Showing posts with label 90s Horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 90s Horror. Show all posts

The Deaths of Elm Street: Blow by Blow

Let’s take a grim trip down memory lane and examine some of the standout death scenes from one of the best horror/slasher franchises ever, A Nightmare on Elm Street, may they rest in peace...

Best Death - Tina Gray (A Nightmare on Elm Street)

Most Elm Street fans agree the death of Tina Gray is Freddy’s finest kill.  Tina is not only Freddy’s first kill, but we as a collective audience are introduced to one of the greatest characters in horror cinema, through Tina Gray.  It’s her nightmare that opens the series and her thoughts that invite us into the nightmare world of Freddy Krueger, a violent force to be reckoned with.  Unfortunately for Tina, she is the vessel for which we see firsthand just how violent a force Freddy is.  No one really knew where this movie was headed, who this Freddy guy was, or how he was going to end this innocent girl’s life.  In my opinion, this is one of the most violent and disturbing deaths in film history, not just for a horror film, but for any film.  

By 1984, slasher films had already become a caricature of themselves, with dumb, uninspired death scenes that made more people laugh than scream.  Why would this be any different, it is just a slasher film, right?  Initially thrown off by the fact we can’t actually see Freddy in the room killing her, four single slash marks appear down Tina’s chest, an obvious infliction of the weapon Krueger wears on his hand, and immediately bleeds profusely.  Before we even have a chance to cover our mouths and bid this girl farewell, she is ripped from the mattress and violently thrown around the room like a ragdoll, blood splattering the surrounding walls and ceiling.  To make matters worse, Tina isn’t quite dead yet, and if the sights are too much to bear and you planned on covering your eyes, plan on bringing some earplugs too because the sounds may be even worse.  Tina does nothing but beg for her life, a life she’s already lost, based on the amount of blood on the floor, and we can only imagine what’s going through her mind as her body is dragged up and down the walls.  Moments before finally plummeting to the mattress below, she reaches for her semi-conscience boyfriend who's witnessed the whole thing, unable to defend her from this unseeable force.  Tina dies, and this is a scene I can’t imagine made anyone laugh.  End act one, and don’t even get me started on how the deleted footage on the Infinifilm DVD managed to make this scene even more frightening.

Tina’s Death also wins the award for “Scariest Death” and “Most Violent Death.


Worst Death - “John Doe” (Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare)

Freddy’s Dead sucked, and so did the “John Doe” character and the way in which his character is killed.  Basically, John thinks since he is the last surviving child (now a grown man) of Springwood, he must be a spared offspring of Freddy.  He’s wrong, and Freddy wastes no time disposing of him.  Freddy seems as bored with this guy as the audience is, thus, what is probably the weakest, most unfulfilling death of the series.  As John dangles from a parachute way up in the clouds, Freddy cuts the straps, sending him falling to his death.  We then see Freddy on ground level positioning what can only be described as a bed of spikes, for John to land on.  He does, and that’s that.  It’s a real Wile E. Coyote moment for Freddy, except in this case, he successfully catches his roadrunner.


Most Climactic Death - Glen Lantz (A Nightmare on Elm Street)

By “most climactic” death, I am referring to a death that everyone saw coming, knew would be glorious, and despite this, still shocked the hell outta us and lived up to our own built-in hype.  Johnny Depp’s onscreen debut is that moment.  Glen is a surprisingly likable boyfriend to lead heroine Nancy Thompson, and because of this, you know he’s doomed.  Foreshadowed quite heavily, Glen is urged by his girlfriend not to fall asleep, or else Freddy will get him.  Fully aware that his closest friends are mysteriously dying around him, he still isn’t completely convinced by Nancy’s claims of a dream stalking dead killer, so he doesn’t heed her warnings as best he should and ends up dead because of it.  In a very well edited sequence, as we go back and forth between what’s happening in Nancy and Glen’s bedrooms, Freddy informs Nancy he is about to kill her boyfriend, as Glen passes out with his headphones on.  As she scrambles to save him, we cut to Glen’s bed literally chewing him up then spitting him right back out in a geyser of dark blood.  It’s an amazing moment in horror cinema and has become quite the iconic Elm Street moment.  Only one question really remains: what did Freddy do to him down there?


Most Anticlimactic Death - Donald Thompson (Part 3: Dream Warriors)

Estranged for years, Nancy reunites with her policeman father when the kids of Elm Street begin dying again.  He’s now quite disgraced, drowning the sorrows of his past, a past that involves vigilante justice and the death of many children.  He unkindly aids Dr. Neil Gordon on his quest to defeat Freddy once and for all, at the site of his original junkyard burial.  In the end, Freddy’s bones emerge into a fully functional Freddy skeleton (reminiscent of Ray Harryhausen’s work) and impales Thompson with the rear of a pink Cadillac.  Aside from the ridiculous use of weaponry, it’s just a pointless extra piece of gore.  There is no glory whatsoever in the death of what is essentially a pivotal character in the series.  I personally thought he should have died in a more honorable way.  Sure, he was a sourpuss, but who wouldn’t be in his position.


Best Personal Death - Debbie Stevens (Part 4: Dream Master)

When Freddy’s feeling extra cruel, he likes to get personal.  He likes to deliver that last fatal blow in a manner that hits way too close to home.  He’s used many personal feelings, ideas, and objects against his victims; everything from hard drugs to naked swimsuit models.  In the case of Debbie Stevens, a girl terrified of cockroaches, Freddy has her turned into a cockroach, literally.  But Freddy takes things even further by not just turning Debbie into a cockroach but making it, so Debbie is torn apart from the inside out by a cockroach.  He actually doesn’t even lay a hand on her, except the initial barbell he pins Debbie’s arms down with, tearing them wide open at the elbows, unleashing the horrific monstrous insect within.  The arms, legs, and eventual face of the cockroach emerge, tearing off Debbie’s face with it.  As though all of this isn’t bad enough already, this particular cockroach isn’t free and happy to be alive, but trapped inside a roach motel, fighting for its new life.  So not only has Freddy murdered Debbie, but he’s also even torturing the cockroach he killed her with.  Freddy then squashes it.


Best Quick Death - Roland Kincaid (Part 4: Dream Master)

Sometimes Freddy just means business and doesn’t have time to screw around with flashy set pieces.  Sometimes he needs to get in, get out, and move on to the next victim.  On occasion, Freddy has been known to simply stab his razor blades somewhere into someone’s torso and be done with them, and I’d say the best occurrence of this has to be fan favorite, Kincaid.  Always a force of entertaining energy, Kincaid was a character most fans enjoyed and did not want to see killed.  The fact that he’s Freddy’s first order of business in Dream Master, tying up loose ends from Dream Warriors, makes you really feel for Kincaid.  It still comes as a bit of a shock; assuming the writers let Kristen, Joey, and Kincaid survive the previous film, they wouldn’t just kill them in the first reel of the following film, would they?  Well, yes, they do.  Overall, it’s a pretty tense scene, and one of the series’ best.  Freddy is resurrected through burning dog piss, climbs from his grave, and after some hide and seek, finds Kincaid, sticks his razor glove into his stomach and bids farewell.  Honestly, if Freddy’s gonna kill you, I think this may be the best option, one quick swipe and hope it’s over.  For Kincaid fans it’s a sad moment, even Freddy seems kinda touched as he cradles Kincaid’s lifeless head on his shoulder.  They also exchange some final parting words which help break the tension and make this the most entertaining “quick death” of the series.

Most Creative/Unique Death - Phillip Anderson (Part 3: Dream Warriors)

Phillip is the first to die in one of the greatest sequels of all time, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.  He’s a nice, laid-back kid, talks like Corey Feldman and has a collection of marionettes he makes himself.  None of this foreshadows Phillip’s death, but we do wonder why we’re even made aware that the kid collects puppets, until one night a puppet morphs into Freddy and murders him.  In one of the series’ most memorable moments, Freddy literally turns Phillip into a human marionette, complete with strings and everything.  The only thing is those strings are Phillip’s own veins and tendons.  In what can only be described as torture, Freddy uses Phillip’s insides and “walks” him to the roof of the hospital he’s admitted to, brings him to the edge, cuts his strings and laughs as he falls.


Most Undeserving Death - Sheila Kopecky (Part 4: Dream Master)

Sheila, the meek, nerdy girl with huge glasses and serious case of asthma, really didn’t deserve the “kiss of death” Mr. Krueger indulged her in.  That isn’t to say anyone in the Elm Street universe deserves to die, but Sheila, for one thing, was not an Elm Street child.  Kristen Parker was the last of the original (the real) Elm Street children, so anyone killed thereafter is simply a greedy extra point for ‘ol Freddy.  Maybe this is exactly why as soon as Freddy eliminates Kristen in a fiery inferno, his kills get zanier and more comedic for the duration of the series.  Perhaps with Freddy, knowing he’s achieved his goal of killing every offspring of his vigilante killers, he’s now able to enjoy himself more and have fun with his kills.  Enter Sheila, the first “bonus kill” of Freddy’s career.  Semi-long story short:  Kristen’s ability to pull people into her dreams is transferred to new series heroine, Alice, and Sheila is the unfortunate guinea pig in this unplanned experiment.  While taking a test at school, Sheila is confronted by Freddy, who slowly slithers to her desk and literally sucks the life out of her.  It’s a perfect cover for Freddy, not that he really needs one; but with Sheila’s medical problem, and since Freddy made it appear as though she died by loss of breath, her death is still not enough to convince many that she was murdered by an invisible force.


Saddest Death - Ron Grady (Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge)

Grady’s death is a perfect example of wrong place at the wrong time.  Had Jesse simply not shown up at Grady’s house that night, Grady would most likely still be alive.  He already avoided being a victim of the pool party massacre earlier that evening, content to spend a grounded night in his room watching tv and hitting the sack early.  However, awkward friend Jesse shows up with claims of possession, and just like a good friend does, Grady lets the kid crash at his place for the night.  Obviously, Grady doesn’t take Jesse’s warnings seriously, otherwise he’d have told him to get the fuck out.  But Grady was a good dude, despite his moronic bully nature in the film’s first act and remained loyal to his friend.  A loyalty which unfortunately gets him killed moments later.  As soon as Jesse dozes off, a relieved Grady bids goodnight, only to be confronted by Freddy himself, literally tearing through Jesse’s body from the inside out.  Grady also wins the award for most realistic reaction to a charred killer emerging from your friend’s stomach.  He, like most other level-headed human beings, immediately heads for the door, then upon realizing he’s locked in, screams at the top of his lungs and pounds on the door as loud as he can for help.  Perhaps we only get this reaction from Grady because his death, unlike most Elm Street deaths, actually occurs in reality, thus making screaming for help a viable option.  Regardless, the realistic, non-comedic nature of this scene (like Tina’s death) leaves you in a stunned state of silence once Grady is dead.  It’s almost too realistic for its own good, leaving many with a bad taste in their mouths, and think what you will about lead character Jesse, or the now infamous reputation this film has on alleged/confirmed homosexual themes, but Jesse’s guilt-soaked reaction to his friend’s death is heartbreaking and one of the most surprisingly poignant moments of the series.


Best Freddy “Death” A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master

Last but not least, the many deaths of Fred Krueger.  Being that he’s already dead, Freddy is never “killed," just defeated, which probably deserves to be in quotations just the same.  But the best instance of this has to be the finale of Dream Master, as Alice helps the souls of Freddy’s victims fight back and take their killer down once and for all, or at least until next time.  Accompanied by some pretty gnarly effects, Freddy’s chest of souls (first introduced in Dream Warriors) comes alive as the heads, hands, and bare breasts attempt to escape the confines of Freddy’s twisted cauldron, busting through his burned skin with everything they’ve got.  In a somewhat bland maneuver, they basically tear his jaw apart, which then instantly releases their souls to continue peacefully into the afterlife, as Freddy’s carcass drops to the floor.  Alice then caps the scene nicely by kicking Freddy’s glove like it’s nothing.  No surprise he’s reflected in the fountain a minute or so later, but that’s their problem to figure out in the sequel.



- Peter DiGiovanni

Review: Jack Frost (1997)

Jack Frost (1997)
Director: Michael Cooney
Writers: Jeremy Paige (story), Michael Cooney (story)
Stars: Scott MacDonald, Christopher Allport, Stephen Mendel



As a young child in snowy Minnesota, this movie not only horrified me but, to my mother’s dismay, caused a severe aversion to venture outside in the winter months. Watching it again, now I’ve realized that while this movie is technically a horror flick it, like the chest burst scene from Freddy’s Revenge, is only scary in my adolescent memory.

Jack Frost, a 1997 so-bad-it’s-good horror/comedy, features serial killer Jack Frost (Scott MacDonald) who, through a Marvel-worthy accident, involving a genetic research vehicle on the way to his execution, turns into a mutated snowman. Freed from his death sentence and given a new body, Jack travels to the fictional small town of Snowmonton in order to extract revenge on the sheriff (Christopher Allport) who sent him away. As you can imagine, death, destruction and even a mild conspiracy plot involving the FBI ensue.


The technical aspects of this film aren’t anything to get excited about, the acting isn’t that great, and the effects are cheap at best (the snow looks more like coconut flakes than anything that could have ever come out of the sky) but it’s all of that cheese, along with the comical editing and over-exaggerated expressions from the actors, that makes it so fun to watch. There are more puns in it than an episode of CSI, and the amount of foreshadowing is near nauseating, not to mention the film seems to drag on forever (who knew a mutated snowman would be so hard to kill) but that’s all easy to forgive. From the intro alone, it’s obvious that this movie isn’t to be taken seriously and by the halfway mark its status as a cult favorite becomes inarguable. It’s no Silence of the Lambs but considering the basic plot you shouldn’t expect it to be.



When it comes to this movie, just lower your standards, turn off your brain and allow yourself to both laugh with it and at it while you decorate your Rocky Horror themed gingerbread men or try to get hammered off eggnog. While I certainly wouldn’t recommend trying to watch Jack Frost for scares or thought-provoking dialogue (although some of it is surprisingly clever), putting it into your Holiday movie line up is a must.   

 - Marysa Storm

Trailer:




The Horror Delight of 1991: A Closer Look at POPCORN

Unveiling the Horror Delight of 1991: A Closer Look at Popcorn

In the vast realm of horror films, the year 1991 introduced a hidden gem that remains a cherished cult classic among genre enthusiasts – Popcorn. Directed by Mark Herrier and released by Studio Three Film Corporation, this horror flick delivers a unique blend of scares, thrills, and a meta-narrative that sets it apart from its contemporaries.

Popcorn unfolds its eerie tale within the framework of a horror movie marathon hosted by a film school. The plot revolves around film student Maggie Butler, portrayed by Jill Schoelen, who discovers a dark secret about her family's past while organizing a horror film festival to raise funds for her school. As the festival progresses, the line between fiction and reality becomes increasingly blurred, leading to a series of spine-chilling events.

One of the film's standout features is its self-awareness. Popcorn doesn't shy away from acknowledging and celebrating the horror genre. The movie within a movie concept allows it to pay homage to classic horror tropes, offering a meta experience for viewers. This self-referential approach adds a layer of depth, making Popcorn not just a horror film but a love letter to the genre itself.

The setting of the film, an old, decrepit movie theater, adds a haunting atmosphere that heightens the overall sense of dread. The use of the theater as a backdrop provides ample opportunities for suspenseful sequences, as the characters navigate darkened corridors, hidden passages, and creepy prop rooms. The eerie ambiance of the setting contributes significantly to the film's effectiveness in creating a genuinely frightening experience for the audience.

The strength of Popcorn lies in its ability to blend horror with humor seamlessly. While the film explores genuinely terrifying elements, it also injects moments of levity, keeping the tone engaging and entertaining. The juxtaposition of horror and humor is a delicate balance, but Popcorn manages to pull it off, providing viewers with an enjoyable and unpredictable ride.

The practical effects and creature designs in Popcorn deserve special mention. In an era dominated by CGI, the film's reliance on practical effects showcases the creativity and craftsmanship of the special effects team. From grotesque monsters to eerie illusions, the practical effects contribute to the film's nostalgic charm, harking back to a time when horror relied on tangible, in-camera effects to terrify audiences.

The cast, led by Jill Schoelen, delivers commendable performances that enhance the film's overall quality. Schoelen's portrayal of Maggie Butler anchors the narrative, and her journey from an unsuspecting film student to the protagonist facing supernatural horrors adds depth to the character. The supporting cast, including Tom Villard, Dee Wallace, and Tony Roberts, contribute to the film's ensemble dynamic, each bringing a unique element to the table.

Despite its undeniable charm, Popcorn did not achieve commercial success upon its initial release. However, over the years, the film has garnered a dedicated cult following. Its unique approach to the horror genre, combined with the nostalgic appeal of practical effects and a compelling meta-narrative, has elevated Popcorn to a revered status among horror aficionados.

In conclusion, Popcorn stands as a testament to the creativity and innovation present in the horror genre during the early '90s. Its ability to blend scares, humor, and a self-aware narrative set it apart from its peers, making it a must-watch for fans of classic horror. As the film continues to find new audiences through the years, its legacy as a cult classic remains intact, proving that true horror gems are often discovered in the shadows of cinematic history.

Trailer:



"Lake Placid" (1999): A Campy Classic That Swims Against the Current


"Lake Placid" (1999): A Campy Classic That Swims Against the Current

In the late 1990s, the horror-comedy genre experienced a surge in popularity, and one film that swam into the scene with a unique blend of humor and horror was "Lake Placid." Released in 1999 and directed by Steve Miner, this cult classic took the concept of a creature feature to new depths, offering audiences a thrilling and hilarious ride around a tranquil lake with a not-so-tranquil secret.

The film kicks off when a mysterious underwater creature attacks and kills a diver in the serene Black Lake, situated in the fictional town of Aroostook, Maine. Soon after, a team of experts, including paleontologist Kelly Scott (Bridget Fonda) and Fish and Game officer Jack Wells (Bill Pullman), is assembled to investigate the bizarre incident.

As the plot unfolds, the group discovers that a massive, prehistoric crocodile is the cause of the mayhem. The creature, which was thought to be extinct, has been living in the lake for years, growing to an astonishing size and exhibiting an insatiable appetite. The film follows the characters' attempts to capture and subdue the beast before it claims more victims.

"Lake Placid" boasts a stellar cast, with standout performances from Bridget Fonda, Bill Pullman, Oliver Platt, Brendan Gleeson, and Betty White. Fonda's portrayal of the strong-willed and intelligent Kelly Scott adds a layer of charm to the film, while Pullman's deadpan humor provides comic relief amidst the chaos. Platt steals scenes as the eccentric mythology professor Hector Cyr, and Betty White's quirky performance as the lake's resident widow, Mrs. Delores Bickerman, adds a surprising twist to the narrative.

What sets "Lake Placid" apart is its ability to seamlessly blend horror and humor. The film doesn't take itself too seriously, embracing its absurd premise with tongue-in-cheek dialogue and comedic timing. The banter between characters, especially the witty exchanges between Jack and Hector, adds a lighthearted touch to the otherwise tense situation. The film's ability to poke fun at itself while delivering genuine thrills makes it a memorable entry in the creature feature subgenre.

For a film released in 1999, "Lake Placid" impresses with its practical effects. The creature itself, brought to life through a combination of animatronics and CGI, still holds up surprisingly well. The filmmakers wisely chose to blend practical effects with computer-generated imagery, striking a balance that adds authenticity to the on-screen terror.

"Lake Placid" may not have been a blockbuster hit upon its initial release, but over the years, it has gained a cult following. Its unique blend of humor, horror, and memorable characters have endeared it to audiences seeking a break from more conventional monster movies. The film's legacy is also fueled by its replay value, as viewers continue to enjoy its campy charm and laugh-out-loud moments.

"Lake Placid" may not have set out to redefine the horror-comedy genre, but its quirky characters, witty dialogue, and monstrous mayhem have secured its place as a cult classic. Nearly two decades after its release, the film continues to entertain audiences who appreciate its ability to swim against the current of typical creature features. For those seeking a dose of laughter and thrills in a tranquil lake setting, "Lake Placid" remains a must-watch cinematic adventure.

Original Vs. Remake: Night of the Living Dead

Night of the Living Dead (1968)


Vs. 

Night of the living dead (1990)


By Jasmine Casimir

“They’re coming for you Barbara.”

George A Romero dazzled audience and future filmmakers with his classic Night of the Living Dead in 1968, birthing a new genre of horror, soon to create and maintain a solid cult following. As you all may know, it was then remade in 1990, directed by Tom Savini. The following is a comparative look at both films.

We begin with the classic and familiar storyline of siblings visiting a graveyard. Soon after the quick introduction to our first characters, seemingly queued onto screen by Johnny with the infamous tagline, the two are greeted by a man who appears to have just risen from the grave. Johnny is killed instantly, and Barbara flees to a nearby house where she meets Ben, and eventually two couples: one with a “sickly” little girl.

Taking a break however from my synopsis, which I am sure you can make up from there without continuation, I do want to point out the main merit of the original. Although pretty much only a technicality by way of “they didn’t have the technology yet” was, for starters, the black and white film and the lack of noise-assault. This did two things: it choked down much of the aural and visual horror in a way that made these aspects less cheap and obvious, and it did not force one to be on edge, by way of scary sounds the whole time. The horror was in the actors and situations as is arguably the way it ought to be. It was genuine, organic, and in that sense, much more “spooky” than overtly visually terrifying.

Back to the plot and characters.  It’s possible that this is all due to my post-second-wave feminist upbringing, but the fact that the entirety of Barbara’s personality was boiled down to constant, irrational, screaming, whimpering, sad-sack in the corner was so irritating that I spent equal amounts of brain power trying to ignore her as I did watch the rest of the film. Granted, this was just a reflection of the times, it was a distraction, as that character archetype always is. 

I do also want to point out that the little girl character, once transformed into the living dead, was much more jarring and creepier due to lack of over-done gore, the film quality, and the lack of brain-punching sounds. I don’t think many film “monsters” have left as big of an impression on me as that little girl, with the subtle, dark, sunken-in eyes, appearing from dead silence with that iconic facial expression as she ceases munching on her father’s dead corpse to kill her mother with a trowel.

Taking a gander at the 1990 remake now, we are greeted with the familiar scene of siblings, brother killed instantly, pretty much follows the original plot pretty damn well, including the line, “They’re coming for you Barbara,” in the same oh-so-spooky, foreshadowing manner. Barbara wasn’t so much of a waste of sobbing, hysterical oxygen, taking on an equal lead to Ben. Which, although a fundamental device to the original, it was not uncomfortably irritating for me to watch. This film, apart from a few other very minor adjustments, such as divulgence of clarification, was pretty much the same. Per usual, I will not give away any endings. I did have moral obligation to stand and applaud to the switching up of the ending, which gave one hell of a nod to the original but also to the character-facelift of our leading lady.


All in all, despite the fact that the Night of the Living Dead remake was basically just the original with minor alterations, it was not, in my opinion, the abomination that some people feel that it was. I will admit, I am a bit of a purist and generally lean much more heavily to the original. That being said, the remake did not reek of over-cautiousness (despite the strong similarity to its predecessor) or do that hideous, terrible, hateful thing where they leave out really important stuff and invent new scenarios that just screw the original story line. Both films are worth merit in my book and take up equal playing time in my VCR, and maybe you’ll think so too.

- Jasmine Casimir

Review - Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)


Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
Released September 1990
Director: John McNaughton

We live in a society where culturally our entertainment has a lot of violence in it; (this coming from a horror film reviewer...) but often times the violence in film and television is toned down to a quick punch in the face or it is completely absurd and the blood pours down the screen. We watch horror films to feel a sense of danger, shock, or just to get our adrenaline pumping, but rarely has there ever been a film filled with such hopelessness as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Whenever someone tells me that they are desensitized to violence, I tell them to watch Henry, because even the most desensitized film goer will shut up and respect the sheer realism that Henry provides. Simply put: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a brilliant film, but it is NOT a fun film. Nothing is sugar-coated, cartoonish or absurd. The character of Henry shares many biographical concurrences with real-life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Director John McNaughton makes clear in the beginning of his film that it is based more on Lucas' violent fantasies and confessions, rather than the crimes for which he was convicted; however, this fantastical portrait of Lucas’ life takes nothing away from this truly bleak film.

We are immediately introduced to Henry as a killer and follow him throughout his daily routine. No mention is given to any police inquiries and Henry is oblivious to any notion of avoiding capture or covering his tracks. Much of the film's power comes from this nonchalant approach, whereby, if a person doesn't register that something he is doing is wrong, then it quickly becomes almost acceptable. We then meet Henry’s roommate Otis (who later joins Henry on his murderous rampage) and Otis’ sister Becky, who’s coming from out of town for a visit. We watch as the movie slowly suffocates the viewer with countless murders, interwoven with a story of three tortured individuals trying to find some way of coping with one another. The film ends with no justice and no peace. Henry continues to drive around town and kill with no signs that he will eventually be captured.

Rooker, in the title role, is totally convincing and gives a performance free from the mannerism clichés which detract from more famous serial killer characters like Hannibal Lector (the film actually made me stop watching Dexter, simply because it changed the way I view serial killers) Almost equally disturbing is Tom Towles performance as the half-witted roommate Otis, who is used as some form of comic relief until you realize just how many people you’ve met in your life that share some of Otis’ tendencies.

Everything about Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer feels genuine. Its low budget makes it feel homemade (shot on 16mm and only had a $110,000 budget) and the relationship between the characters is so downplayed by (then) unknown actors that everything feels real, which of course makes it scarier. Some films will scare you with monsters or graphically showing a kill, but I don’t think the murders are what makes Henry such a horrifying film. I think it’s simply the atmosphere painted across its entire landscape that brings viewers to the brink of terror.

SPOILERS:
Scariest Scene: Henry gets a bottle to the face from Otis and right as he’s about to kill Henry, Becky stabs Otis in the eye. In any other horror film, this may have just been another stabbing, but the sheer tension this film provides makes this scene truly unforgettable. (With help from the soundtrack, which is arguably the best in any horror film)

- Andrew Megow

Review: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)


Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)
Director: Jeff Burr

Released in 1990, Leatherface is the first movie of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series to lack any involvement of the franchise’s creator, Tobe Hooper. The story follows a young couple played by Kate Hodge and William Butler who are driving across the country to Florida where it is implied that they will break up. That was how the conversation was heading at any rate and I quickly asked myself why I should give a shit about these two people. One is trying to start a conversation and the other is just moping like a poor sap.

While the two are getting some gas, the owner of the station makes some rape-y remarks to the woman and a character by the name of Tex, who just hitchhiked his way over, puts the situation at ease. Tex asks the couple for a ride, and they refuse. Tex then tells them of a road they can use as a shortcut to their destination, and that’s when the owner of the gas station comes out with a shotgun and scares off the couple where they promptly take the abandoned road.

You see where this is going. While being harassed on the deserted road by an unknown truck, the couple crash into a survivalist named Benny and the three of them encounter the Sawyer family, with Leatherface as their hunter.

I was somewhat surprised by the movie’s decision to get right into the action only a few minutes in, but what surprised me more was just how boring it was. It had no problem cutting right to the boredom.  There are some movies that take a while and try to build tension only to leave you hanging sometimes, but with this one, they get to the action, and I was still yawning. It was efficiently banal, because we had seen all of this before. The first TCM was gritty, eerie and savage, whereas the second movie kept that same air to it for the first half of the movie but gave way to a strange bit of humor to the family, while still being exceedingly gory and disgusting. This third movie fails at all of these attempts and adds nothing new to the story.
  
Let me walk you through a quick three minutes and what I was doing during it:
They capture the woman and nail her hands to a chair in the kitchen (yawn). They hit the boyfriend in the head with a hammer (scratching my crotch). The family talks about eating people and the brothers squabble among themselves (doing my taxes). The survivalist they had an accident with, Benny, he shows up and just starts shooting the hell out of everyone (picking my nose, studying the findings).

[SPOILER] The ending of the movie was something that would have gotten a lot more flack if people cared at all. We see Benny get his head cut open by the saw that was somehow turning itself on despite the fact of being underwater and with no one to pump gas into it, but that’s fine. The only problem is that Benny shows up at the very end to escape with Kate Hodge. And I wasn’t paying too much attention, but enough to notice that getting your head placed against a revving chainsaw would cause a bit more damage than the small cut on the side of Benny’s head at the end of the film. [/SPOILER]

Do any of you guys remember Jaws: The Revenge, where we see Mario Van Peebles getting eaten by the shark, only to show up at the end of the movie just floating around the water with a flesh-wound? The same thing happened here. I did a bit of research and found that the Benny character tested well with audiences, so they decided to keep him in there for the end.

Now, do any of you guys remember when one of your friends would pressure you to go see his band or poetry reading, and you don’t really want to do it because you know it’s going to suck, but you feel bad, so you go anyway and watch the performance, and while it is going on, you try to pick out one single solitary thing to compliment your friend on so you can sound supportive, but all you really want to do is get the hell out of there and go to Denny’s? I think that’s what happened with this movie. I think the director showed this to his friends and afterward he eagerly asked them, “So, what did you think?”
And someone went, “Ummm….well….the black guy was good!”
“Yeah,” another one said, “I really liked him! What a great character!”
And so on and so forth, and before you know it, the director is saying to his crew, “Guys! We have to do some re-shooting. The fans really dig Benny, let’s try to have him escape in the end.”
And someone probably said, “But we sliced his head open…”
But the director is probably just shaking his hand at the guy, as if it were a minor detail that can be circumvented.   

This movie surely set a perfect precedent for the slippery shit-slope this franchise would take in the coming years.

- Michael Jenkins

Needful Things (1993): A Devilish Delight of Desires and Destruction


Needful Things (1993): A Devilish Delight of Desires and Destruction

Released in 1993, "Needful Things" is a film adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name. Directed by Fraser C. Heston, the movie takes audiences on a dark and twisted journey into the quaint town of Castle Rock, where a mysterious shop called Needful Things opens its doors, promising to fulfill the deepest desires of its customers. As the film unfolds, it explores themes of temptation, greed, and the consequences of succumbing to one's darkest desires.

The story revolves around Leland Gaunt (played by Max von Sydow), the enigmatic and malevolent proprietor of Needful Things. Gaunt sets up shop in Castle Rock, offering a wide array of peculiar and seemingly magical items that cater to the personal desires of the townspeople. However, the catch is that these items come with a hefty price, not just in monetary terms but in the form of dark and destructive deeds that the customers must carry out.

The unsuspecting residents of Castle Rock fall prey to Gaunt's manipulative schemes, resulting in a series of escalating conflicts and tragedies. The town becomes a battleground of chaos and destruction as neighbors turn against each other, driven by their insatiable desires and the sinister influence of the mysterious shopkeeper.

The film boasts a stellar ensemble cast, including Ed Harris as Sheriff Alan Pangborn and Bonnie Bedelia as Polly Chalmers. Each character is uniquely crafted, and their personal struggles and vulnerabilities are brought to the forefront as they grapple with the temptations presented by Needful Things.

Sheriff Pangborn, in particular, emerges as a central figure trying to maintain order in the face of escalating chaos. His determination to uncover the truth behind the town's descent into madness provides a compelling anchor for the narrative. The dynamic performances of the cast contribute significantly to the film's eerie atmosphere and emotional depth.

"Needful Things" explores timeless themes of human nature, morality, and the consequences of unchecked desires. The film serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the destructive power of greed and the ease with which individuals can be manipulated when their deepest longings are exploited.

As with many Stephen King adaptations, "Needful Things" successfully captures the author's ability to blend horror, psychological tension, and complex character dynamics. The film stays true to King's exploration of the darker aspects of human nature, making it a compelling addition to the cinematic adaptations of his work.

"Needful Things" stands out as a chilling and thought-provoking exploration of the human psyche, wrapped in the trappings of supernatural horror. The film's atmospheric tension, coupled with strong performances and a gripping narrative, ensures that it remains a memorable entry in the Stephen King film canon. For those intrigued by tales of temptation, moral dilemmas, and the thin line between desire and destruction, "Needful Things" remains a devilishly delightful cinematic experience.

Exploring the Horrifying Elegance of "Candyman" (1992)


Exploring the Horrifying Elegance of "Candyman" (1992)

In the realm of horror cinema, certain films stand out as timeless classics that have left an indelible mark on the genre. One such iconic movie is "Candyman," released in 1992 and directed by Bernard Rose. Adapted from Clive Barker's short story "The Forbidden," this film not only terrified audiences with its chilling narrative but also offered a thought-provoking exploration of urban legends, race, and the supernatural.

Set against the gritty backdrop of Chicago's Cabrini-Green housing projects, "Candyman" follows the story of Helen Lyle, a graduate student researching urban legends. Helen becomes intrigued by the myth of Candyman, a malevolent spirit with a hook for a hand, who is said to be summoned by saying his name five times in front of a mirror. As Helen delves deeper into the legend, she discovers a complex and horrifying connection between the supernatural entity and the real-world social issues plaguing the Cabrini-Green community.

One of the strengths of "Candyman" lies in its exploration of urban legends and the power they hold over communities. The film takes the classic Bloody Mary trope and transforms it into a nightmarish tale that blurs the lines between myth and reality. The Candyman, portrayed by Tony Todd, becomes a symbol of fear and injustice, haunting the impoverished Cabrini-Green neighborhood.

The setting of Cabrini-Green provides a poignant backdrop for the film's social commentary. The stark contrast between the decaying high-rises and the privileged world of academia highlights the economic disparities that persist in society. "Candyman" deftly weaves issues of race and class into its narrative, shedding light on the systemic injustices faced by marginalized communities.

Tony Todd's portrayal of the Candyman is nothing short of legendary. With his deep voice and imposing presence, Todd brings a mesmerizing and terrifying quality to the character. The Candyman is not just a typical slasher villain; he is a tragic figure, a victim of historical injustice seeking vengeance. Todd's performance elevates the film beyond mere scares, adding a layer of complexity to the supernatural antagonist.

Director Bernard Rose deserves credit for creating a visually stunning and atmospheric film. Rose masterfully blends psychological horror with a haunting score, creating an unsettling ambiance that lingers long after the credits roll. The use of mirrors as a recurring motif adds a symbolic layer to the narrative, reflecting the characters' fears and the dark history of Cabrini-Green.

"Candyman" has left an enduring legacy in the horror genre, influencing subsequent filmmakers and earning a dedicated fan base. Its impact is evident in the recent 2021 sequel, which continues the story while paying homage to the original. The film's ability to blend supernatural horror with social commentary ensures its place in the pantheon of horror classics.

"Candyman" (1992) stands as a testament to the power of horror to transcend mere scares and delve into the complexities of society. Its exploration of urban legends, socioeconomic issues, and a haunting performance by Tony Todd have solidified its status as a timeless classic. As we continue to revisit the horrors of Cabrini-Green, "Candyman" remains a chilling and thought-provoking journey into the dark corners of urban folklore.