picture, lacks much of the artistic nature of some previous films in the genre (The Cat and the Canary, The Bat Whispers, etc.), but it still ends up a fun movie, though not as fun as others.

The story is pretty much what you’d expect, which I don’t mean as a negative. Generally, I like a lot of where this flick goes, what with the various red herrings and false leads, and the ending is pretty good with a rather surprisingly solid reveal.

Acting’s a bit of a mixed bag, but many of the most important characters (Wallace Ford, Clara Kimball Young, John Elliott, and Arthur Loft) did a pretty fine job. Barbara Pepper’s performance here could have been better, but I think it’s mostly the script, and not her, that was the problem. Joan Woodbury (who co-starred later in King of the Zombies) was a bit over-dramatic at times, but given she played a tarot card reader, that may make sense.

What hurts The Rogues’ Tavern the most, though, isn’t the sometimes less-than-stellar acting, it’s the third act, which seems to run a bit too long (despite the movie already being of shorter length). What may be worth mentioning also is that the print of this film most-commonly available has some glitches in the audio, and conversations sometimes can’t be heard. It didn’t happen that often, and I don’t know if it took away from the story, but there you go.

When all’s said and done, The Rogues’ Tavern is a fine example of this antiqued style of horror, but even as far as lower budget movies go, there are others I prefer, such as The Monster Walks and Midnight Faces. And while it’s not quite the same style, some of the witty banter here (much of which was actually pretty funny) reminded me a bit of A Shriek in the Night from 1933. This movie itself is a good way to pass the time, but it wouldn’t be my first choice. Still, an above-average flick.

7.5/10

Directed by Noel Nosseck [Other horror films: The Fury Within (1998)]

This TBS production is a very satisfying television movie, and while that conclusion may partially be clouded by a sense of nostalgia, I certainly feel that this TV movie is of better quality than most that pop up later in the post-2000 era.

I first saw this when I was quite young – I don’t really want to hazard a serious guess, but I’d say around ten or so. I then saw it a second time around eight years ago. Seeing it a third time only confirmed my enjoyment of the film, which, generally-speaking, has the plot of your run-of-the-mill television snake movie.

What sets it apart is the lack of hideous CGI that so many Sci-Fi movies used in the following years, and Syfy still uses to this day. Silent Predators seemed to take a more practical approach, and in general, the special effects are pretty good, especially for a television production. As simple as the story is, by the way, it manages to both keep me engaged along with including some pretty suspenseful scenes, so kudos for that.

It’s also pretty well-cast, and while there are unlikable characters, I don’t think there’s any actor or actress in the film that does a bad job. Harry Hamlin convincingly plays his role, and seems to have legitimate charisma with Shannon Sturges (this attractive actress reminded me a lot of Julie Bowen’s character from Happy Gilmore). Patty McCormack, Beau Billingslea, Phillip Troy Linger, and Jack Scalia all did well also.

Silent Predators isn’t really an amazing movie, but it is competently done with a good conclusion, and mixed with nostalgic feelings, comes across as a movie that’s worth watching. For a creature feature from the late 1990’s, I’d say this television movie did a good job.

8/10

Directed by Pablo Proenza [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a film I’ve seen twice before, unless my memory’s failed me. While I recall liking it at least once during a previous viewing, it really doesn’t hold up, and more so, Dark Mirror’s really not worth the time.

The story itself has potential, but the route the movie takes hinges on incoherent. While it’s not necessarily without it’s charm, portions of the story aren’t explained well enough to leave a positive feeling behind. As it turns out, I rather do like a scene toward the end, but then it’s followed up by a shoddy conclusion.

I’m not sure exactly what it is, but I’m nowhere near wooed by Lisa Vidal’s acting here. Maybe it’s because she tends more to be a television actress than that of feature films (she was in both ER and starred in The Division), but she doesn’t feel right for this role. That said, it may just be the iffy script, and not Vidal herself, which is believable. Christine Lakin was pretty to look at, but was pretty much pointless in the movie. Despite being one of the most important side characters, David Chisum didn’t leave an impression one way or the other, which I guess is pretty telling in it’s own way.

Dark Mirror isn’t really a god-awful movie, but it doesn’t seem like the type of film that people would proudly exclaim as original or even all that enjoyable. A lot of what was done here was done better in Dark Water (both the original and the American remake), and this movie doesn’t really add that much aside from pitiful kills and an okay sequence near the end. It’s not a terrible film, but after seeing it again, it’s certainly not worth another view, even on a rainy day.

5.5/10

Directed by Karl Freund [Other horror films: Dracula (1931), The Mummy (1932)]

This is a classic of 30’s horror, and a definite recommendation to any other fans of the golden era of the genre.

Based off the French novel Le Mains d’Orlac (in English, The Hands of Orlac), this movie may be short (just around an hour and eight minutes), but it carries with it a lot of suspense and solid acting. The story works better here than other adaptations or rip-offs of the novel I’ve seen (such as Hands of a Stranger from 1962) because it focuses more on the crazy surgeon as opposed to the character who got a hand transplant.

Peter Lorre is the reason that this works so well – his character is so utterly insane that it’s rather amazing watching his onscreen performance (especially the conclusion). How he attempted to mess with Colin Clive’s character was both creative and rather creepy. Lorre’s by far one of the best reasons to watch this, which is saying something, as it’s already a really good film. Clive (who played Henry Frankenstein twice before his early death in 1937) was solid here too, as was Frances Drake, but Lorre, unsurprisingly, blew them out of the water.

One of the actresses was used almost purely for comedic relief, and was the one real downside of the film. Admittedly, when she said, referring to a wax statue, “it went for a little walk,” I laughed quite a bit. The director of this film, Karl Freund, also directed The Mummy, which is where that line originates from, so hearing it pop up again was pretty funny.

Mad Love is one of those films that might not seem as though it’s in the same league as Frankenstein or Dracula, or even Freaks, but it’s a shining light during the 30’s horror output. 1935 was also one of the last decent years for horror until 1941 or so, which only helps it’s case. Certainly the story is well-crafted, and the conclusion rather suspenseful, showing Lorre’s full madness, so if you’re a fan of the classics of the genre, and you’ve not yet given this a watch, I’d recommend doing so, as it’s just as spectacular now as when I last saw it.

8.5/10

Directed by Roy William Neill [Other horror films: The Menace (1932), Black Moon (1934), The Black Room (1935), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), The Scarlet Claw (1944), The Pearl of Death (1944), The House of Fear (1945)]

Based off a forgotten novel from 1930 written by Gwen Bristow and Bruce Manning, The Ninth Guest is an extraordinarily fun spiritual predecessor to Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians (also known as And There There Were None).

While the story is certainly more mystery than it is horror, there are many suspenseful sequences in the film. The deaths are pretty good for the time period, my favorite being a rather brutal electrocution, complete with a terrible shrieking. The characters are all pretty interesting also, and the fact that they know each other (as opposed to Christie’s later work) lends to additional suspicion and tension as the film goes on.

Given the film is just over an hour, it’s not that much an investment, but even so, it’s still a positive that most of the performances are pretty entertaining. Vince Barnett (unsurprisingly) was used purely for comedic effect, and didn’t add much to the story. Everyone else, though, did well, my favorites being Sidney Bracey, Samuel S. Hinds, Edward Ellis, and Hardie Albright. Albright in particular was pretty captivating in his role, especially toward the end.

I really do love the mystery feel of these early horror films – The Bat, The Cat and the Canary, The Monster Walks; all films that I really enjoy. And given the classic set-up of this one, plus the pretty entertaining story, this movie really lives up to it’s expectations. I rather enjoyed it the first time I saw it, and this time I still found it a rather fresh film.

8/10

Directed by George A. Romero [Other horror films: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Hungry Wives (1972), The Crazies (1973), The Amusement Park (1975), Martin (1976), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Creepshow (1982), Day of the Dead (1985), Monkey Shines (1988), Due occhi diabolici (1990, segment ‘The Facts in the Case of Mr. Valdemar’), Bruiser (2000), Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007), Survival of the Dead (2009)]

So, in full disclosure, I’ve not actually read the Stephen King book this film is based off of. I’ve read many of his books, but haven’t gotten around to that one yet, which may in part explain why I’ve never really thought that highly of this film.

I won’t say that the story’s bad, as it has many elements which I think have potential. But it didn’t blow me away, and while I was interested, it wasn’t any type of deep investment. Perhaps some of this is due to the movie being over two hours long, and without knowing much about the source material, that seems too lengthy.

Timothy Hutton does a decent job, but he’s occasionally prone to overacting. That said, I thought his performance here was mostly good. Something about Amy Madigan’s acting rubs me the wrong way, though, and while I love Michael Rooker, I really don’t think he was the right choice for Pangborn (while I’ve not read The Dark Half, I have read Needful Things many times, and Pangborn is a main character in that novel). Hutton pulls double duty and also plays George Stark, and he does a pretty good job portraying a character of a much different nature.

Truthfully, though, I can’t point to exactly what about this film I feel drags it down. I’m not a giant fan of the story, but even putting that aside, it just feels like it’s missing something. There is some solid brutality, and a little gore near the end, so it’s not completely void of enjoyment, and plus, the score is damn good, and the ending with the sparrows always struck me as pretty cool, but it still isn’t enough.

This is a film I’ve seen a handful of times before, and it never sat exactly right with me. It’s a technically fine film, directed by George A. Romero of all people, but still, it never blew me away. Maybe in the future, The Dark Half will do more for me. At the time, though, I find the movie a bit below average more than anything else.

6/10

Directed by Jeremy Isbell [Other horror films: Angus Valley Farms (2005), Madman (2006), Angus Valley Farms 2 (2008)]

This is one of those movies which is sort of hard to describe, and I do mean that in one of the worst ways possible.

What didn’t work here (a list which would indeed be of an impressive length) really didn’t work, and due to that, almost nothing about this film is to be recommended. The biggest problem is the lack of cohesion, along with the framing and conclusion, along with everything else.

The story itself is of moderate interest, in which a group of individuals are sort of trapped nearby a house, and some type of curse/spirit/ghost/something is killing them off (sort of), along with causing delusions. The characters get separated early on, and because delusions are part of this curse’s/spirit’s/ghost’s/something’s modus operandi, it’s hard to tell which characters are even together. I swear, this one female character had two, perhaps three, scenes in which it looked like she died. Same with one of the guys.

With a higher budget, this type of confusion might almost be okay. But instead, Curse of Halloween is one of the cheapest films I’ve seen in a little while. Really, I don’t know what else would be expected, given that this film is dated as 2006 on IMDb, yet still hasn’t garnered more than six votes. Part of me wonders if this film was ever supposed to be released, as I definitely got an unfinished product feel about it.

The few who have gone out of their way to watch this film seem to share the same confusion I have. Both A Slash Above and Dread Central have reviews for this film up, and both gave it no stars. Because I’m an idiot, I’ll throw the movie a few bones, despite the fact that this is on a level of ineptness that few other films could match. There’s one scene with decent nudity. That said, there’s also a ten-minute long boat ride (I can’t even begin to describe how boring these ten minutes were – no dialogue, just atrocious electronic music as characters who I don’t know party on a boat), so take that with a grain of salt.

The best thing I can say about this film is that it’s just an hour. On the other hand, the fact that it’s an hour just goes to show that I’ve wasted sixty minutes of my life on this. Also, the title of the film is okay (unfortunately, there’s nothing Halloween-ish in the movie, and in fact Christmas ornaments are present during one scene).

Yeah, there’s nothing here to go out of your way to see unless you want to see some truly awful ways to make a movie. From beginning (the blubbering of a man threatening to commit suicide due to the horrors he experience) to end (the aforementioned awful boat-ride), this is an utter mess.

1.5/10

Directed by Eli Craig [Other horror films: Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010), Zombieland (2013)]

I will fully admit, I didn’t go into this one with expectations that I’d enjoy it. I try my best not to go into a movie one way or another, but I find it rather difficult at times. Despite my thinking that I wouldn’t care for this one, though, I’d say that Little Evil pleasantly surprised me.

A lot of this comes from the fact that the humor wasn’t too overbearing (until the final ten minutes or so), so while it was definitely a light-hearted film, I never got the sense that what I was watching was idiotic, which some comedy-horror films tend to be.

The route the story took assisted in this aspect also. While at first it was virtually a comedic Omen, in the last thirty minutes, the movie switched gears and went an entirely new (and welcomed) direction. Obviously, I won’t divulge that exact shift, but it even led to (believe it or not) an emotional scene or two.

Much of the cast was somewhat forgettable. I did like seeing Tyler Labine (who played Dale in Tucker and Dale vs. Evil) for a bit, and Bridget Everett was pretty fun, but most of the side characters were just sort of there. Clancy Brown was a nice face to see, though (I know him best from The Shawshank Redemption), and Adam Scott did really well as the main character. I don’t really know Scott from many things (he was in Krampus, but let’s be honest, I don’t remember any individual character from that film), but I couldn’t help but get a Thomas Gibson feel from him. Regardless, he did pretty good here.

Because the movie took a few interesting turns, it didn’t turn out to be nearly as stale or bad as I initially expected. It’s nothing great, mind you, but it’s certainly serviceable, and there are a few rather funny scenes here (I liked both the principal and Adam Scott’s conversation, along with the footage of the wedding), to make a single viewing of this movie go down pretty well.

7/10