Tag: USA

Directed by Michael Butt [Other horror films: Yetis (2012), This Woods Is Cursed (2015), This Book Is Cursed (2017)]

This is a low-budget, low-quality, ridiculous film, yet at the same time, I’ve not had this much fun in a while.

In many ways, this low-budget film (apparently, the budget was around $700) seems a love-letter to the B-movies of the past, such as Attack of the Giant Leeches (and I will say, this movie had a lot more feeling than the 2008 remake of that very title). It has questionable, yet fun, acting, a paper-thin plot, and special effects that maybe aren’t that special. I will say, the blood in particular looked bad (basically just water dyed red most of the time; it was that thin), but really, in a movie like this, I don’t see how that’s a big problem.

As far as actors go, I pretty much liked everyone. Most of them were horrible, which brought a lot of charm. I loved it when some of them couldn’t keep a straight face, and one of them couldn’t help but smirk every time he was on-screen, which was especially funny when another actress actually got into her role, and kept crying. Terrible acting, and I loved it. My favorite was Charley Guaren, who was the opening kill. His over-the-top attitude, his lines, his delivery, everything about him, I absolutely loved. I just wish he had gotten more screen-time.

The movie ends on a somewhat serious note. While the credits are running, it shows interviews with people who believe they’ve seen UFO’s. These look authentic to an earlier time period, and if I had to bet, I’d say wherever the director got them, they’re probably real interviews. Just a small touch that felt slightly out of place, but was cool regardless.

Toward the end, there was a small element of the film I didn’t care for, but it shortly led to a really interesting conclusion, one that a big-budget film likely wouldn’t have the balls to pull off (mostly because it’s so damn ridiculous). Still, I thought it was a lot of fun, and really helped cement the feeling of the movie.

No doubt, Vampire Ticks from Outer Space isn’t an amazing film, but it is both entertaining and amusing. It has that drive-in movie feel, and most everything about it, from the terrible acting to hilarious dialogue/delivery, horrible special effects, and the story, was fun. I had a hoot watching this one, and I would gladly give it another go in the future. When it comes to rating a movie, what matters more than that?

8/10

Directed by Kurt Neumann [Other horror films: She Devil (1957), Kronos (1957), The Fly (1958)]

This is a pretty fun flick, solid 30’s horror movie.

The story here is pretty fun, what with a room that, if one sleeps in it, they end up dead. A good plot idea to play with, which leads to a rather satisfying conclusion. At the same time, they could have added a little more meat to the movie, and as it’s only an hour and six minutes, they certainly had some time, should they had wanted to use it. Good video and audio quality, too, of a movie from this time period.

The cast is pretty solid throughout. Lionel Atwill (who appeared in plenty of other horror films, such as The Vampire Bat, Doctor X, Mystery of the Wax Museum, Murders in the Zoo, Mark of the Vampire, and about six or so others) has a good presence here, and really shows why he’s often cast in these types of films. Gloria Stuart did pretty okay here, though she was overwhelmed with the hysterics often placed on female characters back in these films. The fact that she later played the elderly Rose in Titanic is really the most interesting thing about her appearance here. Paul Lukas, who played a rather straight-laced character, gave a great performance also.

Edward Arnold (who did very little for the genre, but has a solid resume overall) had a really fun character with snappy dialogue, and virtually every time he was on-screen, I had a fun time. Onslow Stevens, William Janney, and Robert Barrat all stood out also, and as they make up a large amount of the main characters, that’s only a positive thing.

Kurt Neumann, the director, didn’t do a lot of the genre (aside from directing The Fly, he only did a handful of other horror movies), but this was a pretty good movie. Digestible, enjoyable, and while they could have added a little more to the film, still a good time.

I liked a lot of things about this film – the mystery, the conclusion, the overall story. I certainly feel that this one is overlooked, and I recommend it highly if you’re a fan of those early mystery-horror films that made the 1920’s and 1930’s a special time.

8/10

Directed by David E. Durston [Other horror films: N/A]

This grindhouse exploitation flick isn’t nearly as gory and wild as I remember it being, but it’s still a moderately fun ride.

The story, in which Satanic hippies are infected with rabies as a form of revenge, was pretty fun. At times, it was reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead, which came out just two years prior, as multiple mindless people were wandering around, committing violent acts, and some others board themselves in to protect themselves.

It also has a decent amount of gory violence. While there weren’t too many notable gory portions, there was a solid decapitation, along with a few dismemberments (one by an electric knife), and an impalement by pitchfork. Despite all of this, though, it never reaches the H.G. Lewis level of bloodshed, which is sort of a shame.

Really, the only issue I have with the film is the length – I know that when this first came out, theaters dictated their own cuts, and thus, a lot of versions of this film exist. I think that the theaters had a better idea than the director, because at an hour and 24 minutes, I felt the film went on a bit long. Cut out just ten, maybe 15 minutes, and I think it’d have been both more digestible and less dragging.

For an early piece of 70’s exploitation, I Drink Your Blood can be pretty entertaining. If the gore had been a bit better, and the length a bit more bearable, then I think the movie would have ultimately been more memorable. Still, it’s certainly a movie that’s worth watching, especially if 70’s flicks are your thing.

7.5/10

Directed by Darin Scott [Other horror films: Dark House (2009), Something Wicked (2014), Deep Blue Sea 2 (2018), Tales from the Hood 2 (2018), Mr. Malevolent (2018), Tales from the Hood 3 (2020)]

So, we have random ghosts with no discernible backstories killing bitchy sorority girls (who are illegally hazing new pledges), and along with this, there are also some dumb fraternity jocks around. Because of course there would be.

I first saw this film back in the 2012 October Challenge for HMF (Horrormoviefans, a forum I’ve been a member of for many years), and I rather disliked it back then also. Really, there’s not that much to say about this Syfy affair. There is occasionally some okay gore, but otherwise, the movie’s void of any pleasant additions and feels overly vapid.

None of the characters, aside from maybe Alessandra Torresani’s, have any value whatsoever. When they get killed, you just find yourself shrugging. Why would I care one way or the other if a sorority clone gets killed? If the kills were more impressive, sure, but this movie can’t really boast that.

Speaking of clones, the ghosts got a bit old. There were more than a handful, but we never really got much a read on any of them, excepting the main ghost, who, *SHOCKER* somehow is still around at the end, and should Syfy ever want to, they have room for a sequel.

As I said, there’s not really a lot to say about this film. It was bad the first time I saw it, and American Horror House does not increase in value over time. It’s just not that enjoyable or good a movie whatsoever. Part of this may be that I see absolutely no value in either frats or sororities. Why would you want to join an organization that abuses and humiliates you? I don’t get it at all. And given how horrible most of these characters are, it makes these people pretty hard to be sympathetic for. Nothing much here, and I wouldn’t recommend this.

4/10

Directed by Martin Green [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a rather low-budget flick, and it’s drowning in unnecessary melodrama, but it’s not altogether a terrible movie. No doubt, though, is it definitely below average.

Having a main character with alcoholism was interesting, and adding a little something special to her character (while also adding drama that was a bit much). It’s this drama that holds the movie back, though, and it’s not just on the main character. The whole small subplot about the husband’s troubles at work strike me as entirely unnecessary, and though the conclusion to that was sort of funny, it didn’t really add much to the movie.

The main actress, Kory Clark, did decent playing a slightly more complex character than you might expect. Given that this was her only role in anything, I’d say she did a decent job. Aldo Ray was a genial presence, despite his rough background, and made the movie just a bit better by his pretty solid performance.

For a slasher, though, the main problem this movie has is it’s rather noticeable lack of kills, and when there are kills, there’s not much in the way of gore, or, more troubling, suspense. Also, while I sort of liked the route they went with who the killer turned out to be, it felt sort of soulless, as though it was just superficial and lacking something. Still, it tried, I’ll give it that.

Dark Sanity isn’t a terrible film, but there’s almost nothing here, aside from Ray’s presence, that really stands out one way or the other. Definitely on the lower-end of slashers from the early 80’s, I’d recommend that you pass on this, unless something about it seems to tickle your fancy.

5/10

Directed by Tracy Lee Staton [Other horror films: N/A]

In many ways, this movies comes across as a very low-budget version of Storm of the Century, and while it’s not a bad film, it really didn’t do that much for me.

The story is perfectly fine, though there are some questions left unanswered when we reach the end, so it’s not as though the script couldn’t have been tightened up a bit. At the same time, there’s a rather subdued feel to the story (which isn’t shared by actor performances, but more on that soon), and what I mean is that while plenty of horrific things happen, there’s not really a major conclusion, and while people are going mildly crazy, the film doesn’t really focus strongly on that.

Most of the actors and actresses were a bit much. The movie indeed has a few more humorously-inclined scenes, but plenty of individuals in the movie act as though it’s a full-blown comedy. In no particular order, these individuals stood out somewhat negatively: Matthew Ewald, Royce Hobson, John Johnson, Jaclyn Vames, and Robb Barger. Barger, admittedly, had a pretty solid breakdown near the end of the film, and compared to the others, he’s probably the most competently decent actor here.

The movie has been described as a supernatural slasher, which is moderately accurate, but I wish there had been more scenes of slashing as opposed to random characters, who in the end don’t really matter, throughout the town. The gore itself is okay on the occasions is comes up, but that’s not as common as one might hope.

This is Tracy Lee Staton’s first full-length attempt, and it’s not bad for what it is, but some things didn’t work with me. The script, especially regarding John Johnson’s character of the priest, was overly campy, and while that may be intentional, it didn’t fit with what I thought Deadlines was aiming for. Some interesting ideas and decent kills aside, this probably isn’t a movie I’d go out of my way to watch again. Still, for a first-time feature, it’s not too shabby if the story works out for you.

5.5/10

Directed by Greg McLean [Other horror films: Wolf Creek (2005), Rogue (2007), Wolf Creek 2 (2013), The Darkness (2016)]

More or less a rehash of Battle Royale in a corporate setting, The Belko Experiment isn’t really anything new or all that special. I do think it’s pretty fun, but if one is left feeling like it’s ultimately pointless and derivative, I understand that also.

For me, the set-up brought a lot of interesting possibilities to the forefront. I certainly enjoyed the social examination aspect of it, with the dog-eat-dog world of corporate America coming down to violent and gory massacres. Very fitting of a system based off competition, in my opinion. I wish a little more of the mindset behind the experiment was explained, but what we got was fine.

So many individuals in the film were, at the very least, good. Of course, John Gallagher Jr. (of The Newsroom and 10 Cloverfield Lane) did great as a character with extraordinarily difficult choices to make. Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, and Owain Yeoman made for a great team of antagonists (that lobby execution sequence was brutal). I sort of appreciated what they did with Melonie Diaz’s character, but Adria Arjona’s didn’t do much for me.

Other stand-outs include Brent Sexton (loved his scene toward the end), Sean Gunn, James Earl, Michael Rooker (God, I wish he was in this movie longer), David Del Rio, and Abraham Benrudi (who I know from one of my favorite episodes of the X-Files).

The conclusion is more-or-less what I was expecting, so no big surprises, but at the same time, it was moderately satisfying. I did like the concluding shot, so no complaints there.

Obviously, The Belko Experiment doesn’t do all that much that hasn’t been done before. It wasn’t even all that gory (there were some good scenes, but overall, the violence wasn’t too noticeable to me), but at the same time, I enjoyed it. It’s one of those films you can just sit back, relax, and watch, without having to really think too much. I liked this one, and while I understand the more tepid reactions to it, I find it above average, and would generally recommend it.

8/10

Directed by Douglas Aarniokoski [Other horror films: Animals (2008), Nurse 3-D (2013)]

This post-apocalyptic flick is a lot of fun (despite the despair of the characters), packed with great gore and action.

Shawn Ashmore, who I mostly recognize from playing Bobby Drake (Iceman) in X2, was an interesting casting choice to lead a band of individuals intent on surviving in a hostile post-apocalyptic environment. It works well, though, and everyone else does pretty good also, from Ashley Bell, who is a total badass, to Cory Hardrict, who, despite being sick, is a damn fun character.

It’s not a fun environment, though. The movie is ultimately very bleak, and that’s demonstrated more so by the very faded color palette used. During flashbacks, the world is colorful and vibrant, full of life, but for most of the movie, the palette is so faded, it almost seems black-and-white, which is an effect that I really liked. That, along with the total brutality of the film (kids get shot and decapitated – say whatever you want, but too few horror films cross that ‘taboo’) shows the desperation of the characters in the film.

Honestly, I can’t think of any big problems I had with the film. The final showdown, taking up the last thirty minutes of the film, was damn brutal, and I loved every second of it. Sure, some of the characters weren’t exactly the best people, but in a post-apocalyptic universe like this, who could blame them?

And on that note, I loved how, unlike many post-apocalyptic films, the antagonists aren’t zombies, or the infected population, or anything of the sort. They’re just other humans, intent on survival also, only willing to go a bit further than most (I’m talking cannibalism). It reminded me a little of Tooth and Nail (2007), though I think the cannibals were more human here. To be honest, I abhorred Tooth and Nail, but it’s been years since I’ve seen it, so maybe it’s not fair to fully comment on it.

I will fully comment on this, though, since I finished it just ten minutes ago at the time of this writing. The Day is a fun, gory, gloomy film. With both strong action and strong gore, I don’t see why there aren’t more enthusiastic reviews about this one out. It has a tepid 5.2/10 on IMDb, and that is something I don’t get. I saw this before, and was afraid that it wouldn’t hold up, but I’m happy to report that it did. A very strong movie, and definitely one that I’d not only watch a third time, but actually purchase.

8.5/10

Directed by Victor Halperin [Supernatural (1933), Revolt of the Zombies (1936), Torture Ship (1939), Buried Alive (1939)]

Often regarded as the first-ever zombie film, I have to admit, I liked this flick more the last few times I saw it as opposed to this last viewing.

Make no mistake, White Zombie is still a classic film – there are some great sets (both the crypt/graveyard and the castle at the end), some solid performances, quite a bit of creepy imagery, and an overall good story. At the same time, despite running for just over an hour (hour and seven minutes, to be exact), I still felt a bit bored at times.

Made a year after the classic Dracula, Bela Lugosi does really well as the antagonist. Related, Robert Frazer also has a solid presence, and his final act really brings his character arc together. John Harron was an interesting lead actor, mainly because he has a smaller physique than I’m used to seeing, but it still worked well. Lastly, playing his wife, Madge Bellamy does well as both a young, enthusiastic woman and as a zombie, so props to her.

Given the movie’s shorter, whenever I felt the plot drag, it was rather disappointing. What probably made it a little worse is the fact that while the visual print I saw was impeccable (very crisp black-and-white, which isn’t at all like the commonly available print of this one), the audio quality suffered a bit, and because of that, it wasn’t uncommon for it to be difficult to pick up some of the dialogue.

Like I said, though, this movie is still a classic. It was never my favorite of the 30’s horror output, but it was always an acceptable film. It still is, though like I said, I liked it more during previous viewings. Definitely worth a watch, my issues notwithstanding, if you’re a fan of classic horror.

6/10