[font=Times New Roman]July 2004
If the title is in bold, it was my first time viewing that particular movie. Ratings are based on a 1-5 star scale.
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]7/2 City of the Living Dead *****
7/2 The Gore Gore Girls ****
7/2 Alice, Sweet Alice ***1/2
7/3 Cannibal Ferox ****1/2
7/3 The Killing Hour (1982) ***1/2
7/4 The Wizard of Gore ***1/2
7/5 Basket Case ***
7/5 Blood Link ***
7/5 Bad Dreams ****
7/6 From Beyond **1/2
7/6 Death Wish ***
7/8 Caged Heat ***
7/9 Dawn of the Dead (1978) *****
7/9 Two Evil Eyes ***1/2
7/10 The Bird With the Crystal Plumage *****
7/10 The Cat O' Nine Tails ***
7/10 Manhattan Baby *1/2
7/11 Autopsy **1/2
7/11 Emanuelle in America **1/2
7/12 Serial Mom ****1/2 (w/ commentary)
7/12 Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things **1/2
7/13 The Undertaker and His Pals (1967) ***
7/14 The Day the Earth Stood Still *****
7/14 Bloodsucking Freaks ****
7/15 Succubus (1969) **
7/15 Zombi 2 (1979) *****
7/16 Island of Death ***1/2
7/16 Day of the Dead **** (w/ commentary)
7/16 Martin ***** (w/ commentary)
7/16 Dawn of the Dead (1978) ***** (w/ commentary)
7/17 Deranged (1974) ****1/2
7/17 Pecker ****
7/18 Heathers ****
7/18 Cut and Run ***
7/19 The Dark Half ***
7/20 Night of the Living Dead (1968) *****
7/20 Dawn of the Dead (1978) *****
7/20 The Crazies **1/2 (w/ commentary)
7/20 Silent Night, Deadly Night ****1/2
7/21 Oasis of the Zombies **1/2
7/21 Sleepless ***1/2
7/21 Class of 1984 ****
7/21 The Awful Dr. Orlof ***
7/22 Zombie Lake ***
7/22 Orloff and the Invisible Man **1/2
7/22 Rebel Without a Cause ***1/2 (drive-in double feature)
7/23 Grease ****1/2 (drive-in double feature)
7/23 The Last Horror Film (Fanatic) ***
7/24 Kiss Me Monster ***
7/24 Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 **
7/24 The Driller Killer **
7/25 The Prowler ***
7/26 Don't Torture a Duckling ****1/2
7/26 The Stendhal Syndrome ****1/2[/size][/font][/font]
0 Comments | Send This |
0 Comments | Send This |
Eh, I was bored so I created this message board:
Nobody Likes You Unless You Like the Same Things We Do!
Only join if you are an intelligent person who can type messages in a clear and understandable way. In other words, if your messages look like this:
Iwant to jion youre forem becuz i thnk i'm bettah then every1 else.
do NOT join. Thank you! :)
0 Comments | Send This |
Basically just a rehash of the last sequel, Angela (Pamela Springsteen) returns to summer camp posing this time as a camper in order to hack away at more stupid teens. It?s the same as before, only this time less entertaining mostly because the script lacks the wit and charm of Sleepaway Camp II. The deaths aren?t anything special, at least compared to the unique killings from the previous films, so there really isn?t anything to hold the viewer?s interest besides Springsteen?s quirky performance.
As I said in my review for the second film, both of these movies were filmed back to back, with little room for the crew to take a breather. Therefore, Sleepaway Camp III isn?t as lively as the last film? in fact, it feels just about as dead as the campers themselves. There was also a notorious battle with the MPAA and director Michael A. Simpson, who wished to keep the gore scenes intact. The cuts were made, but it doesn?t make a huge difference in the quantity of blood. More blood certainly doesn?t make a better film.
If you?re bored and have nothing better to do, and you enjoyed the last two films, I?d say give Sleepaway Camp III a whirl. It?s not as entertaining or fun as the last film, but it?s not completely worthless.
0 Comments | Send This |
This sequel to 1983?s Sleepaway Camp is in many respects a very different film. Whereas the first film was a slasher film attempting to take itself seriously (despite some unintentional humor), Sleepaway Camp II has a fine blend of humor and horror that makes it successful as a follow-up ? it?s a very entertaining film indeed. I call it a forebear to the more recent Scary Movie films, because this is actually a send-up of the genre, but isn?t in any way disrespectful: corny at times, yes, but it?s still a rather fun film.
Sleepaway Camp II is about a killer named Angela who poses as a counselor at a summer camp only to hack away at the naughty boys and girls staying there. Be prepared to be shocked, as there isn?t even a survivor ? Angela literally kills EVERYONE. That?s basically all there is to the plot, besides the usual subplots and relationships between the campers that seems to be requisite when making a slasher film. Some of the scenes, such as Angela?s dream sequence, are obvious time filler, recapping many of the things we?ve already seen in the film. However, through its short running time of seventy-nine minutes you never get bored, thanks in part to Pamela Springsteen?s marvelous performance as the sadistic, though oddly likeable killer.
The acting isn?t any great shakes, but as I said before, Springsteen (yes, she is Bruce?s sister) is noteworthy. Renee Estevez (yes, she?s Emilio?s sister) is also fairly decent as the shy heroine Molly, and Valerie Hartman is memorable as Ally, the snotty bitch who gets her dues in the infamous latrine scene. And yes, all these characters are named after the Brat Pack!
For a direct-to-video sequel, the production values are pretty good and the film is well directed by Michael A. Simpson. It was shot back to back with Sleepaway Camp III: Teenage Wasteland, so while both are well made it is quite obvious that the crew was worn out when the time came to direct that film.
If you?re looking for a fun time look no further than this film, because it has it all ? tons of gore, plenty of boobs, and those huge 80?s hairstyles we all love.
0 Comments | Send This |
Ahh, here we have the beloved remake ? a device that Hollywood seems to depend on nowadays to get its box office draws. And yet, some remakes have been successful; perhaps not at the box office, but with the fans: The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, and the profitable Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead remakes come to mind. The Stepford Wives is a remake of the classic 1975 film starring Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss, which was in turn based on a novel by Ira Levin. With all the changes in technology, it was inevitable that they would plan to redo this one as well, but do all the fancy-schmancy technological updates make this a better film? Absolutely not.
I hope I don?t have to tell you what this film is about, unless you?ve been living in your basement with the light turned out all your life. But just in case you haven?t heard about this film or the original, it is about a woman?s struggle to live in a society dominated by men. Joanna Eberhart and her family move to the country to get away from the city, but get more than they bargained for when they find out the men of Stepford have been turning all the women into robots who cook, clean, and spend their whole day smiling and being happy. It turns out that the Men?s Association is behind it all, but Joanna doesn?t know that just yet. Her eyes open, however, when two of her closest friends in the community turn into one of those robots, and then she knows there?s going to be trouble for her as well. Will she escape before she is forced to become one of the Stepford wives?
First, if you haven?t seen the original film you must understand that it was more horror-oriented; sure, it did have some darkly satirical elements, but it wasn?t really meant to be classified as a comedy. This film, directed by Frank Oz, certainly is. As a fan of Oz?s Little Shop of Horrors remake and of the original The Stepford Wives, I was hoping he would be able to blend the right ingredients to make a satisfying moviegoing experience. It certainly did have some good elements and inspired casting choices, but the whole thing just didn?t gel with me. It was interesting and kept me awake for all the hour and forty minutes I spent in the theater, but I cannot count how many times I was rolling my eyes; not at how the wives themselves were acting, but instead at how stupid the whole thing really was. Nicole Kidman was not the right choice for the lead ? I?m sure she can act when she really needs to, but here she seemed very distant. Also, when I first laid eyes on her, I couldn?t help but think she was a Stepford wife from the beginning because of her eccentricness. Katharine Ross?s portrayal of the Joanna character was more laid back and natural, whereas Kidman is not. Matthew Broderick was OK, but this isn?t his kind of role, either. Christopher Walken, however, is right at home in his role as the evil ringleader of Stepford. Most of the funny lines come from the great Bette Midler as Bobbi, who besides Walken is the only one worth watching in this mess. Even Glenn Close is wasted, and instead of being funny she turns out to be plain annoying. In fact, she?s one of the many annoyances in this flop. Most of the jokes were very unfunny and while most of the people in the audience were howling, I just sat there with a blank look on my face half the time.
I hate how movies in today?s time love to go for the cop-out ending, which is exactly how this movie concludes. The original film had a bleak and unhappy ending, but the ending to this remake is so over-the-top that I just don?t know what to think or how to describe it. I kept hoping they wouldn?t take the easy way out, but I was wrong. In all seriousness, I think this film should have ended about ten minutes early.
Reality shows, the internet, and gay couples. None of those elements are necessarily harmful to a film (well, maybe the first one), but most of the time they don?t make a very good one. The Stepford Wives is a bomb and a film that never should have been made: it might have worked had it been handled more carefully, but it doesn?t. However, I?m sure it will please people who thought the original film was boring.
0 Comments | Send This |
Is it possible for a sequel to Halloween to deliver the shocks and scares of the first one? No, not really. But this one comes closer to the greatness of the original than any of the other sequels, probably because it is a continuation of it, beginning with the ending of the first film and picking up on the same night. After being viciously attacked by Michael Myers, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is taken to Haddonfield Hospital, only to be terrorized yet again by the mysterious Shape, who knocks off anyone who gets in his way. What exactly does he want? Well, this film is notable because we do indeed find out ? Laurie and Michael are, in fact, brother and sister. Halloween II also dabbles ever so slightly in the occult and the origins of The Shape, a topic that would later be explored in the terrible Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers.
What is great about this film is not the acting, nor the action: the camerawork is nice and so are the locations. I like Halloween II mostly for nostalgic reasons, but it is also nice to see Curtis return in the role that made her a star. Pleasence is also excellent in his return as Dr. Loomis, the man responsible for Michael Myers and who would continue to track the killer down through most of the sequels. There?s a fantastic chase sequence near the end of the film and some good shots sprinkled throughout.
There are some pretty bad things, however, that stick out like an eyesore. For one thing, the hospital is too dark? has anyone ever been in a hospital that keeps all the lights out in the hallways? This was probably done for a creepy effect, but is very unrealistic (what do you expect for a Halloween film?). It?s good to see Curtis in the film, but she doesn?t have very much to do compared to the first movie ? all she does is sit in bed with a blank look on her face, and when the shape finally starts to chase her, all she does is run and scream. The acting isn?t the greatest aside from the fantastic Donald Pleasence. And one thing that really grates on me is the fact that this film was more expensive than the original, yet it looks much cheaper. I have no idea why, but either way the film is enjoyable.
[color=silver]If you loved the first film, you?ll no doubt love Halloween II. It?s just like all the other slasher movies that followed, and doesn?t have the brains that Halloween had, but compared to the rest of the series, this film is a masterpiece ? its fun and entertaining, and that?s all that matters when you?re talking about these types of flicks. [/color]
0 Comments | Send This |
From the almost nonsensical fantasy world of Videodrome to the realistic psychological foreplay displayed in Spider, director David Cronenberg usually delivers the good? but not this time. Except for good performances and sleek direction, there isn?t much to like about Crash ? it?s about as hollow as a film can get. We know these characters have an unhealthy obsession with automobile accidents, but we don?t understand why ? an area Cronenberg fails to fulfill. That?s basically the gist of the plot ? obsession ? and yet we never really get to the core of the story. James Ballard (James Spader) and friends run around doing their thing (in more ways than one), but the psychological depth that the director would later explore brilliantly in Spider is sorely omitted; nothing is explained and the audience is unable to connect with the characters. From the looks of it, even the director himself ? who often directs very personal films ? was emotionally detached during the movie?s production.
Crash is a realistic piece, for sure; however, many aspects of the plot are ridiculously overstated, such as the car fetish itself. Every scene is just a series of vignettes simply there to service the plot, not to give any real meaning to the material: Ballard repeatedly feels the need to get out of his own vehicle and make love to anyone who?ll comply ? not even sodomy is beneath him. After a while, the viewer gets to the point where he wants to say, ?Alright, I get it? you?re a sick motherfucker with a car fetish, now get up off your ass and do something useful!? That pretty much sums up my point; Crash is redundant and once you realize there?s really nothing to the film, boredom sets in. Ballard meets quite a few interesting characters, but they?re two dimensional and all do the same thing.
Crash has always been unfairly compared to a porno film ? although the shallowness of the film doesn?t quite stoop that low ? and the description and quotes on the video box doesn?t help quench its reputation. If anything, the sex is no more graphic than something you?d find on late night HBO, but it?s what the characters say and do ? their mannerisms ? during the act that makes it a shocking film. The lovemaking between characters is often unpleasant to watch, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly be turned on by it.
Crash was a major disappointment for me, because I really wanted to like the film, which was chopped into an R-rated cut for theatrical distribution and later released unrated on home video. Extra sex doesn?t make Crash a better film; it lacks profundity, the reason why most Cronenberg films are so enjoyable.
0 Comments | Send This |
?I?ll kill you.?
?If you do that, you?ll always be poor... just like the greasy rat that you are.?
Here is a film that everyone knows, even if they don?t even know the title. If not, then at least they can recognize the theme song, which was composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone and has been used in countless western parodies. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the film that made Clint Eastwood a star; a movie so versatile that even people who don?t like westerns will probably enjoy it. It?s funny and action-packed, has a great story and wonderful acting, and is endlessly quotable. It?s part of a trilogy by Italian director Sergio Leone ? A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More being the first two. All three are Italian productions, yet have been Americanized in many ways ? even the ?Man with No Name? is an American marketing scheme; he is a man but he does have a name. In this film, he?s called Blondie.
The story revolves around three main characters ? Tuco, the ugly; Angel Eyes Sentenza, the bad; and Blondie, the good ? and contains a number of subplots until we get to the main story, which is about a very large sum of Confederate money that is buried underneath a grave. Tuco knows the name of the cemetery but doesn?t know the name of the grave and Blondie knows the name of the grave but not the name of the cemetery. Angel Eyes is a crook that is content to use both Tuco and Blondie in order to get the money before they do. Greed is the main theme of this movie, and while Angel Eyes is generally the bad guy of the story and never likeable, Tuco could also be considered ?the bad? ? no matter how sincere or nice he may be, he is a thief and a liar who cannot be trusted. His attempts to coerce Blondie into telling him the name on the grave are unsuccessful and just further proof of this.
The subplots that appear before the true story unfolds are all necessary in order to build up the characters, so that by the time the movie really gets rocking, we know all of them intimately. When Blondie first meets Tuco, they devise a little game of cat and mouse out of the fact that Tuco is wanted for $2000 dollars. Blondie captures him and receives the money, only to rescue him before Tuco is to be hanged. They take off and go to another town, where they do the same thing, only this time for $3000. After the second time, though, Blondie decides that Tuco will never be worth more than that and leaves him alone in the desert, in the middle of nowhere, his hands tied behind his back. Meanwhile, Angel Eyes is trying to locate a man named Bill Carson so that he can tell him the location of the much sought-after fortune, but with no luck.
Once Tuco makes it back to town, it?s his turn to find and capture Blondie, making him walk out in the desert for hours and hours, until his face is covered in blisters and he?s about to die. A wagon pulls up and Tuco steps inside to find some dead soldiers, realizing that one of them is Bill Carson. Tuco knows about the treasure and asks him the name of the cemetery, and Bill tells him. Before he can tell Tuco the name of the grave, he needs some water so Tuco quickly runs out to get him some, fearing that he will die. From far away, Tuco can see Blondie crawling over to Bill and when Tuco goes back to the wagon, Bill is dead. Tuco decides to kill Blondie, until he convinces him not to: ?If you do that, you?ll always be poor? just like the greasy rat that you are.?
Tuco steals a uniform from one of soldiers and takes Blondie to a hospital/mission, where the priests help him. Once Blondie has returned to normal, he reluctantly goes with Tuco to find the money, still not telling him the name on the grave. On the way, they run into a number of obstacles, the main one being Angel Eyes. To tell you more would ruin the movie, so I?ll leave it at that. But let me just say that the movie ends with one of the most suspenseful scenes I?ve ever seen in any motion picture ? a classic showdown between the good, the bad and the ugly where you ask yourself, ?Who will shoot who??
Quentin Tarantino has said that this is the best directed movie ever, and I will gladly agree with him. The marvelous landscapes, western set pieces and costume designs all add up to create a masterful film that, even if you don?t care for the story, is so interesting to watch that you won?t be able to take your eyes off the screen. The music is also a very large part of why the film is so successful; it?s catchy and you?ll be humming the main theme for days on end ? it totally enhances the viewing experience and is the best score ever written for a movie. Another of the many reasons why this film is one of the best is Clint Eastwood himself: his cool, calm demeanor makes him likeable even when he?s not being particularly nice to anyone. Out of all the characters in the film, he has the least amount of dialogue, but for him dialogue is unnecessary. He simply has to be there and we don?t need to hear his voice. If there were ever a picture in the dictionary beside the word ?cool,? it would be a photo of Clint Eastwood.
But Eastwood?s performance doesn?t detract in any way, shape or form from the other actors in the film ? everyone in the film is noteworthy; from Lee Van Cleef?s sneering villain to Eli Wallach?s dirty rat, all are enjoyable. In fact, I?d say the most succulent lines come from Tuco; at one point in the film he tells a man, ?I like big fat men like you. When they fall they make more noise.? And it?s quite a surprise that the screenplay is so good: as a fan of Italian cinema, I?ll be the first to admit that the films aren?t the greatest in the plot and dialogue departments, yet The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has one of the best scripts ever written.
It drags a little bit in sections, such as the part where Blondie and Tuco meet a captain and watch the soldiers in action, but something always happens to perk your interest again. I could go on and on about this brilliant, brilliant, brilliant film, but I?ll just leave it up for you to see it and decide how much you like it.
0 Comments | Send This |
Blue Velvet (1986) * * *
Blue Velvet is a colorful and wonderfully sexy thriller, but it may not be for everyone. Two teens become a little too curious when a human ear is discovered in a field. Their detective work eventually catches up with them when they accidentally get involved with a homicidal maniac (Dennis Hopper). The film is extremely well made, and the acting is top-notch overall, but the story is at times lacking in logic. Blue Velvet is just further proof that David Lynch is an odd and unique filmmaker with a true eye (or ear?) for the bizarre.
The Body Shop (1973) (No Stars)
You know a film is bad when I won?t even recommend it for a single viewing. The Body Shop (aka Doctor Gore) is trashy, cheesy, gory, violent, and sadistic. But those great qualities amount to nothing when the film is also dull, boring, uninteresting, corny and idiotic. Hell, this makes almost any other no-star film look like a classic. It?s a variation of Frankenstein:after his wife dies, a doctor murders women for their body parts in order to build a new mate. He then proceeds to teach her everything about life, making this seem more like Bambi than a horror film. The gore effects are good in the H.G. Lewis style, but that?s not enough to save this mess. The acting is horrible, and I think I?ve wasted enough time trying to explain how bad I think this film is. If you don?t believe me, see it and put yourself through the same misery.
Children of the Living Dead (2001) (No Stars)
The only good thing about this despicable, low-rent zombie film is the presence of special effects genius Tom Savini, who previously appeared as Sex Machine in From Dusk Till Dawn. But even he can?t make this film worthy of a recommendation, since his character dies early in the story. Yes, even he is wasted in this atrocity, which is filled with awful acting, amateur special effects (one wishes Savini would show them how it?s done!), and low, low, low production values ? this would be a good thing if only Children would succeed in being so-bad-it?s-good. It doesn?t. It?s the same old thing and the storyline seems borrowed from Romero?s Living Dead movies. It?s always nice to see a new zombie film, but they could have at least tried to be a bit more inventive where the plot is concerned.
Ginger Snaps (2000) * * *
This Canadian film was an extremely pleasant surprise, harkening back to the werewolf movies of the early 80?s. Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and her sister Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) are Goth loners with no friends and no life. They are intrigued by death and destruction, so its right up their alley when they find out there?s a beast in the neighborhood. One night while mom and dad are out, the girls decide to play a prank on the local bitch and Ginger is ferociously attacked by the creature. She survives after the beast is hit by a truck, but Brigitte thinks it?s odd when they get home that her sister?s wounds are almost completely healed. Within a matter of minutes, Brigitte notices a frightening change in Ginger ? she sprouts a tail! Along with a friend, Brigitte concocts a cure for her sister?s illness, and must administer it before it?s too late! This is one good movie ? at first it seems to be just another hip teen horror movie, but it actually turns out to be much better (and gorier) than that. It?s been a while since they?ve made a movie like this, and I think it?s one of the best horror movies in recent years. The acting is excellent, especially Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle. Ginger Snaps is sure to please gorehounds or anyone looking for a good time.
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) * 1/2
In this botched, unsuccessful attempt at recreating the terrific atmosphere of the first two films, Pinhead needs a few more souls in order to escape a sculpture he?s trapped in. Once he?s out, he goes after a curious reporter, killing people around her. The first half of this film will have you snoring before you know it, but the second half is more interesting. As it stands, it?s a lousy entry in a series that should have ended at Hellbound: Hellraiser II. It makes me cringe just knowing there are more Hellraiser films I have yet to watch.
Phantasm II (1988) * * *
This sequel almost reaches the greatness of the original ? like Phantasm, it doesn?t make a whole lot of sense, but it?s gory, exciting, and very involving: Mike (played this time by James LeGros) and Reggie (Reggie Bannister) are back and after the Tall Man (Angus Scrimm) once again, traveling from town to town in order to destroy him. This series is by far one of the most entertaining in existence. Phantasm II isn?t a fun as Phantasm III, but it?s better than the slightly underrated Phantasm IV: Oblivion.
Relentless (1989) * * * 1/2
With Relentless, William Lustig hits what might be his highest mark; it?s one of the best crime pictures in years. Two cops (Robert Loggia and Leo Rossi) search for a mysterious, brutal serial killer (Judd Nelson in a brilliantly twisted performance). Cruel death after cruel death follows as he leaves clues behind for the cops to find. Despite the insipid ending, the film is near perfect ? great plot, wonderful acting (Loggia is a standout), and a sheer brutality that makes the viewer uneasy. Highly recommended.
Revenge in the House of Usher (1982) * * 1/2
Jess Franco might be the King of Trash, but at least it?s good, tasteless, fun trash. This is one of his better productions and turns out to be quite interesting for the Franco fanatic. A man travels to a castle to visit his ill and very old friend Dr. Usher (Franco regular Howard Vernon), who is really a murderer at heart. I recommend it; but like much of Franco?s catalogue, it?s not for everyone.
Sorority House Massacre II (1990) * 1/2
This series BEGAN at a downward spiral, and it continues to go even lower with this deplorable effort. The first film wasn?t Halloween but at least it was interesting! This one just isn?t. The plot is absolutely ridiculous and cliché filled: girls staying overnight in a deserted old sorority house are knocked-off one by one by a killer who may or may not be a maniac who went on a killing spree there years ago. The filmmakers even went so far as to steal scenes from the superior Slumber Party Massacre to use as flashback fodder ? just another way to make the film longer than it should be. The acting is terrible and the injected humor makes the film look like a parody of slasher films, which it very well could be? but who cares? If you?re looking for a film loaded with T&A and lacking in the logic department, look no further than Sorority House Massacre II. Personally, I?ll stick with the superior Slumber Party Massacre.
Near Dark (1987) * * * *
Looking at the cover art, it isn?t obvious, but Near Dark is one of the best horror films of the 80?s ? even better than The Lost Boys, made the same year. Adrian Pasdar is unwittingly thrust into the world of vampires when he falls in love with one and joins a gang of the undead, led by the menacing Lance Henrikson. Jenny Wright, who seemed to fade away in the early 90?s, is impressive as the love interest, and Bill Paxton has fun goofing around as the wild one of the pack. Never boring for a minute, Near Dark will have your eyes glued to the gore-filled, action-packed screen.
Clownhouse (1988) * * *
People often overlook the effectiveness of this chiller because of the shady history concerning director Victor Salva and young star Nathan Forrest Winters, but it?s a scary, well-made movie that will have you on the edge of your seat. Winters plays a young boy targeted by a group of escaped mental patients who are dressed up as clowns. He and his two brothers are terrorized by the killers one night while mom?s away? but that?s all I?ll reveal as I don?t want to give anything away. The acting isn?t the greatest, but when you watch as many horror movies as I do, that?s forgivable. This is a must-see.
Dreamaniac (1985) *
Made for video cheapie distributed by the now-legendary Wizard Video is one of their more disappointing efforts ? sure, the films are bad, but Dreamaniac is one of their least entertaining. It?s dreary and boring, and while there?s plenty of blood to go around, you still have to wait about forty minutes for it to come along and save the day. As if the plot mattered, it?s about a young writer who conjures up a succubus to kill teenage partygoers one by one, sometimes while making love to them. Interesting plotline and hilarious dialogue (?Like, totally!?), but it should have been handled better. Directed by David DeCoteau, future director of some Puppet Master movies.
Headless Eyes (1971) * *
In the spirit of Herschell Gordon Lewis, Headless Eyes shows a struggling artist kill and kill and kill again as revenge for the loss of his eye during a burglary. Sleaze, cheese, gore galore and bad direction makes this one interesting to bad movie aficionados; however, the screams and music cues are repeated ad nauseum and make it annoying more than anything. Most viewers quickly dismiss it as a piece of trash, but fans looking for the next Gore Gore Girls will enjoy this.
Robot Holocaust (1985) (No Stars)
In the land of New Terra, a band of humans join together to destroy The Dark One. Coming from the director of another shot on video cheesefest, Breeders, I was quite disappointed that this wasn?t as entertaining. In fact, Robot Holocaust is even worse in its awfulness, because it attempts to disguise itself as a good film. With Breeders, we know it?s going to be bad just by reading the synopsis on the back of the video box. This film isn?t even enjoyable on a camp level, it?s just dull. The acting is a bit better and production values a little higher, but that doesn?t mask the fact that the effects and plot are extremely lackluster ? the screenplay feels as if it were written by a bunch of Conan sci-fi fanboys with no understanding of what makes an adventure film work. Directed by Tim Kincaid, with some actors later recycled for Breeders.
The Big Bird Cage (1972) * * * 1/2
Hoping to start a revolution, Pam Grier gets into a women?s prison only to wish she?d stayed at home. Grier has never been sexier in this action-packed exploitation saga that is one of the most enjoyable women-in-prison films ever made; it?s fun, involving, and because of what little development there is, the viewer is allowed to care about the characters. Add such beauties as Anitra Ford and Candice Roman and frequent bad boy Sid Haig to the mix, and you?ve got a classic on your hands.
To All a Goodnight (1980) * * *
Superior slasher capably directed by Last House on the Left star David A. Hess, about a madman dressed as Santa Claus who preys on teenagers staying at a sorority house during Christmas break. Four years before Silent Night, Deadly Night and following all the rules of the psycho-killer film, this is an obvious clone of Friday the 13th, but very enjoyable because of the suspense added to the bloody blend. And dig that surprise finish, later paid homage to (whether it was intended or not) in 1996?s Scream. This forgotten slice-n-dicer is highly recommended to those running out of choices at the local video store.
Zombie Lake (1980) * * *
Often poetic and lacking in logic, Zombie Lake has lived through years of being considered just another slice of Eurobore filmmaking. It concerns a horde of Third Reich zombies rising from their watery grave in seek of fresh blood. One of the zombies, who (we are told through a very long flashback) mated with a local woman before being shot down in combat, pays a visit to his young daughter, who must decide whether or not to help the mayor (Howard Vernon) destroy the creatures once and for all. Despite the hokey plot, awful dubbing and make-up effects, this is actually better than it sounds ? but is almost certainly not for everyone. Reportedly directed by Jean Rollin under a pseudonym (J.A. Lazer), but the outrageous number of zooms and close-ups, not to mention the presence of Vernon, are unmistakable trademarks of Spanish director Jesus Franco. Hmmm?
Nightmare Weekend (1985) *
[color=silver]Illogical and dull Troma film with Debbie Laster as a mad scientist who uses a computer to turn teenagers into crazed zombie killers. The scariest thing of all: the bitch is about as ugly as one of her own creations! Dale Midkiff and Karen Mayo are the young lovers trying to avoid being slaughtered by the slobbering creatures. This would be a good film if only it were interesting; the direction by Henry Sala has promise, but tedious subplots defeat any of the filmmaker?s intentions. There?s some good cheesy gore, but it?s not enough to save this from being the type of video that sits at the bottom of the shelf in the rental store, covered in dust from years of neglect. [/color]
0 Comments | Send This |