Review: Horror Express (1972)

Horror Express (1972)

Director: Eugenio Martín (as Gene Martin)

Writers: Arnaud d'Usseau (screenplay), Julian Zimet (screenplay)

Stars: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Telly Savalas

         

I love John Carpenter's The Thing. Who doesn't? I love the more recent prequel film too, also called The Thing. Who does? Before those, there was the classic The Thing From Another World, and before that, there was the original 1938 novella they were based on. And here we've got... uh... none of those.

We've got 1972's Horror Express, but the plot may sound familiar.

An ancient figure is found frozen in ice. Scientists remove it and it thaws out. The next thing you know, people are getting killed and the creature begins to adapt, absorbing their memories, their personalities, and it can look like anyone. It's an alien creature from the dawn of time, and the only way to tell who's now real and who isn't is to medically check everyone. As paranoia begins to grow amongst the poorly-armed survivors, things are looking bleak as the creature attempts to escape...

Wait, run that by me again?

Yes, the story is almost identical, even if the surroundings are different. Here our alien popsicle is brought aboard a train in 1906, the Trans-Siberian Express. Professor Saxton is proud of his find, boxing it and wrapping up the crate with chains. His rival, Doctor Wells, is keen to sneak a peek and pays someone to drill a hole in the crate and have a good look at what's inside. Naturally, someone gets killed and the body goes missing.

Inspector Mirov then orders the crate opened and the dead man is discovered inside, although the frozen body isn't. Before long, the body count rises and the autopsies are confirming that their knowledge is being drained out of them through their eyes. The prehistoric being is shot and killed, but that's when Saxton and Wells learn that it's only a host body and the creature can become anyone. It's an alien being, and the only way to detect it is for Saxton and Wells to study everybody's eyes. Well, you can probably figure out the rest.

But is Horror Express actually any good? Sadly, you'll also either love this or hate this, depending on what you're after.

If you want an action-packed horror film, this isn't it. If you want nail-biting suspense and jangling paranoia, you'll be disappointed. It's a cheaply-made film with music that sounds more like it belongs in a Western at times, and the story seems to get away from itself. Oh, and the ending is a little disappointing. So knowing that, what are its good points?

First of all, it has two heroes who don't get along with each other. They may be colleagues, but they're competitive, and while it may not be used to its full advantage, it still makes a nice change. Also they're played by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, which boosts the quality of this production and makes it feel like a Hammer horror film. It even has Telly Savalas in it for the last half an hour or so, for good measure. And he's not in Kojak mode, but Maggott from The Dirty Dozen mode.

Some of the moments and images on display are the fuel of classic nightmares too, including the white-eyed stares of every victim as blood pours down their faces. It has a wry sense of humour at times too, in particular when Dr. Wells tries to charm a gorgeous redhead who's too young for him. The train setting may not have the Arctic ambiance of The Thing, but it's a confined space and that means a claustrophobic atmosphere.

Also, remember that means that the creature is constantly drawing nearer... and before long it'll escape into society.

It's a smart take on it. Except the unhurried pace of the film turns what should have been a frantic race against time into a slow ride on a slow train. I know, that was the style of horror movies back then and it does work as a film, but it just feels like a missed opportunity to turn those tension screws a few more times. That being said,  I liked this movie, even if the story is familiar. Lee and Cushing are always a joy to watch

Horror Express isn't an express ride. But it has horror, and the journey is smooth and steady with lots to see. It's worth the price of the ticket, so climb aboard.

- Rick Austin

Review: Insidious (2010)

Insidious (2010)

Director: James Wan

Writer: Leigh Whannell

Stars: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins

Insidious is a strange hybrid of a ghost story. Writer Leigh Whannell and director James Wan drew inspiration and homage from so many different sources that they wound up creating a patchwork creation that shouldn’t work...but sort of does. There are so many shifts in focus and story, in fact, it would be hard not to talk about the film without spoilers. So be warned, I plan to bring up a few specifics below and I really loved going into this film completely in the dark (so to speak).

The film gets off to a slow start. Josh and Renai Lambert move their young family into new house where creepy things immediately begin to happen. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. The first act of Insidious is a world filled with cliches and tropes (there’s a moment where a mother finds that her books have been moved and accuses her children of the ghostly pranks. Not only have we seen that exact scene dozens of times, but it doesn’t quite make sense with what we later learn). It’s not terrible, Rose Byrn and Patrick Wilson are capable actors and give the usual family-moves-into-haunted-house yarn some believability. Plus, I’ll give Wan full credit for sprinkling in some truly subtle (blink and you’ll miss them) and creepy scares. I mentioned in my Oculus review about the tired setups of all ghost story films these days, and Insidious follows it religiously.

Things pick up, though, when the film takes a refreshing turn, and the family actually decides to move the house. Of course, if things were that simple, there wouldn’t be much of a movie. No, it turns out it wasn’t the house that was haunted, but their comatose son! This is where the film begins shifting gears and gaining some energy. You could rightly level the criticism that Insidious become a thinly veiled Poltergeist homage at this point. However, there’s enough cosmetic differences to the same core story that I was okay with it. Besides, I’d rather it be hewing too close to one single movie than every haunted house movie ever, ala the first act.

You could also lay the criticism that the tone shifts dramatically here. Broad comic relief characters are introduced in the form of paranormal investigators, and the subtle scares are being replaced with more blatant jump scares. But again, the shift was unexpected enough to refuel the lagging story, yet still felt like it belonged in the same universe of the film. Plus, it made me realize, I had no idea what direction the rest of the film was going to go in, which I loved. So, there’s a change, sure, but it feels more like the next chapter of the story, than an entirely different film.

Things get weirder and more outrageous, yet I found myself loving every minute of it. We’ve got an old woman acting as medium utilizing some bold choices in equipment. Red faced demons crawling on ceilings. Unveiled backstories that connect dad to the current predicament.  Some of it is a bit silly, but it also feels fresh and inventive. I’ll take interesting and off-beat over safe and boring any day.

The final sequence of the film features Josh venturing into the astral world to save his son. Though I enjoyed some of the bits here, overall, I felt like the world could’ve been more imaginatively realized. Instead of something hitherto unseen and unsettling, we get smoke and the old house with a different color temperature. Still, the final chase is filled with knuckle biting tense moments and a few good scares. The final moments of the film are the obvious choice and only serve to undermine much of what just happened. But I suppose it does set us up for the sequel.

So, the first part of the movie is subtle yet common, while the second half is broader, yet interesting. Re-reading some reviews, I see I’m a minority in preferring the latter, but at least you know you’ll probably enjoy one half of the movie. Which half depends on your tastes.

3.5 out of 5

- Cameron Harrison

Review: Occupant (2011)

Occupant (2011)

Director: Henry Miller

Writer: Jonathan Brett

Stars: Van Hansis. Cody Horn, Thorsten Kaye

Occupant begins with the death of an old woman in her apartment. She shakes around, gasps, coughs, and finally kicks the bucket.  We have our title and credits on display and the movie begins to chug along.  The scene isn’t particularly frightening, in fact, it's pretty goofy. 

The setup goes as such; the old woman’s grandson, Danny, arrives to confirm the death of his long estranged grandmother.  When, at her apartment, he discovers that it's rent controlled on the lease and obscenely cheap, considering it has 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, living room, dinning room, and a kitchen.  Or, we’re told that’s how big it is; we hardly see more than 4 rooms the whole time.  

The, at first, apprehensive and grumpy Danny is told that if he can stay in the apartment for 12 days without leaving he becomes the lease holder in the eyes of the law and it remains rent controlled.  Once he finds out… he still doesn’t seem to really give a damn.  Until the aggressively friendly doorman and lawyer convince him he should stay… hell they even make arrangements for him, deliver his food, and help him avoid being kicked out.  The entire plot relies on a New York doorman and a New York lawyer selflessly trying to get a 20 something guy a nice apartment on the cheap.  Next time I go house hunting, I want that kind of representation.  Yet this guy kind of treats them like shit anyways.  He’s such a passive character he even starts painting the apartment and stops after like 3 minutes, leaving a few red blotches for the whole movie, which makes it just that much more a chore to get through.

- Sir anything you need, I will get you.

- Hey f*ck off man, don’t be pressuring me into the best situation ever.

Danny’s also got himself a sexy, blonde, web stalker, she first appears when Danny’s on the way to his grandma.  She videotapes him and follows him around a bit before they flirt.  She comes back again, because we need a female presence in the movie, saying she tricked the doorman into letting her in. It’s not creepy because A. She’s hot.  B. She has whiskey.  They hang out, have dinner, have sex, and then she films herself going through all his stuff, for her “stalk blog.” She treats it like an episode of “MTV Room Raiders” but… it’s not his stuff… it’s his dead grandmother’s…ok.

           

- Hey how’d you know where I lived?

We only met once, when you told me you run a “stalk blog.”

- Don’t worry about that, I’m pretty.

I’m just here to judge you based on this dead lady's stuff.

Occupant sets up a lot of potential scares and even more possible resolutions as Danny slowly goes unhinged.  Is the building owner trying to scare him away?  Is the doorman preparing to kill him?  Is it all a plot by stalker-cam girl? Is there a monster in the closet?  Is the apartment haunted? However, what the movie fails to see is setting up all these scary possibilities doesn’t actually make it scary.  Especially when the protagonist has no desire to actually do anything.  It would be scarier if something started to actually happen. Instead, we have a repeat of the stalker girl set up.  Someone comes to the door, we build to a scare, and we cut away to the next day. 

Sure, there are a few good moments. A dark figure standing in the background here or there is actually pretty spooky. Watching a totally unhinged Danny build death traps near the end is pretty fun, because he is actually doing something proactive.  The atmosphere built in the apartment is decent, and the film is shot better than it has any right to be.  There’s just barely enough good to make you sit through it thinking there will be a decent pay off.  But… no… they even tell you the ending right as Danny starts to hit on his stalker girl.  Sadly. It turns out Danny was just crazy!

I don’t know why I even bothered to think otherwise.

After Danny’s suicide by a door filled with nails… yeah that happened and it was hilarious and awful. We watch a new family move into the apartment.  We can only assume that it’s no longer rent controlled.  A little kid finds stalker girl's camera (which was left there because?) and watches the footage and what he sees is terrifying.  No, it’s not the sex tape they made. Just footage of Danny killing and hiding the girl’s dead body!  Then the door buzzer rings and the kid looks at the door in fear.  We close the movie. 

The movie leaves so many unanswered questions, sets up so many cool little things, and then fails to deliver on any of it.  Outside of a few cool shots and the doorman’s funny facial hair there is nothing redeeming about this movie.  Just skip it.

Hello, I’m your friendly doorman… and this is my mustache. 

- Will Woolery

Review: Contracted (2013)

Contracted (2013)

Director: Eric England

Writer: Eric England

Stars: Najarra Townsend, Caroline Williams, Alice Macdonald

Whether you like it or not, horror movies are known for characters that make bad decisions. Contracted is no different. Nearly every person who crosses the screen makes stupid choices, and people love to call the movie out for it. Despite all of the dumb moves, Contracted is still worth arguing for, and for a number of reasons.

Written and directed by Eric England, Contracted shares the garish, three-day transformation of Sam (Najarra Townsend) caused by what she believes to be an STD contracted during a one-night stand turned rape. While England is fairly ambiguous about Sam’s past, it’s easy to see that things aren’t the best for her. She recently had a falling out with her girlfriend, Nikki (Katie Stegeman), and had to move back in with her mother (Caroline Williams) who isn’t the most accepting of Sam’s lifestyle choices. All in all, it seems as if she is going through a pretty turbulent time in her life, and things only get worse.

Sam is an easy enough character to sympathize with at first. Her uncertainty towards her place in life make her the poster child for the confused young person (she does wear Converse after all), but her responses to her growing symptoms put a damper on this sympathy and threaten to bring down the whole movie. I don’t think England intended for his characters to be stupid, but some of the things Sam does make you wonder. She blames what seems to be a gallon of blood that gushes from her and crippling cramps as her period, and piercing headaches and pains as a prolonged hangover. While it hurts to watch her try to brush her symptoms off, her actions are still excusable. It makes sense to be in denial about an illness, especially if it was caused by regretted actions, but the point of no return is reached when Sam decides to go to work instead of the doctor. Keep in mind, both her hair and teeth are falling out at this point; she works in the food industry too, by the way. Now, I zoned out during the whole sex-ed section of health class, and apparently the doctor she visits did too, but I think that’s something more serious than an STD and should probably take priority over going to work.  While her choices are painfully bad, they’re not worth hating the movie over; especially when it has so many merits.

The movie-long transformation of Sam is hands down the best part of Contracted, and it alone is worth watching the movie for. Contracted itself may not be that great, but Sam’s metamorphosis is. The film’s slow pacing lends itself to this transformation, and so does the phenomenal makeup effects. By the end of the movie, you can barely remember the beautiful young woman Sam once was, and when a visual comparison is made, the shock is real. The acting is nothing to complain about, I personally adore Townsend, and the movie is filmed with both a soft glow and crispness that generate an almost dreamy feel. Regardless of the fact that you’ll be seeing some unpleasant things Contracted really is a pretty movie.

Sure, the actions of the characters may wear your patience thin, but there shouldn’t be any regret involved in watching Contracted.  Whether you watch it for the special effects, Townsend or to scare yourself away from sex, just do whatever you must to excuse the character’s actions and let yourself enjoy the movie.

- Marysa Storm

Trailer:

Review: The Deaths of Ian Stone (2007)

The Deaths of Ian Stone (2007)

Director: Dario Piana

Writer: Brendan Hood

Stars: Mike Vogel, Jaime Murray, Christina Cole 

I will admit, I do some digging before I head to the video store (Yes, I still go to those; they exist). And when I saw the reviews for this flick, I was not at all encouraged. It fared better than a few of its partners in the 2^nd batch of the After Dark series, but ya know… Anyhow, I think this is one of my favorites in the bunch I have seen so far. Although, I’m not far into my After Dark journey.

The open scene is in the last few precious seconds of a hockey game. Ian has just scored the goal that should have won him the game, but it turns out the clock stopped for him. By the way, you might notice that our gentleman hero is played by Mike Vogel, who is no stranger to the horror world. You would have seen him in Stephen King’s Under the Dome, Bate’s Motel, and the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  (I just saved you from pausing to IMDb that; you’re welcome.) But anyway, as Ian leaves after the game, obviously upset, he gets that weird feeling. That feeling that all horror movie characters get right before shit starts to hit the fan. And wouldn’t you know it; he’s right! He ends his night being killed. Bummer.

But never fear; he wakes up the next morning! In a new life, that is.

This would be a tough one to go into detail about without ruining in, but as you can imagine from reading the plot line, this happens a few times to young Ian, with each life getting progressively worse. And then it takes a real turn for the bizarre. I’m talking some Clive Barker level weirdness going on. But that can be taken as originality, so thumbs up on that one!

This is one of those where the start and middle of the movie were entertaining, if not a touch slow to start. But I will say if it had continued, this would have been a pretty solid movie. But a slightly weak reveal and a bit of a dragger for an ending shuffled it down a few slots. That and the terrible CGI. I can forgive the CGI though.

The acting was pretty spot on. Nothing crazy, but it’s great to see some familiar faces in the After Dark franchise. This is one to check out; forgive and remember what it is, and you’ll be just peaches. 

- Maddy Griep 

Review: Bloody Pit of Horror (1965)

Bloody Pit of Horror (1965)

Director: Massimo Pupillo

Writers: Robert Nathan, Robin McLorin, based on the writings of Marquis de Sade

Stars: Mickey Hargitay, Walter Brandt, Louise Barrett

Bloody Pit of Horror (1965) opens with the execution/imprisonment of a mean son-of-a-bitch known as the “Crimson Executioner," who looks more like a professional wrestling parody than deadly executioner.  We don’t know exactly what this guy is being sentenced to death for, but we can make the assumption he’s grown a bit overzealous in his profession.  Sometime later, a crew of models and photographers interested in gothic locale arrive at the castle in which our Crimson Executioner is entombed beneath.  Right away we assume someone will somehow summon the dead man below to rise and kill again.  Which is exactly what happens.  Sort of.

The Crimson Executioner certainly does rise and kill again, only it’s not the real Crimson Executioner.  Once the owner of the castle, an isolated former actor named Travis, recognizes one of the models, he assumes the identity of the Executioner to carry out his legacy, a legacy of violent torture and revenge.  One by one, Travis the new Crimson Executioner, enacts violence on unsuspecting prey.  At the center of this is Edith, Travis’ former fiancé, who reveals Travis’ bizarre past; his obsession with physical perfection and distaste for those inferior, who according to him, “corrupt the harmony of his perfect body.”  So yeah, the guy is a certified wackadoo who minors in over-the-top theatrics.  He’s also the kind of bad guy who wastes most his time rambling on about his master plan instead of just getting to the point and killing his opponent when he has the chance.  In perhaps the most monologues ever given by the killer in a horror movie, the imitation Crimson Executioner running rampant for the majority of this film is nowhere near as compelling as the real Crimson Executioner featured in the first five minutes, swearing his eternal revenge moments before his demise.  I would have preferred this version of the Executioner take center stage, and not Travis the understudy.  While Travis certainly kept me entertained in his oddity, there was never a moment I was actually afraid of him, whereas fear virtually emanated off the guy in the first five minutes.

With a number of elaborate set pieces, complete with iron maiden, giant spider web, and what I assume was a stretching machine, Bloody Pit of Horror is no doubt a fun little movie to watch.  It has a certain goofiness to it, considerably Mickey Hargitay’s over-the-top (but rightfully so) performance, but even the soundtrack has a lightness to it, with the opening credits feeling more like a beach movie than horror film.  Originally released in Italy, most if not all the dialogue is dubbed in English and barely matches the movements of the actor’s mouths, which again adds to the fun. 

- Peter DiGiovanni

Review: Oculus (2013)

Oculus (2013)

Director: Mike Flanagan

Writers: Mike Flanagan (screenplay), Jeff Howard (screenplay)

Stars: Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Katee Sackhoff

Oculus (not to be confused with the recent virtual reality headset) starts out as an incredibly strong entry in the contemporary ghost story genre. However, as polished as the surface appears to be, it’s too ambitiously heavy to be supported by the lack of foundation lying beneath, eventually shattering by the uninspired ending. But let’s start with what works, shall we?

There’s an inherent flaw in most modern ghost stories. They tend to follow the same formula: weird things happen, one person starts to suspect a supernatural element, but no one believes them, things escalate, others begin to believe but it’s too late, they manage to dispatch the ghost but with some sacrifice. Not only does the formula begin to get old, but there’s a built-in passivity to the characters, at least in the first half. And passiveness is a character killer. We want to watch characters do things, be proactive, confront their problems head on. Even in the good ghost stories, I always feel like I have to put up with the first part to get to the good stuff at the end. We, the audience, know why the plants are dying and what the whispering is, but we have to watch the characters blunder around ignorantly.

Oculus deftly avoids this pitfall through the cunning use of a non-sequential narrative. In fact, the movie almost serves as its own sequel. We cut back and forth between Kaylie and Tim as children, being terrorized by their parents (or what’s possessing them) and the two in their early twenties, attempting to destroy the evil which caused them so much pain. This structure allows us to begin with the meat of the film, the characters on the same page as the audience, and all the obligatory set up told through incremental flashbacks. I can’t overstate how refreshing it was to immediately jump to the trying to outsmart the ghost aspect of the film. I really liked the aspect of the film that Kaylie has studied the possessed item and is trying to simultaneously document and prove its abilities, as well as destroy it. I always like it when characters in horror movies go on the offensive. Watching her detail the various steps she’s taken to safeguard herself is quite entertaining.

Much of that fun was thanks to Karen Gillan, who gives an exciting, feisty performance as Kaylie, a woman determined to defeat the ghost that wreaked so much havoc on her family as a child. Brenton Thwaites, who plays her brother, is a bit less engaging, but he does have the more boring part, playing the skeptic who doesn’t trust his own senses or memories. Their child counterparts are both capable actors, and look remarkably like them, helping form the link between the past and present.

In fact, the pacing of the two stories was woven together incredibly well. Writer/Director Mike Flanagan, who also did his own editing, gets full marks for deftly editing in and out of past and present. This technique in films can often go horribly awry. Spend too much time with one story and it feels jarring to jump to the other. Don’t spend enough time and you lose interest in it. I was fully engaged in both past and present of this film and never felt like one was overstaying its welcome.

So where does the film fall apart? Well, the movie deals with themes of perception, memories vs. reality, and the immutability of evil. However, it never really has anything to say about any of that. As the film progresses, we, the audience, are brought into the characters’ shoes, as we can’t really tell what is real or not. Time begins folding in on itself, past and present merging, reality and perception blurring. We’re never really sure if what we’re seeing is occurring or just part of the evil’s machinations. This is all well-presented, the dread and tension building nicely, yet nothing ever really comes of it. At times the film seems to suggest that we should rely on our memories, at other times it says that our senses can’t be trusted at all. It just feels like the movie could have gone somewhere interesting but seems content just to utilize these ideas to justify some scares and stylish sequences.

Another problem is that a horror film is only as good as its villain. Even the worst installments of the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween series were worth watching because they had great villains, with pasts and motivations. The villain in this film is an evil mirror. Yes, not since Harry Potter was almost entranced by The Mirror of Erised has a mirror been so dangerous. It’s actually a cool, spooky looking mirror with a colorful past spelled out in a fun bit of exposition. However, what is blatantly not mentioned is why the mirror is haunted. Why it kills those around it. I don’t want it all spelled out, but some hint that there is a story there would be nice. There’s obviously a central figure which we see emerge from the mirror a couple of times but given no hint to who she is or why she does what she does.

Another storytelling cliché is that even the most fantastic stories have to have rules. Okay, I’m going to buy that we have a supernatural killer mirror, but I want to know that it operates under some set of rules. I don’t need to know what they are, but it should feel like there are things it can do and things it can’t do. This is also very muddled in the film; the powers of the mirror seem to be whatever the needs of the scene are.

So, despite a strong beginning, full of hope and promise of a new horror classic, the film finally shudders to an unsatisfying ending that somehow manages to come out of nowhere yet is also horribly predictable. What we’re left with is a stylish, spooky tale with a couple of unique elements and a bit of a shoulder shrug ending. There’s certainly been worse, and it’s worth the watch, but I fear it will soon be forgotten.

- Cameron Harrison 3 out of 5

Check out Cameron's YouTube Channel

Trailer:

Review: Eight Legged Freaks (2002)

EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS (2002)

Director: Ellory Elkayem / Warner Bros. Pictures

(Originally published on JedBundy.com 3/3/2013)

                  From David Arquette’s Things-To-Do list…

1)     Gain some fame from Wes Craven films.

2)     Land Courtney Cox, lose her later.

3)     Make people remember I starred in Airheads; Make them forget I was in See Spot Run.

4)     Become WCW champion, ruin Eric Bischoff’s career.

5)     Make a monster movie that needs a hyphen in the title.

6)     Do some more Wes Craven Films.

7)     Check into rehab.

There’s something about David Arquette that David Arquette doesn’t quite understand: people like him. He’s the sort of guy you’d want to go for a beer with (if he still drank) and who you could just watch horror movies and wrestling with whilst sharing a pizza. He’s a lovable goof of a guy who oozes that “everyman” charm that Hollywood hates so much. Thankfully, he’s exactly what this B-movie homage needed to make it work.

The story is pure hokum: The down-on-it’s-luck mining town of Prosperity is shipping toxic waste about and a barrel falls into the local river. A farmer of exotic spiders captures some irradiated bugs and feeds them to his arachnid chums, and they promptly grow to colossal size, kill him and escape, wiping out all manner of animals (including ostriches) before setting their sights on the local townsfolk.

Thankfully, Arquette has arrived back in town convinced that his dead father’s tales of the mines housing a fortune in untapped gold are true. Before you know it, he’s the unlikely hero who’s romancing the town sheriff and climbing radio towers to try to get a signal to the outside world for help. The rest of the citizens (the ones who survive, anyway) take refuge in the local shopping mall and arm themselves as best as possible.

Of course, you can see the end coming a mile away. They explain early on that the mining tunnels are full of methane gas that could blow at any time, and we know that the spiders have made those tunnels their home. Three guesses for figuring out the ending of the movie, and the first two don’t count. Of course, the important thing is that everyone’s having fun here and you can just go along for the ride, right? Wrong.

This is a film that has as many cons as it does pros. It’s hard to tell if it’s a homage to monster B-movies or just an insult. What makes those old junkers so lovably funny is that the filmmakers were trying so hard to be serious. Instead, we’ve got a monster movie that set out to be funny, by putting silly squeaky people-noises on the spiders and by having set-pieces like a cat take on a spider inside a wall that shows the imprints of the fight like a cartoon.

For all that, it’s a fun romp. The townsfolk are bumbling morons and seeing them defend the local mall is brilliant. The effects are good, and things like the spider attack on some “Xtreme” bikers are well handled. Arquette is ably assisted by Doug E. Doug, Kari Wuhrer and a young Scarlett Johansson, and the film rolls along at a good pace.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work as a horror film no matter how fun it is, it’s just too silly. If you’ve got a hankering for a scary spider movie, you’d be better off watching the far superior Arachnophobia, and if you want a good tribute to monster movies then watch Cloverfield or The Host. This movie is like Arquette himself: it just doesn’t quite understand itself.

Follow Rick on Twitter 

Trailer:

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:

Review: The Hunger (1983)

The Hunger (1983)

Director:  Tony Scott

Writers:  Whitley Strieber (novel), Ivan Davis (screenplay)

Stars:  Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie, Susan Sarandon

This movie had me at Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie play a pair of vampires.  It's also directed by the late, often great Tony Scott, who always knew how to make a good popcorn flick.  The Hunger is a surprisingly entertaining vampire movie, given it's probably the most un-vampire like vampire movie in existence.  It's as though it's in a state of genre denial, and for some may come off more an erotic thriller than horror film, but the final product delivers enough blood and gothic imagery to whet the appetite of any horror fan.

Deneuve plays Miriam Blaylock, a gorgeous ancient vampire who every 300 years or so must acquire a new immortal lover of her choosing.  At times it's gory and disturbing, especially the turning point in the film when Miriam’s current lover John, played by Bowie, takes the life of a young child, the child Miriam plans on having as her next partner in crime. It's an unsettling moment with significant repercussions, and this is when the plot really thickens, as Martian must scramble for a replacement.  The big finale, when the mummified corpses of Miriam’s past lovers rise from their caverns, is a genuinely frightening sequence, if not a bit too reminiscent of the Poltergeist finale a year earlier.  But this climactic moment is the most visually stunning of the film and really shows off the amazing special effects work, which look better in '83 than most stuff nowadays.  

The Hunger was not initially well received but has since found its audience and over the years developed somewhat of a cult following.  It's easy to see why, based on the credits alone: Deneuve and Bowie are icons in their own right, Sarandon offers an early and quite edgy (and rather nude) performance, and it’s Tony Scott’s first major work and one of his only horror films.  There is a classiness to The Hunger you don’t find in many other horror films and its unique atmosphere is unlike any vampire story I’ve ever seen.

- Peter DiGiovanni

Trailer:

Review: Patrick (2013)

Patrick (2013)

Director: Mark Hartley

Writer: Justin King

Stars: Charles Dance, Rachel Griffiths, Sharni Vinson

Summary: Behind the walls of Roget Clinic, which specializes in the care of coma cases, a supposedly brain-dead patient is subjected to brutal experiments.

At the time of viewing this movie, I was unaware that Patrick was a remake of a movie by the same name that was made in 1978. J.W. Brewer, if you were planning on doing a “Remake Vs. Original” of this franchise, I do apologize. But I am going to go out on a limb and just assume the original was better after having only watched the remake.

The movie starts with a nurse at the clinic snooping around in the basement and being killed by a needle to the eye from an unknown person. We then cut to the heroine of the story, Kathy Jacquard (played by Sharni Vinson), applying for a job at the clinic. She is a highly educated expert in the care of comatose patients and is hired by Dr. Roget (Charles Dance) immediately. He does warn her though, that what he is doing at the clinic is very avant-garde and that he is taking drastic steps to improve, perhaps even awaken at will, a person in a comatose state.

While Kathy is getting used to the hospital and its coma patients (who are all topless and in one single room), we learn that Kathy is on the run from something in her life which led her to Roget’s clinic. Her friends wonder on her (imitation) Facebook page where she is and why she is avoiding phone calls.

The only coma patient with his own room is Patrick, who strangely has his eyes wide open and has a muscle spasm where he randomly spits. This is Dr. Roget’s special project. And the method of testing he uses is…a little off. He basically puts two electrical probes to Patrick’s temples and electroshocks the shit out of his head. According to Roget, he is trying to awaken long dead neurons in the hopes that the patient will make a full recovery.

For the first and second act of this movie, it relied heavily on a build-up of jump scares and eerie settings to keep the viewer interested. And then…something happens. While Kathy is alone with Patrick after one of his treatments, she learns that Patrick can actually feel and can communicate through his spitting (spit once for yes, twice for no). She tests him by touching his face, his chest, his feet, and then…

Wait. What? Hold on. Is she trying to give him a hand job? Fortunately, Kathy is interrupted by the head nurse, but what the hell was that about? What was her end game there? It was such an odd thing to happen in the movie and was so out of character. From what we saw of Kathy previously, she is intelligent, self-assured and independent. So why the hell is she sticking her hand down Patrick’s pants? Was it medical? Was she looking for a reaction? Why not just tickle his feet? It was one of those things you couldn’t really disregard. If you think I am dwelling too much on the attempted hand-jibber, I wish I was, but this little moment turns into the crux of the third act.

Patrick will only communicate with Kathy and no one else, which causes Kathy to second-guess her sanity, especially when Patrick begins to communicate through the computer monitor in his room. At this point, I was wondering if the director was going to go for one of those clichéd, no-longer-a-twist endings where maybe Kathy is the one in the coma and all the events that she is experiencing were symptoms of her illness or random firing of neurons, some crap like that. The scene structure of the movie sets up for such an ending, as each scene just kind of appears with no set-up, much like a series of dream sequences. Whoever she interacts with seems to hurt themselves, and although it was not as frenetic and feverish as say, Jacob’s Ladder, there were some odd things going on. 

So, I was intrigued. I at least wanted to know if I was right about how it would end. There was some decent suspense and intrigue built up and leading into the last half hour of the movie. What will happen with the coma patient who is being experimented on by a desperate, half-mad doctor as well as a nurse who is struggling with bouts of delusions? And then I watched the movie shit all over the proverbial bed.

Telekinesis. They went with Telekinesis. Apparently, for each of Patrick’s treatments, he was getting stronger and was able to better control objects with his mind, even from miles away. Patrick is controlling cars, he’s taking over people’s computers, he’s making phone calls. Not only is he making phone calls, but he’s also controlling the people he calls through the goddamn telephone if they pick up the receiver. Why, he can make a man melt his hands in a sandwich press if he wants. At one point, he doesn’t even need to make the phone calls. He just wills himself into another’s body, whether they are alive or dead.

Toward the end, Dr. Roget gets so desperate for results from the testing that he literally amps up the treatment, giving Patrick all sorts of telekinetic powers. Because that’s how electricity works. Let that be a lesson to you, kids: If you’ve ever wanted to do a Jedi-mind trick, like Luke Skywalker reaching for his lightsaber, then all you need to do is grab your favorite fork and jam it into the nearest electrical socket.

This third act was so terrible, it felt like I was watching someone smear themselves with their own shit. Sweet little Patrick was actually admitted to the clinic right after he killed his mother and her boyfriend and tried to off himself. And now he was obsessed with Kathy. Why? Because she showed him some care and consideration. Oh, and the hand job. Patrick was really keen on getting that hand job. In order to convince her to finish the (hand) job, Patrick controls all of the coma patients by making them sit up straight and say, “Patrick wants his hand job.” No, I am not kidding.

Now, if Patrick could control multiple people at will, couldn’t he have just taken over Kathy’s body and finished his hand job then? It would have given a whole new spin on “the stranger” masturbation technique. And it would have saved me a lot of frustration watching this dreck.

The movie turned into such a farce; I hardly even noticed the ending. I was half-expecting Leslie Nielson to come into Patrick’s room and go, “I just wanted to tell you both good luck, we’re all counting on you.”

Kathy kills Patrick somehow, in a way that I didn’t really care about, but right after she does so, Patrick gives himself one last surge of electricity and flies his body out the goddamn window to kill himself. Again. And I couldn’t stop laughing.

- Michael Jenkins

Visit Michael's Website