Movie Night: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.

Review #478: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Sam Loomis), Paul Rudd (Tommy Doyle), Marianne Hagan (Kara Strode), Devin Gardner (Danny Strode), J.C. Brandy (Jamie Lloyd), Mitchell Ryan (Dr. Wynn), Kim Darby (Debra Strode), Bradford English (John Strode), and George P. Wilbur (Michael Myers) Directed by Joe Chappelle.

Review
In honor of Halloween, I've decided to close out the second phase of the Halloween franchise with...this film. Six years after the lame cliffhanger that Halloween 5 delivered, a sequel was made, taking a cliche name for a horror film (Or a Pink Panther film), and...not adding a number to the film, presumably to not make the idea of a 6th film in an already stretched beyond belief franchise sound even more ridiculous (However that title of silliness goes to Friday the 13th) then it already is. The first notable aspect is the replacement of Danielle Harris with J.C. Brandy, who while not being a bad replacement, isn't as good, though it is kind of disappointing that Jamie, a character we've rooted for the last two films, dies in the beginning, without much struggle. The film had gone through 6 years of legal rights issues, and then there was one more thing: The extensive re-editing. The original cut of the film (Which is uniquely, but strangely called The Producer's Cut) was massively re-edited, apparently due to negative reaction to the original ending. And I'm not gonna lie, I've at least seen the original ending. Spoiler alert, but...it's a lame one. You wanna know what it is?

So the way to stop Myers in the producer's cut is...put a bunch of stones in a circle, which stops him indefinitely, only the reveal that Myers was actually Dr. Wynn, with Myers as Wynn. And Loomis is selected to be the new cult leader.

Due to middling reaction and Pleasence's death, new scenes would be filmed, which apparently cuts much of the plot line, replacing it with more horror scenes. The film drudges along, introducing characters, later killing most of them off, basically just setting up people to die, which is strange (I know it isn't, but let's pretend), but oh well. Pleasence is back one final time, doing as well as he's done before, this sadly being his final film and all. Paul Rudd (yes, that Paul Rudd) is...okay, even if his performance seems to be to just have one "creepy" look and monotone voice. The film seems to try to connect to the first film, what with Tommy Doyle, Dr. Wynn (You know, that guy with one scene in the first film..Hell, I almost forgot who he was), and...the Myers house. So the Strodes (who adopted Laurie, who was Michael's sister), are now living in the Myers house, all those years later. Why live in a house where death and terror happened to your adopted daughter and numerous others is beyond me. I guess the Strodes got the house at a cheap price, the prices were essentially slashed, an awful pun. Loomis is sadly not much in the final 30 minutes, as the ending of this film seems to imply that Michael can be beat by a lead pipe and corrosive. That and...Loomis screams for what reason after pulling off his mask? This is a film plagued by an extensive behind the scenes editing, mediocre-to-lame acting, story lines like Danny Strode's voices in his head going nowhere, and this...is an awful way to continue the franchise. The scares and blood are okay, but that's not enough to save the film. I'd stick to better films, anything else would probably be better, but oh well. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Satanic Rites of Dracula.

Review #477: The Satanic Rites of Dracula.

Cast
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Peter Cushing (Lorrimer Van Helsing), Michael Coles (Inspector Murray), William Franklyn (Peter Torrence), Joanna Lumley (Jessica Van Helsing), and Richard Vernon (Colonel Mathews) Directed by Alan Gibson.

Review
The original title for the film was Dracula is Dead... and Well and Living in London, which isn't actually the silliest film title I've ever heard of (That honor goes to the movie "?"), but they thankfully changed the title, which while random, is at least less silly. Christopher Lee is once again Dracula, and Peter Cushing is back as Van Helsing (though he did previously play the role in Dracula A.D. 1972, which I haven't touched upon yet, unless you count Brides of Dracula, which I...don't.), so the movie has that going for it. The rest of the film...well, let me get into it slowly. It takes about 20 minutes for Helsing to show up, but in the meantime...I don't really know what happens, some sort of ritual and emotionless conversation. But at least Dracula returns...30 minutes in, and right the heck out of nowhere, but I suppose with this film, you take what you get. And dear lords of time does this film take forever, it takes an hour for Lee and Cushing to finally meet, the parts beforehand are just talking, and sometimes action, but little Dracula. And then finally Dracula reveals his plan, which is either the most ridiculous plan ever devised by Dracula or the most outrageously awesome plan. The plan is (I'll color the text differently, just scroll over it to see for yourself) basically this:

Dracula is devising a serum that combined with four carriers...will plague the Earth in a bubonic plague, apparently killing millions being the main goal.

Basically, Dracula becomes a Bond villain, made ironic by the fact Christopher Lee did play a Bond villain, and his plan in that movie was ridiculous as well. Cushing is alright in this film, Cushing seems to  do well in nearly every film he is in, even if some of the time he's reiterating the rules of killing a vampire. Lee does a fine job as well, hamming it up near the end. The rest of the actors and characters are mostly forgettable, though vampire movies seem to have only two memorable characters: The main hero and the vampire, so okay then. The film's main problem is a lack of scare. It has endless scenes of dialogue, a general lack of Dracula, gore overriding actual fright, running so short at 90 minutes yet feeling like an eternity, and the film's final nail in the coffin: It's a sad way to end the Hammer Dracula franchise, with the first (#258 - Dracula (1958)) being a masterpiece, and this...not. Maybe in the future I'll get to the other films in the Dracula franchise, but I have one more film to face, and it'll be a dark and mostly cloudy Halloween night...

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

Review #476: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

Cast
Mark Patton (Jesse Walsh), Kim Myers (Lisa Webber), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Robert Rusler (Ron Grady), Clu Gulager (Ken Walsh), Hope Lange (Cheryl Walsh), Christie Clark (Angela Walsh), and Marshall Bell (Coach Schneider) Directed by Jack Sholder.

Review
My first gripe is with the title. Who exactly does Freddy get "revenge" on? None of the original cast is in the film (save for Freddy), just a bunch of clueless teens and a family who apparently liked the cheap price on the Thompson house, despite the stuff that happened at the house, but as the father says, it was a cheap price, so naturally, he bought it. So barely a year after the first film, a sequel was released. And...it's lame, its scares are barely coherent, and the whole premise is just weird. So...the main character gets nightmares about Freddy, and Freddy wants Walsh's body...I guess not being a burned body makes it easier to do crime? Apparently it works, since Walsh turns into Freddy or something like that, it's hard to focus on the plot when you're wondering what the purpose of making a sequel to this was other then money. The actors are okay, but I feel like they should've had Kim Myers as the main protagonist, she seems more interesting and would probably scream better than Patton, who..sounds weird. It sounds like a high pitched squeal that works more in a comedy film then a horror film. At least Englund is interesting to listen to, though not even he could save the movie. It's a mismatch of random ideas that spring into a less than mediocre horror film. I'd say to skip this film, and stick the first film. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Wizards.

Review #475: Wizards.

Cast

Bob Holt (Avatar), Jesse Welles (Elinore), Richard Romanus (Weehawk), David Proval (Necron 99/Peace), Steve Gravers (Blackwolf), James Connell (President), Mark Hamill (Sean), and Susan Tyrrell (Narrator) Directed by Ralph Bakshi.

Review

The film doesn't take too much time to start the action, with the Susan Tyrrell narration, possibly storyboards over the narration, and a...cliche? Not cliche? story. (though I do wonder how many stories use the brother of the hero as the villain) Whatever the case, the actors do a fine job, especially Bob Holt, playing the hero effectively, especially when imitating Peter Falk. The animation...is okay. Sometimes it looks pretty good, but other times it looks unfocused, not ugly, but not praiseworthy either. It runs short, 80 minutes in all, and I suppose it could be a fun flick for any...wizard aficionados, if their is such a term. Bakshi does an alright job directing, and the film overall is an decent, if not great film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Review #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast
Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), John Saxon (Don Thompson), Johnny Depp (Glen Lantz), Ronee Blakley (Marge Thompson), Amanda Wyss (Tina Gray), and Nick Corri (Rod Lane) Directed by Wes Craven.

Review
The one that started the whole Nightmare franchise, is a really good film. It delivers its practical effects to great use (Instead of CGI, like that...remake, which if you didn't know, had a terrible rendered Freddy, with the effects making him look like cheese), its actors do a fine job, and Freddy...is really creepy, yet excellent. The story is well paced, and the film never makes you impatiently wait for something to happen, instead the film takes its time, and to that extent, it works very nicely. Langenkamp does a fine job, portraying a mostly normal teen, given all the madness. But Robert Englund, even without as much screen time as the others, steals the show. His voice conveys the evil inside Krueger, and isn't that rare, a slasher/horror villain who actually speaks not named Dracula. The ending is decent, though the original ending was changed to make the possibility of sequels, which they did, without Craven involved. Speaking of Craven, he does a good job directing, never failing to scare when he can. I think one of my favorite scenes is when Freddy jumps through the mirror, with Nancy not expecting it. I do wonder how anybody, especially her parents can't believe here, even though she brings Freddy's hat out of nowhere, but it's that tired cliche for horror films over and over again, but it doesn't taint the film too much. Freddy's effects brings mystery, always in shadow until the ending, a perfect payoff. It's an excellent film, and a good choice for Halloween.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Review #473: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Samuel Loomis), Danielle Harris (Jamie Lloyd), Beau Starr (Sheriff Ben Meeker), Wendy Kaplan (Tina Williams), Tamara Glynn (Samantha Thomas), Ellie Cornell (Rachel Carruthers), Jeffrey Landman (Billy Hill), Jonathan Chapin (Mikey), Matthew Walker (Spitz), Betty Carvalho (Nurse Patsey), and Don Shanks (Michael Myers/Man In Black) Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard.

Review
Quite literally, you could use this quote (said by the producer, Mousatapha Akkad) to describe this film: "Drunk off the success of Halloween 4, we began production on Halloween 5." Barely a year apart from the previous film, this film didn't even have a complete script. Danielle Harris' character was meant to be more serious, as evidenced in the fourth film's ending, which wasn't even followed up in the next. It might've worked well, as evidenced by Harris' enthusiasm: "The way Halloween 4 ended, I thought I was going to be the killer. I thought it would have been fun to come back as the killer, or Michael's sidekick. Scary, but fun." Instead of a unique twist, we get...lousy side characters who "scare" each other, a mostly mute Harris, and...a fairly decent Pleasence performance.

The side characters even ruin any chances of actual scares, like when Myers is apparently chasing a girl in a haystack...only to reveal it's not Myers, and it's laughed off like nothing. I don't know why, but the idea of Michael driving is more amusing then it is scary, but at least he isn't riding a bicycle or a pogo stick. Pleasence seems tired, though I attribute that to his characterization in the film, or maybe he's tired of the script, I don't know. Harris is mute for a good portion of the film, which is sad, because I actually did like Harris' performance in the previous film, but now I'm seeming picky. The scares are mediocre, though the side characters' attempts at scaring each other ruin the chances. And yes, the Myers house is shown for the first time since the original...looking nothing like it, but I suppose it was a stylistic choice. That or a ton of redecorating, because it is a giant house with many windows. Their is a scene involving Michael and Jamie in which...Michael sheds a tear and a barely visible shot of his face...which isn't burned, even though he was burned in the second film, which is evident in his hands, but not the face. The ending seems all fine and dandy, except...it's not. It ends on a cliffhanger, and a pretty lame one. It could've worked as a way to explain his return in the next film...which took 6 years to be released. All in all, this is a rushed production with barely there scares, okay performances, and a lackluster continuation of the series. But at least, I can rest from this franchise, and focus on something different, like this film with all but the letter A scratched out...

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.

Review #472: Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Dr. Who), Bernard Cribbins (Tom Campbell), Ray Brooks (David), Andrew Keir (Wyler), Jill Curzon (Louise), Roberta Tovey (Susan), Roger Avon (Wells), Geoffrey Cheshire (Roboman), Keith Marsh (Conway), and Philip Madoc (Brockley) Directed by Gordon Flemyng (#341 - Dr. Who and the Daleks)

Review
If I wanted to, I'd reuse all my statements I said for the first film for this, considering there's really no change of quality between the two. The character still retains the incorrect version of his name, the Daleks actualyl manage to overshadow the entire film, and...Ian and Barbara are not in this film. You know, the two companions introduced in the last film, who now seem to be replaced by...Tom and Louise. What, did Barbara (a relative of *sigh* Dr. Who) just leave *sigh* TARDIS in between films? Lazy explanations or not, Cribbins is okay, but I'd best stick to his appearence in The Stolen Earth instead. I'd like to mention the ads for Sugar Puffs, only because advertising cereal in a wasteland is...either the most brilliant idea ever or the dumbest. Cushing apparently had an illness during filming, which explains why he isn't seen as much as the other characters. His performance, sadly, isn't one of his best. Maybe it's just me, but the "elderly grandfather" act doesn't work when you have Van Helsing as your Doctor and you don't utilize him. The Daleks sure are colorful, but their..."plan" isn't. It has something to do with destroying the Earth's core so they can motor it to Skaro, but I stopped thinking after the bomb was stopped from completing its drop...with a few wood blocks...and later diverted, mind you. The effects aren't too much, the actors are mediocre at best, and I can see why this was a failure: It's not really interesting. The first film, though flawed, introduced a "universe" of ideas. The second doesn't really do anything different. The only attraction is the Daleks, and there were plans for a third based on The Chase, which thankfully was never made. I suppose this could help anyone waiting impatiently for the anniversary special, though.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.

Review #471: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Samuel Loomis), Ellie Cornell (Rachel Carruthers), Danielle Harris (Jamie Lloyd), George P. Wilbur (Michael Myers), Michael Pataki (Dr. Hoffman), Beau Starr (Sheriff Ben Meeker), Sasha Jenson (Brady), Kathleen Kinmont (Kelly Meeker), Gene Ross (Earl), and Carmen Filpi (Jackson P. Sayer) Directed by Dwight H. Little.

Review
I've reviewed Halloween films in the past, the first three in a connected trilogy (#068, #268, and #275), with John Carpenter being involved in all three films, directing and writing the first film, and producing the second and third films. Halloween III was a mediocre attempt at trying something new with a sad attempt to make a sensible plot, which audiences seemed to hate because of the lack of Michael. So, after 6 years, Halloween 4 was made to bring Myers back. And literally on the 25th Anniversary of this film., I've decided to watch to continue my saga with Halloween.

So...how do they revive Michael Myers after his near death in the 2nd film? A hand wave. Quite literally, they say he nearly burned to death, and that the doctors have kept him alive for 10 years, which is either the most bizarre way to explain his persistent living or the most contrived. At least Loomis is back, though even those burns on his face can't make me forget he survived an fiery explosion, without even being in a coma. There are scenes in which people don't believe that Michael's back, which is odd given it's only been 10 years since Myers terrorized the town. It's a tired tradition in horror films, where people don't believe that the monster has returned, I suppose. Sometimes the film can have good chills, like when Jamie tries to run from Michael in the school, but then there's unintentionally funny scenes, when Loomis is thrown through a window...by a blonde haired Michael Myers. (This being due to a previous mask being used before the decision to change it) The new build of Myers is a bit odd, he's more shaped like Jason Voorhees and has a new mask, which is either not as threatening as the previous mask or just plain silly. The actors are alright, and Pleasence is probably the best actor in the film. The film isn't as frightening as Halloween or even Halloween II, and while it feels unnecessary, it's still an okay slasher film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Mark of the Vampire.

Review #470: Mark of the Vampire.

Cast
Lionel Barrymore (Professor Zelen), Elizabeth Allan (Irena Borotyn), Bela Lugosi (Count Mora), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Neumann), Jean Hersholt (Baron Otto von Zinden), Henry Wadsworth (Fedor Vincente), Donald Meek (Dr. J. Doskil), Ivan F. Simpson (Jan), Carroll Borland (Luna), and Franklyn Ardell (Chauffeur) Directed by Tod Browning (#071 - Dracula)

Review
Mark of the Vampire starts off well, though it is a bit of a surprise that this only runs 60 minutes, although apparently the studio cut 20 minutes out of the film, for reasons still not fully determined. The actors do a fine job, and Lugosi (Save for one scene at the end) does a great job because his menacing presence is different than how he was in Dracula: He resorts to walking around the sets, with makeup on the face, sometimes appearing out of nowhere, mostly accompanied by (accomplice?) another vampire, played by Carroll Borland, who reminds me of Wednesday Addams for some reason. The music is very effective, creepy and chilling. The sets look fine, and the film starts to gather steam around the 40 minute mark, when Barrymore (Who is never given a proper introduction scene, by the way) and the others are just about to go hunting for the vampire...And then come the last part of the film and the ending that derails it all. Whether you like twist endings or not, the ending...just seems like a big cop-out. To sum the ending (which I will color in black text, so just highlight the text if you want to know the ending) up is basically this:

To catch Baron Otto who apparently murdered Karell Borotyn, a Baron who died in the beginning, Zelen and Irena Borotyn, Karell's daughter hired actors to scare the Baron enough to get him hypnotized and get him to to do the murder to a look alike of the dead man, using a hot cup as a guise for the drained blood and a pincer for the marks on his neck. 

The ending shortchanges what was until up that point, the climax. Yes, I'm aware that this was a remake of an earlier film, London After Midnight (a 1927 lost film, one of the most sought after lost films), and I know it would've sounded cliche to have the vampires simply get eliminated, but the film still would've been very enjoyable nonetheless. The effects were nice, such as when Luna is shown arriving in the castle...with bat wings still on her. Browning does an okay job directing, but the film still could've been better. While it may cheat (or satisfy anyone liking twist endings) the audience, it's still a (mostly) decent film overall.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Revenge of Frankenstein.

Review #469: The Revenge of Frankestein.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein/Dr. Victor Stein/Dr. Franck), Francis Matthews (Hans Kleve), Eunice Gayson (Margaret), Oscar Quitak (Karl), Michael Gwynn (Frankenstein's Monster), John Welsh (Bergman), and Lionel Jeffries (Fritz) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), and #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Review
It has been exactly one year since I reviewed The Curse of Frankenstein, the first of seven in the Hammer Frankenstein series, released a year before this film. Cushing's back, with an entirely new cast, and new locations...that were used in Dracula (1958), both of which happened to be released in the same year. Frankenstein seems to not know a good disguise, since he uses parts of his name not once, but twice, but I guess time is of the essence, especially in this film, taking no time to establish everything, including how Frankenstein escapes execution...off screen. Yes, it's learned later of how he escapes, but still...off screen? The monster isn't as wrapped up as Lee's monster beforehand, but it does certainly look imposing, and while it may not have too many scares, Cushing does his usual best and the cast isn't too bad, the film is a fine, if not flawless sequel to the first film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Son of Dracula.

Review #468: Son of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Robert Paige (Frank Stanley), Louise Allbritton (Katherine Caldwell), Evelyn Ankers (Claire Caldwell), Frank Craven (Dr. Harry Brewster), J. Edward Bromberg (Professor Lazlo), and Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Queen Zimba) Directed by Robert Siodmak.

Review
Despite the misleading title (Dracula seriously needs to be more creative than just reversing his name, by the way.), Son of Dracula is a mostly satisfying film that keep the Dracula mythos going. In the third film of this "trilogy" of Dracula films (#071 - Dracula, #297 - Dracula's Daughter), this is definitely better than the last film, but the 1931 film is still the most impressive of the three. But all comparisons aside, Lon Chaney, Jr isn't that bad of a Dracula, and while he doesn't have the creepiness of Lugosi, he certainly isn't a bad replacement. The rest of the actors like Robert Paige and Louise Allbritton aren't that bad, mostly engaging in their performances. While the scare factor isn't that high, it at least doesn't stray from its approach, to continue one of their longest running monsters, and in a satisfying way, which the previous film didn't strive to do. This film has one notable moment, the transformation scene to a bat, the first time ever shown in the franchise. The locations are fairly decent, and while the film isn't as good as it could have been, this is a welcome addition nonetheless.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Magic Voyage.

Review #467: The Magic Voyage.

Cast
Dom DeLuise (Christopher Columbus), Corey Feldman (Pico), Irene Cara (Marilyn), Dan Haggerty (The Swarm Lord / King Ferdinand IV), Mickey Rooney (Narrator), and Samantha Eggar (Queen Isabella) Directed by Michael Schoemann.

Review
The director stated (I kid you not) that this film was to be: "intended to be a film about the discovery of America (Side note: I wonder what the Vikings would say about this...) from a more satirical view in order to differentiate ourselves clearly from the lofty views of history so we can present Columbus as a lovable, charming and befuddled scholar."

The film was made in 1992 originally for German audiences as Die Abenteuer von Pico und Columbus (which roughly translates to The Adventures of Pico and Columbus), as it would be later dubbed in English twice, being released in 1993, just around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage, in which he landed in the Bahamas (as he never actually landed in North America). Given my day off for Columbus Day (which makes me wonder why it's only for Columbus and not for other explorers like Magellan, Ericson, or even explorers in space), I decided to review this.

Why did I talk so much about the film's history? Because I can't decide which is weirder, the film or its history. The main question of the film can be thought of almost immediately after starting to watch this film, and the question is: When did the film get so crazy? Likely answers would be either when Columbus speaks to the woodworm, the fact that a woodworm knows the Earth is round, when the Swarm Lord (No I am not making this up) is introduced, or...all of the above. Halfway through, I started wondering if 1492: Conquest of Paradise or Carry On Columbus would've been better or worse then this, but I'm sure someone else has already answered that for me. The dubbing is notably ad libbed, but not even Dom Deluise can brighten up the film. The animation is poor at times, resembling more of a television movie then an actual motion picture. Trying to mention the inaccuracies that the film has would take way too long to write, and writing so much isn't something I try to do all the time, because I've always assumed no one likes reading a wall of text without some breathing room. You may wonder if there are any redeemable factors in this film, and...there isn't. The terrible animation, the even worse dubbing, the fact this was even made, and just the inane nature of this whole film. Fittingly, the film ends with Columbus musing that there will be a city made on the place they landed in, which turns out to be...New York City. Such a inaccurate statement for such a terrible film. I'd give this film a negative rating if I had to, but since I can't, this film gets to join Birdemic: Shock and Terror and The Garbage Pail Kids Movie in such a non-prestigious honor.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Nutty Professor II: The Klumps.

Review #466: Nutty Professor II: The Klumps.

Cast
Eddie Murphy (Professor Sherman Klump/Buddy Love/Granny Klump/Mama Anna Klump/Papa Cletus Klump/Ernie Klump, Sr./Lance Perkins), Janet Jackson (Denise Gaines), Larry Miller (Dean Richmond), John Ales (Jason), Richard Gant (Mr. Gaines), Anna Maria Horsford (Mrs. Gaines), Melinda McGraw (Leanne Guilford), and Jamal Mixon (Ernie Klump Jr) Directed by Peter Segal.

Review
I liked the first film, for all of its awkwardness in some of the jokes, it didn't veer too far from laughter, and Murphy did a nice job. The formula is slightly changed, and the comedy...nearly veers the film into being being unenjoyable. Murphy is all well and good, but it seems the film is nearly out steam by the end, contrary to popular belief, flatulence jokes do not in fact always remain funny, rather they are only funny for a millimeter of a second, depending on the level of work actually devoted to making that joke. Janet Jackson is our new lead actress, with the last actress (Jada Pinkett) explained off as "just being friends", which isn't the worst way of disposing of a character, believe me. At least Larry Miller is in it, which brings some joy, and while the film doesn't necessarily succeed, it doesn't fail spectacularly. It may not be a good film, but there is some sort of care put into this film, though I do wonder if anyone would actually want a third Nutty Professor.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Old Dark House.

Review #465: The Old Dark House.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Morgan), Melvyn Douglas (Roger Penderel), Gloria Stuart (Margaret Waverton), Charles Laughton (William Porterhouse), Lilian Bond (Gladys Perkins), Ernest Thesiger (Horace Femm), Raymond Massey (Philip Waverton), Eva Moore (Rebecca Femm), Elspeth Dudgeon (Roderick Femm), and Brember Wills (Saul Femm) Directed by James Whale (#069 - The Invisible Man, #071 - Frankenstein and #394 - Bride of Frankenstein)

Review
Naturally, this was based off a novel, Benighted by J. B. Priestly, this film being made just after Whale's success with Frankenstein, with Karloff also in this film, as a mute butler, and while this isn't his strongest performance, it is an effective one. The film sets itself quickly, probably due to the short length, or to not delay the inevitable, and while most of the visitors of the house aren't really memorable by any means, save for Charles Laughton, who seems to try and liven the film up. The film has its scares and excellent lighting, which all boils down to the climax involving Douglas and Wills, with Karloff joining in briefly. Elspeth Dudgeon, despite her short screen time, helps contribute to the film and the suspense. The film is tense and while it struggles to overcome its feeble minded characters, it certainly is a breeze to get through and Whale does a fine job, house and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: It Came from Outer Space.

Review #464: It Came from Outer Space.

Cast
Richard Carlson (John Putnam), Barbara Rush (Ellen Fields), Charles Drake (Sheriff Matt Warren), Joe Sawyer (Frank Daylon), Russell Johnson (George), Dave Willock (Pete Davis), and Robert Carson (Dugan) Directed by Jack Arnold (#420 - The Incredible Shrinking Man)

Review
With a title like that, expecting a monster/alien is expected, without a doubt, and that certainly is accomplished, but the film manages to be more than just an "alien invades the earth" story, and though it's not a great science fiction film, it certainly is a very passable one. The actors aren't bad, given their characters. The film was originally released in 3-D, which is incredibly obvious even 60 years later, with some shots from the 1st person POV of the aliens, which even without 3-D is actually kind of creative. The film is alright to look at, and the makeup isn't that bad. The story (By Ray Bradbury) and the screenplay (by Harry Essex) are finely written, a film not easy to ignore, and it doesn't run too long, so it's easy to watch without being bored. I'd recommend this for anybody looking for some classic 50's science fiction (or sci-fi, whatever name sounds better to say) to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Billy the Kid versus Dracula.

Review #463: Billy the Kid versus Dracula.

Cast
Chuck Courtney (William 'Billy the Kid' Bonney), John Carradine (Count Dracula), Melinda Plowman (Betty Bentley), Virginia Christine (Eva Oster), Walter Janovitz (Franz Oster), and Bing Russell (Dan Thorpe) Directed by William Beaudine.

Review
Originally released on a double bill with another horror film (Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter), the film is a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Billy the Kid in a horror film. The fake bat I can understand, Dracula (1931) has the same thing, I guess real bats couldn't be used due to having to train them. Courtney isn't too terrible, though I can't say too much for the supporting cast, but at least John Carradine is okay, though his "hypnotic stare" isn't as scary as say, Bela Lugosi, though Carradine also played Dracula in Universal's sequels twenty years prior. The climax of the film is either really, really stupid, or just plain perplexing, and since the film is over 45 years old, I figure I can spoil it: Billy the Kid throws his gun at Dracula, knocking him out as he then stakes him. I don't know if you can actually throw your weapon at someone that actually hurts, essentially the equivalent is throwing a rope at someone and expecting them to be tied up. If you want to watch a probably better Billy the Kid film, I'd stick to Young Guns, but oh well.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kingdom of the Spiders.

Review #462: Kingdom of the Spiders.

Cast
William Shatner (Rack Hansen), Tiffany Bolling (Diane Ashley), Woody Strode (Walter Colby), Lieux Dressler (Emma Washburn), David McLean (Gene Smith), Natasha Ryan (Linda Hansen), Altovise Davis (Birch Colby), Joe Ross (Vern Johnson), and Marcy Lafferty (Terry Hansen) Directed by John "Bud" Cardos.

Review
Most notable for its treatment of tarantulas and the ever enduring appearance of William Shatner, Kingdom of the Spiders provides many, many unintentional laughs, but isn't exactly scary. On occasion there are moments of fright, like the end result of the spiders taking over the small town, but then there's moments of a person shooting their own hand just to get rid a spider. The spiders themselves don't look like they are attacking people, they seem to just move at normal speed, but given the other option of animatronics, I doubt it could've been better. Shatner is not too bad, and the rest of the cast is okay, not too over the top, but this film runs and ends quickly, at what seems to be a cliche of a length, though having more scenes of spiders just walking away from the characters would've made the film last about 2 minutes longer, so oh well. It's a mediocre horror film made in a silly era of horror film making, with such "classics" like Frogs, Killer Bees, Grizzly (which I will get to eventually) or The Swarm, but I guess you could be scared of bees if you were allergic, frogs...no, but I highly doubt the next film I'm reviewing tomorrow will be any more "scarier" then this. What is it? Next time...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Carnival of Souls.

Review #461: Carnival of Souls.

Cast
Candace Hilligoss (Mary Henry), Frances Feist (Mrs. Thomas), Sidney Berger (John Linden), Art Ellison (Minister), Stan Levitt (Dr. Samuels), and Herk Harvey (The Man) Directed by Herk Harvey.

Review
Filmed in Kansas and in Utah on a hefty $33,000 budget with local talent for actors, the film was made in 3 weeks, though the film would be forgotten after release. The story doesn't end there, as the film would be rediscovered years later, and this film has been recognized as a cult classic of sorts. And...I honestly can't object that statement. The film relies on atmosphere, not effects to scare, though that organ score also contributes to the film's tone. The actors aren't bad, they work in the film's favor, though ironically the most memorable actor in this film is probably the only one who doesn't speak any lines, played by none other then director Herk Harvey, who pops in at times, and takes part in a truly chilling last scene, which also works not for effects, but for the fear we see in the main character. Ultimately, this is a lesson that sometimes less is more. It's an eerie film that has good moments and provides scares at the right times.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Doctor Dolittle.

Review #460: Doctor Dolittle.

Cast

Rex Harrison (Doctor John Dolittle), Samantha Eggar (Emma Fairfax), Anthony Newley (Matthew Mugg), Richard Attenborough (Albert Blossom), Peter Bull (General Bellowes), Muriel Landers (Mrs. Blossom), William Dix (Tommy Stubbins), Ginny Tyler (Polynesia) and Geoffrey Holder (William Shakespeare X) Directed by Richard Fleischer.

Review

Even though this is meant to be a horror based month, I decided to add this relic, due to it fulfilling the horror part...because it certainly is horror-ible. I'd mention the book that this was adapted from, but I have never, not once ever found Doctor Dolittle on a book shelf, so that renders my mention moot. The production troubles are certainly interesting, what with a bloated budget, combined with troubles with Harrison and other various such things. Unfortunately, the film itself isn't good. The actors are okay, but the main problem is the failed attempt at making a whimsical setting. Instead of being amazed at the effects (or not), I just kept hoping the actors weren't going to sing another song, since apparently there are 14 songs in the whole film. The film drags at nearly 2 and a half hours long, and combined with the boredom of the sets, makes for a sleep-binding experience. Then...there's the Giant Pink Sea Snail. My goodness, it looks bad, and combined with my irrational hatred of snails, makes for either a truly laughable showcase or...sleep. Honestly though, if I could talk to my birds, I'd ask why they chirp so much, but I guess Dolittle has better things to do, such as...singing. But I do wonder if that remake made (obviously) in the 90's is any better, but oh well. There are films that sound better to watch than this, like the next one coming up, a little film called Carnival of Souls. Tune in next time.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars. 

Movie Night: Sleepaway Camp.

Review #459: Sleepaway Camp.

Cast
Felissa Rose (Angela Baker), Jonathan Tiersten (Ricky Thomas), Karen Fields (Judy), Christopher Collet (Paul), Mike Kellin (Mel Costic), Amy Baio (Brooke Warner), and Katherine Kamhi (Meg) Directed by Robert Hiltzik.

Review
What better way to start off Rock- I mean October, then with Sleepaway Camp. Of course, I never went to camp, so...I suppose camp is that old yesteryear concept people did 20-30 years ago? Anyway, the film consist of widely unknown actors, with a normally short run time, but is it any good? ...Sure, why not. The plot isn't too bad, though comparisons to Friday the 13th could rise up, but it doesn't conform too much to the horror standards. The characters are 2.5 dimensional, but there are worse things that could be said for other, more known films. The killer is actually a twist, and even despite 30 years of release, it's best for me not to spoil who the killer is. The gore is minimal, a few shots, yes, but not too gratuitous. It's a film that while a bit weird, isn't too bad, and the twist is actually original compared to some other films, so it works on that regard.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.