Review: The Brood (1979)

THE BROOD (1979)
Director: David Cronenberg

From the first scene in David Cronenberg’s ’79 effort The Brood, the viewer is made uncomfortable. We watch in horrified anger, much as the film's protagonist Frank Carveth does, while the process of a new psychiatric procedure called psychoplasmics is exhibited for an audience. A grown man whimpers in front of the audience as the bizarre and explosive Dr. Raglan verbally abuses him and likens him to a little girl, while play-acting as the man’s father. Once he hits the breaking point, the patient rips off his shirt and reveals several red welts and growths have formed through his therapy, like his insecurities and instabilities have started to fight their way out of his body.

Exposition goes as such, Frank Carveth is in the middle of a custody battle for his daughter. Carveth’s wife Nola is in intensive therapy with Dr. Raglan, using the dangerous new method of psychoplasmics, after abusing her daughter, when strange murders start to occur. Child-sized creatures start killing various people that might keep Nola away from her daughter. Frank is forced to investigate and fight, at first for his marriage, then for the custody of his child, and then for the lives of his family.

The Brood shares a few tonal similarities with the last hour or so of The Shining (released a year later). Every part of it feels very cold, rooms are sparse and all very similar, and often in the windows you see a snowy Canadian background reflecting a pale light into the rooms. This could be due to the low budget the film had, but it feels very deliberate. And much like the Shining, the uncomfortable and eerie feel of the movie comes just as much from the subject matter as it does its spooks and ghouls. At its heart, the movie is about divorce, a gory Kramer vs Kramer of sorts, and the slow realization that the person you loved isn’t REALLY that person anymore at all. While The Shining focused on a husband’s decent into madness, The Brood focuses on the discovery that everything in the husband’s life has gone out of his control. It seems like our protagonist blinked and his whole world turned upside down. It’s pretty obvious that Cronenberg was going through some shit when he wrote this.

A quick bit of internet creeping shows he was in fact getting divorced from his wife the same year the movie was released. “He first married Margaret Hindson in 1972: then his seven-year marriage ended in 1979 amidst personal and professional differences. They had one daughter, Cassandra Cronenberg. Now he is married to Carolyn Zeifman, production assistant on Rabid. They have two children, Caitlin and Brandon.[24] In the 1992 book Cronenberg on Cronenberg, he revealed that The Brood was inspired by events that occurred during the unraveling of his first marriage, which caused both Cronenberg and his daughter Cassandra a great deal of turmoil. The character Nola Carveth, mother of the brood, is based on Cassandra's mother. Cronenberg said that he found the shooting of the climactic scene, in which Nola was strangled by her husband, to be "very satisfying."—Wikipedia, David Cronenburg

It's amazing that a movie can start as a very well-done drama/thriller about divorce, loss, and madness and then slowly twist into the body terror Cronenberg is so well known for. The Brood has everything from midget monsters pummeling pretty schoolteachers, to death in front of children, to a woman licking the afterbirth from her a-sexually produced spawn, to oddly disturbing shots of milk and orange Juice mixing together on the floor, and that’s still only part of what’s so scary. You’d think the evil doctor was the big bad from the beginning. While yes, he’s totally evil; he’s also not the most evil or even most dangerous monster of the film.

The make-up effects are terrific, even if they are hidden for the most part. The film slowly shows more and more of its monsters as it goes on. First, you’d only get the hands of the child-like brood, then you see only glimpses of them running and attacking. It builds and builds until you see everything. You know how they die, how they look, and in the film’s most famous and harrowing sequence, you see how they are birthed and just what the biggest side effect of psychoplasmics is.

Warning: side effects include constipation, nausea, a brood of asexually produced demon children, and dryness of the eyes.

Overall, The Brood is a terrific mix of gore and psychological horror and one of Cronenberg’s best films, right up there with The Fly, Videodrome, and even his more ‘serious’ dramatic efforts like History of Violence and Eastern Promises. All the actors bring in great performances, the story eases you in with relatable and real drama and adds some honest, touching, human moments before letting the monster movie madness go insane. The imagery is gruesome enough to stay with you long after you stop watching. Just the over-the-top and wild-eyed performance from Oliver Reed, as Dr. Hal Raglan, is worth the price of admission, but The Brood keeps giving you more.

- Will Woolery

Review: iMurders (2008)

iMurders (2008)
Director: Robbie Bryan / Scroll Down Films

While browsing the horror and thriller DVD sections of my favorite local movie retailer, I noticed the film iMurders. I remembered reading about it when I prepared my recent interview with Executive Producer and Actor Brooke Lewis. Prior to viewing iMurders, all the markers suggested to me that this is a film that I wanted in my collection. From the ensemble cast, including one of the all-time horror greats, Tony Todd (Candy Man), to the title, tagline, and promotional packaging, I knew I needed to buy it and watch it as soon as possible. 

Before watching iMurders, I had certain expectations that it would be a straightforward thriller. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is much more than that. iMurders is a clever genre hybrid of slasher horror, psychological thriller, detective drama, and murder mystery throwback to the days of Agatha Christie. There is a nice balance of violence, gore, and suspense to keep most horror fans on the edge of their seats. 

The story follows a group of chat room participants that have built long distance friendships through a social media website cleverly named "FaceSpace." Each member of the group is being picked-off one by one in true slasher fashion, as FBI Agents Washington, played by Tony Todd, and Lori Romano, played by Brooke Lewis, attempt to solve the case. As viewers, we are only given small pieces of the puzzle in order to draw our own conclusion as to who is committing these murders. I can't say that I was surprised by the ending; however, there was enough misdirection to keep several possibilities open. 

Our female lead is Sandra Wilson, played by Terri Conn (Colombino). After a brief scene of adultery and ambiguous gunfire, we cut to Sandra, a thirty-something beautiful blonde, arriving at her newly rented apartment in Jersey. We are quickly introduced to Sandra's new technologically challenged and nosy landlord Christine Jensen, played convincingly by Joanne Baron. These two quickly develop a friendship. Sandra's character is further developed through a budding romance with the ex-cop hunk down the hall, Joe Romano, played by Frank Grillo. Grillo is excellent as the love interest and is given some depth through a back-story involving the murder of his brother. 

Robbie Bryan does an excellent job of presenting snippets of the rest of the chat room participants' lives in order to give viewers a reason to care or in some cases not care about those being murdered. This also allows us to see what an all-star ensemble cast this really is. William Forsythe is fantastic as the dirty-old-man Professor Uberoth. He cheats on his wife with co-workers and is a little too friendly with his female students. Not a likable guy, but certainly an interesting character. Wilson Jermaine Heredia, who plays my favorite character in the film, Mark Sanders, the flamboyant FX artist that conducts a monthly FaceSpace chat room contest for the group members. The rest of the characters are just as rich and enjoyable to watch.

Without giving too much away, there are elements of iMurders that are reminiscent of Se7en (1995). In fact, there is a scene where agents Washington and Romano unknowingly pass the killer on their way up a stairway. Not sure if this was intentionally done by Bryan or not. In addition to this scene, the ways in which the murders are done and the reasons for which they were committed remind me of Se7en as well.

"No one is safe in cyberspace!" a tagline that is sure to grab the attention of social media junkies like me. There is certainly a false sense of security and anonymity when one surfs the web. One believes that they can become trusted friends with faceless humans on the other end of a binary coded network of circuitry, but do you ever really know for sure who you are sharing information with? Ultimately, I believe this film proves that the dangers in cyberspace are essentially the same dangers one faces in "real" life.

I highly recommend this film for anyone that enjoys a solid "whodunit." 

Brief DVD review:
I am thrilled that I purchased this DVD rather than having streamed or rented it. The extras include an alternate ending, which I liked very much, and a lengthy behind-the-scenes Q&A with several of the stars including Writer/Director Robbie Bryan, William Forsythe, Brooke Lewis, Tony Todd, Frank Grillo, Billy Dee Williams, the late, great Charles Durning, Miranda Kwok, Margaret Colin, Joanne Baron, and Gabrielle Anwar among others.

Buy it.

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: Dark Night Of The Scarecrow (1981)

Dark Night of the Scarecrow 

(1981 TV Movie)

Director: Frank De Felitta

I first saw Dark Night of the Scarecrow on TV, when I was a little kid, at a sleep-over in the early 80s.  With the lights turned out and snacks on hand, the next 2 hours of supernatural and suspense became the talk at recess for months to come.  And like any childhood fad, the movie was quickly forgotten.  Recently, when I finally scored myself a low-quality copy off the internet, I hoped I was going to be treated with sweet nostalgia, and not be faced with destroying another childhood memory.  I mean come on, what good has ever come out of a made-for-TV movie?

Dark Night of the Scarecrow is directed by novelist Frank De Felitta (author of Audrey Rose and The Entity) and is credited as the first killer scarecrow movie that started the quasi-popular sub-genre. Until this title, a horror movie that featured a scarecrow as its centerpiece simply did not exist.  You could say it led way to other scarecrow movies like Scarecrows (1988), Jeepers Creepers (2001), and Hallowed Ground (2007).

Set in a small farming community, it centers on Otis Hazlerigg (Charles Durning) the town’s postmaster.  He deems Bubba (Larry Drake, Darkman and Dr. Giggles), a large, gentle, mentally challenged man, a danger and a menace. Bubba’s innocent childlike friendship with 10-year-old Marylee (Tonya Crowe) is something he especially deplores. 

When word goes around that Marylee was attacked by a dog and is presumably dead, Otis takes immediate action with his three friends to hunt down Bubba.  Bubba runs home and his mother hides him in a scarecrow costume in the middle of a field.  When the hounds track him down, Otis and his pals mercilessly gun him down.  Before the gun smoke even settles, they learn that Marylee is still alive, and that Bubba actually rescued her.  Great big oops.  Otis places a pitchfork in Bubba’s dead hand and fabricates a story that he tried to attack them with it.  Using this lie in court, Otis and the three are released due to lack of evidence against them.

Following the trial, members of the vigilante group start getting killed one by one by what appears to be accidents.  Before each death, the men claim sightings of the same scarecrow mysteriously appearing on their property.  For Otis, the pressure is on to find out who is responsible before he’s ultimately targeted.  Is it the district attorney looking for justice because they were let off the trial so easily?  Is Bubba’s mother avenging her dead son?  What of Marylee who says Bubba is not dead, but is hiding?  Or could it be Bubba himself from beyond the grave?

Because this title was made for TV in the 80s, it didn’t (or couldn’t) rely on violence, gore, or big special effects.  The strength of the movie is in its simple storytelling, simple filmmaking and fantastic performances from the cast.  Although most deaths are off-screen with minimal blood, the movie still offers a great air of suspense and even includes a spooky midnight grave digging scene (who doesn’t love those!) and a climactic chase in a pumpkin field.

With expectations set on nil, when I rewatched this childhood favorite 30+ years later, I was pleasantly surprised to take a break from the oversaturated bombardment of annoying teen celebrities, blaring pop music, and mediocre CG gore effects. 

- Frank Fu

Review: Videodrome (1983)

Videodrome (1983)
Director: David Cronenberg

“Long live the new flesh.” James Woods (Vampires) plays a sleazy television executive – as if there’s any other kind – looking for the next big thing when he stumbles upon a pirated broadcast, the eponymous Videodrome. Featuring torture and murder, Videodrome instantly begins to fascinate him and his new masochistic girlfriend, played by Deborah Harry of Blondie (Super 8). As Woods begins to investigate the source of the signal, he stumbles onto a man who lives only on video tape, a church that treats the homeless with endless hours of television, and the fact that Videodrome produces a brain tumor that causes violent hallucinations.

Finding that the signal originates in Pittsburgh (is that really such a surprise?) Woods begins to investigate the reality of these broadcasts and disappearance of Harry. Eventually, he becomes a pawn in an ongoing war for control of the future, with much delightfully disgusting Cronenberg body-horror along the way. Highlights include a vagina in Woods’ stomach, a literal hand grenade, and death by cancer-causing flesh bullet (I think it was Freud who said a flesh bullet is never just a flesh bullet). Warning: personal enjoyment of this kind of thing may vary.

It’s not hard to see the way Cronenberg predicted our modern media landscape, from reality television to YouTube. What else is the “new flesh” but our modern lives lived anonymously over the computer? As people give more and more of their lives over to technology, so much so, that even in the poorest towns in third world countries you can find people with cell phones, it’s reasonable to wonder what this all means for the future and to feel a certain fear for our humanity. It’s this part of the movie that feels the most relevant and engaging. Not to mention the always enjoyable Woods and those special effects provided by master Rick Baker (The Howling) mentioned before.

However, there’s always something about stories emphasizing the dangers of technology that comes across as a little silly and retrograde. Were there plays about the dangers of radio when it was first introduced? Did people tap out stories where telegraphs merge with humans, one dot and dash at a time? Anytime new technology is invented, someone is going to write a story showing the dark side of said technology, and it will always wind up looking a little dated and goofy (I’m looking at you, The Net.) It’s kinda hard here not to laugh when several scenes involve evil, pulsating Betamax tapes.

The story also gets a little too bogged down in its philosophies. There doesn’t need to be clear delineations of good and evil but the differences between various factions in this movie is hard to parse. One wants to use the Videodrome signal as a weapon (I think), the other wants to welcome members into a new reality of life-everlasting on video (or something like that). No movie needs to spoon feed morals and lessons, or even clarity, but it’s hard to see a point other than “too much television is bad.” Sex and violence aren’t the future of entertainment, they’re as old as humanity itself.

Still, the power and seduction of Videodrome is undeniable. All you have to do is walk down the street and watch people unable to put down their smartphones to wonder if the future predicted in this movie is already here. Cronenberg has style and talent to spare and it’s easy to get sucked in, kinda like Woods pushing his face into an undulating television screen. If a brain tumor is the result, then long live the new flesh.

- David Kempski

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

Review: The Last Man on Earth (1964)

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

Directors: Ubaldo Ragona (as Ubaldo B. Ragona), Sidney Salkow (uncredited)

“Do you dare imagine what it would be like to be the last man on Earth... or the last woman? Alive among the lifeless... alone among the crawling creatures of evil that make the night hideous with their inhuman craving?!” That's what the poster for this film wanted to know. Do we dare?

Sure, why not?

Before Will Smith made it clear that he was Legend and Charlton Heston was the Omega Man, Vincent Price told us that he was The Last Man on Earth. And with good reason, too. In a world populated with vampires, who better to represent the human race than that silvery-voiced master of suspense and horror?

If you saw either of those later filmed versions of Richard Matheson's tale, you'll know what the score is:

Four years in the future, a plague wipes out society, except those infected don't stay dead for long. They return as creatures of the night, ready to feast on any remaining survivors – which will then infect those they attack and increase their numbers. The last survivor of mankind, Dr. Robert Morgan, spends his nights locked up in his home, sleeping in fear that he'll be discovered. By day he collects supplies vital to his survival, killing any weakened vampires he finds and searching for a cure to the plague.

Of course, since he's immune, he has somewhere to start regarding his research. That isn't the problem; the real issue is if he can survive against overwhelming odds and keep his sanity long enough to get the job done. He gets a dog as a companion, which goes tragically wrong, and then finds another survivor. Or is she? She's showing some of the symptoms of being a vampire but doesn't attack him.

As the mystery deepens for Doctor Morgan, he discovers that he isn't as alone as he first thought, but the alternative to being a vampire may not be all that he'd hoped. What remains of the human race and the dark side of survival is revealed. It's a gloomy future ahead...

There are some flaws with this film, one of the biggest being the vampires. They may be everywhere, but they don't seem that threatening. They're slow, sluggish and despite all the clichés (sharp teeth, problems with garlic and mirrors and being killed by a stake through the heart) they act more like zombies. Old movie zombies. Which means they just groan and wander around banging on doors in a futile manner, as opposed to chasing Brad Pitt at a breakneck speed.

It gets off to a slow start too, with a drawn-out backstory. Just when you think it's about to pick up it slows down again, before racing to a panic-stricken final act which needed just a little more explanation. Then there's the original idea of our hero becoming a legend of this post-apocalyptic world... but doesn't.

Those faults aside, it's still a good film. It may lack the high-budget gloss and depth of the later versions, but it's a fantastic early model of the survival horror genre that inspired others. The deck is stacked against Morgan right from the start, and it's easy to understand why he's become unraveled. The solitude is impossible to deal with, a cure seems hopeless, and even a simple trip to the shops or getting petrol for his car is a mission.

Vincent Price is in top form, giving a great performance and seemingly becoming more unhinged as it goes. The ending is as dark and disturbing as the beginning and shows a more realistic portrayal of the end of the world than many in this genre. There's something more psychologically disturbing about being slowly stalked than being over-run by racing hordes, and on that level this film delivers. A slightly quicker pace would have been good, but it works regardless.

Of course, it's a classic. But why? It may not be the best and it certainly isn't the oldest. Yet the impact and influence of it make it a film that can't be denied. It's one of those that set the standard, and while the bar may have been surpassed by others, it's still a benchmark that most struggle to achieve. 

- Rick Austin

Review: The Baby (1973)

The Baby (1973)
Director: Ted Post

Before Robin Williams tried like hell to make us cry in the movie Jack, and Brad Pitt killed us softly with an overload of cheesiness in the movie Benjamin Button, David Mooney did the man-child role as Baby in the 1973 cult classic The Baby. Before you get excited by the term 'cult classic' or begin wondering if a film like this can hold against true horror cult classics like The Evil Dead, you should know that this isn't really a cult classic, because it's a surprisingly good movie. Personally, I think this film is considered a cult classic based upon the absurd, yet surprisingly interesting plot, and the subsequent twist(ed) ending.

The story opens with Ann Gentry, a social worker who has recently taken on a new case after hearing of its strange nature. We also begin to learn that Ann has problems of her own that haunt her throughout the film. She first meets the family - A middle-aged mother of 3 with two older daughters and a son. Now here's where things get weird - the son is a grown man with the mind of an infant.... I'll let that sink in for a minute. If you are imagining a grown man wearing baby clothes, sleeping in a crib and playing with blocks, then you are dead on. I seriously can't possibly make this up.

This is one of those films that make you ask yourself, "how serious were the cast and crew with making this film?" Although it's not a comedy and the plot comes off as quite serious, I can't help but think they had to be laughing throughout filming this. It should be pointed out that the directing by Ted Post (of Clint Eastwood's Magnum Force and Hang 'Em High fame) isn't bad at all and even the acting is decently executed, most notably from the Wadsworth sisters played by Marianna Hill (who hardcore horror buffs will remember as the lead from the underrated and forgotten zombie classic Messiah of Evil) and the oddly cute Susanne Zenor.

I will say that although the plot may sound incredibly unrealistic, they do explain it in a way that does make some sense. And as odd as it is, I can't help but warrant it as one of the most original stories I've seen in a horror film in a while. Unfortunately for some horror fans, this isn't a slasher film and most of it is dialogue driven. But if you watch this with an open mind and don't take it too seriously, I will definitely say this is worth the watch. And if you're like me, the ending just might catch you off guard.


- Rey Harris

Review: Zombie Lake (1981)

Zombie Lake (1981)
Director: J.A. Laser / Eurociné

Description from Netflix:
During World War II, a group of villagers ambushed and defeated a band of German soldiers and threw their bodies in the nearby lake.  Now, the Nazis have returned as angry zombies, preying on unsuspecting teen swimmers and skinny-dippers.

My thoughts:
The above description should tell you just about all you need to know.  Especially the part about skinny-dippers.  Oh man...for a lake as filthy as this one, it's amazing how many skinny-dippers there are.  Young women find their way to the lake and immediately think, "I need to take off all my clothes and get in there as soon as possible."  And they do.

While all this gratuitous nudity was going on (I'll estimate that 30% of this movie was naked ladies), there was a backstory about one of the Nazis and his daughter.  While he was stationed in this town, he knocked up a resident.  He was then killed, because he was a Nazi, and that's what you do to Nazis.  So, on top of killing nude co-eds, he also wanted to reunite with his daughter.  Because even though he was a zombie, he still held his memories he had while living (like Colin or Bub).

Needless to say, it was a terrible story.  They writers decided it really wasn't worth their time to flesh out any of the characters or their motivations or anything.  Am I asking too much of a softcore-zombie-porn?  Probably.

There were a lot of laughable parts of this movie (on top of the obvious nudity, which I feel has been covered pretty well).  The make-up was atrocious.  Like, visibly-rubbing-off-during-scenes bad.

Most of the zombies walked around like regular people, if a little slower.  But this joker thought he was Karloff or something.  Seriously.  No other zombie moved like this.

To say this was a terrible movie would be about the best review I could give it.  At times, it was borderline unwatchable.  Honestly, I felt a little uncomfortable watching it at times (that had less to do with the nudity and more to do with the fact that it felt like it was made by a Nazi sympathizer).  The handful of laughs didn't make up for the rest of it.

If you're looking for a good Nazi zombie movie (and who isn't?), I highly recommend you go with Dead Snow.

Zombies: they seemed to be pretty standard zombies.  No super-strength or anything like that.  Regular gunshots didn't seem to stop them (although I can't vouch for headshots, because I'm not sure any of them were actually shot in the head).  However, the thing that separated these zombies from your Romero zombies was the fact that fire killed them.  Anyone who knows zombies knows you should never set one on fire: it won't kill them, and now you have a flaming zombie to contend with.  But it seemed to work for these guys.

- Dusty 'D' Evely