Have you ever realized that mainstream ghost/haunting/supernatural movies seem to come and go in phases? One of the longest lineups of them seemed to exist in the late 90s and early 2000s before 'Paranormal Activity' resurrected the obsession in 2009. But this was part of that ghost phase that existed beforehand when none of it was great, but there was a creepy fun factor to them and we'd now watch them as "average at best" nostalgic films. Lucky for me, I can still get a kick out of some of these earlier works, but I can't deny that we've come so far that this era simply isn't scary anymore. The film takes place one year following a bad car accident, where a former cellist named Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer), and her husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), send their daughter, Caitlin (Katharine Towne) off to college. Caitlin's absence seems to strain the couple's relationship, and matters are made worse when Claire suspects their neighbor Warren (James Remar) of murdering his wife, Mary (Miranda Otto). Strange, supernatural occurrences further her suspicions, as so many signs point to the house potentially being haunted by Mary's ghost. However, when Mary is revealed to be alive, the paranormal activity continues, and Claire continues to dig until she finds the eventual, disturbing truth behind the spirit lurking in their house. I think that for its respective time, in the year 2000, this really isn't bad. But I will say that to watch it now, it seems pretty typical and even predictable with its twist ending. It's also not a haunting movie in nearly the same sense as more of the modern stuff. Really, this is a little more of a mystery with a paranormal element to it, fueled by the two leads' names. Back in 2000, Pfeiffer and Ford were well-known in the industry, so they certainly add some pizzazz to the whole deal. That said, I have to say that nowadays the film would probably work better as a straight-to-Netflix miniseries or something along those lines. Ghost-related movies have come a very long way since this, and there's simply no scare factor here anymore. I'd even call it kind of dull, if I'm honest, which sucks because I remember enjoying this when it was initially released. I placed this one "Under the Radar", despite it being fairly well-known, because no one ever talks about it anymore. I wanted to revisit it in order to ponder why that might be. My conclusion is that I think it's one of those movies where once the ending was out, the "spoiler twist" just wasn't "twisty" enough. Bear in mind that this was released a year after 'The Sixth Sense' as well, which pretty well set the bar for a good twist ending to a ghost movie. This plain and simply didn't quite meet the bar, partly due to predictability, and party due to it having very little impact. It's mildly interesting anymore at best, at least as part of the late 90s/early 2000s supernatural craze. It's even parodied in 'Scary Movie 2', which set its focus on the same craze. I guess if you can find it, and you're looking for something creepy but simple, it could be worth checking out. It's certainly not without its moments, but it is relatively slow-moving and I wouldn't say things really truly pick up with any sort of intensity until about three quarters of the way through. The climax to this is quite well done, but it's a long way to get there - like having to walk a few miles for a pint of cold beer, but it's local beer and nothing fancy. I don't consider this a bad movie like many seem to, but it's still just average at best, and some of the technology dates it horribly. You should get a load of their car phone. Anyway, check it out if your curious to see a ghost movie before they got terrifying. Otherwise, it's perfectly skippable, and its stars shine better elsewhere. 3/5
0 Comments
Every now and then, I want to dip my toes into the realm of the supernatural. Whether things like ghosts are real or not doesn't take away from the ideas they fill your imagination with. I'll be the first to admit that nowadays, I think the ghost thing is a bit played out, but we do keep coming back for more, don't we? Myself included. It's almost like it has become a "comfort zone" of horror in the same way 'The Simpsons' is a "comfort zone" for the general TV-viewing public. Ghost movies are tricky for me to maneuver on a critical level. I do like a good ghost story, and a good scare every now and then. However, the film has to do something more or less original for me to appreciate it. The only thing I might compare this to as far as its execution goes is probably 'The Haunting of Hill House'. It's an unfolding mystery story as well as a ghost story, taking place during two different times - past and present. In this case, the past is eleven years prior, and the plot unfolds using flashbacks (along with some pretty well-done transition scenes, I might add). We are introduced to two siblings; Kaylie (Karen Gillan), who is seemingly obsessed with an antique mirror found at an auction, and Tim (Brenton Thwaites), just recently released from a psychiatric hospital. After picking him up from the hospital, Kaylie mentions to Tim that she found a mirror they once owned called the "Lasser Glass". According to Kaylie, this antique mirror was supposedly responsible for the death of their parents, Alan (Rory Cochrane) and Marie (Katee Sackhoff). However, having just been released from the psych hospital, Tim has other more real-world ideas. Apparently, however, the mirror has a long, drawn-out history of tragedy befalling its owners, including them. Can the siblings work together to uncover the truth behind their parents demise? Or will the mirror beat them at their own game? By the end, I'd have to say that I was mildly entertained, but a touch disappointed. It sounds weird, but I was kind of hoping this was going to be something that would get under my skin, as I do have a mild phobia of mirrors in a dark room. I can tolerate it, but I don't like it at all. The whole time it's like a stranger's hand resting on your shoulder - The longer it lingers the more uncomfortable you feel. But honestly, so much of the imagery here doesn't even seem to involve the mirror. Maybe the mirror is causing it, and there's the odd reflection of something creepy, but most of this is fake-out horror; one terrifying and/or gross thing will end up being something very mild and normal in real life. That's fine for some, but I kind of wanted it to leave me anxious about looking in the mirror... and not because I'm chubby. All that said, it seems I'm the odd one out on this title. For me, it's just another spook house movie with a decent touch of mystery surrounding the characters' past. It's totally passable, but I'm not looking to press play on it again anytime soon - not due to fear, but to it feeling a touch bland. Rotten Tomatoes averages it around 64%, so it's considered pretty decent at least. This is one you simply have to watch and judge for yourself though. I do like a decent ghost story, and this was a decent ghost story, but that's exactly it. I sat at the campfire I call my computer screen, it told the story, it was fun, and I went about my business afterwards. 3/5 I figured I'd conclude Vicious Vampire Month with, not only a title I've never seen before, but one of the most famous vampire titles out there. This marks twice this month I've brought up a 3-hour long Stephen King miniseries for review (the other being 'It'), and I could recommend some others for a dose of cheesy, classic Halloween fun. 1979's 'Salem's Lot' has gone down throughout vampiric horror history as one of the quintessential vampire "movies" out there, and one of the best Stephen King adaptations. The film opens in a church somewhere in Guatemala, where Ben Mears (David Soul) and young Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin) are filling small bottles with holy water. When one of the bottles starts to glow, Ben says "they've found us again", the music chimes in, and things then focus on a creepy looking house as the credits start rolling. It's certainly enough to get one interested, and I have to say that I dig composer Harry Sukman's score. It's pretty basic sounding, but along with the focus on that house, it gets one curious about what they are about to see, leading up to however these two got to where they were in the beginning. Rewind two years earlier when Mears returns to the small town of Salem's Lot after a long time away. He is now an established author, and becomes intent on writing about the allegedly haunted house we see in the opening credits; the Marsden House (which plays as much a character in this as 1428 Elm Street does in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series). In an attempt to rent it, he finds that is has been claimed by a Richard Straker (Lance Kerwin); another new guy in town who opens his own antique shop, along with his partner, Kurt Barlow (Reggie Nalder), who we never really get to see for a while. Mears finds a boarding house to stay in instead, and there develops a liking for the lovely Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia). Things are looking up for him, but there's a darkness about the Marsten house's history that Mears hasn't forgotten from his childhood in which he apparently saw the ghost of its previous owner, Hubie Marsten, who committed suicide after some heinous crimes against children. Little does he know that a mysterious crate arrives to the Marsten house one day, carrying more to add to the household than that of an angry ghost. Slowly but surely, people start to go missing and death starts occurring, and it may be up to Mears to save his hometown from certain evil. This one actually ended up reminding me of a lot of other vampire source material that plays similarly; namely 'Fright Night' as far as the vampire next door goes. I also picked up on certain things like a scene where a certain vampire taps on someone's window and calls to him, which 'The Simpsons' reflected in 'Treehouse of Horror IV'. So there was a good amount of Halloweenish fun to be had with this one, and at three hours, it's somewhat surprising how much it doesn't really seem to drag. There are some drawn out moments, but the atmosphere and design of the vampires, themselves, keeps you going. Remember, this is 1979 and made for TV, so for that, kudos to them for the makeup effects! I have to admit, for something made for TV in the late 70s, I found this totally held up. It may even hold up better than 'It', which I swear, even someone afraid of clowns could probably look at now and admit to its cheese factor (although I could be wrong). This one is just a bit creepier, a bit more mysterious, and the monster isn't a famous actor, hamming it up for the camera. I still love 'It', and it fits the fun factor for Halloween very well. 'Salem's Lot', however, fits the creep factor for Halloween, having its monster be a full-on vicious vampire, thus making this review a nice cherry to add on top of this month's sundae of reviews. This is an easy enough to find title, and all you really need for it is three hours to kill, and the desire to get into a horror product from the 70s - which, by the way, was a legendary decade for horror. Some of it is bound to look dated, but that's honestly something that only added to the fun of it all. It's not something I'd necessarily call scary, but it certainly carries a creepiness with it, and even ends on a pretty deep and heartbreaking note. I won't spoil it, but this is a good example of how a true horror movie ought to end. It doesn't involve a villain springing back to life, or a last-minute surprise kill, just a note of doom - almost a cliffhanger. Anyway, your imagination will have to fill in some blanks, but for me, that's generally a good thing. 4/5 For those of you looking for a decent horror comedy you may not have heard of, I might point you in the direction of 'Bloodsucking Bastards'. Think of the film as combining 'Office Space' with 'Buffy' with 'Workaholics' - except the only element from 'Buffy' is the rather similar, though perhaps more made up portrayal of vampires (at least I see it). Meanwhile, the comedy hangs out more on the comedy stylings of 'Workaholics', and 'Office Space', where it just teeters on that low-brow tier, but manages to be clever enough to be kind of awesome. We open the movie with two opposing personalities; Acting Sales Manager, Evan Sanders (Fran Kranz), who is striving to become Sales Manager full time, and Tim, one of several office slackers. Evan's potition may lay in the balance of Tim (Joey Kern) getting an upcoming presentation done for "Phallucite" (an obvious-sounding male enhancement drug). But Tim keeps slacking off, playing video games at the office with his coworkers and friends, Andrew (Justin Ware) and Mike (Neil Garguilo). To make matters worse, Evan has to deal with the head of HR, Amanda (Emma Fitzpatrick), whom he was once romantically entangled until he screwed something up. I won't say what because it's pretty funny stuff, and it involves no cheating. When Branch President, Ted Plunkett (Joel Murray) arranges an office meeting to discuss something, Even thinks it may be his ticket up the ladder to his permanent position as Sales Manager. Realizing he was only half right about what the meeting entailed, however, Ted gives the position to Evan's arch nemesis, Max Phillips (Pedro Pascal - who we all know now as The Madalorian), who once slept with Evan's girlfriend. Just to add to things, Max starts hitting on Amanda right away. It isn't long after that Evan starts finding evidence (sometimes graphic evidence) that something horrifying is going on under everyone's noses, and he may have a better reason to hate Max than just being the guy who stole his girlfriend one time in the past. I have to say that this was pretty well up my alley as far as the type of film goes. I don't know if I'd say any of it is knee-slapping-hilarious, but it is funny, and the way the comedy unfolds is often pretty clever. There's a running gag, for instance, that involves the idea of everyone else, not just the main character, knowing what's going on. You also get a kick out of the slacker characters, namely Tim, who plays the guy who knows everything's happening, he just doesn't seem to care and is carrying on with life - much like an Ed from 'Shaun of the Dead', but at least Ed clues in at the end. This guy takes the role all the way through as if to say people like this aren't about to change. To top it all off, the office security guard, Frank (Marshall Givens) is one of the best parts - a security guard who's practically robotic and takes his job way too seriously. This brand of comedy may not be for everyone, but I tend to love when a good comedy can be blended with not just a horror, but a gore-fest of a horror. It's not so much guts as blood though. Just think - every time a vampire gets staked here, it just explodes into a pool of blood-splash, and without spoiling much, there's a fair share of this. I will say sometimes the comedy tries a bit too hard with thinks like obnoxious screaming reactions, and some of the humor is just plain low-brow. But it's often enough that they get a clever joke in there that I can hold on, not just relying on the horror aspect of things. It's a solid blend, an I recommend it to fans of things like 'Zombieland'; a parodic comedy with big balls of steel. 4/5 Based on a comic book miniseries, this one comes to us from director David Slade, who would later go from vicious to sparkling when he would direct 'Twilight: Eclipse' in 2010. Although there's nothing about that series that particularly interests me, it is interesting to know that this movie comes from a seemingly flexible director. The vampires in this movie are not at all romanticized, and are vicious, blood-thirsty creatures of the night - just the way I like 'em! Taking place in the town of Barrow, Alaska (restored to its original Iñupiat name, Utqiaġvik, in 2016, thus somewhat dating the film), the townsfolk are setting up for their annual "30 Days of Night", when there is a month-long polar night. While this is going on, a random stranger (Ben Foster) comes to shore and takes out the town's communication and transport services, somewhat trapping them all. Meanwhile, the town's sheriff, Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) is facing the consequences of his estranged wife, Stella (Melissa George) missing her flight, and having to stay the 30 days. A group of vampires, led by someone named Marlow (Danny Huston) is connected to the mysterious stranger, and when he sabotages everything, they launch a vicious attack on the town. Soon, Eben, Stella, Eben's brother, Jake (Mark Rendall) and a handful of others find themselves hold up in an attic, hiding from the bloodsuckers. But how long will they have to hide when this group of vampires is basically immune to the cold and don't have to worry about sunrise anytime soon? Considering this whole polar night thing is very real, it sort of surprises me that this concept wasn't thought up sooner. Why wouldn't a hoard of vampires take advantage of a place where the sun won't rise for a month? I've always really liked the whole concept here. The film is very middle-ground according to other critics. At worst it's considered a waste of great talent, at best, it's an original and clever concept. I happily lean towards the latter, and find it to be sincerely underrated as a scary vampire film. For as "horror" as vampires tend to be, it seems to be rather rare for them to be portrayed as true monsters as opposed to something more romantic. But while so many prefer that vampire with class, I personally love the vicious, inescapable, blood-thirsty creatures, and this movie certainly has them. At times, sure, it feels a bit over-the-top, but it's a great gorefest for anyone seeking the more animalistic side of these creatures. While it doesn't entirely escape my criticisms, I can't deny that I have a lot of fun with this one as a horror movie. Certain things I don't like about it, however, include a hell of a lot of ear-piercingly noisy shrieking, and it's one of those movies that's quiet one moment, loud the next. You know, the kind of movie where you crank up the volume just to hear someone speak, but soon that's followed by an action sequence that suddenly makes your house vibrate. It's a big pet peeve of mine, although I do understand that it has to do with mood-establishment. Still though, it's irritating. On the other hand, the film is very dark and cold in its tone and sets the mood for an inescapable town of horrors. The vampire designs are pretty decent and creepy-looking, and it carries with it an atmosphere of dread through its entirety. I also have to give it up for its ending, which I certainly didn't quite see coming. It's actually pretty badass, if you ask me. So while it's nothing that's about to become an annual Halloween tradition, or even something I've gotten into as a series, I do enjoy this one as a horror fan who's more into the animalistic vampires than the more, shall we say, classy ones. I'd recommend it to anyone with similar tastes in the vampiric horror subgenre. 4/5 This was a title that passed me by, back in 2010, when it was initially released. It was very limited, and though I knew about it, it was really just another title I didn't feel like bothering with. Ironically, the main reason i decided not to watch it is actually what makes the movie pretty damn good. Essentially, they took 'Zombieland', replaced zombies with vampires (although they might as well be zombie here), and made it much more dark and serious. At the time, I dubbed it a 'Zombieland' ripoff, and just let it be. In my search for "vicious vampire movies", however, I happened across this title which I had long since forgotten about and thought I'd give it a chance once I saw that it received some generous ratings from various sources. Watching it as a horror fan, I have to say that I enjoyed it. One thing I attribute to good horror nowadays is when the filmmakers make sure we give a damn about the characters, putting them in a bit more peril than they would be if they were Jason fodder. They do a good job of it here, and there's a 'Walking Dead' vibe in which this is so much more about the people than the threat at hand. We meet a young man named Martin (Connor Paolo) whose family is viciously slaughtered by a vampire, and they take it to such an extreme that it made me respect the movie instantly. I won't go into the gory details, but it dares to put something rather graphic on screen to let you know that unlike 'Zombieland', this movie is NOT messing around, and no one is safe from the get-go. Upon discovering his family, Martin is rescued and taken under the wing of a rogue vampire hunter simply known as "Mister" (Nick Damici). Like just about every zombie invasion film that has ever existed (seriously, these vampires are so close to being zombies, it's almost ridiculous), the end goal is a rumored-to-be untouched safe place, here known as "New Eden", somewhere north. Mister takes Martin along for the ride, keeping him safe and training him to be a tough, badass vampire hunter just like him. The general rule is that vampires are vicious, dangerous, horrible creatures who will feast on your flesh at the drop of a hat and the only way to survive is to get used to brutally killing them. However, the film's simplicity wanes when certain characters are introduced along the way. One character, a nun who is only ever referred to as "Sister" (Kelly McGillis), still sees something of a human side to these creatures. Thankfully, she doesn't preach away on the subject as the annoying "holier than thou" character, but we get where she stands, and she's pretty easy to empathize with, all things considered. Another character they pick up on their journey, eventually, is the young and pregnant Belle (Danielle Harris); another soul hoping to make it to New Eden to have her child safely. Of course, none of this would be complete without a primary villain. In this case, we have the leader of a fundamentalist militia known as The Brotherhood, Loven (Michael Cerveris) who considers all of this vampirism they are surrounded with as an act of God. So soon enough our small team of travellers find themselves trying to survive against more horrors than just a horde of zom--- vampires! I keep forgetting. I might say that's my first real complaint about the film.It really and truly does come off as more of a zombie survival film than a movie about a horde of vampires. There's no real intelligence attached to these creatures, they're just bloodthirsty monsters. More criticisms I have on the film aren't many, but one of the fatal flaws, has become a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't think I stand alone on it - the tone of dialogue. I have come to hate this, not enough to fully ruin a movie for me, but enough to make it lose a point or two. What I mean here is when characters just mumble through their dialogue. They speak in some toned down, dramatic voice, to where it's damn near whispering, and you just miss everything they say. The latest example of something that irked me with it recently was 'Tenet'. I get that it's supposed to add a dramatic and perhaps more realistic tone, but movies have been doing great for decades without the need for that. I wanna understand what I'm hearing. I'm not even kidding, I had to bring it back several times and throw on subtitles. Criticisms aside, I still had a great time with this movie as a solid story. Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of new or different stuff here, but the characters are easy to empathize with, the atmosphere of it all gives you a sense of dread, and the score is so melancholy that it manages to strike this chord of hopelessness, helping you to feel for these characters. There's a good range of these characters as well, and the horror aspect is spot on. Once again, one of the first deaths you see is so brutal that it makes you wanna pay attention - like a car wreck you can't turn away from, even though you know you don't need to see such things. It's horrific, brutal, dramatic, sad, action packed, and it's got one of those great endings where the movie just kinda stops and you, the audience, have to try to fill in the blanks with your imagination. I now people hate that kind of thing, but I eat it up, so good on it... but maybe one day I need to check out 'Stake Land II'. All in all, I had a good time with this, even if it was moderately unoriginal. 3/5 To cap off this month of Campbell, I decided to go with the one where Bruce plays not only himself, but potentially the worst version of himself. He does it really well, it's further proof that the man can have a good laugh at himself, and despite its low ratings, I actually kinda love this one. Of course, there may or may not be pot-laced carrot cake involved with my first watch on this, which may have made me enjoy it a little more than others did. It's possible that now there's just that connection with it. But I digress. The film opens in the small mining town of Gold Lick, Oregon, where a die hard Bruce Campbell fan named Jeff (Taylor Sharpe) and his friend Clayton (Logan Martin) meet a couple of girls at a cemetery; Big Debbie and Little Debbie (Ariel Badenhop and Ali Akay, respectively). While wandering around, Jeff takes a mysterious medallion from the mausoleum, which in turn releases the Chinese God of War, Guan-Di (James Peck), who also happens to be the patron saint of bean curd. It sounds silly, but after doing a little bit of looking, I learned that there's some truth to this lore - at least as far as mythical Chinese deities go. These events lead Jeff to the one and only Bruce Campbell, who is living his life in a bit of a rut. His divorce is final, he can't stop getting B movie roles, and his only friend is his dog, whom he shares beers with, drowning out his sorrows. When Jeff finds Bruce, he kidnaps him and brings him back to town in order to fight the spirit of Guan-Di, because of course, Bruce Campbell is a pro at horror monster killing. Bruce goes with it, thinking that it's a role play of sorts, as a surprise birthday present from his agent, Mills Toddner (Ted Raimi). This is mostly fueled by Jeff's Mom, Kelly (Grace Thorsen) who Campbell develops an immediate thing for. Little does he know that he's about to get into the real deal. Can he keep his composure? Truth be told, it's not the best quality of movie. It's relatively basic, and there's not a whole lot to it, but I have to say that it delivers some laughs. So let's talk about Ted Raimi. He has a bit of a thing for taking on "foreign" roles. Here, aside from Mills, he plays Wing (an old Chinese harbinger of doom) and Luigi (an Italian running gag who has to keep painting the town's population sign). He's got a bit of a Rob Schneider thing going on with that, but I'm sorry to say, they are some of the funniest bits of the film - not because of the stereotypes, but because of the jokes that are written for these characters. Luigi is just so frustrated about having to paint the sign, and the gag works out to have a pretty funny punchline, and Wing actually has my favorite line of the whole film, which I won't put out of context here, but if you've seen it - the line right after his "dispelling dance". So for me, the laughs have nothing to do with the racist stereotypes being portrayed, but I do feel like I'm walking a fine line with it. So fair warning if you may be sensitive to such things. The real entertainment value to it, however, is just Bruce Campbell willingly playing what could be his stereotypical self. He's cocky, has a bad attitude, treats his fans like a bunch of morons or objects. He once used me as an arm rest in real life. Photo at the bottom of the page - my smile is a little wonky, as I was a tad starstruck. Anyway, it's a weird thing to say, but he plays himself so well. What I mean by that is that sometimes someone plays themselves and often it can be a bit glorified. There's nothing like someone who can play the worst versions of themselves. My personal favorite is probably Michael Cera's polar opposite version of himself in 'This is the End', but Bruce playing himself here is a very close second - basically a coin flip. There's not much more to say about it, so I'm gonna end it here. I had some fun this summer, going through a big chunk of Bruce Campbell's resume (with a couple of repeat views, including this one), even if a lot of them just came out as average at best. Campbell is a B movie actor, though, so one can't expect Oscar-worthy watches here. He caters to those who don't need to take movies seriously to enjoy them, and here, it shows. Hell, there's even lines that flat out insult him, saying things like how his films are childish, or that he was the worst part about 'Moontrap'. But the reality is that Bruce Campbell is a bit of a legend when it comes to cult horror, and even in comic book form, he's taken on Freddy and Jason as Ash. Like a good stiff drink, he may be an acquired taste, but once you acquire it, you fall down a bit of a rabbit hole with his stuff. 4/5 As far as Bruce Campbell's resume goes, I think it's safe to say that 'Bubba Ho-Tep' is the quintessential non-'Evil Dead' movie of his fans need to see. It seems to have reached a generous cult following, and 'My Name is Bruce' even references its popularity among the general public. But that review comes later. It's all with good reason, too. It's a great horror-comedy flick from the perspective of a bitter old Elvis impersonator - what more could you want? But there IS more. Known to the staff of Shady Rest Retirement Home as Sebastian Haff (Bruce Campbell), our hero claims to be the real Elvis Presley. It's explained away that in the 70's, he grew tired of his fame, switched places with Haff, and it was Haff who eventually died while he lived his life impersonating Haff, impersonating himself. It's a little convoluted, but it supplies the viewer with the question of whether he's actually Elvis, or just a guy who is convinced he's Elvis. Anyway, following a bad hip injury, he finds himself stuck at the Retirement Home, contemplating all of the negativity that comes with old age, and essentially he's laying there waiting to embrace the end of things. Elvis/Haff has a best friend who listens to him, taking him more seriously than others, named Jack (Ossie Davis) who swears to be John F. Kennedy, claiming his black skin color to be a dye job to disguise him after an assassination attempt, and being abandoned by Lyndon Johnson in the home. But while this entire set-up makes for a hilarious one, there's more going on in this home than meets the eye of Ra when Elvis/Haff and Jack/Kennedy find themselves going up against a re-animated Egyptian mummy, stolen from an American museum and lost in a storm. The mummy is dubbed "Bubba Ho-Tep" (Bob Ivy) by Elvis/Haff, wears cowboy duds as opposed to anything traditionally Egyptian, and goes around the home sucking the souls out of easy, bed-ridden prey for sustenance - which can be done through any orifice, by the way. The novella of the same name by Joe R. Lansdale can be found in an anthology book called 'The King Is Dead: Tales of Elvis Post-Mortem'. It really does make me wonder what kind of differences there might be to the written story, as this is a movie that takes a lot of weird turns, like the idea of sucking someone's soul out through their butt. Lansdale has a few TV/film adaptations under his name, all of them are under the radar, including Season 1, Episode 1 of 'Masters of Horror'; 'Incident On and Off a Mountain Road', a zombie film called 'Christmas with the Dead', a crime film called 'Cold in July', and a 3-season TV series called 'Hap and Leonard'. I figured I'd mention his works just in case a 'Ho-Tep' fan wants to see what else its creator created. 32 prints of the film were made, and it ended up being a touring movie, hitting up various film festivals and gaining a cult following powerful enough that by the time of its DVD release, everyone who was a Bruce Campbell fan seemed to at least know the name. So of all the Campbell titles to put "Under the Radar" this summer, this is probably about the only one that almost doesn't belong. But since Campbell is the undisputed king of cult film, and all things under the radar, of course it made the cut. Getting back to the actual film, and my overall opinion on it, I frankly love it. The whole concept is one of those things you hear about and suddenly have to see it because it sounds so ridiculous. It's definitely one of the most fun Campbell roles, and Ossie Davis as his sidekick adds a whole layer of comedy to everything. It's a film that's up my alley because it's so oddly original. I mean, it's Elvis vs. a cowboy mummy with a black sidekick who thinks he's JFK. It captures your attention, and then it's surprising to watch and come to terms with the fact that it's actually a good movie that speaks a lot for the elderly community and how they might feel we treat them. Some, with the right tools and attitude aren't as helpless as they may seem. If you haven't seen it yet as a Campbell fan, you need to fix that, because this movie's awesome in all the weirdest ways. 4/5 For this month, I did a little bit more homework on Bruce Campbell's roles. Today's review takes a peak at another horror role of his, that has developed a cult following from his devoted fans - and that's about the only audience I'd truly recommend this to. For those who wish to watch something very disturbing, while blending a together lot of different material, it's pretty great. But that's just the thing. It borrows from a hell of a lot (or so it seems). Released in 1991 (or '92, depending on what site you're visiting for research), one can pick out the recipe that formed such a film. You get yourself a 'Total Recall' base, add various measurements of 'Mad Max', 'Temple of Doom', throw in a dash of 'The Hills Have Eyes', and don't forget to add the Bruce Campbell cherry to top everything off. He's pretty much 'Army of Darkness' Campbell, but without the comedy. It's a little more serious, but he does get to play the broad-chinned hero here, which is what Campbell fans are gonna wanna see. In the year 2037, a nuclear war has all but destroyed the Earth entirely. Any of Earth's remaining people have retreated to a computer-controlled biosphere called Inworld, where computers control everything to do with human life, which includes a very 'Matrix'-like set-up. People are plugged in to live their lives out in a fantasy dream world, but in this case, they seem to be aware of everything, as they can unplug themselves to eat and use the bathroom. Some of the rules layed out for it are pretty open and loose. A young woman named Judy (Marta Martin), however, decides that she really wants to know what has happened to the real world. She wants very much to experience reality for all it's worth, and she spends about the first 15 minutes of the film talking about it until finally, Inworld's System Operator grants her wish by exiling her to the "Outworld" (no, not THAT Outworld). To her dismay, the world has essentially become the setting for 'Mad Max', sprinkled with a bunch of creepy 'Hills Have Eyes' mutants. Here, she meets Stover (Bruce Campbell), who rescues Judy, but soon enough finds himself down in the mutant underground with her. The mutants' plan, disturbingly enough, to breed with her. Can Stover save her, and can they escape with their lives intact? It's here that I'll feel fit to mention that nothing entirely graphic is seen. These mutants are creepy, and a lot of the imagery used is disturbing, but nowhere watching it did I feel like I had to brace myself for some really bad discomfort... that said, they do completely 'Saw' one young character here... Once again - for the hardcore Campbell fans. It ends with a fairly interesting twist that I, myself, didn't quite see coming. But once it happened, I will say I felt like it should have been more obvious to me. Altogether, it stands as a fairly standard film for what it is. This is a straight up B horror movie, starring the Campbell Man himself, who seldom takes on the serious. Campbell is there to give the horror fans a good time by playing a character who will cater to them, and this is really no exception. I had no problem accepting the film, and don't find it too necessary to pick on, despite its many flaws, which help the charm of it anyway. If I had to offer any real criticism, it's that parts of it drag in the beginning, and it borrows from so much that it looks all too familiar by 1991 (or '92 - which one is it, honestly?). Otherwise, this is one for the horror hounds who wanna see something that's gonna make 'em squirm. A lot of the practical horror effects here are based on gross-out moments, but they do look pretty freakin' good for something so low-budget. This is a good glimpse at some of Campbell's earlier work that isn't an 'Evil Dead' movie, featuring him as the action hero. It's not rated well for fairly obvious reasons, but I'm kinda glad I took the time to check it out. It's gruesome and disturbing, yes, but in all the best ways. 3/5 I must say, it's pretty unfortunate that I've yet again chosen a 'Bruce Campbell' title where he's not even that big a part of it. That's odd, considering he takes up 90% of the movie's poster, and is third billed in the cast. However, his role in this is important enough, as in a cast full of vampires, he's playing a descendant of Van Helsing, as well as providing much of the comedy relief. The film's main focus in on a colony of vampires who reside in a small, seemingly uncharted desert town called Purgatory, armed against the sun with shades, big hats and sunblock. Under the guidance of their ancient leader, Jozek Mardulak (David Carradine - top billed), they seek a peaceful coexistence with humankind. To help with this transition, artificial blood is made to sustain them, but the "blood" is a milky color, and it's not exactly real in comparison to draining actual fresh blood from a human. Sensing trouble, Mardulak brings in the plant designer, David Harrison (Jim Metzler), who brings along his wife, Sarah (Morgan Brittany - second billed) and two morbid young daughters, Gwen and Juliette (Vanessa Pierson and Erin Gourlay, respectively) thinking they're in for a nice summer vacation. David and his family soon find themselves in the middle of a vampiric civil war between the vampires led by Mardulak, who want peace and prosperity, and vampires led by another elder named Jefferson (John Ireland) who wants to take it back to the old ways. That's the essential plot of the film overall, but Van Helsing's descendant (Campbell) finally does make an appearance, there to hunt and destroy all vampires in town, but he may or may not find himself caught up in this battle through no fault of his own. So while the film lacks a lot of the Campbell I came to see, I have to admit that as a nifty cult vampire film, on the whole, it's really not bad. It's nothing great, but I can understand its cult following, and it does have the potential to grow on one over time. I thought the concept was pretty interesting, and when it comes to Van Helsing's role in it, it's honestly a very strange breath of fresh air. Campbell isn't your typical bad ass vampire hunting Helsing so much as the complete opposite of what you'd expect. He's awkward, clumsy, and doesn't seem to really know what he's doing. Being that he's not the legendary Van Helsing, but a descendant, it's neat to see who could be the black sheep of the family. The civil war between the vampires is an interesting one, because it's a case where I can't choose a side, because each side makes such a good point. The "good" vampires are tired from all the war between them and the humans over the centuries, and just wanna find a way to end it and not have to keep threatening each other's lives. Meanwhile, the old school vampires I see as basic carnivores. Imagine loving things like bacon, bugers, chicken, and then having it all substituted with vegan alternatives. To me, it's really the same difference, so siding with the "bad" vampires was actually very easy for me. The whole thing is capped off with a pretty intense gunfight (it is explained why the guns work, don't worry), and for a film this small a caliber, things are pretty well done. It's fairly tough to come across, so I found it on Amazon to rent for a mere $4.00, and I can honestly say I wasn't altogether disappointed with my purchase. The lack of Campbell ruins nothing. I will say that you have to go into this expecting quite a bit of cheese, and some pretty horrendous acting in parts, but the film does have a certain late 80's charm to it (1989 to be exact) and it works for exactly what it is - a cult comedy vampire film from the late 80's 4/5 This review's actually gonna be a really quick one because I can't think of a whole lot to say about it. I suppose the beginning is as good a time as any to mention that it's not really a Bruce Campbell movie. He's in it, but very much second banana to Walter Koenig (best known as Chekov from the original 'Star Trek' series). Further to that, Campbell plays it more or less straight here (at least, until one scene), and he's not given much to do. So if you want full Bruce, you won't find it here, sadly. Taking place twenty years after the Apollo 11 Mission to the Moon (present day, 1989) astronauts Colonel Jason Grant (Walter Koenig) and Ray Tanner (Bruce Campbell) encounter an abandoned spaceship while on board their shuttle, Camelot, on a routine mission. Grant heads out to investigate, and discovers an odd looking pod along with a random human corpse. As most movies like this go, both are brought back to earth for scientific study, while the audience can already see the 'Alien' ripoff about to happen. Upon study, it's discovered that both the pod and the corpse originated on the moon, 14,000 years ago. All scientists involved leave the lab, and of course, shit happens. The pod hatches, unleashing an alien that uses the corpse along with various mechanical parts to make an honestly pretty badass cybernetic body. It goes on a bit of a rampage, but is quickly destroyed. The potential for more destructive alien creatures from the moon leads the two astronauts on a new mission; to destroy them at all costs. There's just not much to say about this one. It could be a fun, goofy romp if you have the patience for it, but this kind of thing was already done better with 'Alien'. The biggest problem here is that it seems to leave all sorts of dangling questions. Like what's up with the ancient humanoid Moon society? Why do the aliens want to invade in the first place? Where do they come from? Just how big is Bruce Campbell's chin? And so on. They even stumble across a woman in suspended animation, a native of this Moon society, named Mera (Leigh Lombardi). But not much gets answered other than the name of the invading alien creatures. Or maybe there was, but I found myself drifting off because listening to her talk is a bit time-consuming. Quite honestly, I was not a fan. There was nothing new or different about any of this, and it felt much longer than it was. It only runs an hour and a half, but it felt more like two, and so much of it is seemingly filler. But this was director Robert Dyke's first attempt. He would later make a sequel called 'Moontrap: Target Earth', but it seemed to get even less attention than this. Dyke's better talent seems to lie in visual effects, working on films like 'Evil Dead II' and 'Angels in the Outfield' (he has range). Anyway, it's not terrible, but there's nothing about it that sticks out as good, either. It's pretty forgettable, overall, and the only thing even remotely interesting about it is the aliens, but that's only due to their cyborg-making skills (I will give it that scene - that was pretty awesome... even if it was too long). 2/5 I feel like I'm taking a bit of a chance with this review, considering certain conditions nowadays, and the fact that this is about a "maniac cop". However, considering this is the next Campbell movie on my list to review, famous in the Campbell subculture and has two sequels to cover, I'm going in, chin first. This is only meant to be a review on a film from 1988 for fun, and is not meant to stir up any controversy. This one comes to us from writer Larry Cohen (probably best known to a broader audience as a writer on 'Phone Booth' or 'Cellular') and director William Lustig (best known for either a few underground thrillers, or a wide range of horror/thriller documentary production). The pair give us an effective low budget slasher, much more in sync with something from the '70's. To compare, by this time Freddy was up to his fourth film, Jason was up to his seventh, and Michael Myers had only just "returned". While things were getting turned up in pop culture horror, this came along under the radar. It makes me think of the effectiveness of horror films closer to the first 'Halloween', in which our imagination showed us more gore than what was actually on screen. It's a friendly reminds that often less is more. In New York City, innocent citizens are being brutally slain by who appears to be a severely disgruntled NYPD officer. With a rising body count, Lt. Frank McCrae (Tom Atkins - who some may know best from 'Halloween III') ends up being told by his superiors to cover it up, and to head the investigation. Meanwhile, panicked New Yorkers are avoiding cops as much as possible, sometimes by killing them. We soon meet Jack Forrest (Campbell); a man with spousal problems at home, as his wife, Ellen (Victoria Catlin) suspects him of being the killer. She eventually follows him to a hotel, where she catches him cheating on her with his fellow officer, Theresa Mallory (Laurene Landon). Distraught, Ellen flees the scene, one thing leads to another, and Jack suddenly becomes suspect #1. Mallory, who was with him that night, then works with Jack to hopefully find the help he needs to clear his name. For as big a name as this is within the Campbell Community, I'm not sure that I particularly found much in this. It's in a weird situation where its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. I find it cool, and respectable that this was a film that did harken back to the early slashers of the 70's, giving horror fans that "less is more" reminder. But that coming into play at the same time effects were starting to take off, and become a really big part of horror isn't effective. Mainstream horror movies were really brushed up, offering a few cool new practical effects, so this was probably pretty boring for its time. It might only be now that one can look back on this and appreciate it for what it was. So, while it's definitely not my favorite Campbell movie, I can appreciate that it did what it did on its low budget with some pretty solid underground players. Other than Campbell, the name Tom Atkins was one that really stuck out for me. He's from the non-Myers 'Halloween' movie, which I find gets similar appreciation to this one, in that it's far better to look at it nowadays (though maybe not right now) as a hidden classic rather than something that just "sucks". It may not have done much for me, but I can say that at the very least, it was an interesting piece of homework on Bruce Campbell's early stuff. 3/5 Kicking off the Summer of Campbell is a film I'm truly surprised I didn't know existed. Did anyone else know that Bruce Campbell co-produced a film directed by Sam Raimi, who also wrote the screenplay along with the Coen Brothers? I was actually gonna give this one a pass at first, as Campbell plays more of a side character, but the people involved otherwise pretty much forced my hand. This one is completely off the wall, and plays out as a very Looney Tunesque concept. Although it's deemed a comedy/horror of sorts, the comedy certainly takes over as the main genre, and the opening tells us all we need to know about what we're about to get into; a car full of nuns racing down the street! They are listening to a news report on the public execution of Vic Ajax (Reed Birney). As he's being led to the electric chair, he recaps the story of how he got there in the first place. He once worked at a security shop for Donald Odeguard (Hamid Dana) and Ernest Trend (Edward R. Pressman), and finds out that Odeguard was going to sell the security shop under Trend's nose to the greedy and overconfident Renaldo "The Heel" (Campbell) who plans to turn it into a gentlemen's club. He then makes Trend out to look like the real culprit, stating he'd have done anything to save that business, including hiring an extermination company who takes out such things as "rats, mice, bats, roaches, men and ants". The exterminators, Faron Crush (Paul L. Smith) and Arthur Coddish (Brion James), are two of the cartooniest live action characters you'll ever see. One could compare Crush to 'Popeye's Bluto, and Coddish to perhaps one of the weasels from 'Roger Rabbit'. While they're meant to be our "horror villains", the real creep here is who we came to see, Renaldo, who plays a constant romantic competition to Ajax. He's pretty much playing the role of Ash the way he played it in 'Army of Darkness', he's just not fighting off any evil here. While the exterminators are a couple of bumbling murderers, Renaldo is just a straight up asshole. The film offers up a ton of laughs, and it seems to be incredibly self-aware, much like 'Evil Dead 2', 'Army of Darkness' or pretty much any Bruce Campbell movie you could watch. It blends all the fantastic cheesiness of 80's slashers with cartoon comedy, and it's so much fun to watch. The only real downside is that it's damn near impossible to find. Cards on the table, this was one I had to download, and even the downloaded copy I have is pretty rough quality. But it wasn't so bad that i didn't enjoy it. I would love to see it made widely available, because fans are missing out on some of the great early work of everyone involved. If you can get your hands on it, and have the desire to go braindead fo about an hour and a half and just laugh at silliness that's attempting horror, this is a great watch. Honestly, it's one of the strangest yet funniest things I've seen in quite some time, and it even does it all somewhat artistically. There are shades of things like 'Creepshow' here as well, when it comes to the film's execution. Although this isn't exactly the best example of a Bruce Campbell film, as hhe's not really in it that much, it is a very interesting and fun watch. It had me laughing throughout, but largely in the same way I'd laugh at something like 'Beavis & Butt-Head'. It's a ridiculous movie, but the fact that it's so self-aware and hilariously stupid makes it kinda awesome, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see how Raimi and the Coen Brothers would collaborate on a film. That's what sold me! 4/5 Continuing Arachno-Disaster Month, I had my eyes on a completely different title for this week - 'Arachnoquake'. It's so incredibly under the radar that I couldn't find it to watch, anywhere. But then I stumbled on this hidden gem, quick as a click on YouTube, that I had surprisingly never heard of before. It became one of the 50 top-grossing films of 1975, just two spots behind 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. It's also regarded as a solid "good-bad" movie, perhaps more suited to one of my new "No-Brainer" reviews. Hell, there's even an episode of 'MST3K' on it. So it was interesting that somehow, this skittered by me. The central plot, as you can probably imagine, focuses on an invasion of spiders who ride a meteorite down to Earth's surface, landing in rural Wisconsin. The entire film uses real spiders, namely tarantulas, and they don't get really big until about half-way or more through the film. Funny story, the big, giant spider you might get to see the odd screenshot of is a Volkswagen, covered in artificial black fur. The legs were operated by seven crew members from inside by seven members of the crew. Throughout the invasion is a series of horribly-told subplots, focusing on a handful of characters. Dan Kester (Robert Easton) has a hatred for his wife, Ev (Leslie Parrish) and has an affair with a young, local barmaid named Helga. Ev has an underage sister named Terry (Diane Lee Hart), who a kid named Dave Perkins (Kevin Brodie) keeps trying to make out with through the film and it doesn't really go anywhere. Meanwhile, there's a weird preacher guy (Tain Bodkin) in this who leads revival meetings, and he's only really there to spill jargon about how if you sin you're gonna go to Hell. The takeaway is that he's meant to add an extra level of fear to the whole thing, as though the movie might as well be saying "If you sin, you're gonna get eaten up by giant spiders from another planet". I'd say this makes the film come off as preachy, if it didn't add to the overall ironic humour of the film. It's like this crazy extreme that the film goes to for no particular reason. It doesn't serve any purpose to the story - but then again "story" doesn't really compute here. I should probably also bring up the leads; Doctors Vance (Steve Brodie) and Langer (Barbara Hale), who play the appropriate romance in the story, as opposed to an adulterer, and someone trying to get into a young lady's pants. They end up being the ones to figure it all out, etc. There's nothing much to be said about it. Just about every character in this feels like either a throwaway or a stereotypical character, and none of them are very engaging. Of course, this isn't exactly a movie you wanna watch to enjoy the characters, either. This fits right into that long list of movie that are "so bad, they're good", and apparently this one has gained a significant cult following over the years, especially after 'MST3K' got hold of it and gave it their treatment. Either version is pretty easily accessible nowadays. As mentioned before, I stumbled on this on YouTube, not quite knowing what I was getting into. But within the first few minutes, I understood perfectly well that I was about to enjoy something for all the wrong reasons. I urge any fans of horrible movies to check this out when you get some time. It's pretty damn hilarious. 2/5 Imagine, if you will, the early 2000's era of film. Superhero movies were just finding their footing with equal successes and flops. They wouldn't really get huge until about 2008, when 'Dark Knight' and 'Iron Man' became paralleling benchmarks. Up until then, the big Box Office hits at the turn of the century were a mishmash of 'Star Wars', 'Lord of the Rings', whatever superheroes were doing at the time (again, finding footing) and lingering disaster movies that people were finally getting sick of (they were a big deal in the late 90s). Enter 'Eight Legged Freaks' in 2002, which pulled the same sort of thing 'Scream' did for slasher movies in the mid 90s. It said "hell, we know this type of thing is ridiculous, so let's just have some fun with it." It dug its creepy-crawly legs into the past, dug up all the ironic fun of a 60's B movie, put a modern twist on it. Titles like 'Mars Attacks' tried prior to this, but there was too much of a divide. People weren't quite ready for that goofiness yet, as disaster movies were a part of the same era. It was seen often as "trying too hard" at the time. But by 2002, this one was a breath of fresh air - something really different, but familiar enough to play on some kind of nostalgia. By the way, 'Mars Attacks' did eventually find is audience over time, but that's a whole other review waiting to happen. For now, let's take a peek into that trap door and allow the spiders to pull us in. A guy by the name of Chris McCormick (David Arquette) makes a return to his sleepy little fictional hometown of Prosperity, Arizona to reopen the gold mines that his late father left behind. Due to a toxic chemical spill, however, we get some of that old school monster movie action when the local spider population is affected, causing them to grow several times their original size. With the help of the town's Sheriff (also Chris' ex), Sam Parker (Kari Wuhrer), and her kids, Mike (Scott Tera) and Ashley (Scarlett Johansson), can they figure out how to stop these "eight legged freaks" from turning the town into an all-you-can-suck-the-guts-out-of buffet? As the film unfolds, it proves to be a pretty well-paced ride, and it does a fantastic job of really leaning on that PG-13 rating with its visuals. I don't consider myself arachnophobic at all, but I'm not ashamed to admit that it wasn't without its scenes that made me squirm. Of course, all that means is that it really did its job. It delivered a lot of good laughs, but balanced it with some pretty horrific imagery. By the way, I feel absolutely obligated to inform you that pets are not safe at all in this. If that's the kind of thing that gets to you, it might not be the best go-to. That said, their deaths are pretty well always off-screen and somewhat comical. That's coming from a guy who loves his cats dearly, so I do feel like it can all be taken with a grain of salt. Aside from the fun of it all, it's not without its place in a certain actresses history. It's actually pretty interesting to see Scarlett Johansson is in this while she hadn't quite found her big break yet. It's the last film of hers that predates 'Lost in Translation' (which arguably was her big break) by about a year. Thus, this is pretty much the last smaller role for her before she went on to bigger and better things (though one could count 'Ghost World' from 2001, but she certainly became more famous because of 'Lost in Translation'). She is still finding her acting muscles here though, so don't be shocked if she's not quite the mother from 'Jojo Rabbit' yet. As for the other roles in this, there are no real surprises from anyone. The big lead is David Arquette, playing another version of Dewey from 'Scream'; Kari Wuhrer is pretty much in her element, known for roles at the time in movies like 'Anaconda' or 'Thinner'; and Scott Terra, the other lead, probably has his most notable role here as a fairly typical nerdy kid. Otherwise he may be best recognized as young Matt Murdock in 2003's 'Daredevil'. But there's one addition to the cast I consider a guilty pleasure of a character. Doug E. Doug plays a radio announcer named Harlan Griffith, and you will either love this guy because you loved Sanka Coffee in 'Cool Runnings', or hate him because he's the irritating comedy relief. I tend to lean towards the former, as this guy has always had this effect on me. Even when he's being recognizably irritating, I can't help but laugh at what he does. He's this off the wall character here, so convinced about an alien invasion that he constantly has to be reminded that the spiders aren't aliens. On top of that, his biggest fear is getting probed. It all adds to the absurdity of it being a modern B movie, as in the 60's, those films were so often about either giant monsters or alien invasion. So, if you can make it past a few things, this one does end up on my list of recommendations to some degree. If you're severely arachnophobic, or have a very soft spot for your pets, it might be one to avoid. That said, being 2002, a lot of the CG here is still a little obvious, and in all honesty, it could be passed off as a cartoon in the way its executed - and I mean that in a good way. It makes for a great watch around Halloween when you want something creepy but fun, but remember to accept it for what it is. It doesn't take itself seriously in the slightest, and neither should anyone else. Just enjoy the ride! 4/5 Let's take a trip back to the late 90's for a bit. 'X-Files' was all the rage, along with the idea of UFOs, aliens, and my worst fear at the time, abduction. My fear of this was so bad that I actually avoided 'X-Files' altogether, considering it just too scary for me. Fast-forward to today, however, and I personally consider these ideas kinda silly. Possible, just not really plausible. Much like hauntings, they've become something more fun to think about and hear stories about than something I truly believe in. However, back in '98, 'Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County' was aired on prime time TV, and let's just say I didn't make it all the way through due to it being far too real for me to wrap my head around. Take a second to remember the impact 'The Blair Witch Project' had on audiences in its day, often dubbed the first found footage movie (first to hit theaters, anyway). This was one year before, and aired on TV, which made it a little more real. This actually completely takes its idea from something extremely similar released in 1989 known as 'The McPherson Tape' (so yeah, IT actually came first). The only differences really being that this is much closer to the found footage acting and scenarios found today, and takes place at Thanksgiving. The McPherson Tape takes place on a little girl's birthday in 1983. They are both basically the same idea - a small group go out to a fuse box to check on a power outage, witness some aliens, and then try to make it through the night with their wits about them. It's all pretty laughable by today's standards, but back before found footage was a subgenre, this was about as real as it ever got for me. Nowadays, to recommend watching either version seems silly. The only reason to, is to say that you saw some found footage that predates 'The Blair Witch Project'. Otherwise, 'The McPherson Tape' is really just a lot of babbling, talking and noise (which, to be fair, adds an element of reality to things) and 'Incident in Lake County' just has all the tropes your average movie of this type does. The cameraman is pretty much bound to be told off for filming, there has to be an angry guy going against everything, and of course, a lot of shaky cam during intense moments. At this point, this is the baseline for any found footage film, and it's very easy to throw away. I am, however, glad that I took the time to sit through both versions of this. It's one of those fine examples of seeing how much impact a movie can have on someone for its time. Again, predating 'Blair Witch', you really didn't see this kind of thing, unless you managed to get your prying eyes on a little number called 'Cannibal Holocaust', originally released in 1980 and banned almost everywhere. It's funny what the idea of aliens did to our fear factors, especially when you watch these, which portray them a bit more as curious, seemingly harmless beings. It just goes to show that the fear of the unknown is a very powerful thing, at least until that unknown thing is revealed to be a bunch of actors in masks and black clothing. 1/5 This one taught me a little something about the 'Harry Potter' series that I had no idea about. Weird place to start, I know, but the truth is that this one starts off with mentions of Nicolas Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone. Just when I was ready to write this off as an unnecessary rip off of 'Harry Potter', I kinda figured that would have been a little too "on the nose". I Googled the name, and it finally clicked that Flamel was the only non-fictional character in the 'Potter' series. Though the idea of the Philosopher's Stone is something of a Holy Grail or Ark of the Covenant, lost in history and lore. Anyway, I guess I missed what may have been obvious to many, but it was fascinating to me that there was some element of realism in the 'Potter' series. But of course, we're not here to talk about Harry Potter and his adventures, so much as we're here to talk about an enthusiastic archaeologist named Scarlett (Perdita Weeks) who is seeking the Philosophers' Stone, herself. On her search, she finds a series of clues that lead her into the catacombs underneath Paris, France. She assembles a team consisting of her cameraman, Benji (Edwin Hodge), he former boyfriend, George (Ben Feldman), and guide who knows a few underground shortcuts named Papillon (François Civil) along with his team; his girlfriend, Souxie (Marion Lambert) and their friend Zed (Ali Marhyar). Together, they enter an area of the catacombs that is barred from the public, but soon find themselves trapped. As the film continues, more and more strange occurrences emerge, and the film pretty much acts like a spook house, wherein every twist and turn involves some kind of scary imagery. For the most part, the imagery they unveil has a lot to do with their sins in life, and eventually the group finds themselves in what is almost certainly a real Hell. The catch - the only way to get out is to keep going further down. Being that this is a found footage movie, the scariest aspect of it is probably the overall claustrophobia that sticks with you on the ride you take - especially when these guys have no way out but down, further and further. There's an uneasy sense of helplessness that comes with it, and I can say with enthusiasm that this one did the trick for me. Again, it's very much a spook house of a film, but instead of just having things jump out and say "boo", there's also a lot of unsettling imagery, and even a really cool kill or two - the car on fire stands out, particularly, but no spoilers. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. So, for found footage horror enthusiasts, I can honestly recommend this one pretty highly. I've seen much worse, and it's not quite as formulaic as one might assume. I won't spoil anything, once again, but the ending to this kinda left me in a sort of awe, and I give it credit for not following what practically every other found footage horror film tends to do. But with that said, I can also honestly point out that this one does not get very positive ratings, and admittedly, it's not without its flaws. At times, the camera action is just plain weird, and I'm not just talking about a lot of shaky-cam moments. Often, what you see being filmed doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, like one scene where our lead might as well think she's gonna die horribly, but is still carrying a camera around, getting shots of her facial expressions. On top of that, I can see this being very basic stuff for the average horror fan. There's not a lot of new here, but what I enjoyed was the execution of it. If you're looking for something creepy and claustrophobic, it's really not a bad one to check out, in my opinion. I'm have to admit, I'm very against the grain on this one. 3/5 In order for me to review this one in fairness, I feel obligated to state here that spoilers lie ahead for the first 'Creep' film, as this one branches off of the way it ends. So, if you've either seen it already, or don't care, read on. If you wanna know what happens, I highly recommend sitting through the first one rather than jumping into this one. We start off here with a young man named Dave (Karan Soni - or as most "Deadpool' fans know him, Dopinder) receiving some creepy gifts from an unknown stalker. Along comes Josef (Mark Duplass) from the previous film, who has since changed his identity to Aaron (the quintessential victim of the last movie), who kicks things off by confessing to David what's going on, and confiding in him that he feels like he's losing his artistic touch, and all the killing has lost its luster. You can imagine what happens here, but it sets the tone for the film instantly, pushing us right back into the dark sense of humor that made the first film work well. Meanwhile, a YouTube video artist named Sara (Desiree Akhavan) is feeling down on her work as well. Her fearlessness leads her to interacting with creepy men on the internet, and trying to expose them to the world in an attempt to show us that maybe there's more to them than meets the eye. Things get a little too weird for her audience, though, and she feels like she needs something more groundbreaking. She finds her next project in the form of "Aaron", a self-admitted serial killer, who wants to make a video documentary about how serial killers work. The fun of this ends up being Sara's fearlessness, and how much she's willing to sacrifice to get her story. As harsh as that sounds, it's Aaron's reactions to everything she does that really gets me. He's there to try to freak her out, but he has apparently met his match, and she often turns the tables on him, confusing him. But make no mistake, things get uncomfortable here, too. You find the thrill of it all is in guessing which one of the two of them is actually worse. You even wonder at times if she's capable of killing, herself. As the movie unfolds, much like the last one, things get more and more uneasy. And for as much as I've praised its dark sense of humor, and its execution, it does go to some dark places to make the viewer genuinely uncomfortable at times. The catch is, you kinda don't know who you should feel uncomfortable about, and speaking for myself, it did have me guessing. It had more twists and turns than the last one, and I got more out of it as a horror/thriller. But I would still probably say the first one is a bit more comedic. It makes me wonder what the upcoming 'Creep 3' will have in store to keep things fresh. 4/5 Here we have a good example of a film that horror fans are completely split on. On the one hand, some see it as a standard, goreless slasher flick - the kind that had been done before, but better. On the other hand, some of us see it as something underrated, utilizing old ideas, but still bringing something new to the table, all the same. After checking it out for myself, I tend to lean a bit more towards the latter. We are introduced to a TV journalist named Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant), who is in support of a woman who killed her husband after taking too much abuse. Colt Hawker (Michael Ironside) is a woman-hating homicidal maniac, who just so happened to be watching Deborah's opinions on the matter, and he soon seeks out her home for an overall unsuccessful attack, which puts Deborah in the hospital. When Hawker sees that she's in the hospital, he continues his attempts on her life. Her only real support is from an admiring nurse named Sheila Munroe (Linda Purl) and her boss, Gary Baylor (William Shatner) who, despite their support, consider her paranoid in believing her attacker is hunting her down. Performance wise, it's decent, but the real star here is Michael Ironside, who does a pretty good job at looking intimidating, and even kinda psychotic. The interesting thing they do with the killer in this case, is put him right out there in the open for the audience to see. However, he still remains a bit of a shadow to everyone else, except Deborah. Usually in a movie of this sort, the killer remains a mystery until the end. I further just have to appreciate the overall concept. A hospital is a naturally creepy place, and a hell of a lot of people don't even like visiting them. Speaking personally, I'm okay with them unless I'm the one being taken care of. In that sense, this movie really engages that fear of being hospitalized and vulnerable. It managed to get under my skin in parts, but in a good, effective way that a horror movie should. This one's percentage on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty damn low, and based on so few votes, which leads me to believe that it's a pretty untapped movie altogether. While it's not one for the gore hounds, or even the sacred guild of torture porn that I shall never be a part of, it touches on certain themes that are very much alive in this day and age, and it makes me wonder if it would hold up if people gave it a chance. It's by no means a masterpiece, and I can understand where critics may come from with their stances. But personally speaking, I kinda found this one to be pretty original in its overall execution, despite the obvious borrowing from other slasher films. I found that showing us the killer from the get-go was an interesting way to engage the audience, again, Ironside's performance is nice and uncomfortable, and the whole hospital concept is effectively creepy. It doesn't stand among any legends, but give it a look and see what you think. I'm probably in a minority here, but I enjoyed it as an decent thriller one might find on TV while channel surfing. 3/5 This made-for-TV horror anthology dates back to 1975, and has pretty well remained under the radar the whole time, save for the potentially familiar African doll, who has since become the star and poster boy for this particular movie. It has a cult following, but I know that I hadn't really paid it any attention in the past, and it was something I could tap into easily, especially with my love of anthology films. This anthology film is based on a batch of short stories by Richard Matheson. For those of you unfamiliar, Matheson is responsible for many books turned into movies, such as 'I Am Legend', 'The Shrinking Man', 'Stir of Echoes' and 'What Dreams May Come' just to name a few. The list is actually pretty long. This film's focuses are on 'The Likeness of Julie', here adapted to 'Julie, 'Needle in the Heart', here adapted to 'Millicent and Therese', and 'Prey', here adapted to 'Amelia'. 'Julie' introduces us to a college student Chad (Robert Burton) who one day gets a glimpse of his teacher Ms. Julie Eldridge (Karen Black) and develops a swift, lustful crush on her. At one point he asks her to a movie, which she reluctantly accepts. Without going into dark detail, we soon learn just how despicable a guy Chad is. However, unbeknownst to Chad, his teacher isn't quite what she seems, and soon it becomes a great revenge thriller story fo this particular day and age. It's perhaps the story here that has actually aged the best for what it is. 'Millicent and Therese' (both of whom are also played by Karen Black) was easily the weakest of the batch, profiling two sisters. Millicent is repressed, shy, and considers herself the "good sister" between them. Therese, however, is largely considered evil by Millicent, and is the party-going bad girl between the two. Millicent has plans to kill Therese and rid the world of her evil ways, but then it all comes down to a twist that you can probably predict reading this right now. 'Amelia' (Also Karen Black) is by far the most popular of the bunch, and is the only of the three to actually be adapted by Matheson, himself. Amelia purchases a wooden "fetish" doll (seen above). According to a scroll that comes with it, the doll is otherwise known as "He Who Kills", and sports a gold chain around its neck, which, if removed, unleashes the evil spirit within the doll. So the chain falls off, and it's basically this little thing chasing her around the house the whole time. It sounds pretty typical, but there's a cool twist ending to it that I didn't quite see coming. So with the first and third being liked pretty well by yours truly, but the second one being pretty bad and predictable, the film in its entirety comes out to be pretty average. It's a neat, fun little time if you're looking for some time to kill. But being that it was made for TV, there's not many extremities to this. That doll is about as violent and creepy as it gets, and is probably the best short of the film. But I do still think that first one deserves a do-over for newcomers. 3/5 |