Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Review #1156: Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Cast: 
Heather Langenkamp (Herself / Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Himself / Freddy Krueger), Miko Hughes (Dylan Porter), John Saxon (Himself / Lt. Donald Thompson), Tracy Middendorf (Julie), David Newsom (Chase Porter), Fran Bennett (Dr. Christine Heffner), Wes Craven (Himself), and Robert Shaye (Himself) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, and #939 - Swamp Thing)

Review: 
With A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), the blurring of the lines between reality and dreams by director Wes Craven made for a great slasher film, but he had never intended for it to develop into a franchise. However, he contributed to the screenplay for the third film three years later along with Bruce Wagner, although it would have later re-writes by Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell. Craven's original concept for the film was to have Krueger come into the real word, haunting actors making a new sequel to the franchise. However, it was rejected by New Line Cinema at the time. Three years after the sixth (and worst) film was released, Craven was enlisted to write and direct a new film for the franchise, although it is not part of the continuity, since Krueger is portrayed as a fictional movie villain invading the real world with the intent for a more darker look for the character, signified with the coat and the glove, which I think looks pretty good. I found that the film's attempts to blur the lines between dreams and reality to be quite interesting, seeing the effect that making horror has on the people that helped make it. Langenkamp proves pretty interesting to follow along with again, adapting well to the gradual build of terror and creepy stuff with a good amount of charm to her - one particular favorite scene of mine is where she is on a talk show with a weird interviewer that ends with a nice little surprise - Freddy appearing and charming the audience. Englund does pretty well with the main force of terror once again without feeling tired or overdone that manages to make him feel a bit more powerful as a villain, and it is nice to see him playing himself (who comes off as a pretty nice guy) as well. Hughes does alright, invoking occasional bits of creepiness, although other times he comes off a bit silly - but what can you expect from a kid actor? It is nice to see Saxon and his warm presence once again for the parts he is on screen. The others in the cast are alright, with one interesting highlight being Craven himself, dumping some exposition in one scene onto the audience that feels rolled off right from a script, done pretty handily, actually. The use of footage from the first film is a bit clever, particularly since it has its own gradual payoff.  Aside from its opening sequence (which is pretty neat), the film gradually builds itself up with scares, not playing its hand until it wants to for its climax - with most of the cast helping to make the time worth it, with this being more than just a reunion film or being a "Greatest hits" kind of movie. At 112 minutes (which is still the longest run-time for a film in this franchise), it mostly justifies its length without having many unnecessary moments. The effects are done pretty well, with the climax saving the best for last in terms of creepy imagery that makes for quite the highlight. Another highlight is the sequence where Freddy dangles someone along a freeway, and the earthquake parts are also handled fine. The film works in invoking some scares while proving to be well-done entertainment that justifies its existence through some fine handiwork of terror that stands out from the other films with its own style.

I hope you folks enjoyed Halloween and the reviews that came for this month of October. There will be a few more horror films that will creep into November (yes, there managed to be a few films and reviews that couldn't be watched or written in time for a month with 19 reviews) which I hope you will enjoy as well. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Dead (1978).

Review #1155: Dawn of the Dead.

Cast: 
David Emge (Stephen "Flyboy" Andrews), Ken Foree (Peter Washington), Scott Reiniger (Roger "Trooper" DeMarco), Gaylen Ross (Francine "Fran" Parker), David Crawford (Dr. James Foster), David Early (Mr. Sidney Berman), Richard France (Dr. Millard Rausch), Howard Smith (TV Commentator), Daniel Dietrich (Mr. Dan Givens), Joseph Pilato (Head Officer at Police Dock), Tom Savini (Blades/Mechanic Zombie shot through glass/Zombie hit by truck), and Taso Stavrakis (Sledge/Fountain Zombie/Sailor Zombie/Chestburst Zombie) Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead)

Review: 
Night of the Living Dead (1968) was a great horror film upon its release, shocking audiences with its gore effects in crisp black-and-white photography that resonates in the despair and terror it showcases in its main enemy - us, as members of the dead brought back to life that eat flesh handily written by George A. Romero and John Russo. It wasn't the first zombie film, but it certainly holds an impact now for the zombie horror genre in the half century since its release. In the ten years that followed its release, Romero certainly kept busy with film-making, directing films such as The Crazies (1973) and Martin (1978), both of which are now considered cult classics. Romero got the idea to write the script from a friend's suggestion about surviving in a mall in the event of an emergency through hidden parts of the mall. This time around, the budget is slightly bigger (over $1 million as compared to the $114,000 of the original), and Romero also serves as editor again. One key help in raising funds was Dario Argento (famed Italian director of films such as Suspiria (1977)), who helped secure money to make the movie in exchange for international rights, and he (alongside a band called Goblin) would contribute the music. Subsequently, there exists different versions of the film besides Romero's final cut (which lasts 127 minutes), due to re-cuts and re-edits that Argento could make for international foreign language releases, such as a 119 minute version that takes out a few scenes with exposition and a faster pace with a bit more dialogue and gore, which was released in Italy on September 1, 1978 as Zombi: L’alba dei Morti Viventi, months before Romero released his cut in America in 1979.

In a span of roughly four months, Romero and his crew filmed most of the movie at the Monroeville Mall in the city of the same name in Pennsylvania, which they did for the time the mall was closed (11PM-7AM). The decision to have the film primarily be set in a mall proves to be a brilliant one, with several places for the characters to hide out and deal with the dead that perhaps don't seem too different from conventional shoppers, a subtle bit of satire that works pretty handy with the rest of the film, which has its bits of terror along with humor, which balances out pretty well. The main quartet of Emge-Foree-Reiniger-Ross prove to be a entertaining group to follow along with, with my particular favorite being Foree, probably the most confident of the group much like Ben from the original. Reiniger is also pretty amusing, especially when he goes down on an escalator slide. Emge and Ross are okay. Like before, the film shows the terror that would arise from an influx of the undead and what that would mean for society, from the arguments in a TV studio to conflicts in housing projects that are grim yet effective in setting up the premise without having too much exposition. There's also a bit of conflict and struggle in the fight to survive that we see from the group, particularly in the opening half, but as they warm to each other we grow to really follow these characters and enjoy their pursuits in the mall - which seems to be more than just a haven for stuff or safety. The scenes where they enjoy the mall are pretty amusing at times, and the sequence with the bikers is also handled pretty well, complete with an amusing use of pies.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is the gore effects, done so by Tom Savini, with the undead being bluish-grey with bright red blood that contrasts with the previous film that looks pretty good in his own right. The gore may not be for everyone's taste, but I found it thoroughly enjoyable, having a gruesome nature and effective feel that goes along an enemy that still manages to invoke terror. I enjoy the beginning parts and the climax better than the middle, but the film doesn't drag or feel too long - although if you want more there also exists an extended version that lasts 139 minutes, which Romero had quickly assembled to show at the Cannes Film Festival. The next film in the Living Dead series came out seven years later with Day of the Dead; all three films have had remakes, with Zack Snyder serving as director for his version released in 2004, with a few cameos from members of the original cast. It lives up to the original film not by being something completely different or going by the same beats as before, but by doing something fresh and compelling that makes this not just a great sequel but also a great horror film in general.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Review #1154: Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Cast: 
J. Carrol Naish (Dr. Frankenstein), Lon Chaney, Jr. (Groton), Zandor Vorkov (Count Dracula), John Bloom (Frankenstein's monster), Jim Davis (Sergeant Martin), Regina Carrol (Judith Fontaine), Russ Tamblyn (Rico), Anthony Eisley (Mike Howard), Anne Morrell (Samantha), Maria Lease (Joanie Fontaine), Angelo Rossitto (Grazbo the evil dwarf), Forrest J Ackerman (Dr. Beaumont), Greydon Clark (Strange), and Shelley Weiss (The Creature) Directed by Al Adamson.

Review: 
It really is better sometimes to just not take your time making a movie. This film took two years to make, with working titles such as Blood Freaks and The Blood Seekers. You may wonder if this film (written by William Pugsley and Samuel M. Sherman) was haphazardly put together with all of the random plot elements thrown together. Well, we've got Chaney playing an axe-wielding maniac, a doctor trying to cure his paralysis with a serum made from some sort of chemical in the bloodstream through the trauma of death (along with somehow curing his assistant and his evil dwarf), a part with bikers and hippies, and then there's Dracula (with some sort of grease paint and eye-shadow for makeup) somehow mixed in, who suddenly gets the idea to use the serum to give him immunity to the sunlight while bringing back the monster of Frankenstein (with the passing of a comet, no less), who looks like rotted clay. You know how classic movies seem to get re-made or done over and over again? I'm surprised no one has had a focus on improving terrible movies such as this one instead, since this would probably be a good one to make again, whether as a student film or just something for fun. Given how the film looks like it takes place in a big dark room, you might as well film everything in one big room. This is a 90 minute movie that manages to perplex its viewer with such random bits of odd moments - such as an dwarf who eats a dollar, or Vorkov and his ring that vaporizes people to ash. However, the pinnacle of lunacy comes with the fight sequence between Dracula and Frankenstein, which takes place just as the sun is coming up - although you can't really tell due to how dark everything seems to look due to the fact that they are fighting in an area with so much tree leaves and branches. The amazing thing is that they made a fight sequence that lasted less than five minutes that also proves to be incredibly one-sided and dull at the same time. Believe it or not, this was not the original intended ending for the film, which was meant to end with the two main leads (Carrol and Eisley) survived without a fight from the main villains. Instead, we are shown Dracula vaporizing "Mike", played by Adamson from the back as this scene was filmed after production had ended. Honestly, the sequence showing Dracula being melted by the sun is the only effect that sort of works, as if decay is the only thing the movie is good at showing. You may be wondering if this is the only Dracula vs. Frankenstein film out there. Technically, no. There exists a film called Los Monstruos del Terror (1970), which was known under Dracula vs. Frankenstein in the UK alongside other titles such as The Monsters of Terror and Assignment: Terror. There was also another film called Dracula contra Frankenstein (1971) that had several other titles it went by, such as Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein but also Dracula vs. Dr. Frankenstein. In fact, this film had several titles of its own, depending on the country, with my particular favorite being the reissue title in the US of Teenage Dracula - as if that makes Vorkov and his performance seem any less silly. In any case, always check your film titles, I suppose.

It should be mentioned that this was the last films for Naish and Chaney Jr, who both died two years after this film's release. It's pretty easy to see when Naish is reading off cue cards since you can see clear movement of said eyes at times when he is speaking, and the chattering of his false teeth can be heard at times - but at least he is somewhat amusingly hammy. Chaney doesn't have any lines, and he mostly just does a bunch of funny faces, but it definitely isn't him at his best. Vorkov (a pseydonym for his real name of Robert Engel, stockbroker thought of by Ackerman) is terribly wooden, invoking laughter instead of terror, particularly since there is an echo to the voice. None of the other castmates are too particularly memorable, aside from Tamblyn randomly showing up with no bearing on the plot. I do find the brief appearance of Ackerman (who serves as technical consultant) to be interesting, since he was a famed magazine editor (most notably Famous Monsters of Filmland), sci-fi writer/editor along with being a literary agent and avid collector of film memorabilia. Searching about him is far more interesting to think about than the film itself, honestly. Bloom, who played the monster for most of the film, was an accountant, but Weiss is the one with the job of fighting Dracula, lumbering his share for the schlock scene for a movie that does not have much shame. What can you expect from a production company named Independent-International Pictures? This is a terrible movie, filled with ridiculous scenes that make it a mockery among other horror films, particularly ones involving Dracula or Frankenstein - but it certainly will prove entertaining for people wanting campy schlock and not much else.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Review #1153: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Cast: 
John Lupton (Jesse James), Narda Onyx (Dr. Maria Frankenstein), Estelita Rodriguez (Juanita Lopez), Cal Bolder (Hank Tracy/Igor), Jim Davis (Marshal MacPhee), Steven Geray (Dr. Rudolph Frankenstein), Rayford Barnes (Lonny Curry), William Fawcett (Jensen, the pharmacist), and Nestor Paiva (Saloon Owner) Directed by William Beaudine (#463 - Billy the Kid versus Dracula and #535 - Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla)

Review: 
Older fans of mine will remember my coverage of Billy the Kid versus Dracula, which I covered all the way back in October of 2013, which served as part of a double feature with this film.

Admittedly, combining the genres of a western with horror could be interesting. I suppose there really must've been a push to make some cheap thrills and make a quick buck out of it while featuring outlaws from the Old West. The result is two films directed by Beaudine that were both shot in eight days while written by Carl K. Hittleman while shot at the Corrigan Ranch in Simi Valley, California. The only noteworthy thing to look at in this movie is the lab equipment, which came right from Kenneth Strickfaden, who had designed the electrical effects for Frankenstein (1931) and several other projects. It is easy to say both films are awful, but it may prove a bit difficult to figure out which one is "better" - as if one was comparing scab wounds. I could probably edit my description that I said about Billy the Kid versus Dracula and have it work now, as this is also a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Jesse James in a horror film. Let's not forget that this film not only decides to depict him as having survived the shooting by Robert Ford in 1882, but also encounter the (grand)daughter of Frankenstein. If you can believe it, this film feels like a drag with its run-time of 83 minutes, probably since it takes half of its run-time for the two main characters to meet but also due to the fact that it feels like there are two plots mixed into one, and they are both pretty boring.

Lupton is pretty wooden, not really generating sort of interest in wanting to follow his outlaw character - as reading about the real Jesse James would probably be more interesting. Onyx (in her last film role) is the one who stands out, having plenty of ham and ridiculousness that would probably be suited for stuff such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), but then again it actually makes this film seem tolerable, even if it is let down by nearly everything else. Rodriguez (also in her last role prior to her death in 1966) is okay, but the romance between her and Lupton is as stilted as everything else in this movie, not being particularly convincing (I'd also like to point out that James was married at the time of his death - to his first cousin), seeming to fill time and plot. Bolder is bland as the heavy, and the effect used to turn him into the Monster (called Igor for some reason) is awful, since the stitches (on a bald head) is rubber tape. I especially take amusement that the Monster doesn't even wear a shirt, as if that is going to make all the difference for showing strength and terror. You may be surprised that there are two Frankensteins in this film. You may be even more surprised that they are siblings, since the age difference between the two (Onyx and Geray) is 27 years. Speaking of which, Geray isn't awful, having a reluctant nature to him that is somewhat believable to go along with. Honestly, there is nothing here to watch the movie for, since there are no real big spectacles, and the parts when the monster finally comes to life are just as lame as the parts leading up to it. You would actually be better off with The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) if you want something with horror and western elements, and that was an incredibly mediocre movie. The only way to watch both this and Billy the Kid versus Dracula is on a night where you want something fast and cheap (they are both in the public domain) and don't care what they deliver as long as they give you some sort of monster and hero to watch. In that sense, they are just fine as a double feature of terror to terrorize the audience in their spooky awfulness.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920).

Review #1152: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Cast: 
John Barrymore (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde), Brandon Hurst (Sir George Carewe), Martha Mansfield (Millicent Carewe), Charles Willis Lane (Dr. Richard Lanyon), Cecil Clovelly (Edward Enfield), Nita Naldi (Miss Gina), and Louis Wolheim (Dance Hall proprietor) Directed by John S. Robertson.

Review: 
It is always interesting to look deep into the past for films, particularly with horror movies. 1920 was a particularly interesting year for horror, with this film being released alongside other horror films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Golem: How He Came into the World. In any case, this film is a pretty effective one that is worth a look for horror fans, particularly ones into silent features with a standout lead performance. The credits list Clara Beranger as providing the scenario for the film, which took inspiration from the stage play adaptation by Thomas Russell Sullivan that had first opened in 1887, the year after the publishing of the original novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. The changes from the novella for the stage play are reflected here in the film, such as giving Jekyll a fiancee and making more of a contrast between him and Hyde in their morals. This was the fourth adaptation of the work into film (the other three being done in 1908, 1912, and 1913, respectively), along with the first of three adaptations released in 1920, with one being directed by F. W. Murnau, although his film, The Head of Janus, is now lost. Barrymore shines above the rest of the cast, managing to play both roles with a clear distinction through his expressions that make for some fairly compelling drama with him. Hurst does pretty good as the counterpart to play against Barrymore for certain scenes, presenting a somewhat compelling argument for yielding to temptation in order to combat it. The other cast members aren't too bad, but the real focus stays on its star for the chunk of its 79 minute run-time, and it never really borders on boredom at any main point.

The struggle between trying to separate evil impulse and the soul is certainly something that can be worth thinking about for time after a viewing of something nearly a century old. The film takes its time to build to its big highlight - the transformation of Jekyll to Hyde. This is where Barrymore shines the most, as this was a scene without any sort of special makeup or camera tricks, being one long sequence where he turns away from the camera by hiding his face with his hands to later reveal his features of the beast, complete with face contortions from Barrymore. Of course in later sequences there is makeup used to show a pointy head and fangs, but they are well-done for the time. The Hyde sequences certainly must have proved a bit shocking for its time, adding to the entertainment factor fairly well. The climax delivers a fair and quick payoff, and on the whole the movie is a fairly entertaining one, with Barrymore being the key highlight that makes this one worth a watch nearly a century since its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween (2018).

Review #1151: Halloween.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Judy Greer (Karen), Andi Matichak (Allyson), Will Patton (Frank Hawkins), Virginia Gardner (Vicky), Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney (Michael Myers / The Shape), Haluk Bilginer (Dr. Ranbir Sartain), Rhian Rees (Dana Haines), Jefferson Hall (Aaron Korey), Toby Huss (Ray), Dylan Arnold (Cameron Elam), and Miles Robbins (Dave) Directed by David Gordon Green.

Review: 
On October 25, 1978, John Carpenter's Halloween came out to theaters and it soon became a hit with audiences. It's not hard to say that it was a great horror film, having plenty of thrills and scares alongside great music from Carpenter and a well-done script from him and Hill that shines even forty years (and numerous follow-ups) later. I make it a habit to try and watch the film at least once a year (I had the pleasure of doing so at a re-release at my local theater last year), preferably in October, and it seems to get better each time. I was surprised to hear that a new one of these films was coming out, but even more surprised to hear that it would be a direct sequel to the original, complete with Curtis starring and Carpenter contributing to the music (alongside his son Cody and godson Daniel Davies). This time, the writing for the film comes from Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride, and director David Gordon Green.

I didn't know what to expect from this film, since this is not the first time that a Halloween film has tried to ignore the continuity of the previous films while having Curtis return, and the result of that film (Halloween H20: 20 Years Later) was a mess. After all, this is a film series that has five timelines, with Curtis' character being dead in two of them (more specifically, stated to be dead for Halloween 4-6 and killed in Halloween H20's sequel, Halloween: Resurrection). When compared to the original, it is easy to say that this film isn't quite as great as the original film, but it is likely the best Halloween film since 1978 - for better or worse. It's clear to see how much the filmmakers embraced the original film, with certain scenes feeling like homages - one scene I can cite is a classroom scene that is inverted to show Laurie watching her granddaughter while she is in class. The acting is pretty effective all across the board, with Curtis being the key highlight. In her second go at playing a character haunted by the memories of her encounter with Myers, she plays it pretty effectively, making her obsession and preparation for a showdown as watchable as one could expect. Matichak, in her first major film role, does a pretty good job, having a certain quality to her that makes her someone the audience is willing to follow in the scenes besides Curtis. Greer plays her role with a fair amount of weariness that feels like a variation on the skeptic role for horror films - but it does play itself out decently enough, particularly due to the climax. The teenagers in the film seem to follow the tradition of the others in having them be a bit cliche - just as one would probably see coming. Castle and Courtney are certainly satisfactory enough as the lurking shape, particularly since the mask looks just right and we don't ever see his true face (despite him being without the mask for some of the first half). Bilginer, described at one point as the "new Loomis", does a fine job with showing a certain degree of obsession to his care taking role that I liked just fine. The two podcasters, played by Rees and Hall, are a bit ridiculous in their pursuit for more into the Myers story (with this pursuit for more into his nature seems awfully familiar), but at least they aren't too overbearing on the actual plot too much. The film certainly likes to have a sense of humor to it, and while it may come off as a bit distracting at times, I do think that it works more often than not to help give some levity. There are some points in the narrative that do come off as a bit strange, but on the whole the movie does get itself to a natural point without too many bumps in the road in its 105 minute run-time. The music is top-notch, not being just amped-up versions from before while feeling refreshing. The movie is (naturally) violent at times, but it is executed fairly effectively, not going overboard on gore or being over-the-top, with a body-count that will certainly fit horror tastes.

The climax of the movie works is handled pretty well, having a bit of thrill to it, with the predator and prey roles being a bit blurred this time around. Thankfully, this movie is simply not a rehash of all the greatest hits for the franchise, having a bit of depth to it. Was it something that really needed to happen? I suppose if you really desired more from this series, than the answer would be yes, particularly since a return to the roots that made this compelling in the first place is admirable. It sure didn't take me long to find myself enjoying what I was watching, and it certainly will have a place of fair enough standing among the eleven films in this series. I doubt that this is really the end for this series and its villain (even with its ending), but at least they managed to make something that was worth watching, particularly for the Halloween season, where everyone deserves at least one good scare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

After Midnight (1989).

Review #1150: After Midnight.

Cast: 
Ramy Zada (Professor Edward Derek), Marg Helgenberger (Alex, segment "All Night Operator"), Marc McClure (Kevin, segment "The Old Dark House"), Jillian McWhirter (Allison), Pamela Adlon (Cheryl), Tracy Wells (Amy, segment "A Night on the Town"), Judie Aronson (Jennifer, segment "A Night on the Town"), Ed Monaghan (Russ, segment "Allison's Story"), Alan Rosenberg (Richard, segment "All Night Operator"), Richard Gabai (Dave), Loyda Ramos (Molly, segment "All Night Operator"), Kerry Remsen (Maggie), and Nadine Van der Velde (Joan, segment "The Old Dark House") Directed by Jim Wheat and Ken Wheat.

Review: 
I suppose there must be something to the task of making an anthology film come to life. Perhaps it is better fitted for television (such as The Twilight Zone or Night Gallery, for example), but the beginning parts of the film, involving the setup with a weird professor played by Zada, does help give the movie some sort of amusing start, complete with a "Psychology of Fear" college class. Honestly, you would be best off sticking to those shows I just mentioned instead. This is a film brought to life by the Wheat brothers, who had helped co-write the screenplay for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988). To properly give the film its due, I'll simply recap my thoughts on the three stories told to us, along with the wraparound parts.

The first segment, titled "The Old Dark House", seems to be destined for cliches, owing to the title that had already been used for two films, made by noted directors James Whale (1932) and William Castle (1963) that had been adapted from a novel called Benighted by J. B. Priestley. Honestly, that bit of history is more interesting for me than the actual segment, which goes nearly exactly the way you'd expect from a spooky house story. There is a twist to it, which I suppose makes it worth it, although it reminds me of a magician doing a magic trick and then pulls a jackrabbit out of the hat to mess with the audience with a chuckle. It probably doesn't hold up well on a re-watch, but it isn't anything too annoying. McClure and Van der Velde do just fine with such okay material, at least. "A Night on the Town" is easily the worst segment, in part because of how dull it is. It features a group of teenage girls who get lost and encounter a rundown gas station and are then chased...by vicious dogs. It's a bit of a tedious story, not evoking any sort of fright or even passion to it. The only thing that amuses me is the fact the conclusion, involving an explosion. "All Night Operator" is an average story, but it is likely the best of the bunch since it actually feels like an actual tale worth telling people. It involves Helgenberger (whose character has a broken leg while skiing) working at an answering service on a night shift before she gets involved with a client who is been stalked. The thing that bugs me about the segment is the ending, since it doesn't really have an ending, as opposed to how the other two segments seemed to have a natural conclusion to them. It may not be very scary (unless spooky callers really get under your skin), but it isn't too bad.

As mentioned earlier, the opening parts do help the movie get a bit of footing, with some hammy acting by Zada that is at least trying to get the movie somewhere interesting - he plays a character who likes to scare his students on his opening lecture by going through with Russian roulette (complete with makeup after faking getting shot) and messing with one of the surly kids to scare him, complete with pulling a revolver on him. What's weird is the ultimate setup: he offers private lessons when the college tells him to use textbooks for the class, and a bunch of students go to the lesson. I don't think I ever had a class in college that offered private lessons at a professor's house, but I digress. During the stories, there are shots showing the student who got scared by the professor trying to get his revenge on the teacher, which all build up to a weird showdown in the basement. The acting from the people in the wraparounds besides Zada isn't too interesting, especially since McWhirter doesn't give too much to this character that we follow for the wraparounds. You would think that she has her own story to tell, but she ultimately does not. The last trick the film plays on the audience is the worst of all - all of it was a dream. With how the wraparound segment ends, of course the film picks the one trick that undoes what just occurred on screen. Ultimately, this is a pretty mediocre movie, but the segments aren't recommendable in any sense of the word for frights or scares, being more something to watch on a lark. Nobody stands out in terms of acting aside from Zada, although that may be due to the ridiculous nature of his character, and the film is more of a tedious journey than an actual fun time. There isn't much to recommend, but if you really have a curiosity for anthology tales and cheap 80s thrills without much reward, this might be enough for you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Night of the Demons (1988).

Review #1149: Night of the Demons.

Cast: 
Cathy Podewell (Judy Cassidy), Amelia Kinkade (Angela Franklin), Billy Gallo (Sal Romero), Alvin Alexis (Rodger), Linnea Quigley (Suzanne), Lance Fenton (Jay Jansen), Hal Havins (Stooge), Allison Barron (Helen), Philip Tanzini (Max), and Jill Terashita (Frannie) Directed by Kevin S. Tenney.

Review: 
What's there to expect from a movie (written and produced by Joe Augustyn) as cliche as this? It's a horror comedy that lurks in the supernatural while also lurking with characters as typical as one would expect from people who decide to have a party at a mortuary, complete with someone deciding to mess with an old man (carrying apples and razor blades, for some reason) on the way to the party with a prank. There isn't much to the film in terms of acting, but you may get some weird amusement from the silly nature of these characters. It certainly thinks its being funny with the weird jerks that inhabit this film, which I guess makes sense given most of their fates. Havins is probably the most amusing at being surly, and Kinkade is fine at being over-the-top in spookiness. Oddly enough, the two who aren't so surly, Podewll and Alexis, are probably the dullest in the film, being the kind of do-gooders that would fit better in other teen films. The 89 minute run-time feels typical, but at least that means the film won't tire its intended audience - particularly when it goes from setting up its scenario to the horror bits that matter most. Honestly, the movie's best card to play is in its effects, which look pretty good while being occasionally haunting for a movie that certainly likes to reward itself with a good body-count to go with it. It also seems to be a movie that seems culled from other horror films, with one comparison I hear being The Evil Dead (1981), since that film had a bunch of college kids being possessed at an abandoned cabin when they release a audiotape invoking demons. At least the final scene is different from other films, ending not on the kids but on some old people and pie - for better or worse. It's the kind of movie that became a cult hit, making $3 million while being released regionally. It was followed by two sequels released in the 1990s along with being remade in 2009. On the whole, there isn't anything too special that you could probably find in other horror films, but it will provide a bargain for anyone that doesn't mind something a bit campy and ridiculous for the horror schlock. I can't say that this is a clear winner, but I can say that this is a movie that has its own little place for others to encounter and be curious for this time of year.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes.

Review #1147: X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes.

Cast: 
Ray Milland (Dr. James Xavier), Diana Van der Vlis (Dr. Diane Fairfax), Harold J. Stone (Dr. Sam Brant), John Hoyt (Dr. Willard Benson), and Don Rickles (Crane) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, and #1136 - Gas-s-s-s)

Review: 
Who else could make a movie about a scientist who invents eye-drops to increase the range of human vision to see things such as ultraviolet and x-ray wavelengths and uses it on himself than Roger Corman? X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes was made on a budget of under $300,000 in three weeks, with the vision effects (billed as "Spectarama") being done by John Howard. They were a combination of superimpositions, lens effects, and coloration, and they certainly leave an impact on the viewer upon first glance. For a movie that is just 79 minutes long, there is certainly an interesting film to behold in how weird and disturbing it can get within it's science fiction and horror roots, with a screenplay from Robert Dillon and Ray Russell (noted writer of material such as Mr. Sardonicus). Sure, it isn't a film with much of a body count or any big science fiction spectacles, but it makes up for it by having a compelling performance from Milland alongside a few standout moments from the small cast. He sticks out among the rest of the others in part because of how he slowly makes the main thread get more and more foreboding. Van der Vlis is decent in her moments on screen, having a fleeting but manageable presence on screen. Stone and Hoyt are decent counterparts for their fleeting moments on screen. Rickles, in a part not typical of his usual comedic forays on screen, does a pretty fine job with being unsettling with his avarice towards the situation presented to him. The movie is at its best when showcasing its crude but fairly effective X-ray shots, which only get more interesting as the film keeps going, with clever bits such as him using his powers to deal with a few hecklers of the carnival audience, played by Corman mainstays Jonathan Haze and Dick Miller. The climax has a few tense moments to it, especially when Milland shows his eyes, and the car chase is fairly riveting to build-up its resolution. While I do like where it ultimately ends up, I do find it to be a bit abrupt that doesn't give too much closure. Noted horror writer Stephen King claimed that there were rumors of a longer ending, involving out Milland crying out after the action he has done to himself and saying a few choice words, although Corman (who thought it was a better ending than the actual one) has denied that the ending was ever filmed. At any rate, X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes is a nimble and effective film that befits everything that make Corman's films interesting to encounter and watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

First Man.

Review #1146: First Man.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (Neil Armstrong), Claire Foy (Janet Shearon), Corey Stoll (Buzz Aldrin), Pablo Schreiber (Jim Lovell), Jason Clarke (Ed White), Kyle Chandler (Deke Slayton), Christopher Abbott (David Scott), Patrick Fugit (Elliot See), Lukas Haas (Michael Collins), Shea Whigham (Gus Grissom), Brian d'Arcy James (Joseph A. Walker), Cory Michael Smith (Roger B. Chaffee), and J. D. Evermore (Christopher C. Kraft Jr.) Directed by Damien Chazelle.

Review: 
Well, this film is a bit different from the horror focus for October, but I find this to be a necessary diversion that I hope you will enjoy. 

It is only fitting that this film includes a snippet from President John F. Kennedy and his famous speech on September 12, 1962 about going to the Moon in the decade, saying "not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." In a sense, the decision to make a biopic covering the years leading up to Apollo 11 and its mission to the Moon through the lens of the commander of its mission, Neil Armstrong is like that speech - using a great deal of creative energy and skill to try and make a film to take the audience on a journey to one of the greatest achievements for mankind from the Earth to the Moon. This is an adaptation of the autobiography First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hansen, written in 2005, with the screenplay by Josh Singer, who has written films such as Spotlight (2015). We know what the final result will be with the mission, but there is never a moment where you feel bored at what the movie wants to show in the years beforehand. One of the first things that I was reminded of during this film was The Right Stuff (1983), which covered the Mercury Seven astronauts alongside others such as Chuck Yeager (after all, there are some people that are depicted in both films such as Deke Slayton, one of the Mercury Seven and the Director of Flight Crew Operations for NASA that chose Armstrong to be the first man) and both films inspire curiosity and excitement for a past age with depth and skill to make a great experience in entertainment. Obviously the film isn't a complete adaptation of the book it is adapting, but it always manages to inspire interest to want to know more about what makes a man such as Armstrong and others to do what they did.

For the most part, the cast all do their respective roles pretty well, all seeming to blend into the people that they are playing with no real distractions. Gosling, playing a man whose family described upon his death as a "reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job", manages to bring a sense of modesty and carefulness that is always watchable and down-to-earth. Foy does a pretty fine job as well, managing to play her scenes off fine with Gosling that generally keeps the movie with some focus on the Armstrong family that tries to make the film have more than one prism of focus. The highlights in the rest of the cast are Stoll, Chandler and Clarke, who each manage to be pretty effective and interesting to follow alongside with that don't get themselves lost in the spectacle. It shines more on a technical level with its depiction of the journey into space than its level with Armstrong and his family, but it ultimately proves to be entirely worth every second of its 141 minute run-time. It isn't a perfect film, mostly due to the fact that it can nearly come to a quiet lull with its family sequences, which are occasionally effective in drama. The film flows smoothly enough, covering pivotal events such as Armstrong's command of Gemini 8 to the Apollo 1 tragedy, each shown with care and respect that resonate quite clearly in the pursuit for space. The music by Justin Hurwitz is well-done, and the cinematography by Linus Sandgren is excellent, with the film having a look and feel that always seems authentic. For me, the best part is the Moon landing sequence, which is simply wonderful to process from launch to the pivotal breathtaking moment. The film builds itself up to a momentous climax and earns the patience taken to get there with good judgement taken by Chazelle to make sure things go as smoothly as possible. This is a very enjoyable biopic for anyone who is curious about some of the details of one of the greatest moments for mankind that will leave its audience eager to pursue further about space and exploration, of which there are numerous films and books to help serve that purpose. In closing, I will include a short quote from Armstrong that I feel is fitting for this review: "Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand."

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tales from the Crypt.

Review #1145: Tales from the Crypt.

Cast:
"...And All Through the House" segment: Joan Collins (Joanne Clayton), Martin Boddey (Richard Clayton), Chloe Franks (Carol Clayton), and Oliver MacGreevy (Homicidal Maniac)

"Reflection of Death" segment: Ian Hendry (Carl Maitland), Susan Denny (Mrs. Maitland), Angela Grant (Susan Blake), Peter Fraser (Motorist), and Frank Forsyth (Tramp)

"Poetic Justice" segment: Robin Phillips (James Elliot), David Markham (Edward Elliot), Peter Cushing (Arthur Edward Grimsdyke), and Robert Hutton (Mr. Baker) "Wish You Were Here" segment: Richard Greene (Ralph Jason), Barbara Murray (Enid Jason), and Roy Dotrice (Charles Gregory)

"Blind Alleys" segment: Nigel Patrick (Major William Rogers) and Patrick Magee (George Carter)

With Ralph Richardson (Crypt Keeper) and Geoffrey Bayldon (The Guide). Directed by Freddie Francis (#854 - They Came from Beyond Space, #856 - The Evil of Frankenstein, and #860 Dracula Has Risen from the Grave)

Review: 
Tales from the Crypt is an anthology film with five segments that are based on stories from EC Comics, which had done numerous horror comics in their three horror comic series - Tales from the Crypt, The Haunt of Fear, and The Vault of Horror (each created by Al Feldstein and William M. Gaines) from 1950 to 1955 before censorship pressure led to its end. It wasn't the first anthology film that Amicus Productions (founded by Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky) had been behind, as they had been behind films such as Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), and a few others. A year later, they would be behind The Vault of Horror, which also was based on stories from the EC Comics line. In any case, the stories here are meant to feature someone facing ironic punishment through their wicked actions, with the Crypt Keeper (played by a hooded and yet somewhat eerie Richardson) showing up for the wraparound segments.

The segments are a bit uneven, but there is just enough that works to make a winner. To talk about the film, I'll just simply say what I thought about each segment in terms of entertainment quality, since they have their own respective actors and run-times. The first segment is named "...And All Through the House", featuring Collins alongside Martin Boddey, Chloe Franks, and Oliver MacGreevy. It's a decent little segment, with a little bit of terror generated from its setup (involving a maniac dressed up as Santa Claus), although it does manage to get a bit lost with the other parts. Collins doesn't have much to say, but at least she is someone we can follow along with in their terror and own fears, and the ending helps make it worth the effort. The second segment, named "Reflection of Death" features Hendry, Susan Denny, Angela Grant, and Peter Fraser. It is an okay segment with a bit of a simple premise, but it isn't really too memorable, having only one shot that makes it stick out - although it probably won't have as much effect upon a re-watch. The third segment is called "Poetic Justice", featuring Phillips, David Markham, and Cushing. It certainly takes time to get interesting, but it does manage to hold itself enough to warrant entertainment, and it is nice to see Cushing in a warm role that goes well against Phillips. The penultimate segment, titled "Wish You Were Here", is my least favorite segment, featuring Greene and Barbara Murray. It comes off as a tedious version of "The Monkey's Paw" while not really having a satisfying payoff. Honestly, I wonder why they included a story where the lead doesn't even do anything adversarial (is a ruthless businessman that bad when compared to murderers, abandoning your family, an exploiter of the blind, or driving a man to suicide?) to merit his ironic punishment - which is made especially weird since the other stories feature main characters who all do misdeeds. The last segment of "Blind Alleys" makes up for it with a strong foundation featuring Patrick, Magee, and George Herbert. It moves along at a fine pace while being chilling just enough to help carry the film to the finish line smoothly enough. On the whole, the movie does manage to work as entertainment in giving chills to its audience. This is done with enough competence and care generated from its screenplay by Subotsky and direction from Francis to go along with a mostly game cast that manages to overcome some uneven edges to make this a fair piece for the season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.

Review #1144: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.

Cast: 
Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Lisa Zane (Maggie Burroughs/Katherine Krueger), Lezlie Deane (Tracy), Shon Greenblatt (John Doe), Breckin Meyer (Spencer Lewis), Ricky Dean Logan (Carlos), Yaphet Kotto (Doc), Tobe Sexton (Teenage Freddy Krueger), Cassandra Rachel Freil (Young Maggie/Katherine), and Lindsey Fields (Loretta Krueger) Directed by Rachel Talalay.

Review: 
With such a ridiculous title like this, what do you expect? The sixth (and intended to be final) film in the franchise, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare sinks to improbably new lows in terms of execution and ridiculousness, where Freddy Krueger has turned into a cartoon character for the amusement of an audience that have seen better days and clearly have seen better films. After all, Freddy even had his own day proclaimed for him, done so by Mayor Tom Bradley for the city of Los Angeles on the day before the film's release on September 13, 1991. Sometimes you just have to admire the audacity of a film in how ridiculous it can get without being scary, and this is done within the first five minutes of the film, featuring such "bold" moments as a title card telling us about how Freddy (in the not-too distant future of ten years since the last film) has apparently eliminated all of the children and teenagers from Springwood, which I guess means he has evolved into some sort of super-villain, although that doesn't help the fact that the actual body-count is just as low as the previous film, lingering more on mediocre exposition and even more mediocre characters. But the cherry on top is Englund on a broomstick mimicking the Wicked Witch of the West while taunting someone about how they'll get them and their little soul too. It doesn't get much better from there, but at least there are cameos to keep the audience surprised (or something), from Mr. and Mrs. Tom Arnold to Johnny Depp to even Alice Cooper. I found myself wondering which sixth installment in a horror franchise was worse, this one or Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers - both are needlessly incompetent with trying to deliver slasher scares, since they both look like films given re-workings even after filming stopped - but I at least could have a laugh with this one.

The cast doesn't exactly help make the film any better either. Sure, Englund is game to spew out one-liners and do stuff equivalent to a cartoon character, but it's sad to see how the series progressed so ridiculously for something that also tries to show some of the character's origins (at least the parts that weren't said in the other films, anyway). It just seems more like it demystifies the nature of who this guy is, unless you're big on having details about someone who likes to haunt people in their dreams. Zane is the lone highlight from the other members of the cast, having some actual screen presence and being interesting to follow around with. Greenbatt can't really elevate his role with no name to anything other than bare minimum characterization. The trio of Deane-Meyer-Logan to go along with the others as the new batch of kids with a characteristic to exploit later on, just like the previous film. Kotto is fine, but he doesn't have much time on screen. It's amusing to poke at when the film wants to be like a cartoon, but the film is never scary. Whether you like the idea of the backstory scenes or not, the "dream demons" are not executed well at all - it looks too silly with its resemblance to worms to really be anything haunting. Talalay wrote the film while Michael De Luca was credited for doing the screenplay, but the film never really goes anywhere too special that isn't either done for a cheap laugh or a cheap thrill in its 89 minute run-time. The effects and slashing sequences don't really help give the movie too much life either. The last portion of the film was shot in 3-D, complete with one of the characters putting on 3-D glasses, and I do wonder how the effect looked in theaters for 1991, but it doesn't really do anything for me as a way to end the film, especially the resolution for Freddy, which combines taking elements from the climax of the first film along with an "innovative" way to take him out - putting a pipe bomb on him while impaired on a steel beam, ending with a ridiculous effect when he explodes, complete with a title drop. On the whole, this is a ridiculous installment that serves as the low point for A Nightmare on Elm Street, failing at being fine horror slasher entertainment by how it executes itself with its style and story that makes this a silly one to get through.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.

Review #1143: A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.

Cast: 
Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Lisa Wilcox (Alice Johnson), Kelly Jo Minter (Yvonne Miller), Erika Anderson (Greta Gibson), Danny Hassel (Dan Jordan), Beatrice Boepple (Amanda Krueger), Whit Hertford (Jacob Johnson), Joe Seely (Mark Grey), and Nicholas Mele (Dennis Johnson) Directed by Stephen Hopkins (#548 - Predator 2)

Review: 
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, much like its horror counterpart Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, was released one year after its fourth installment in 1989, and it shares the similarity of looking like a rushed product. It was shot and edited in a span of eight weeks on a eight million budget, and there were a group of edits made afterwards to avoid an X rating by the MPAA, but the real problems with the movie lie in its execution. The story was credited to John Skipp, Craig Spector, and Leslie Bohem, while its screenplay was credited to Bohem, although there were significant re-writes from William Wisher & David J. Schow along with Michael De Luca (who would later write and co-produce the sequel). With all of these writing influences, it's also notable to mention that the premise has similarities to a rejected pitch by producer Sara Raisher for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, which involved Freddy "clawing his way out of the womb." With all of this mind, how do things play out? It definitely feels lacking in some ways when compared to the previous one, which from what I remember was just a decent follow-up that didn't go too much off the rails. This one lingers in mediocrity from the onset and never really leaves that realm, with occasional highlights.

The production design certainly has a decent touch to it, trying to go for a sort of Gothic feel, made especially clear with the parts tinted blue, which is certainly weird when contrasted with the gory effects sequences - along with cutting remarks from Englund. The puns aren't awful, but after a while they certainly test one's patience, although I do appreciate seeing Englund play the role as only he could. It is nice to see some returning characters such as Wilcox, Hassel, and Hertford, even if only the former has real prominent time on screen. Wilcox does for a decent lead to follow along with for the most part. The new characters don't have too much personality to them, only showing bare characteristics to be used against them (which isn't new to this franchise), but I didn't find any of them too interesting to go along with, especially with the initial skeptic played by Minter, but I suppose the movie would've had a part giving off exposition with or without a skeptic. The plot is okay, but nothing too inspired, and it certainly has a weird time trying to hold itself together between its decent gore parts and its occasional groaners to follow it. It it especially is amusing that one part of the climax involves Krueger's mother (who we already saw in the third film) and having to find her remains in an abandoned asylum to release her soul or something to that extent. With these films, it's just better to let them play out their weird ideas (gory or not) and let them play out. It's not hard to say this isn't anything good, but being critical is hard for something that is at least occasionally watchable, even if it isn't too scary. It is possible that the franchise was becoming a bit tired, since this franchise had five films in five years, along with a television series called Freddy's Nightmares, complete with Freddy Krueger as presenter that ran from 1988 to 1990. For 90 minutes, it's not a completely terrible experience for something that definitely needed some sort of energy to get the creativity going.

Clearly the franchise would think of something more original for the next film...or perhaps not. Next time.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Interview with the Vampire.

Review #1141: Interview with the Vampire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Lestat de Lioncourt), Brad Pitt (Louis de Pointe du Lac), Christian Slater (Daniel Molloy), Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand), Stephen Rea (Santiago), Domiziana Giordano (Madeleine), and Thandie Newton (Yvette) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 
This film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Anne Rice, written in 1976 as her debut novel, which was a hit with audiences. Subsequently, this inspired more installments in what became known as The Vampire Chronicles (which would be used as this film's subtitle), of which is still being written by Rice. In any case, when it came time to make an adaptation of the book into a movie, Rice wrote the screenplay, although Jordan heavily re-wrote it (although Rice would be the only one who would receive credit for the film).

In any case, this is certainly a different kind of vampire film, one that likes to bask in Gothic horror but also bask in darkness and brooding characterizations in an attempt to stand out from the vampire films of yore - while having some violence and blood, naturally. While I can't quite hold this film up as any sort of great horror classic, I will say that it does have enough sense of entertainment and positive qualities to pass through some nagging elements. Undeniably, the cast is a key highlight. Cruise, who Rice had initially disliked for the lead role before viewing the film, manages to do a fine job with such a strange role. He shows a degree of animalism with such a compelling character without devolving into overbearing camp, although I did take amusement at his first big scene involving him carrying Pitt's character up in the air - which is quite the silly thing to describe. He's fun to be around with how weird he is whenever on screen. Pitt comes off alright with trying to balance both being the storyteller of his sad tale and being someone to follow with said tale. He broods along with the nature of being a vampire just fine, but I find that he words best when with Cruise than when it is just himself. There's just something about how they work well with each other that makes the first half a bit more interesting that the latter half. After all, this is a movie where all of the main characters in the tale told by Pitt are immortals who rely on blood to live, especially since Cruise and Pitt differ in the nature of how to get said blood. Dunst, appearing in only her fifth role in a film, is pretty adept at making such a strange role for a child actor to play work without wrecking the mood, especially since the role involves a 12-year old turned into a vampire. The family dynamic that the three share for a time does work alright for the most part, since the differences between how each treat the other stand out enough to work for drama. Slater does fine with what he's given, since he is only present for the interview parts in the beginning and end (with occasional bits in the middle) that doesn't distract at any part. Banderas shines for his time on screen, having a clear sense of charm. The other actors are okay for their time to shine. The movie certainly ends itself on a fair note to close out on, complete with a cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" by Guns N' Roses.

The film earns its pace of 122 minutes just enough, never having too many boring moments while having just enough high points of energy to carry itself amiably. It invites interest and keeps the audience satisfied just enough, whether with some blood or with some of its character moments. It generally has enough chilling moments that work over the ones that don't while never becoming too boring for comfort. The visual effects by Stan Winston and digital effects by Digital Domain are pretty well done, particularly with the vampire appearance, aided by stencilled blue veins by having the actors hang upside down for 30 minutes. Rice seemed to enjoy the film herself pretty well, noting her appreciation of numerous categories from its look to its acting performances, while citing minor quibbles (such as the fact the film was rated R rather than PG-13). For the most part, this is a movie that works just fine as entertainment in Gothic horror that is just compelling enough at the right points to make a solid little film for the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Q (1982).

Review #1140: Q.

Cast: 
Michael Moriarty (Jimmy Quinn), Candy Clark (Joan), David Carradine (Detective Shepard), Richard Roundtree (Sgt Powell), James Dixon (Lt. Murray), Malachy McCourt (Commissioner Nick McConnell), Fred J. Scollay (Captain Fletcher), Peter Hock (Detective Harold Kipps), and Ron Cey (Detective Hoberman) Directed by Larry Cohen.

Review: 
Q (also known as The Winged Serpent and Q – The Winged Serpent) is certainly a film that relies on techniques and gimmicks of the past to generate entertainment. Its director Larry Cohen is best known for b-movie films that fall in some way to either exploitation, horror or sci-fi, with examples of this being movies such as Bone (1972), It's Alive (1974) or later work such as The Stuff (1985). He also served as screenwriter for the film, of which he did for other material such as his creation of the television series The Invaders (1967-68) to even writing Phone Booth (2002). So, what is Q all about? Well, it's an Aztec god (half bird, half reptile) named Quetzalcoatl that nests itself on the Chrysler Building when not taking people out of the sky and devouring them. Naturally, there was a good reason that Cohen wanted to use that building, stating "The Empire State building had their monster, but I thought the Chrysler Building was a better-looking building, so I thought, “Well, they should have their own monster!” It's not hard to find the hallmarks and cliches that you might expect from a horror monster flick like this, but the entertainment is fairly high in part due to a game cast, particularly with Moriarty. There is something so offbeat and weird about his character that he manages to generate such watch-ability from, complete with his own improvised piano piece. He's an interesting anti-hero, never becoming too grating on the audience while also keeping the film afloat for the parts not involving the monster. Who else can make the idea of someone extorting New York for the location of a flying serpent for money seem so amusing and yet compelling at the same time? Clark plays her role with a fair deal of sense and balance that certainly sticks out from the odd stuff otherwise present, and it doesn't come off as distracting in any sense. Carradine pulls off an entertaining performance in a role that probably would've worked fine for a police film, but with him at the helm of facing the usual cop elements (rituals involving Aztec cultists sacrificing people in order to bring Q to life, no less) alongside giving a bit of exposition about the monster, and he handles it effectively enough. Roundtree plays his cop role with the kind of gruffness that corresponds just fine with Carradine for the time he gets to be on screen. The others in the cast are just fine, doing their bits without much struggle. The stop-motion effects, done by David Allen and Randy Cook hold up for the time just decently enough for entertainment value that likely works better than if this film had been made a decade or two later. For the most part, this manages to be a fine piece of entertainment in its 93 minute run-time. It can sometimes be silly but it also has its moments of charm and creepiness that has a winning cast headlined by Moriarty to make this a welcome cult classic right for the occasion for October.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Supernova (2000).

Review #1139: Supernova.

Cast: 
James Spader (Nick Vanzant), Angela Bassett (Dr. Kaela Evers), Robert Forster (A.J. Marley), Lou Diamond Phillips (Yerzy Penalosa), Peter Facinelli (Karl Larson), Robin Tunney (Danika Lund), Wilson Cruz (Benjamin Sotomejor), Eddy Rice Jr (Flyboy), Knox Grantham White (Troy Larson), and Vanessa Marshall (Sweetie) Directed by Thomas Lee (Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs and #1091 - Last Man Standing), Jack Sholder (#476 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge) and Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13))

Review: 
Surprise, it's a late-night second review to begin October! Welcome to Spooktober. This month will have numerous reviews of things related in some way to horror, and I hope to write and post ten reviews before the month ends on the 31st. This film, of which belongs to the sci-fi/horror genre, has a bit of an...interesting history that helps give context to the final released product. The review of the film itself begins in the second paragraph.

The idea for the film originally was developed by William Malone as "Dead Star'', which involved a space expedition finding alien artifacts and brings them back to Earth with consequences, and it was first pitched to studios in 1990 as "Dead Calm in outer space". Painter and noted set designer H. R. Giger was asked to make some concept sketches to help promote the film. Gradually the story (done by Malone and Daniel Chuba with screenplay by David C. Wilson) changed to one about a medical ship answering a distress signal that finds a vessel near a black hole and rescues the only survivor of the ship who is carrying a mysterious object with him. Geoffrey Wright (director of films such as Romper Stomper) was originally hired as director for production, which was set to begin in April 1998. However, he left just prior to production beginning, having creative differences with the producers. Hill was brought in with only a few weeks to spare before the start of filming, and he wanted to make changes to the script, but his vision was different from what the studio had wanted. The budget was apparently cut in half during production, with the final budget for the film (a USA-Switzerland co-production) being around $90 million. The effects were done by Digital Domain, but with less effects than planned. MGM had a partnership with them that would provide effects for the film below usual rates for effects, but the partnership fell through, meaning it would cost more to put it, resulting in the effects-work being cut in half. Upon completing principal photography a few months later, Hill assembled his cut of the film, but without all the effects added into it, due to them not all being finished. When MGM wanted to show his cut without the effects to test audiences, Hill was opposed, stating that the film would not have good reception without the effects added in, which proved correct. Further arguments led to his departure from the film. Shoulder was enlisted to do re-edits and re-shoots to try and salvage the film. His version streamlined things a bit more, and although the results were a bit better in screenings, the results weren't up to what the studio wanted, and they shelved the film until 1999. Coppola, a board member for MGM and famed director of such films like The Godfather trilogy, was enlisted to help try and give the film another set of editing, most notably by adding a romance scene between Spader and Bassett's characters - by re-editing out-takes from a romance scene involving two other people and digitally editing their features and skin color. In any case, this is a movie that couldn't even have a decently cut trailer for its January release, utilizing deleted, extended, or alternate footage not seen in the film.

Knowing the details of a production as troubled as this one was doesn't make the film any more palatable to sit through, but it at least gives some sort of context for why this is such a sloppy movie. Whether as science fiction or horror, it manages to be a complete failure, having little to none of the standards needed to succeed on any level, being neither scary nor interesting to look at. They managed to make a film that feels like it was created from the scraps of other films and their ideas, with Alien (1979) being one I can think about off the top of my head. At least that film didn't have some magic MacGuffin with a bunch of science mumbo-jumbo to go with it, including one bit about the orb being "nine-dimensional" - but that is just one of several things to pick at with this film. The characters in this dreck are all fairly stale and not too particularly interesting to go along with, with the actors only being able to drag these paper people they play as far as they can. Spader and Bassett come out of it with the least lost, and while they can't save the film, they are at least watchable in some way, presenting some sort of charm - even if they don't have too much chemistry with each other. Forster clearly suffered in terms of screen-time from the edits, since he's in the film for not even twenty minutes, so there isn't much for him (or for the viewer) to grab onto. Phillips does okay with not being too one-note for a character such as this. Facinelli plays the villain of this sorry film, and he can't quite make this character come off as anything other than mildly annoying. I especially like the fact that the climax was re-edited in order to take out a big effects sequence involving his character changing form because the studio "couldn't see the actor" - yep, because that was the only issue. Tunney doesn't do much to generate interest with her character, which also can apply to the other people in this limited cast.

By the time the film wants to start a body count, there isn't really many people that it can use to even make a body count, and the people that it does take out are pretty much taken out in a span of about ten minutes. The look of the film certainly doesn't help make this fun, since a good chunk of the film has some sort of shade of blue dominate the screen, which can make the effects (which already feel like a cut-scene) seem a bit murky. By the time the movie throws its shamble of a climax at the audience, you will be left wondering how they managed to pass such a weird junky product in only 90 minutes, complete with a laughable reveal. On the whole, this is a laughable misfire of a movie that is best left to the dumpsters of obscurity for horror and sci-fi fans, worth only for the cheapest thrill of seeing how such a dumb product can possibly be made.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.