Review: Alice Sweet Alice (1976)

Alice Sweet Alice (1976)

Director: Alfred Sole

If you survive this night…Nothing will scare you again.

Set in the 1960s (which, due to lack of budget, was lost among more contemporary details) and heavy on anti-Catholic rhetoric, Alice Sweet Alice is definitely the odd one out of its time. It stars a young Brooke Shields as Karen, the first victim and younger sister of our deeply unnerving yet oddly likable antagonist, Alice. Between the constant whining and carrying on of Karen and the overt favoritism of children by the mother, it’s easy to sympathize with poor Alice.  Although the film starts right off with all kinds of emotional tension, the first death definitely sets the mood for the rest of the film.

Alice becomes main suspect in murder of sister. I mean, she did just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, have the same creepy smiling mask and yellow raincoat as the murderer, and have more than enough motive. Throughout the film, it becomes more and more apparent that Alice is less than innocent, but her involvement in the terrors to unfold would remain to be seen. However, there was much hinting at the idea that the ghost of Karen, back for revenge may be to blame.

One character, which we are introduced to briefly after the death of Karen, was the creepy apartment manager with all of the kittens. I feel he could have been explained or integrated into the plot a little more. He seemed to both hate and take a “liking” to Alice and reminded me a bit of a John Waters character. Alice seemed to return the favor, somehow possibly liking his creepy, pedophilic attention, adding to the Alice character as deeply troubled and demented. Indeed, a disturbing but weirdly compelling relationship.

Throughout the film, Mom refused to listen to anything and anyone, ready to fight everyone about her children, and was always hysterical and uncooperative. She was also kind of an enabling pushover. There was also the aunt. She seemed to always know what was up, but no one listened and came off as overzealous at times. Between the two of them, there was quite a lot of tension and screaming, especially in regard to the guilt of Alice, who later may or may not have stabbed her aunt several times. As you can imagine, the following scenes would be littered with yelling, denial, and hysteria. The estranged father played the role as the voice of reason, although he started off by being uncooperative and silly about everything. However, he begins to pull himself together and actively aid in solving the mystery of who attacked the aunt in the stairwell.

I do believe that had the film followed along the “disturbed little girl dodging everyone’s radar on a killing spree” path that it would have been more compelling. The final murder and the reveal of the real killer at the end were a bit of a letdown (although it didn’t not make sense). However, the notion of the idea that Alice could very well be capable of murder and was not completely innocent was compelling and would have made for a fine storyline in of itself. The fact that the ending seemed kind of thrown into place, for the sake of the element of surprise, was more frustrating than anything. Despite the fact that the plot was a little bit all over the place, I would say that this film is deserving of a gander for any horror buff.

- Jasmine Casimir

Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) 
Director: Tobe Hooper     
Writers: Tobe Hooper, Kim Henkel   

Stars: Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen

Cliff’s Notes: Narrator: "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particular Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin. It is all the more tragic in that they were young. But, had they lived very, very long lives, they could not have expected nor would they have wished to see as much of the mad and macabre as they were to see that day. For them an idyllic summer afternoon drive became a nightmare. The events of that day were to lead to..." First lines of the film spoken by Emmy Award-Winning actor John Larroquette

Lecture: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TCM) is, without a doubt, one of the best horror films ever made. Technically speaking, the composition and direction of this flick is nearly perfect. Each of the early strokes beautifully crafts the image of a carefree summer drive. The documentary-like first act is tempered with only a vague air of threat, as if this is the beginning of a cosmically bad day. Our group of friends is sketched with the broadest of strokes, but the quality actors bring it up a level. The meeting with this hitchhiker, the exploring of the family home, and the walks through the Texas countryside each build to a single explosion of violence.

And from that moment on, TCM is like watching a nightmare. Danger is always no more than a few feet away. The reality of the film seems to collapse in upon itself, keeping the viewer trapped in a holocaust of violence and degradation. There is no reprieve, no release from the horrors that surround the characters. As it builds, TCM becomes a horror powerhouse. And then the dinner scene starts.

Filmed over 26 straight hours in the Texas heat, the dinner scene is pure anarchy. It is a decent into madness driven by violence, some of it real, and rage. It’s like watching the end of the world. That’s not a complaint. This is a horror movie lover’s dream. This scene, as well as the third act, are so emotionally draining that, by the time the film has let up, any of the film;s last images – characters run over by trucks, escaping into madness, or pure unadulterated rage- are apt metaphors for the viewer’s mental state.

Acting: Marilyn Burns, who sadly just passed, R.I.P., is fantastic in this flick. I’m not sure how much counseling she had afterwards, but the terror she puts out on screen is incredible. The rest of the disposable teens hold their own and read as real people, which makes the docu-feel of the flick hit harder.

Special props go to the chainsaw family. Edwin Neal and Jim Siedow are fantastic as the crazies. Siedow especially brings a moral schizophrenia to the film. He is both drawn to the violence that his family is dishing out, but also somehow terrified of the possible results. Hansen also brings a powerhouse performance. Without a single word, he commands the screen like a champ.

Directing: Tobe Hooper underplays most of his choices. TCM, at least for the first half or so, reads almost like a documentary. The angles are simple, the pace effortless, and the tension slowly rising. Hooper pays strict attention to Hitchcock’s bomb under the table theory. We know this is going to end horribly, so the lead up is laced with tension. Halfway through, Hooper opens the floodgates. There are crazy dolly shots, wild angles, and extreme close-ups galore. Every movement of the camera, every shot of not seeing something terrible build the film to a level of terror that has rarely been seen.

Script: Despite being rewritten extensively during the production, the script is a perfect microcosm of the movie. It’s distressing, technically solid, and matches the horror happening on screen. Grade A!

Effects: The film itself is nearly bloodless. While other, lesser films would have collapsed under this stress, it actually makes TCM more unsettling. By seeing less, the viewer’s brain makes up for what they think they’re seeing. And what they think they’re seeing is horrible. Also, special note for the production design of the Chainsaw house. You want “arm” chairs? Awesome bone sculptures? Distinct and terrifying masks? You get it all and more!

Highlights: Um… the whole thing? Actually, the one thing that I have found, after multiple viewings, is the humor of the piece. I know, it doesn’t sound like this is a funny flick, but TCM is masterful in its use of dark humor.

Lowlights: I really can’t complain about the film itself. The only thing I can mention is that the making of the film was incredibly, legendarily difficult. The horror stories from the TCM set are well known and universally painful. Not only was Marilyn Burns actually cut and beaten, several of the cast complained of the difficult conditions. Edwin Neal compared the filming to his time is Vietnam and Gunnar Hansen’s thoughts on filming are well documented in the excellent Chainsaw Confidential. (BTW, pick up Chainsaw Confidential. It’s a great look at the creation of this film.) I’m all for suffering for art, but this was a little ridiculous.

Final Thoughts: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an excellent film. It routinely ends up on just about everyone’s top horror film list. The awards are well deserved. There is no film that matches the intensity and destruction that this movie lets loose upon the viewer.

- J.W. Brewer

Follow JW on Twitter

Review: I Saw the Devil (2010)

I Saw the Devil (2010)

Director: Kim Jee-woon

Amid snowfall in Korea, a man breaks into a car and brutally murders a young lady while her fiancée helplessly listens on the phone. Unfortunately for the killer, that man, (played stoically by Byung-hun Lee) just happens to be a secret agent with a complicated understanding of revenge.


Kim quickly tracks down the killer, an unassuming bus driver, Kyung, (Min-Sik Choi) who is perhaps the devil himself (a detail that gains momentum throughout). From here, it’s quickly revealed that his fiancée was only one of many such victims. Kim and Kyung battle and the villain is taken down. It’s epic. It’s satisfying and there is a lot more of it. That’s because instead of capturing Kyung, our hero plants a tracking device on him and releases him. You see, for our hero, revenge will take place only when the villain feels what our hero has. This film, "Akmareul boatda" aka I Saw the Devil, quickly becomes torture porn in reverse. That is, this is a film about a hero constantly torturing the villain and honestly, it’s a lot of fun to watch.


At nearly two and a half hours, you may think this concept of “catch and release” would get tiring and it certainly would, but the plot continues to thicken. One anothers’ back-stories accumulate and ultimately play into a visceral cascade where, one might believe, our hero can truly not recover.  However, this is a film that doesn’t stop being inventive. That’s right, this is actually a film that starts out strong and only gets stronger.


I Saw the Devil might lag for some and while there is limited dialogue there’s also subtitles. That said, the photography of this film is alone breathtaking, as each composition is a conscious and artistic choice, and while a horror film, director, Kim Jee-woon knows just how much gore to show in order to get one to be able to empathize with our hero. The score is appropriate. The acting is flawless, and the philosophical overtones all compliment this baroque masterpiece, which emphasizes what’s missing in so many horror films on the mass market today. If you still haven’t seen this film, and you prefer substance over pulp, then I would suggest planning on watching this without interruption and savoring every moment. It’s really that good.


- Nick Bain

Review: Blue Velvet (1986)

Blue Velvet (1986)

Director: David Lynch

Writer: David Lynch (screenplay)

Stars: Isabella Rossellini, Kyle MacLachlan, Dennis Hopper

I remember when I first saw David Lynch’s 1986 surreal classic, Blue Velvet. I got home after hanging out with friends and noticed I recorded it in my DVR. Without knowing much about it, I hit the play button and found myself equally wowed and disturbed by Lynch’s haunting masterpiece.

What makes Blue Velvet a horror film? Good question! It’s the idea that a candy-colored, peaceful, little town has hidden secrets. The film tells the tale of Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle Maclachlan), a college student called home to care for his comatose father. While strolling through a field, Jeffrey finds a severed ear covered in ants and takes it to the police.

It’s at the police station where Jeffrey overhears a detective (George Dickerson) discuss the case and takes it upon himself to investigate. Jeffrey finds himself in one hell of a nightmarish ride involving a femme fatale lounge singer (Isabella Rossellini) and a deranged gangster named Frank Booth. Boy, you’ll think Jeffrey regrets picking up that ear in the field.

Blue Velvet is a masterful Neo-Noir film that has a lot to say. In the opening scene, we get beautiful and semi-satirical shots of Lumberton (the film’s setting). Everything is nice and peaceful, but then we see a glimpse underneath the soil, of large insects crawling creepily, implying this isn’t an ordinary town. Perhaps it’s also saying that no town is ordinary. The first half of Blue Velvet is entirely buildup. Through hallway shots and POV shots through closets, we know we’re about to see something that will shock us. 

- Austin Maggs

Trailer:

Review: Elevator (2011)

Elevator (2011)

Director: Stig Svendsen

Elevator is the story of nine strangers trapped inside an elevator. They are all going to a party for an announcement of the retirement of the CEO, who happens to be on the elevator. It is revealed that one of them has a bomb strapped to her. She is seeking revenge against the CEO. Then she dies. Most of the film is about the characters trying to figure out how to get off the elevator before the bomb goes off.

This could have been an interesting interplay between characters from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Instead, it's an uninteresting, flat story about people stuck in an elevator. In contrast to a film like Devil, (2010, directed by John Erick Dowdle) which is a great suspense story set inside an elevator, this film fails to capitalize on its claustrophobic setting. An interesting cast of characters portrayed by some good actors, never get the chance to break out of stereotypical roles. There is the racist comedian, the rich old white man, and the nice overweight guy.

The storyline of the bomber could have been explored to create more suspense. However, once we learn the bomber's identity, the film loses its momentum. It then turns to gore and blood for shock value. You don't care about any of the people stuck in the elevator, with the exception of the one who is pregnant. You don't feel any sense of doom or urgency with the ticking clock. What could have been a study in themes such as corporate greed, racism, and infidelity, instead fails to be anything more than a boring retread of other movies you've seen before.

There is one reference in the film to Lifeboat (1944, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock). That film also had a group of strangers trapped in a small space with one of them harboring a dark secret. Written by John Steinbeck, it's a great example of a psychological thriller that takes place in one location. See that instead.

- Peter Browne

Review: Monkey Shines (1988)

Monkey Shines (1988)

Director: George A. Romero

Writers: Michael Stewart (novel), George A. Romero (screenplay)

Stars: Jason Beghe, John Pankow, Kate McNeil

George A. Romero will always and forever be, to many, the master and originator of zombie horror. Monkey Shines, however, does not fall under this category. The “odd guy out," if you will.  I had not seen it until last Monday and it was not at all what I was expecting, out of Romero or in general. This was not necessarily a bad thing. I will keep this review short and sweet this time around.

Monkey Shines is about a quadriplegic man named Allan, who becomes paired up with a trained monkey named Ella. What he does not know, is that Ella was also part of an experiment which allowed her to tap into his deepest feelings of rage, which she carried out for him.

This film was an interesting one because it reminded me a bit of Re-Animator and how the bulk of the movie was slow paced and then just wallops your sensory organs with the last half hour or so. For the most part, it seemed to me to be a basically-sci-fi, not-really-horror movie. It was mainly about this cute little monkey who progressed in intelligence through an experiment. She then started to become slightly naughtier with the storyline, which all in all was pretty tame. There was not a whole lot of gore or horror really, which was actually a nice break, although unexpected and in this case, a little disappointing. My mind wasn’t totally blown by this film, and it didn’t exactly feel like a Romero film ought to. Yes, it was not meant to be just like one of his zombie flicks, but it felt a little too disconnected from his directing style. It is possible though that I’m a bit tainted after familiarizing myself with a gorier video library. If you are looking for and expecting something more in the vein of a psychological, science fiction flick, I would say give it a shot. It’s definitely nothing I will back-shelve, and it was worth taking a look at what else a familiar film director could do.

- Jasmine Casimir

Follow Jasmine on Tumblr

Review: Pet Sematary (1989)

Pet Sematary (1989)

Director: Mary Lambert

Writer: Stephen King (based on his book)

Stars: Fred Gwynne, Dale Midkiff, Denise Crosby

Pet Sematary isn’t that good of a movie.  It is, however, a really good horror movie and a great adaptation of a book Stephen King hated writing.  Perhaps this is why King opted to write the screenplay himself, figuring if such a heinous tale was to be put on screen, he might as well do it right.  He even appears in the movie as a priest.  

The opening credits and soundtrack set the tone beautifully for what is a highly depressing and frightening endeavor.  We then meet the main players, including Jud Crandall, played wonderfully by Fred Gwynne, easily one of the best screen versions of a Stephen King character.  There’s also Louis Creed: doctor and family man, his wife Rachel, kids, cat, station wagon, etc.  Originally from Chicago, they relocate to Maine and settle into a house with a very odd path out back, a path to a cemetery for pets, misspelled “Pet Sematary” by local heartbroken youngsters.  The “sematary” naturally leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, especially when the Creed’s own cat, Church, is run over by an eighteen-wheeler on Thanksgiving.  After hearing some local legends from Jud, Louis chooses not to bury Church in the harmless children's pet sematary, but an ancient Micmac burial ground instead.  This burial ground is known to bring back the dead, only what it brings back usually isn’t for the better.  In a desperate attempt to salvage his daughter’s pet, Louis buries Church exactly where he shouldn’t and keeps it to himself.  Amazingly enough, Church does return from the dead, smelling like shit and with a really bad attitude.  Let’s just say no one in the Creed household will be taking a relaxing bath any time soon.

The story then takes a dark detour about halfway through, when Louis’ son Gage, practically a baby, is run over and killed by the same kind of truck that killed Church.  The way I recall seeing this scene for the first time, my inner monologue went something like this: “He’s not really gonna get run over by...yep, he just got run over by the truck.”

No surprise to those who’ve read the book first, but I had not at the time, and it’s just something you don’t see very often in any movie.  Hell, I thought this movie was about a killer cat!  Gage’s funeral is yet another disaster and it’s clear where Louis plans on burying his son’s body.

Did I mention Louis does all this despite a strict warning not to by the ghost of a dead jogger?  His name is Pascow, and even though his brain literally dangles from his bleeding skull, he’s a pretty nice guy.  In the first act, Pascow pretty much flatlines on Louis’ nurses' office table, after being hit by none other than a giant truck.  He wakes up dead and swears his allegiance to Louis.  All he wants to do is help, and perhaps had he made any attempt to be less creepy, Louis would have heeded his warnings properly.  Instead, Louis does nothing but piss on Pascow’s advice, which ultimately gets him, and the entire family killed.  

The plot of Pet Sematary, a cemetery that brings back the (evil) dead, is undeniably scary.  What’s interesting is that the scariest scenes don’t necessarily directly relate to said plotline.  For many, the most memorable scene of the movie is Rachel’s flashback about her dead, reptilian sister, Zelda.  Just thinking her name makes me shudder, and she’s put a dark cloud over the classic Nintendo game, that’s for sure.  But this scene, along with the unsettling suicidal hanging of housekeeper Missy Dandridge, could’ve easily been cut from the movie and not taken away a single thing...except for two of the scariest scenes.  They work more as subtext, providing some insight into Rachel’s past and feelings about death.  Other scenes involving stories relayed to Louis via Jud, are scarier than the entire third act, which features slasher Gage going to town with a scalpel.

There are some movies I distinctly recall seeing for the first time.  Pet Sematary was on a Saturday evening, I’m guessing around 7pm (although my instincts are 5pm), and on television.  It’s actually not a bad movie to suffer through a TV edit, as it’s not too gruesome, nor does it have much profanity, so for the most part it’s all there.  Already a big horror fan by age 8 or 9, and knowing what Pet Sematary was, I didn’t have particular interest in it; I just sat there and started watching as it came on because I didn’t feel like getting up.  Needless to say, I never did get up, nor do I remember at what point the power came back on.  Imagine sitting there, a little kid, getting a real big kick outta a horror flick you’re not supposed to be watching, TV edit or not, loving every minute of it, fully aware getting sleep will be difficult tonight but making the gamble anyway.  Successfully making it through the entire thing, almost turning it off several times, I finally get up and due to some summer or fall wind (this is why I can’t pinpoint a 5pm or 7pm start time) the power goes black just as the sun has officially vanquished.  It was like something out of a horror movie!

That’s how I remember Pet Sematary and probably always will (and nothing beats that peaceful Paramount jingle at the beginning).

- Peter DiGiovanni

Trailer:

Review: The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962)

The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962)

Director: Joseph Green

Writers: Rex Carlton (original story), Joseph Green (original story), 1 more credit »

Stars: Jason Evers, Virginia Leith, Anthony La Penna

“Let me die. Let me die!”

Is that the sound of despair from an audience member watching the last Indiana Jones film? Or maybe the plea for mercy you make when you find out your kid likes Justin Bieber? Perhaps it's the catchphrase of that Idols judge everyone loves to hate? Or could it be the wail of a woman – with nothing but a black screen showing- that makes this one of the most effective opening moments of a horror film ever?

Yes, it's all of the above. But that doesn't take away from how creepy that introduction is in this horror film. It works and it's disturbing. It's almost as good as the scream at the start of the original House on Haunted Hill, the first murder in Scream or any of the other best intro teasers out there. Start with a bang, that's always a good lesson with movies.

Of course, then you've got to follow it up with another good hour or two of viewing. This one doesn't. In fact, the intro is the best part of this film – except for when The End flashes on the screen later.

Doctor Bill Cortner is one of those maverick surgeons who breaks all those pesky rules and ethics that hamper medical advancements. You know, like performing experimental surgery on the newly-dead, bringing them back to life and stealing limbs from amputees. His dad doesn't like it, but Bill is a rebel like Victor Frankenstein. He's off to the family summer house/private laboratory with his hot-to-trot fiancée Jan at 10 mph, but she won't stop nagging him. He accelerates wildly on some dangerous curves just to shut her up, and promptly crashes.

He's thrown clear, but she gets decapitated. Let that be a lesson, kids. Speed kills.

Being an upstanding guy, he doesn't bother waiting for the authorities but rather grabs her severed head and takes it to the summer house. Like any good doctor would, he clamps her head in a vice, pops it in a pan of magical medical goop and brings it back to life. Since he still wants to get busy with Jan, he figures all he has to do is transplant her head on another woman's body. It means the other woman will die, but that's the price of progress.

While he sets out on the dreary task of attending burlesque bars, beauty pageants and bikini photo sessions looking for the perfect woman, Jan's severed head is doing what she does best: nag. She nags at Cortner's assistant, and then at one of his earlier test subjects who remains locked away. She's also telepathic now and uses that skill to nag even more. All she wants to do is die, but revenge is an equally acceptable alternative.

I'd tell you the ending, but I won't. Not because I disapprove of spoilers, but because there isn't much of an ending to speak of. It's there, but if you blink, you'll miss it. It scores for revealing what the test subject monster looks like but fails because it looks like the lovechild of Sloth and Tor Johnson.

One of the biggest problems with this film is that there are no actual heroes; Jan is a pain, and you wish that she would die just so she'd stop complaining, while Dr. Cortner has all the appeal of a block of wood and half the charisma. The film feels soulless. It's a cheap exploitation film that doesn't even pretend to be anything more, with no actual horror and drawn-out shots of pointless eye candy.

Oh, and there's the problem that it was made at all. But then if it weren't then we wouldn't have anything to laugh at, right? So, I guess we owe it something for that.

Thankfully, there's that great introduction to hang on to. And the words, The End, which can't seem to arrive fast enough. The rest is filling, bland and leaving a bad taste behind. Spit it out after consumption. 

- Rick Austin

Follow Rick on Twitter

Review: The Evictors (1979)

The Evictors (1979)

Director: Charles B. Pierce

Writer: Charles B. Pierce, Garry Rusoff, Paul Fisk

Stars: Jessica Harper, Michael Parks, Vic Morrow

Never as popular as Pierce’s other 70s horror classic, The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976), The Evictors (1979) feels like it could almost be a spinoff of its much more beloved predecessor.  Both films have very atmospheric qualities and share a very similar look, like they were shot in the same town over the same weekend. It’s no wonder it is featured as a B-Side to the DVD/Blu-ray release of The Town That Dreaded Sundown.  But I think this particular release, from the always awesome Scream Factory, should be advertised as a Charles B. Pierce Double Feature, instead of treating Evictors like a mere bonus feature.  

Pierce is a master of mood and atmosphere, and that of The Evictors is of the utmost unnerving.  Things kick off in the summer of 1928, as a shootout ensues at the country home of a band of violent hillbillies.  According to some exposition: the lead hillbilly killed three people the last time he was served foreclosure papers.  Seems like they should be more concerned about putting this guy in jail than showing up with court documents, but that’s beside the point.  Fast forward some years later, as a happy young couple, Ben and Ruth, acquire the same idyllic estate for themselves.  In pristine condition and not a murderous hillbilly in sight, the young couple are more than excited to start their new life, promptly christening the bedroom.  What could go wrong?  

For one thing, their shady realtor, played by the amazing Vic Morrow, fails to mention that since 1934, each tenant has been met with a violent demise.  The locals are anything but welcoming and a fedora wearing prowler keeps showing up, acting like he owns the place.  Once Ruth begins piecing everything together, things only escalate, culminating in a brutal encounter, which takes away what Ruth cares about most.  With nowhere else to go and nothing left to lose, Ruth turns to the shady relator for help.  But can he be trusted?  

- Peter DiGiovanni

Review: American Mary (2012)

American Mary (2012)

Directors: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska

Writers: Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska

Stars: Katharine Isabelle, Antonio Cupo, Tristan Risk

American Mary tells the story of a young med student desperate to make money. It's a relatable premise about a woman trying to make ends meet. Mary interviews for a job as a stripper and instead ends up getting offered $5,000 to stitch up a guy who's been badly injured. While she is initially terrified, she performs the surgery. She returns home, horrified by what he has done. The next day, she is offered more money by a stripper for a body modification operation. Mary gets invited to a party that one of her professors is having. There, she is drugged and raped. The story then turns in a different direction when she has her rapist teacher kidnapped. She performs multiple surgeries on him. She drops out of med school, goes into business on her own as a body modification surgeon, and continues to hold hostage and operate on her professor.

Mary, played by Katherine Isabelle, gives a great, confident, sarcastic and scary performance. She is often clad in black leather and lace; think Betty Page meets Dr. Kevorkian.  However, we never really discover much about her character other than that she has a grandmother who dies. We don't learn who she is or what she wants, other than revenge. While the film has its moments, ultimately the story falls short of satisfying the expectations it sets.  There are several characters and scenes reminiscent of David Lynch or The Wachowski siblings, but there's a lot of noir-ish style and not enough substance.

After Mary kills a security guard who discovers her hostage, the film toys with the idea of turning Mary into a villain. There's also a storyline with a detective on her case that felt rushed. The film tries to tell several stories that don't all get resolved, and the ending feels rushed. It does, however, have a good mix of dark humor and gore, and features a powerful female protagonist, often absent in modern horror films. 

- Peter Browne

Visit Peter's Website

Classic Horror Review: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Director: James Whale

Writers: Mary Shelley (suggested by the original story written in 1816) William Hurlbut (adapted by)

Stars: Boris Karloff, Elsa Lanchester, Colin Clive 

Horror fan confession time. There is a large gap in my viewing history, a gap in the shape of Universal’s Classic Horror Monsters. I’ve seen most of Dracula and Frankenstein over the years, piece by piece, and only recently watched The Creature from the Black Lagoon. And that’s pretty much it. But now, at long last, I’ve seen The Bride of Frankenstein (on 35mm no less!). And, well, it was okay. Not quite what I was expecting for sure. It’s kind of a patchwork of subplots and directions, with the titular Bride herself only appearing in the final reel. And at a scant 75 minutes, it feels like the film ends right when it’s getting started.

We open with Percy and Mary Shelley along with Lord Byron on a dark and stormy night. They discuss Mary Shelley’s story of Frankenstein, the proper movie setting off as she decides to tell them what happens next. Although the scene is quite fun in and of itself, featuring some exuberantly hammy acting by Gavin Gordon as Lord Byron (never have you heard so many R’s rolled in a single sentence!), it feels very awkward and out of place. Firstly, watching any film requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief to buy into the story and empathize with the fictional character, even more so when the film features reanimated corpses and dated special effects. Adding the element of flat out telling you that the movie you’re watching is just a story sort of pulls the rug out from under it. Why invest us in these characters and struggles when they’re just figments of Mary Shelley’s imagination? All the scene serves to do is spell out the theme that man shouldn’t try to play God, which is very clearly stated elsewhere in the film. And although it sets itself up to bookend the film, we don’t actually return to the authors at the end of the movie, which makes the opening stand out all the more (though I’ve read that they did film such an ending scene, which wound up on the cutting room floor).

Once we’re into the Frankenstein story we pick up right at the end of the first film. The village mob is having a gay old time around the burning windmill. We’re quickly introduced to Minnie (Una O’Connor), a busybody of a maid who adds a dash of humor throughout the rest of the film. The townsfolk are quite upset at the death of Dr. Frankenstein and cart his body away to tell his fiancée the sad news. Meanwhile The Monster is, of course, still quite alive and murders a couple of people poking around the ruins (the identities of these victims seem quite mean spirited, especially since the film wants us to start sympathizing with The Monster. But...he is a monster). What does come as a surprise, perhaps, is that the doctor is also alive too! (well, I guess that just undercuts the entire drama at the end of the first film!)

Here the story diverts into two subplots. The Monster wanders around the countryside, looking for food and companionship. He meets a kindly blind man who doesn’t realize what he is and takes him in, teaching him to speak. The Monster becomes relatively eloquent, quite quickly really. Karloff is great in all these scenes, his physical performance has since become iconic, and his deep voice conveys the desperation and sadness of The Monster.

Off in the world of Dr. Frankenstein we’re introduced to an old professor of his who has also had some luck in creating life. This scene really took me by surprise as the fantastically named Dr. Pretorius reveals tiny miniature humans he’s grown. This bit of science fiction seems to come from an entirely different world than that of Frankenstein and smells more of the studio wanting to show off their new special effects than anything. It’s almost as if a scene from some Flash Gordon-esque serial found its way into the film print. Anyway, Dr. Pretorius wants to join up with his former student and create a mate for The Monster (even though there’s no reason either of them should know he’s still alive at this point).

Ernest Thesiger, who sets the bar for mad scientists with his portrayal of Dr. Pretorius is absolutely one of the best parts of the film. He’s grandstanding, humorous, and utterly captivating. When he speaks the infamous “...gods and monsters” quote, you can’t help but get a shiver.

This is a good point to mention the other interesting aspect of watching a movie like this for the first time. I’ve seen so many moments of this film used in other works or parodied, that it’s quite bizarre to see the source material at times. You can’t watch The Monster meeting the old blind man without thinking of the scene from Young Frankenstein. And you certainly can’t hear Dr. Frankenstein exclaim that “She’s Alive” without immediately humming the opening bars of Weird Science. This isn’t a knock against the film at all. I love those little Deja vu moments when watching classic films, it really makes you feel like you’re experiencing film history.

So, the problem with the parallel stories is that they seem to be saying different things. The mad scientist story sticks with the theme that man should not play God and any of his creations will turn out to be abominations. However, The Monster’s story is actually a pretty decent parable about discrimination, showing that even a monster is just misunderstood at heart. Both stories and themes are well told and aren’t necessarily exclusive. The film could have gone very deep in examining what to do with byproducts of man overstepping his place in nature. But it doesn’t. At the end we’re given the classic playing-God-is-bad and monsters-should-be-killed morals.

Although the end does play it safe in this way, when we finally get around the creation of The Bride, it’s absolutely thrilling. Every crazy scientific experiment scene in film history owes a little to the climax of The Bride of Frankenstein. The set dressing, cinematography, acting, and music all combine to bring the audience to the edge of their seats, waiting to see the big haired Bride we’ve all come to recognize. And she’s absolutely…fantastic! Really. Elsa Lanchester, pulling double duty as Mary Shelley and The Bride, performs the creation with such frightening robotic movements and animalistic noises that I have to say she outdoes even Karloff himself! Sadly, she’s only on screen for a scant few minutes before the conclusion of the film. Which is incredibly disappointing. After sitting through the disjointed first two thirds of the movie, things were finally starting to come together and get fascinating. The relationships between all the parties, mad scientist, reluctant creator, Monster, and Bride, is full of drama. Yet it’s all squandered as the film almost seems to be racing to throw up the ending title card. It’s not a bad film by any means, it’s just a bit disappointing seeing that it could have been so much more.

- Cameron Harrison

Check out Cameron's YouTube Channel

Review: Annabelle (2014)

Annabelle (2014)

Director: John R. Leonetti

Writer: Gary Dauberman

Starring: Ward Horton, Annabelle Wallis, Alfre Woodard

Annabelle is full of cheap jump scares but still delivers creepiness that stays with you long after you leave the theater.  As a spin-off from The Conjuring franchise, it stands on its own two feet very well, almost too well, part of me wanted reappearance's of Vera Farmiga and other cast members.  Regardless, it’s a fun Halloween time horror film that’s worth the money, more than things like Dracula Untold, also out now.

For the first time since Child's Play we get a real look at how an evil doll actually becomes an evil doll.  However, the results are a bit confusing due to a less than stellar script.  We're told at the beginning that the doll is named Annabelle because it holds the spirit of a girl named Annabelle, who was mixed up in a crazy murder cult.  Later, we're told that the killings committed by Annabelle and her boyfriend were to summon a demon of sorts.  Then when we see manifestations of the doll we see Annabelle, but we also see a demon pulling the strings of the whole operation.  It’s just a tad bit confusing. Is the doll possessed by a demon? Is it possessed by Annabelle? Is Annabelle now a demon? Both the Demon and Annabelle are visually gruesome and terrifying regardless of the confusion. Scenes featuring the demon are actually a highlight and probably the scariest of the film.  

Overall, Annabelle is a serviceable and adequate horror film that suffers from script issues and pretty bad casting choices, I'm looking at you Annabelle Wallis.  Luckily director John Leonetti has the chops enough to make the movie look good, even if it looks a lot like Rosemary's Baby, and build the tension up to a great degree.  There's nothing new in Annabelle.   Everything in the film is impersonating other styles the 70s pale olive color scheme to the not subtly named protagonist: Mia after Mia Farrow and John for John Cassavetes the stars of the Rosemary’s Baby. The scares and visuals are all redoes from much better movies, but the mix and match of 70s horror tropes and homages works exceedingly well.  This is regardless of the plot and character issues.   You know a horror movie's working when the theater going audience actually starts to scream "NO" at certain shots.  Namely, the horrifying image of the all-black demon stalking Mia through the apartment building.

If you're bored this Halloween season, Annabelle is definitely worth a look to get your scare fix especially with such few other offerings this year. 

- Will Woolery

Visit Will's website

Review: The Stuff (1985)

The Stuff (1985) Director: Larry Cohen

I am a cartoonist. I love everything about cartoons and, MOST of the time, I love it when films bend the realms of physics. When I saw that a movie like The Stuff existed, I legitimately got excited. The Stuff had so much potential to be witty AND horrifying if it was executed with a really clever script. It may not have been a 'Horror Classic' but definitely could have been a cult classic. If you can sense where I'm going, you already know that The Stuff did not meet any of my expectations.

THE PLOT

Weird yummy goo erupts from the earth and is discovered by a couple of miners. They taste it and decide to market it because it tastes so good. The American public literally eats up the new dessert sensation now known as the Stuff, but, unfortunately, it takes over the brains of those who eat it.

Industrial spy and former FBI agent David 'Mo' Rutherford is hired by executives of the ice-cream industry to disclose the recipe of the phenomenally successful marshmallow Stuff. With the support of Nicole, the designer of the Stuff's advertising campaign, and a boy named Jason. When Mo discovers the horrible truth about 'The Stuff' he enlists the help of a terrorist group led by whack-job col. Malcolm Spears (played by Paul Sorvino of all people)

The problem with this film is two things: it isn't funny and it isn't scary. If it was unbalanced on either side of the funny/scary spectrum, it may have had some lasting power. Unfortunately, The Stuff is only two words: Boring and Disappointing.

The film REALLY gets dull when Sorvino's character shows up, but we really get off the rails when Garret Morris' character Chocolate Chip Charlie (worst name for a character ever?) shows up. I think he's the comedic relief but because he's not funny, he's really just useless. Besides useless characters, the film is super anti-climatic as it decides to go the Soylent Green route (Tell the world! The stuff is bad!) instead of a good old fashioned man vs Stuff showdown. While a "tell the world!" ending works for films like Soylent Green, a cheesy 80s flick needs a good monster showdown.

What does work? The advertisements for The Stuff on the TVs in the film are really good and clever and is obviously where all the care and attention went. The film is so busy making fun of
food product advertisement that it forgets to be anything but a heavy-handed mess.

Scariest Moment: (spoilers) Garret "Chocolate chip Charlie" Morris succumbs to The Stuff and his body suffers the consequences.

Rating: 1 1/2 pints of Stuff out of 5

- Andrew Megow  @Almegow

Review: Psycho Beach Party (2000)

Psycho Beach Party (2000)

Director: Robert Lee King

Writer: Charles Busch

Starring: Lauren Ambrose, Nicholas Brendan, Charles Busch, Matt Keeslar, Thomas Gibson, Amy Adams, Kimberley Davies

Both a loving tribute and merciless send-up of exploitation cinema, Psycho Beach Party gathers the best tropes from three decades of B-movies and tosses them into a joyful stew. Based on the long-running play written by Charles Busch, the film's influences are written right in the title: the Frankie and Annette teen romps of the 1950s and 60s mashed up with the Hitchcockian psychodramas and slasher films of the 60s and 70s. As a capper, Psycho Beach Party then takes the sexual subtext of all those genres and turns it into text, both with single-entendre sex puns and even less subtle kink. More playful than graphic, the film revels in young sexuality in ways that feel more like Beach Blanket Bingo than Halloween, yet still treats the audience to the image of Marvel Anne (Amy Adams) lecturing Starcat (Nicholas Brendon) on responsibility while covering her naked pudenda with nothing but her hands.

Chicklet (Lauren Ambrose) is an innocent teen who, unlike every other teen, goes to the drive-in to watch the movie and is both fascinated and repulsed by all the necking going on in the surrounding cars. But Chicklet has a dark secret. Whenever she sees a circle, another personality takes over and she becomes the aggressive dominatrix, Ann Bowman (gasp!). Foul mouthed, lewd and sophisticated, Ann Bowman proclaims her desires and hatreds with operatic flourish: "Who do I have to fuck to get a hot dog in this place?"

Later, on Malibu beach, Chicklet meets a cadre of surfers led by The Great Kanaka (Thomas Gibson). She's immediately attracted by college dropout and first year psych student, Starcat and begs the boys to teach her to surf. Starcat insists that girls can't surf, citing first year Freudian nonsense about penis envy and the male hunting instinct. When Chicklet takes her case directly to Kanaka, Ann Bowman steps in, and not only gets Chicklet into the surf, but makes Kanaka her sex slave.

Meanwhile, a killer is stalking and murdering the teens one by one and police captain Monica Stark (Charles Busch) realizes that Chicklet is at the center of the mystery. Could Ann Bowman be responsible?

If it all sounds ridiculous, it's because it's meant to. The period movies Psycho Beach Party lampoons were no less so. Using naive and flat out wrong ideas about insanity, 60s psychodramas told thinly veiled cautionary tales about female hysteria and sexual repression. "Schizophrenia" (later called multiple personality disorder or dissociative disorder) was a go-to diagnosis for crazy people in the movies because it was lurid and strange. Norman Bates being the most famous example.

Psycho Beach Party plays on the plot details of those earlier works beat for beat, only it has the sense to turn it into a funny. In essence, Psycho Beach Party is the cinematic equivalent of watching a dozen B-movies all at once and riffing them with your giggling friends. The brilliance of Psycho Beach Party is that you never have to have seen an Annette Funicello movie to get the joke, because like all great satires, Psycho Beach Party is both a parody of the genre and a beautiful example of the genre.

There's also a luau dance battle. Luau. Dance. Battle.

- Katherine Turner

Review: Exam (2009)

Exam (2009)

Director: Stuart Hazeldine

Exam is a slick little thriller that takes a common story and tells it in a unique way. It contains a great opening sequence that visually introduces each of the characters without any real dialogue. Eight job candidates are placed in a room for 80 minutes. Each has a desk with a piece of paper and pencil. An invigilator enters the room and explains that this is their final test in what has been on ongoing process. There is one question and there is one answer. An armed security guard stands at the door. They are told if they try to leave, spoil their paper, communicate with the guard or the invigilator, they will be disqualified. When they turn their papers over, they are blank.

Immediately, one of the candidates is removed for writing on her paper. The remaining seven form a tentative alliance. One man takes charge when he tells the others they must work together. He gives them all aliases. He calls himself White, the others Brown, Dark, Blonde, Black, Brunette, and Deaf. These are the only names that are used throughout the film.

They begin to brainstorm ways to uncover the question. What begins as a team effort turns into a battle of wits and survival when White tricks another candidate into being removed. The stakes are then raised as they go from working together to turning on one another. Reminiscent of stories like Lord of the Flies, a power struggle ensues when White tries to take control of the situation.

Exam clips along at a fast pace and keeps the viewer unsure of both the question the candidates seek but also who will prevail. Loyalties shift between the characters, as well as the viewer's feeling about them. Brunette is a much stronger, tougher character initially, who shifts drastically when she is turned on by the others.

It's a clever story that quietly teases out the characters' backstories. It also makes one think of themselves, and how they would react in a similar situation. The ticking clock throughout the film keeps the tension up. It's more of a psychological thriller than a traditional horror film, but it does contain many classic horror elements. These include a claustrophobic environment, characters eliminated one by one, and an interesting twist at the end.

With all the action taking place inside one room, it feels like a play. It makes great use of limited space and a good cast to play off one another. Up until the end the suspense continues. Without a good script or cast this story could have fallen flat. But it doesn't. It keeps the tension up and has several great surprises before the final shot. Recommended.

- Peter Browne

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: Demons 2 (1986)

Demons 2 (1986)

Director: Lamberto Bava

Demons is probably one of the best pieces of gory grindhouse ever, and mostly because it ended with a bang.  The hero Samurai-Sword fought demon zombies to the sound of 80s rock, before having to kill his new girlfriend, on the back of a jeep, while escaping an overrun city.  What better sequel setup could you ask for?  Demons 2 could feature a whole world overrun by demons and a few select survivors trying to live through the last hours of an apocalypse.  That’s not what Demons 2 does though. 

Demons 2 follows the “give’em more of the same!” tradition of sequels. While the first movie was a bunch of people stuck in a movie theater, being threatened by a demon zombie plague, the second one features a group of people stuck in a large apartment building.  The events of the first Demons are slightly referenced in yet another ‘movie-within-a movie’ narrative device.   This time they push the angle, that these monsters come from the film you're watching, in a much bigger way.  Even as far as to show the first major demon coming out of the TV to attack an unsuspecting viewer.

Wait so… what?  Oh, screw it… whatever I didn’t come here for this to make sense.

If you’ve read my review of the first movie, you know I’m in love with it.  Everything from the goofy acting, the crazy pimps, and demon puss pimples, fills me with glee like a 9-year-old boy.   That love floods over to this sequel as well, but only a little bit.   Demons 2 takes the building blocks of the first and tries to do the same thing, but with just a little extra. It sadly misses its mark.  We spent just too much time making back-story for characters we know are going to die.  We have subplot after subplot in different locations in the building.  They all have their so-bad-its-funny sort of charm, there’s just too many though.    We have body builders fighting demons, a house party turned into ground zero, a pregnant couple, an old lady with a dog, and a child left home alone. 

Luckily Tony the Pimp is back too… but with a different name and an obsession for fitness.

Sure, we get the more of the great creature effects, like the demon baby, but we also have the horrible demon dog, which starts with promise and eventually just turns into a dog with a mask on.  It’s all still gory fun, but it's not as much gory fun.  If you liked the first one, you’ll stand to get a kick out of this, but it doesn’t have nearly the same amount of heart.  I will give it credit for killing both the dog and the kid; two characters you always just assume will live.

           

Then there’s the whole meta-plot ‘movie within a movie’ stuff.  It’s ultimately pointless and hard to follow. So, was the first movie just a movie IN this movie, and they are watching the sequel while we’re watching them in a sequel?  Is the movie from the first Demons in any way related to the movie in the second Demons?  Are the events in the movies within the movies, real life? Is this like The Ring where if you watch the movies, you die like in the movies? Why the hell would you show this movie on TV? What about the mask in the first one? Why is demon blood acidic now? Those questions alone made my brain explode a little bit.  We’re not supposed to worry about that stuff in a cheese-ball gore fest like this. My best advice is to just turn off all of your brain, every brain cell, you just need to destroy it. 

Still, it’s a decent movie to watch at 3 in the morning, when you come home intoxicated, but it’s not good for much else.  Basically, if you like Demons, you’ll at least get a kick out of Demons 2.  If you didn’t like Demons, you should just step back and leave it be. 

Now, just don’t get me started on the rest of this franchise's supposed sequels.

Jesus… I can’t… I just won’t. 

- Will Woolery