Horror movie reviews

2007-03-19T12:06:00.000-07:00

Well upon even further review I've decided to completely stop updating and posting to this blog any longer. When I started my intentions were to give me someplace to put the reviews that I had been writing for the films that I loved. That need has now been replaced by my participation in Bloodtypeonline.com For the couple of loyal readers that used to check out my reviews (and there were a couple of you) thanks for the feedback and encouragement. I hope that you follow me to the new site and continue to read my reviews.

In closing I would like to say Bloodtypeonline.com check us out!

2007-03-09T11:22:00.000-08:00

Due to work and other things creeping up on me I'm going to have to cut back to one review a week. I will be posting my reviews on Monday. I hope to go back to a second review when I manage to catch up. Please watch for my next review on Monday.

2007-03-05T07:58:00.000-08:00

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005)

Synopsis: Some jackass guys decide to use the name of a Romero classic to further… Oh wait a synopsis of the movie. Okay there is a mental hospital and the patients are infected or something with DNA and then start to eat people. Yeah and somehow they try to tie that in to explain how the events in the Romero films got started.

The Good: Well it was only 103 minutes I mean it could have been 104 minutes right? So that is a pretty good thing.

The Bad: Gee where to start? The film’s pacing is just awful. I found the movie to be really slow at points. In fact there are several sections of the film, which really have no bearing on the rest of the story and could have been cut to speed the film up. Also the acting is pretty bad. It is pretty clear that several of the actors were reading queue cards because you can see there eyes moving! Those actors that managed to memorize their lines are very wooden and bring very little to the screen. The effects are very crude and amateurish. Normally I would give a low budget zombie film a pass on effects, but this is Day of the Dead 2 so to hell with being nice! Over all this was just a painful experience for me as a Romero fan.

The Score: 0 out of 4

Just because you “own” the rights to a good film doesn’t mean that you can make a sequel or remake it. Everyone involved in this mess should be ashamed that they even tried to attach themselves to the work of George Romero.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-03-01T07:27:00.001-08:00

No review today (work is kicking my butt!) I'll have another review up on Monday.

2007-02-26T07:45:00.000-08:00

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Synopsis: This movie opens with an exhausted woman named Ana nearing the end of her shift as a nurse. We watch as she heads home to her suburban home and spends a romantic evening at with her husband. The next morning they wake up to find a little girl standing in the doorway to their bedroom. The girl’s face is horribly mutilated and before they can react she attacks and kills Ana’s husband. From this point on the movie is a non-stop zombie attack until Ana and several other survivors end up barricading themselves in a mall.

The Good: The cast in the movie is pretty damn good. Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, and Jake Weber all do an excellent job of portraying a few of the survivors. Also genre vet Matt Frewer gets a small but very interesting part as a doomed father. The script is fast paced and keeps the scares and gore coming at the viewer. That is both a blessing and a curse. We the viewer aren’t given the chance to get bored, but at the same time the script leaves very little time for character development. When I was more concerned about the fate of the dog than I was of the humans that can be a problem. The best example of this is the character of Steve who is supposed to be the sleazy villain among the survivors. Ty Burell does the best he can to make him an effective character but the script neither gives him the time or the material to work with. The gore is pretty well done with a minimum of CGI and the zombies look great.

The Bad: The lack of character development isn’t the only issue that I had with the script. I really hate the ending of the film I mean I detest it. If you don’t want to ruin what should have been the ending don’t watch the credits. In addition to the ending you also have a character make a really stupid and unnecessary decision to sacrifice himself. Perhaps this was an issue with the way the film was cut but I still can’t figure out why the CJ character stays on the bus. Oh yeah I really, really hate zombies that run. Sure it was there movie and maybe they think that is scary, but as a fan I think that it sucks. Also I was a bit put off by the CGI fest that was the escape from the mall. Can anyone really say that it doesn’t look totally fake?

The Score: 2 out of 4

Maybe I’m being picky in this review but then I’m not the one who chose to put the name Dawn of the Dead on my film. If you are going to remake the classic Romero film then you automatically are going to have to deal with comparisons. While I enjoyed this movie it is nowhere near the original.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-22T06:49:00.000-08:00

Well I've decided after doing my Romero special to review the remakes that have been spawned by his original trilogy. With that in mind I've posted my review for NOTLD 90. Enjoy.

2007-02-22T06:47:00.000-08:00

Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Synopsis: This remake closely follows the original Romero classic from 1968. Johnny and his sister Barbara are off to visit a grave when the reanimated dead attack them. Barbara is soon on her own as Johnny is attacked and killed by a zombie. She ends up at an isolated farmhouse where we are introduced to the rest of the cast. Ben, who arrives in a truck with a nearly empty tank, the Coopers and their daughter who were hiding in the basement round out the cast. With the Coopers are a young couple Judy and Tom, who is related to the now dead owners of the farmhouse. The small group of survivors begins barricading themselves in the farmhouse as an ever-growing mob of zombies surrounds them. Finally Ben decides that they need to fuel up the truck from the gas pump that they see in the back yard and make a break for it. From here on out the group is slowly reduced in number. Will any of them survive until they are rescued? Check out this movie to see.

The Good: I’m not a big fan of remakes, but in some ways this movie gets a pass from me. First of all George Romero gave this movie his blessing and wrote the screenplay. A screenplay that makes a few adjustments from the original without loosing what made the 68 version of the film so classic. Also makeup effects wizard and longtime Romero collaborator Tom Savini directed this version of the film. Not only is the movie paced really well but you can tell that the effects shots were well planned out and shot with a lot of care. Not to mention that the lead zombies in this film will rival anything that appeared in either Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead. I was also very impressed by the cast that they assembled for this movie. Patrica Tallman embraces the entirely new take on the character of Barbara that the script provides and runs with it. No longer is she a catatonic weak link to the survivors. In fact by the end of the movie you will be cheering her actions by the end of the movie. Genre vet Tony Todd also does a really good job as Ben picking up where Duane Jones left off in the original.

The Bad: While this is an enjoyable movie and works very well it is still a remake and I just can’t ignore that. Still that is the only negative that I can find to mention.

The Score: 3 out of 4

If you enjoy a good zombie film then I guarantee that you will like this movie.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-19T06:34:00.000-08:00

Scarecrow (2002)

Synopsis: The movie opens with three guys smoking pot in a field of corn and telling scary stories. One of them begins to tell the story of Lester Dwervick and this is where the main plot of the movie starts. Lester is a high school student who is picked on by all of the popular kids, yelled at by a teacher, and has a drunken whore of a mother. After one particularly bad day his mother brings home a “date” that is rather foul tempered. Lester runs off only to see the one girl that was nice to him kissing a jock who has been picking on him. Well apparently he has had enough so when he runs back home to the trailer he gets into a fight with his mother’s date. Next thing you know old Lester in dead in a field by the scarecrow after being strangled! Of course not wanting to go to jail his mother and her date make it appear that Lester has hanged himself and everyone goes on with their lives. That is until Lester comes back as the scarecrow to take his revenge.

The Good: Well I’m reaching a bit here to find anything that is good about this movie. The makeup on the scarecrow is pretty cool and does look creepy. Also the scarecrow does throw around a few one-liners ala Freddy Krueger that are funny. All in all I suppose in a better movie the scarecrow could be a good character. Also whoever was the cinematographer did a really good job. They clearly didn’t have great equipment but all of the scenes are well defined and look really professional.

The Bad: Where to start? Well first of all the acting in this movie is just awful. I don’t know if this was everyone’s first film, but I sure hope so. In addition the casting is so very wrong. These actors are supposed to be in high school are all obviously in their mid to late 20s. The movie drags in many places and several scenes are clearly being dragged out to pad the runtime of the movie. Also the editing is really bad with the movie switching from day to night and then back to day. This give the impression that it takes hours for the sheriff to respond to a murder that takes place in town in broad daylight! I suppose that I can sum this movie up with one scene. The final confrontation between the female lead and the scarecrow she pins him against a wall with her truck and reaches over to grab a can. Luckily we all know what is in the can because of the big black letters against what appears to be a white label that says GAS! Yeah this movie is that good.

The Score: .5 out of 4

Better luck next time guys because this is a bad movie.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-16T12:31:00.000-08:00

Land of the Dead (2005)

Synopsis: The last few remaining humans have walled themselves up inside a city while the undead control the rest of the world. The only time that they venture out is to bring back supplies. The movie begins with a group of survivors lead by Riley (Simon Baker) and Cholo (Leguizamo) scrounging thru a small town for supplies while killing any zombies that they find. Here we also are introduced to Dead Reckoning an armored vehicle built by Riley for Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) who is the leader of the city. On this particular raid the survivors come into contact with a zombie that is referred to as Big Daddy. Big Daddy has enough intelligence to realize what is happening and after the survivors withdrawal with their supplies decides to follow them. Upon returning to the city Cholo goes to see Kaufman expecting to be allowed to move into Fiddler’s Green, an exclusive community were all of the upper class lives. We find out that Cholo has been taking out Kaufman’s “garbage” i.e. getting rid of the bodies for him. When Cholo realizes that Kaufman isn’t going to let him live in the Green with the nice folks and is about to have him disposed off all hell breaks loose. Cholo makes off with Dead Reckoning and threatens to destroy the city unless Kaufman coughs up a pile of cash. Soon Riley is dispatched to recapture Dead Reckoning all while the zombie army lead by Big Daddy is overrunning the city.

The Good: Guys after almost 20 years I was able to watch a new Romero zombie epic! The cast is pretty good with genre vets Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo chewing up the scenery. The script is interesting and contains the expected social commentary Romero is known for. The movie is also paced pretty well with several tense and scary moments. I was surprised how much gore managed to survive the fact that this is a studio film shot to be released in the theaters. Add to that cameos by Tom Savini and Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead) and you have a great zombie movie with a lot of appeal.

The Bad: I never thought that I would complain about the effects in a George Romero zombie. Why KNB decided to use CGI in a Romero zombie film just boggles the mind. I don’t mind that they used GCI to make a few of the “featured” zombies that would have been impossible to do with practical effects. But for god sakes why use CGI for the muzzle flashes? This was very disappointing. I also question the casting of Simon Baker as the lead character Riley. Personally I don’t think that Baker can act his way out of a paper bag and this movie did not change my mind.

The Score: 2.5 out of 4

While this isn’t Romero’s best effort I really like this movie. It has its flaws (too much CGI!) but is still a Romero zombie film, which I never thought that I would see.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

Also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-12T07:22:00.000-08:00

Well my review for Land of the dead didn't get done. Look for it on Thursday.

2007-02-12T07:21:00.000-08:00

The Monster Maker (1944)

Synopsis: When Dr. Igor Markoff spots the daughter of pianist Anthony Lawrence at a concert he becomes obsessed with her because she bears an uncanny resemblance to his dead wife. The harder he tries to woo her the more he manages to alienate her. Finally her father goes to see him to ask him to stop contacting his daughter. But the good doctor isn’t what he appears to be. He purposely infects the father with the dreaded acromegaly virus that will turn him into a hideous monster (think the elephant man)! Of course only the good doctor has the cure, which he will administer if she will marry him.

The Good: This is a great old movie. You have a pretty good cast including Glenn Strange out of makeup and playing a romantic lead. Sure the story is a bit cheesy and predictable, but it is done very well and can carry a movie that is only an hour long. The makeup effects that are used to turn actor Ralph Morgan into the “monster” are pretty damn effective for the 40s. Plus how can you go wrong with a movie that has Ace the Wonder Dog in it!

The Bad: For some reason Hollywood was in love with men in gorilla suits for a good twenty years. I can’t help but think about the Three Stooges whenever I see one.

The Score: 2.5 out of 4

This isn’t a classic film by any stretch of the imagination. But if you want to kill an hour on a Saturday afternoon you can’t go wrong with this.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-08T08:08:00.000-08:00

Day of the Dead (1985)

Synopsis: This is the third and for many years seemed destined to be final Romero zombie movie. This movie opens with a group of survivors searching a major metropolitan area in a helicopter to see if anyone else has managed to survive the zombie plague. Of course they are greeted only by hordes of the living dead. They fly back to the underground military installation only to discover that while they were gone the leader of the military unit has died. This leaves his second in command Rhodes in charge of the base, which isn’t a good thing. Eventually the fact that Rhodes is now in power, one of the soldiers Pvt. Salazar is suicidal (seriously man take a Zoloft or something!), and that the senior scientist Dr. Logan has gone off his rocker leads to the eventual destruction of the base by the zombie hordes.

The Good: You will not find a better example of practical makeup effects than in this movie. Tom Savini’s is at his absolute best here in this film, whether it is a zombie (Dr. Tongue), guts spilling out on the floor, or a body with the face and skull gone. It simply doesn’t get better than this and in my opinion hasn’t been outdone yet. The cast is very good with Lori Cardille (Sarah), Gary Howard Klar (Pvt. Steele), and Joeseph Pilato (Capt. Rhodes) standing out especially. As Sarah Lori Cardille's portrayal is both sympathetic and strong. I also really enjoy the over the top efforts that both Pilato and Klar give to their roles. Ironically enough many fans of the Romero films complain a lot about these characters and how they were portrayed. I think that with this script these actors gave Romero exactly what he was looking for. Plus the actors are clearly having a blast and it translates to the screen very well. The movie is paced well by Romero and by setting it underground the bulk of the movie has a claustrophobic feel to it.

The Bad: Okay this may be surprising to many fans but the only thing that I really don’t like about Day of the Dead is Bub. I love being scared by horror films and zombies scare me like nothing else. Why do zombies scare the hell out of me? Because basically they are us, but at the same time not us. A zombie bites you and you die. But then you get back up and walk around only it really isn’t you. For some reason this has always been a very creepy concept to me. When Bub begins to remember parts of his life before he died and became a zombie it sort of spoils a great deal of what makes zombies so effective as a “monster”.

The Score: 3 out of 4

While this isn’t my favorite of the Romero films it is still heads and shoulders above most of the zombie movies that have ever been made.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-05T10:47:00.000-08:00

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Synopsis: The story begins with a joint police and National Guard task force laying siege to an apartment building in the projects. Inside the tenants are refusing to give up their reanimated friends and family. It is here we are introduced to two of the four main characters Peter and Roger. They are members of the police SWAT team that is participating on the assault. Peter and Roger meet up in the basement of the building in what is the first of many disturbing scenes. Roger offers Peter a seat on the helicopter that his friend Stephen is going to use to flee the city. They meet up with Stephen and his girlfriend Fran and together they flee the city in the helicopter. Eventually they have to land, and choose to do so on the roof of a mall. Quickly it is decided that they will take the mall and hold up there. They settle into the good life in their new home, until that is a roving band of bikers show up to loot the place.

The Good: Where to start? Well to begin with you have characters that are well defined and well portrayed by a very talented group of actors. I am especially impressed by the job the Ken Foree does in the role of Peter. The result of this is that you begin to really care about the characters and what their fates are. This gives the film an added depth that many of the knock off zombie films lack. In addition to that are the special effects that Tom Savini provides for the film. You have to remember that this movie was shot nearly 30 years ago and that the effects are all done on set. There was no CGI available to them and that caused them to be creative. The fact that they hold up well as they do is a testament to the artistry involved here. Finally the last thing that I would like to comment on is the social commentary that Romero inserted into Dawn of the Dead. It is subtle and doesn’t distract from the film, but in fact actually adds depth to the movie.

The Bad: The only negative that I can think of involves the makeup on the zombies. The makeup effects on many of the lead zombies are amazing, and some of the specific effect shots are great as well. But the fact that the majority of the zombies are basically actors in costume wearing blue makeup can be distracting to some. This of course was the result of time and money constraints, not due to a lack of effort or talent.

The Score: 4 out of 4

This is an absolute classic of the genre. If you want to be picky about the blue-faced zombies then in my opinion you just don’t get it. If you haven’t seen this film then you don’t have a clue about zombie films, or what a horror film can be. Go purchase this film now! I suppose I should also admit that I’m a huge George Romero nerd. ☺

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2007-02-01T06:41:00.000-08:00

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Synopsis: A group of survivors try to fend off the hordes of flesh eating ghouls that surround the farmhouse that they have taken shelter in. As their number dwindle the tension rises in the house between the remaining survivors. Who will make it out alive? Will anyone make it out?

The Good: This is the granddaddy of all of the modern zombie films and is a classic of the independent horror scene. The acting here is pretty damn good given that much of the cast weren’t professional actors. The one professional actor in the cast, Duane Jones, does an excellent job in the role of Ben. When talking about the cast you really can’t ignore the fact that Romero cast an African American actor in a lead role and not one word is ever mentioned about it in the script. Guys this movie was made in 1968 and whether this was intentional or not (there is some debate) this makes Night of the Living dead stand out from any other film from the 60s. In addition to a good cast Romero’s directing here is wonderful. The movie is paced very well and moves along nicely. Romero allows the characters to be defined by their actions and avoids the long exposition that many directors and screenwriters use to create the character. The ending isn’t typical for horror films of the 60s and because of that is very effective. Sure the ending is a “downer” but that is why it works so well. The effects are very well done for a low budget picture from the 60s and work very well in a black and white movie. This is one of those rare moments when everything works perfectly and you get an instant masterpiece.

The Bad: The film itself I have no issue with. I will warn you that if you haven’t seen this movie before (and how is that really possible?) then be careful what version you get. This movie is public domain, which means anyone can release it on video and DVD. This has resulted in a lot of terrible copies on the market. I’ve seen some that have audio that drops in and out or copies that are so dark you can’t see them. Don’t blame the film there are nice copies out there.

The Score: 4 out of 4

Sure I’m a huge Romero geek so what? This is an excellent film that all horror fans should have in their collections.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-02-01T06:39:00.000-08:00

Announcement: I've decided to review all of the Romero zombie films in the order that they were filmed. I've always been a huge Romero fan and I'm very excited about this. I hope that you all enjoy it!

2007-01-29T06:31:00.000-08:00

No post today. I will have another review up on Thursday.

2007-01-26T06:02:00.000-08:00

See No Evil (2006)

Synopsis: The movie opens with a couple of police officers responding to a call at a run down house. While waiting for backup they hear a scream from inside and rush inside where they are attacked by an axe-wielding maniac. One of the officers is killed and the other looses an arm before shooting and killing the maniac, or so we think. Years later we see that the former police officer now works as a guard at a juvenile detention center. He and another counselor from the detention center have worked out a deal with the local historical society to help restore an old hotel for use as a homeless shelter. So off they go with a busload of delinquents for the weekend. What they don’t know is that the hotel has become the lair for the serial killer who the police officer thought that he killed years ago. Not long after locking themselves in the hotel the killer begins to pick them off one by one.

The Good: So as I sat down to watch this movie I had very little expectations. Honestly I was ready to hate it! Then I actually watched the film and it shocked the hell out of me because I really enjoyed it. The cast isn’t spectacular, but does do a good enough job for a slasher film. What I thought would be the weak link was the wrestler known as Kane as the killer, which actually turned out pretty well. If you follow wrestling at all you know that he is pretty creepy looking guy to begin with and this translates to the screen very well. The story is pretty standard, but wastes no time getting to the killings. Also there is a twist at the end, which is pretty effective if not entirely original. The gore is pretty tame with a few fairly nasty moments (people without eyes freak me out!). They do have some CSI like CGI with kind of irritated me, but I got over it. Most importantly is the direction. The movie moves along briskly and evenly without any real slow spots. The worst thing that a movie like this can do is bore the audience, and this movie isn’t.

The Bad: The CGI in this movie is on par with what you would see on a television show like CSI (as I stated above), which was irritating. Other than that I have no real complaints.

The Score: 3 out of 4.

This is an excellent “throwback” movie. It very much reminded me of the sorts of movies that I watched in the 80s. And best of all it isn’t a remake! There is nothing new here, but it is a fun movie worth watching.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-01-22T07:43:00.000-08:00

Don’t go in the Woods (1982)

Synopsis: A crazed mountain man begins killing off anyone that he finds in the woods that he calls home. The movie follows four main characters as they are on a hike to an isolated cabin to spend their vacation. Along the way we are introduced to many throwaway characters that are killed off almost as soon as they are introduced.

The Good: Nothing at all. This is just a bad movie!

The Bad: To begin with the film has a terrible audio track with the dialog dropping in and out. Of course given what dialog that you can hear that may be a blessing. Also the acting is just awful here, especially the actors that are portraying the police. Their attempts at banter are painful at best. There is no logic to the story at all. The killer can seemingly disappear and reappear all over the mountain without anyone seeing him. The effects are bad, really bad. Add that to the awkwardly shot actions scenes and you end up with a complete waste of time.

The Score: 0 out of 4

This movie goes on my avoid at all costs list.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-01-18T11:13:00.000-08:00

The Satanic Rights of Dracula (1974)

Synopsis: Dracula has returned to lead a satanic cult in an attempt to destroy the world with a new version of the Bubonic plague. The descendant of his old nemesis Van Helsing is called upon to help the British government to stop the plot.

The Good: To begin with the cast is great with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in the lead roles of Van Helsing and Dracula. I was especially impressed with Cushing playing the role of Van Helsing again. The plot of the movie is unlike anything that I’ve ever seen in a horror film. Bringing Dracula to a modern setting and then making him a terrorist is a pretty damn interesting and creative take on the traditional vampire story. Add to this some gratuitous nudity, evil satanic hippies, and British secret agents and you have a great cheesy horror film.

The Bad: If I have one issue with the movie it is that Dracula doesn’t get much screen time. This is a damn shame since Christopher Lee is again great in his role as Count Dracula.

The Score: 3 out of 4

This is a must see for any fan of Hammer studios!

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2007-01-15T06:32:00.000-08:00

Lady Vengeance (2005)

Synopsis: The movie opens with a young woman being released from a prison. Thru the use of flashbacks we discover that she was forced to confess to the murder of a young boy, a murder that she didn’t commit. We, the audience, spend the rest of the movie watching her carefully plotted revenge slowly reveal itself. The ending of this movie is very powerful and interesting.

The Good: The lead actress, Yeong-ae Lee, does an incredible job of portraying a very complex and interesting character. As the lead she is forced to carry this movie, as everything in it either happens because of or to her. The director, Chan-wook Park, does an excellent job of pacing this film. He allows the story to unravel at it’s own pace, without allowing the film to become bogged down or slow. I also really enjoyed the plot of this film. It is very different from anything that I’ve seen, and had several twists that I simply didn’t see coming.

The Bad: The English dubbing on the version of the film that I have is pretty bad. But I always watch these films in their original languages with subtitles anyway. If you like watching them dubbed you may be disappointed.

The Score: 4 out of 4

This is a really great movie that I highly recommend.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-01-11T07:59:00.000-08:00

The Brain from Planet Arous

Synopsis: The movie begins when pair of scientists discovers some odd radiation readings from an isolated area. Off they go in a Jeep to investigate the strange readings. Finding a cave that wasn’t there on a previous trip they enter it and are attacked by an alien brain creature from the planet Arous. Later we see that only one of the scientists has returned, but he is acting strangely. So his girlfriend and her father go off to investigate what possibly happened to make him act so differently. They also end up at the cave and encounter an alien brain creature named Val, but this one is different. See he is a good alien brain creature and he is here to save the earth from the first one who is named Gor. Gor has taken the woman’s boyfriend over and is using him to take over the Earth. Traveling back with the woman and her father the alien brain creature named Val takes over the family dog so that he can be close to Gor without being discovered. He also explains how they can kill Gor. Will they stop Gor in time or are we all doomed? Check out this movie and see!

The Good: This movie is great cheesy fun. The story is just so goofy that it works for me. The actors take their parts very seriously and play it very straight. The effects are also just so bad that they are good. When the brain creature fly’s around the room you can clearly see the wires. When the climactic final battle happens and the alien is hit with an axe you can see one of the wires break. The actor doesn’t miss a beat and continues to swing away with the now swaying alien. Honestly it just doesn’t get any better than that.

The Bad: This is a silly movie with bad effects and over the top acting. Of course this is just what you should and would expect from a movie like this!

The Score: 3 out of 4.

This is a great b movie from the 50s.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2007-01-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

The Bad Seed

Synopsis: The movie tells the story of a perfect little girl named Rhoda. Bad things seem to happen around Rhoda, such as one of her classmates drowning on a field trip. Slowly Rhoda’s mother begins to suspect that perhaps something may be wrong with her daughter.

The Good: Where to start? First of all the cast is beyond excellent especially child actress Patty McCormack in the lead role of Rhoda. Her portrayal of the character is amazing, a mix of the right amount of innocence and anger. Rhoda doesn’t understand why killing people is wrong, and you really believe it. Nancy Kelly as Rhoda’s mother does a great job as well. You can feel her pain and horror as she slowly realizes what her daughter is doing. The script is excellent and doesn’t pull any punches. This is pretty impressive for a film being made in the 1950s. The last 10 minutes of the movie is very surprising and had me guessing as to how it was going to end. All of the technical aspects of the film are also very well done, as you would expect from a studio picture.

The Bad: A jaded modern audience may find this movie to be a bit dated. But this movie holds up pretty well for being 50 years old! There really isn’t anything wrong with this film.

The Score: 3.5 out of 4

This may not be considered a horror film in the traditional sense. All I have to say to that is creepy kids really scare the hell out of me! Many people like to assign a “classic” tag to movies and do so way too often in my opinion. The Bad Seed actually is a classic in every sense. Check this movie out. Trust me you won’t regret it.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2007-01-04T14:30:00.000-08:00

Hell of the Living Dead

Synopsis: The movie opens in a chemical factory. A pair of workers is inspecting part of the facility when they come upon a dead rat. One of the workers picks it up and they comment on how it shouldn’t be there when it suddenly reanimates and starts eating the man holding it. Alarms begin going off and all hell breaks loose. Then we switch to a standoff between the police and a group of terrorists that are holding hostages in the American embassy. An elite group of soldiers begins an assault to save the hostages, which ends with one of the terrorists telling them that they will all be killed and eaten and that they are doomed. Then the film moves again to a group that is traveling thru the jungle in their land cruiser. They come upon a village and investigate it. It happens that the soldiers from the earlier siege are in the jungle on a mission now as well. The two groups meet up, lose some members to the zombies that are swarming the village and decide that they need to group up. The rest of the film is their trek thru the jungle to complete the soldier’s mission.

The Good: I suppose that the over the top efforts at gore are fun. They are pretty poorly done, but occasionally effective. I also got a pretty good laugh at one particular sequence of the movie that was pretty much put in as an excuse to have one of the female leads walk around topless for a few minutes.

The Bad: Good god this is a difficult movie to follow at times. The script is a complete disaster that jumps all over the place and barely makes any sense at all. In a vain attempt to make the forests of Spain look like the jungle the filmmakers cut and inserted shots from a documentary film into their movie. These shots don’t really match the movie and are inserted at odd and inappropriate times.

The Score: 1 out of 4

This is a really bad film. Unless you are a big Italian zombie movie fan I would recommend avoiding this movie.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

also check out my reviews at www.bloodtypeonline.com

2007-01-01T10:04:00.000-08:00

Detroit Blood City

Synopsis: A group of inept criminals are given instructions by the “boss” to clean up the garage where they all work so that it looks professional for a big time drug deal that he has planned. Part of this clean up involves selling off a package of weed that is in the garage. While cleaning up the garage a couple of the crooks spill toxic chemicals on the package of weed, turning it red. Ever the entrepreneurs they decide to dry the weed out and sell it to the locals at bargain rates, and make up for the cash shortfall out of their own pockets. All while this is happening a police detective and his new partner are investigating the boss, as they know something big is going down. We also see that the boss decides to have his daughter check in on the garage to make sure that the job is being done correctly. It just so happens that his daughter is a friend with a couple of stoners, who you guessed it, bought some of the red weed. So the daughter, her friends, the cops, and the criminals all end up arriving at the garage at the same time. This is all complicated even further by the fact that anyone who smoked the weed has now turned into zombies. The zombies have returned to score more weed and to eat flesh (they have the munchies!).

The Good: I know that the synopsis makes the plot sound complicated and confusing, but it really isn’t. The story is actually very interesting and entertaining. The director weaves the various stories together without making any of it really feel forced. I’ve sat thru many big budget Hollywood horror films that in spite of all of their resources couldn’t manage an interesting story, so this is very impressive to me. In addition many of the “featured” zombies look pretty damn good for a low budget feature. I did hope for a bit more gore, but they did have a limited budget so I can’t really complain.

The Bad: Small low budget movies tend to have many of the same issues. Detroit Blood City is no exception. Most of the cast is pretty good for a low budget film, but a couple of the actors are pretty bad. The most distracting of these actors portrays Detective Frank Michel. He is very wooden, sounding as if he is reading his lines off of a cue card. In some of the scenes the lighting and sound are not so great. Most of these scenes are outside, where most independent filmmakers have problems. As I said above the featured zombies look pretty good, but the makeup effects on some of the background zombies leaves something to be desired.

The Score: 2 out of 4

If you are a fan of independent zombie films, as I am, you really should take a look at this film. I know that I’m looking forward to what they do next. While I found this film to be a bit rough this group has talent, and lots of it. Given a bigger budget and a few more feature films under their belt I have no doubt they are going to be big.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-28T05:30:00.000-08:00

Severed

Synopsis: The movie opens with a group of loggers and environmentalists butting against each other near an isolated logging camp. When one of the loggers cuts into a spiked tree, injuring himself. With in seconds he begins attacking everyone around him. The film then cuts to the CEO of the logging company and his son. The father is telling his son that he needs to leave the boardroom and see how the business really works. Thus he should be the one to investigate why the company has lost contact with an isolated logging camp. Soon the young man is off to check the camp. When he arrives he finds the survivors of both the loggers and environmentalists huddled in a cabin. The rest of the movie follows the shrinking group of survivors as they attempt to flee.

The Good: There really isn’t a whole lot to recommend this film. I was impressed with the locations that they shot the movie at. Also the actors do a fairly decent job with a weak script and no budget.

The Bad: The effects are very rough. The film was shot so that the zombie attacks and gore shots are difficult to see. The film gets grainy and the camera starts to jerk around making it very difficult to watch. The film also gets off to a very slow start, picks up for a bit then slows down again. I imagine that the slower parts of the film were intended to work on the character development, but the script doesn’t allow it to happen. In addition to the poor pacing the script there are also several really terrible lapses of logic that are very distracting.

The Score: .5 out of 4

This is a waste of 93 minutes. Avoid this movie.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-25T09:16:00.000-08:00

Check out my reviews at Bloodtypeonline.com

2006-12-25T09:13:00.000-08:00

Thought that I would post a special review for Christmas.

Silent Night, Bloody Night

Synopsis: The movie tells the story of a young man who decides to sell a house that he has inherited from his grandfather. The citizens of the nearby town do everything in their power to keep him away from the house while they arrange to purchase it. Soon the bodies start to pile up as an unseen killer begins luring people to the home and killing them.

The Good: For a film from the early 1970’s there is a decent amount of gore. The effects, while crude, are effective. Also there are a couple of scenes in the movie that build up a good amount of tension. Also this was an interesting movie for me because it was a very early attempt at what would later be defined as a slasher film.

The Bad: The film is very dark, and I don’t mean in tone. There are times that you simply can’t tell what is going on in the movie. In addition to that the script is very weak. The characters are very poorly defined and make some very strange decisions. Which is a shame because they managed to cast a pretty good cast that includes genre favorites John Carradine and a young Mary Woronov. Also the ending of the film is flawed, and really makes no sense at all.

The Score: 1.5 out of 4

This isn’t a great film and I can’t recommend it unless you have a real interest in horror films. Even then the movie is only interesting because it is a very early attempt at a slasher type of film.

Merry Christmas

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-21T06:23:00.000-08:00

The House that Dripped Blood

Note: This is the final of my Amicus reviews (at least for now). I’ve saved the best for last.

Synopsis: This is a collection of 4 short horror films that take place in the same house and covers four different tenants. The first story introduces us to a horror writer who is haunted by one of his fictional creations. It starts Denholm Eliot (Indiana Jones series) as the writer and is the weakest of the shorts. The second and far more enjoyable entry stars Peter Cushing as a man obsessed with a wax figure that bears an uncanny resemblance to a woman he was once involved with. The third entry stars Christopher Lee as the father to a little girl that is up to no good. The final entry is a departure from the first three. It tells the story of an actor who specializes in playing characters in bad horror films. Unlike the first three entries this one is clearly played for laughs. Ironically enough I kind of felt that they were poking a bit of fun at Christopher Lee’s portrayal of Dracula in the Hammer films.

The Good: Like every other movie I’ve seen from Amicus the cast for this film is top notch. Genre favorites like Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee do bang up jobs in their roles, as one would expect from them. I was especially interested in Christopher Lee’s portrayal, as I believe that this is the first time I’ve seen him in a role other than a villain. Sci-fi geeks may be interested to know that Dr. Who veteran John Pertwee portrays the actor in the final entry and is really good in his comedic role. Combine these actors with a great script from Robert Bloch and you have pure magic. The script is tight, with excellent dialog and pacing. Not only are the individual stories great but also all four of the entries are brought together rather brilliantly with the “evil” house wraparound story. Finally the production values are top notch for a film from the early 70s.

The Bad: This is a great film that has no flaws.

The Score: 4 out of 4

I’ll tell you right now that I love this movie. You can’t go wrong with this classic.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-18T05:54:00.000-08:00

And Now the Screaming Starts

Note: This is the second of the Amicus movies that I’ll be reviewing.

Synopsis: The year is 1795 and a newlywed couple returns to the groom’s ancestral home to start their lives together. Almost from the moment that they arrive the bride starts to have visions and dreams about a mysterious man and a severed hand that moves around the house. On the advice of his local doctor the groom calls on Dr. Pope, portrayed by Peter Cushing, who specializes in mental disorders. As Dr. Pope begins his investigation people begin to die and he soon comes to the conclusion that something more than a mere mental disorder is going on.

The Good: The cast is really great in this film. From Peter Cushing, who delivers an excellent performance as usual, to Stephanie Becham portraying the tortured bride the cast is top notch. Herbert Lom is also quite good as the groom’s sinister grandfather in the flashbacks that are used to setup the plot. In addition to a great cast the film looks and sounds great. The lighting and musical score are excellent, as I’ve come to expect from an Amicus production, which really add to the atmosphere that they are trying to create.

The Bad: The movie has several very slow spots during its 90-minute runtime. It appears to me that the filmmakers were very proud of the house and grounds they were using for the movie. We get many very nice shots of the house, interior and exterior, as well as a fairly nice look at the grounds but this only serves to slow the film down. In addition to that the script fails to generate any real sense of dread. The conclusion is fairly obvious and somewhat of a disappointment.

The Score: 1.5 out of 4

A very talented cast does the best that they can with a very weak script, but I still can’t recommend this movie at all.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-17T12:35:00.000-08:00

Night of the Hell Hamsters

Note: I'm interrupting my Amicus special to post a review of a short film that I recently watched.

Synopsis: The film opens with a young woman babysitting a couple of kids when her boyfriend shows up. After letting him in she asks if he has brought it. The it being an Ouija board that she wants to try out. Well things don’t go too well and the couple manages to summon a demon that possesses the family’s hamsters.

The Good: This is a great short film. The film looks sharp and the audio is clear. The actors do a great job, and have great timing. Mostly though this short is a showcase for the writer and director. The story is silly and makes for a fun time. The direction of the film is also outstanding, with the necessary comedic timing executed to perfection.

The Bad: My only real issue with this film is that it was over too fast and left me wanting more.

The Score: 4 out of 4

If you get a chance to see this short while it plays the film festival circuit make the time. It is great fun and worth the effort.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-14T10:51:00.000-08:00

The Beast must Die

Note: This is the first among several Amicus studio films that I will be reviewing over the next couple of weeks.

Synopsis: A world famous hunter invites a group of people over to his estate for what they believe is a weekend holiday. He actually has another plan in mind. He believes that one of them is actually a werewolf, and he intends to hunt that most dangerous prey. As the weekend begins to pass the houseguests and staff begin to die. Who will die next, and more importantly who is the werewolf? You will just have to watch to find out!

The Good: This is a great cast for a horror film. You have the always-excellent Peter Cushing in the role of werewolf expert Dr. Lundgren. Also in the cast are standouts Michael Gambon and Tom Chadbon. I found the story line to be an extremely interesting twist on a bored hunter tracking human beings ala the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”. The film is shot with a certain seventies sensibility which works very nicely with the overall experience. Whether it is the soundtrack, clothes, or set dressing, everything seems perfect. Watch for the werewolf break that gives the viewer a chance to guess who the werewolf is. Sounds cheesy, but it is fun.

The Bad: I really don’t like how they handled the werewolf creature in this movie. They use a large black dog to stand in for the werewolf. It is pretty clear, even without the commentary, that the dog really is quite gentle. The “action” scenes involving the dog are at time laughable. Also we aren’t given any transformation sequences, which was disappointing.

The Score: 2.5 out of 4

I actually like this movie a great deal despite it’s faults. If you are a fan of werewolf films you may be a bit disappointed in the Beast must Die, but it is still a fun movie.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-11T07:01:00.000-08:00

The Mummy

Note: This is a review for the classic Hammer release from 1959

Synopsis: An archaeological team made up of a father, brother, and son locates the elusive tomb of an Egyptian priestess long buried and forgotten, or so they think. Before they are able to break the seal on the tomb a priest of the same ancient religion as the buried priestess appears and pleads with them not to desecrate the tomb. In their arrogance they ignore him and soon after the father is found babbling incoherently after being left inside the tomb alone. The action then moves back to England where the priest has followed the three men, intent on carrying out the curse with the aid of the priestess’ guardian, the titular mummy. The remainder of the film is the mummy wandering the English countryside taking his revenge.

The Good: To begin with the cast is top notch. First we have Christopher Lee, who does a fantastic job as the mummy, as well as playing the character as a priest in flashbacks. Peter Cushing in the lead role as the son is also very entertaining. The sets are very good, including the Egyptian sets, which were created from scratch at the studio in England. The script and direction both are crisp and move the movie along at a brisk pace. Again there is no wasted scenes or dialogue to drag the film’s pace down.

The Bad: I really like this movie a great deal. The one caveat that I will give is that it may seem a bit dated to today’s audience. This is a film from the late 50’s and feels like it.

The Score: 4 out of 4

Great film that horror film fans should really enjoy. Plus you get Cushing and Lee in their prime. Doesn’t get any better than this!

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-12-04T10:44:00.000-08:00

The Island of Dr. Moreau

Synopsis: A shipwrecked survivor named Braddock washes up on the shore of a deserted island, or so he thinks. The island is actually inhabited by a Dr. Moreau and a few of his servants. They take Braddock to their home and nurse him back to health. Eventually Braddock becomes suspicious of the strange sounds and appearance of some of Dr. Moreau’s servants. It seems that the good doctor has been up to some experiments and not all is, as it seems.

The Good: If you don’t know already this movie is based upon an H.G. Wells novel. The writers do an excellent job of adapting the novel into a very fast paced and enjoyable script. There isn’t a wasted scene or slow part of the movie during its 99-minute runtime. Also of note is an excellent cast with Burt Lancaster and Michael York as the leads. Lancaster is especially good as the well meaning, but twisted Dr. Moreau. Finally I wish to point out the makeup effects on the actors who play the results of Moreau’s experiments. Each of the lead “animal men” is a work of art. These are effects that took days to create and hours to apply. The effort really pays off in the finished product.

The Bad: Then ending sequences leave a bit to be desired. The scenes involving the destruction of the doctor’s lab, and the release of his animals are pretty rough. Especially cringe worthy are the fight sequences between the freed animals and the doctor’s creations.

The Score: 3 out of 4

This is a fun monster movie from the 70’s that I really recommend. If you enjoy this movie check out the first adaptation on film the 1933 classic Island of Lost Souls with Bela Lugosi and Charles Laughton.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-30T06:04:00.000-08:00

The Changeling

Synopsis: The film opens up with a man named John Russell, played by the great George C. Scott, who is on a trip with his family. They have a bit of car trouble and have to push their station wagon to the side of the road. While John is making a phone call an accident occurs in front of him that kills his wife and daughter. In the aftermath of the accident John moves across the country to teach music at a college. It is there that he rents an old house that proves to be haunted. The rest of the film follows John in his efforts to figure out who the spirit is that haunts the house and why it is restless.

The Good: Even though this film was made in 1980 it has an old school feel to it. The haunting starts off with the traditional creepy sounds and doors opening with no one around. This is very effective in setting the mood for the rest of the film. The tension builds evenly, as the story slowly reveals itself. The story itself is not terribly original, the spirit was wronged and things have to be set right for them to rest, but there are a few touches that give it some originality. In addition to a good story the cast, especially George C. Scott, is very strong and does a great job of selling the premise. With a lesser cast this movie could of become very hokey and laughable. The lighting, direction, and camera work all also add to the movie’s very creepy feel.

The Bad: This movie was a perfect 4 out of 4 until the last 10 minutes. I really don’t like the ending of this movie at all. The character of the spirit haunting the house changes fairly dramatically, giving the film a very weak ending in my opinion.

The Score: 3 out of 4

In spite of the films; weak ending I still highly recommend this movie. It is a very creepy ghost story that works well.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-27T06:18:00.000-08:00

Snakes on a Train

Synopsis: The movie opens with a couple sneaking across the border between Mexico and the United States. The woman is clearly in some distress and not well. The man stops and begins a ritual that involves the woman throwing up a snake. They end up on a train to Los Angeles, where the man believes his uncle can help cure the woman. Many other characters and storylines are introduced before the train pulls away from the station.

The Good: This movie was released in an attempt to cash in on the buzz that was created by the release of Snakes on a Plane. With that in mind I had very low expectations for this film. With Snakes on a Train they just didn’t try to cash in on the similar name with a knockoff film. They actually tried to film what could have been an interesting script involving curses and black magic. Really that is the only positive that I can find with this movie, is that they had an interesting script.

The Bad: Where to start? The first complaint I have about this movie is the acting, which ranges from passable to just terrible. I found the actor that portrayed the conductor to be so distractingly bad that I couldn’t pay attention to the rest of the film. Which in a way is maybe not such a bad thing. In addition to some pretty wooden acting is a story that includes characters and storylines that were added to pad the runtime, or are just underdeveloped. For example there is a needless story that involves a couple of friends that are smuggling drugs, which is further complicated by a couple of competing criminals trying to steal the drugs and money. I must not forget the snakes mentioned in the title. They range from the small common variety garden snakes, to terrible hand puppet snakes, to an even worse finale with a horribly rendered CGI snake.

The Score: .5 out of 4

This is just not a good movie. I would recommend avoiding this, as it would be a waste of your time.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-25T18:21:00.000-08:00

Well this holiday has really managed to screw up my posting schedule. Sorry that again I was late with my posting. Next week I should be back on schedule. Hope everyone had an amazing Thanksgiving.

2006-11-25T18:19:00.000-08:00

Oldboy

Synopsis: The movie opens up with a drunk named Dae-su acting rather badly in what appears to be a police station. A friend comes to pick him up and takes him to a pay phone to call his family. Here we find out that the man has a daughter and it is her birthday. His friend takes the phone to speak to the man’s family, when he turns around the man is gone. We are treated to a montage of the man being imprisoned for the next 15 years, until he is unexpectedly set free. From then on out the movie revolves around Dae-su dealing with a mysterious man who is taunting him, daring him to figure out why he was imprisoned.

The Good: This is the kind of movie that just isn’t made by the American film industry. The plot is engaging and will keep you interested throughout the entire runtime of the film. The twists are unexpected and the ending will make you squirm. The acting in this film is also amazing. The actors manage to pull off some very difficult characters, and do it a great amount of skill. The lighting and music are masterfully executed adding to the general atmosphere of the film.

The Bad: There really isn’t anything to complain about with this movie.

The Score: 3.5 of 4

This isn’t a horror film in the traditional sense. Neither is it one of the gore fests that I’ve seen from many of the other Tartan Asia Extreme releases. That being said I highly recommend this movie. Give this one a chance you won’t regret it.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-21T07:43:00.000-08:00

Sorry Monday's review was late. Sometimes I just get too busy to log on and post it.

2006-11-21T07:41:00.000-08:00

Prophecy

Synopsis: A crusading doctor and his wife travel to Maine at the request of a family friend to sort out a dispute between an Indian tribe and a logging company. The dispute involves the tribe’s ancestral land and the logging company’s desire to continue their harvest of the timber. Upon arriving the doctor soon discovers that something has gone terribly wrong in the environment. The logging company has been using mercury to preserve the lumber and it has leaked out into the surrounding environment mutating the local wildlife. One of mutations is very large, very angry, and hungry!

The Good: This is a great old-fashioned monster movie! I was really impressed by the acting. The cast is excellent, especially the two leads Robert Foxworth and Talia Shire as the doctor and his wife. The story is entertaining and moves along nicely, the hour and forty minute runtime just flies by. The film looks amazing. The outdoor setting is translated to the film with great skill, taking full advantage of the outdoor setting.

The Bad: The effects of the creature are crude, even by the standards of 1979 when the film was made. The film also lacks much in the way of gore, which really isn’t all that bad given that it is a PG film.

The Score: 3 out of 4

This is a really fun film that reminds me of the monster movies that I watched growing up. I highly recommend it.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-16T06:02:00.000-08:00

Werewolf of Washington

Synopsis: A young up and coming newspaperman (played by Dean Stockwell) asks for a transfer to Bulgaria to get away from the presidents daughter, with whom he has been having an affair. While in Bulgaria he is attacked by a werewolf. Soon he is summoned back to Washington by the president to become his press secretary. Not long after returning to Washington the enemies of the president begin dying under mysterious circumstances.

The Good: Okay I was really surprised by this film. It is a low budget horror film that was made for the drive in market. It’s lack of production values gives that away fairly quickly. What I did not expect at all was the intelligence of the script. This plays very much as a political satire of the Nixon administration. I really enjoyed this aspect of the script, and was very surprised to find it buried under a fairly forgettable horror film. I also have to mention the job that Dean Stockwell does in the film. Now the rest of the actors do a passable job, but Stockwell as the lead really has to carry the film. He does a great job, which makes the rest of the movie work.

The Bad: Werewolf films are difficult to make, especially the werewolf makeup. What they have done here is sort of a throwback to the 40’s look of the Universal Wolfman. Even at that they manage to fail. The werewolf isn’t scary, in fact I laughed when they finally revealed it. The movie also falls into the one of the low budget traps, poor lighting. Some of the scenes are so poorly light that you can’t even see what is happening.

The Score: 3 out of 4

If you are a fan of werewolf movies you may not like this film. But if you enjoy an intelligent script and a bit of political satire I think you will love this film as much as I do. This is going on my list of buried treasures that I’ve discovered.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-13T08:23:00.000-08:00

Larva

Synopsis: A veterinarian, played by Sci-Fi channel vet Vincent Ventresca, starts a new job in a small town. Before he is able to settle into his new position a local farmer calls him in, played by genre vet William Forsythe, who has a sick cow. The cow's condition quickly deteriorates, culminating with a large creature bursting from stomach. After dispatching said creature the pair begin to investigate the possible cause. It seems that the local corporation has been giving feed away to all of the local farms. Before you can say bad CGI the town is infested with the large mutant parasites. Will anyone survive? Can the parasites be stopped?

The Good: This is not a great film, but it does have a couple of things going for it. The story moves along quickly. The central characters are introduced with a minimum amount of background and are thrown into action almost immediately. Since the characters are really the basic archetypes that are expected to appear in a film like this is a good thing. Also I’m a very big fan of William Forsythe. He isn’t really given much to work with here, but I still really enjoyed his character in this film. It seems to me he knew exactly the kind of film they were making and is having a good time in his role.

The Bad: Good god when will filmmakers learn? If you don’t’ have a big budget avoid CGI at all costs! The mutated parasites are all done with CGI. There is absolutely no detail to the creatures as all. In most cases they appear to be black blobs that streak across the screen. When you are making a monster movie you had better be able to do better than this. The creatures in this film are so damn silly looking that any tension or scares are reduced to snickers.

The Score: 1.5 of 4

This film reminds me of the cheesy monster movies of the 50’s that I watched growing up. Even though I can’t really recommend renting or purchasing it if you get a chance to catch it during one of its Sci-Fi channel reruns do so.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-09T08:58:00.000-08:00

Curse of the Wolf

Synopsis: A young woman flees her pack of werewolves to have a normal life. By using chemicals she is able to suppress her “change”. Unfortunately for her, and the new friends that she makes, her pack is unwilling to let her go. They pursue her, eventually kidnapping her new boyfriend to use as bait to force her to return to them. She and her other new friends are forced to rescue him. Do they succeed? Will they all make it thru?

The Good: Honestly there isn’t a whole lot going for this film. The cast is very athletic and handles the stunts and fight choreography pretty well. Though poor lighting and terrible editing ruin even this.

The Bad: Doing a werewolf film with a budget is difficult enough, and most of those studio films actually fail. So it was very ambitious to attempt to do a werewolf film on a limited budget, not to mention one that would require multiple makeup effects for the characters. Well I would like to say that they gave it a good effort and failed, but they just failed. The makeup effects are just awful. The werewolves are basically the actors in bad Halloween masks with gloves on their hands. Every seem is obvious because they make very little effort to use body makeup to blend the appliances to the actor’s skin. Speaking of the actors they also fail to deliver. The acting is wooden, many times appearing that the actors are reading off of queue cards. The worst example of this is the actor that portrays the lead male werewolf. Not only can he not deliver his lines, but also he is way over the top. This destroys any tension that could have been created by the story. The technical aspects of the film also leave a lot to be desired. The sound is pretty consistent throughout the film, but the lighting is at times very bad. This makes it difficult to watch the film, with the viewer at times looking at a black screen with vague shapes moving around on it.

The Score: .5 out of 4

I’m a big fan of werewolf movies and I really wanted to like this. Unfortunately this movie doesn’t deliver. I would recommend that you avoid this film at all costs.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-07T06:04:00.000-08:00

The Uninvited

This is a bit of a change of pace for me. Normally I’m watching and then reviewing more modern films. But I caught this on one of the classic cable channels the other night and well remembered how much I enjoyed it.

Synopsis: Roderick Fitzgerald and his sister find a vacant seaside mansion that they fall in love with while on holiday. After a bit of research they discover that it is surprisingly in their price range and they purchase it from its owner Commander Beech. After moving into their new home they begin to suspect that it may be haunted, even though the previous owner dismisses the possibility. All while this is going on Roderick, played by the late great Ray Milland, falls in love with Commander Beech’s granddaughter. Is the place haunted, and if so by who? Why is the Commander so insistent that his granddaughter stays away from the house?

The Good: This is one of my favorite “classic” horror films of all time. This movie works not because of “gaudy” effects or CGI, but because of the talent that went into both the script and the production. First lets talk about the script. The story builds slowly, giving the viewer hints that all may not be right with the house. For example the dog refuses to go upstairs and eventually runs away. Then strange noises are heard, which they try to explain away as the wind blowing thru underground caves. This goes on until at the end of the film we actually get to see the ghost itself. Along with the script we are treated to a very talented cast, headed up by the great Ray Milland. The atmosphere of this great ghost story has to be “sold” by the cast. We have to feel that they are in an uncomfortable situation, which I really did. Both Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey as his sister are able to convey both the fear and the nervous tension that the movie is trying to create. There is one particular sequence involving Ray Milland’s character and his first night in the house. Really pay attention to his body language and movements as he first goes into the hallway then back to bed. Finally I would like to comment on the score of this film. The music really helps set the mood for the Uninvited. But it just isn’t the music that is amazing. When watching this film listen to the audio “effects” as well as the score. Overall this is a great film that is a real must for anyone who enjoys a good old-fashioned ghost story.

The Bad: There is nothing bad about this film at all. If anything it would be an issue with a modern audience that will either not have the patience to let the story develop or pick at the effects in the film.

The Score: 4 out of 4

They just don’t make films with this much care anymore and it is a damn shame. If you get the chance and can catch this film on cable one night, turn down the lights and watch it. Trust me you will have fun.

Trivia: Watch out for Alan Napier playing the part of the doctor. Fans of the 60’s Batman television show will recognize him as Alfred the Butler.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-11-02T12:26:00.000-08:00

Slither

Synopsis: The movie opens with a meteor breaking up as it enters Earth’s atmosphere, with what is left eventually ending up near a small town. A wealthy local businessman, Grant Grant, eventually stumbles upon it and becomes infected with an alien parasite. Soon he is killing off the local pets, impregnating a woman with his alien seed and taking over the local population with his army of brain worms. Can sheriff Pardy and Grant’s trophy wife Starla stop him before he takes over the town, and then the world?

The Good: Where to start? The director, James Gunn, gives this film just the right mix of horror and comedy. Making this type of movie, a horror/comedy hybrid, is akin to walking a tightrope. Gunn does a masterful job here directing his own script. Then you have a wonderful cast. Nathan Fillion does a fantastic job as sheriff Pardy, delivering some of the best lines I’ve ever heard in a horror/comedy film. Michael Rooker is also excellent in the role of Grant Grant local businessman turned alien hybrid. The gore in this film is very well executed, especially the various Grant Grant creatures. If you are going to use CGI you had better do a good job of it, which is what they did here. There were a few shots that I “cringed” a bit at, but overall it was pretty good.

The Bad: There really isn’t a whole lot to complain about here. Again, as I mentioned above, there were a few bad CGI effects. But that is really forgivable in such an entertaining movie.

The Score: 3.5 out of 4

This October has been a great month for DVD releases. Slither falls right into that category of great movies. This is going to be one of those movies that I will break out every couple of months and pop into the DVD player. If you haven’t seen it go out and get it now, worth every penny.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-30T08:16:00.000-08:00

Feast

Synopsis: The calm of an isolated, sleepy bar is broken when a stranger runs thru the doors carrying a shotgun and the head of something big and mean. He warns them that something is coming and that they had better prepare by locking the bar up tight. So begins the movie and the siege of the bar. What is outside and will anyone make it thru the night?

The Good: This is a great movie. The film moves along briskly, keeping the action and blood coming at you. There isn’t a wasted moment, which makes for an entertaining running time. The acting is perfect for this type of film, not too serious. It is pretty clear that the actors in this film know what they are doing, and in what kind of movie they are doing it in. Henry Rollins is especially good as a motivational speaker who has an incident involving the creatures and the loss of his pants. Finally I can’t say enough about the gore and special effects. This is an old school guy in a rubber suit kind of movie, and it is done to perfection. Not only are the creatures scary, but at times they are funny as well. I also believe that the cast was helped by actually having something on the set to play off of. The gore effects are also nearly perfect. Heads and legs come off and one of the actors slowly melts over the course of the last 2/3rds of the film. This is all done without the use of CGI. They just don’t put this sort of care into horror films anymore, and it is a damn shame.

The Bad: The worst that can be said about this film is it’s lack of budget shows at times. A couple of the characters go outside to get a truck for the group to make their escape. Things happen outside that we as the viewer don’t get to see. I felt a bit cheated by that.

The Score: 3.5 out of 4

This is a great “old school” style horror film. It is a must see for any fan! Go out an get it now!

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-26T12:58:00.000-07:00

After Sundown

Synopsis: The movie begins in 1883 in an old west town. We see the townsfolk arming and waiting on the arrival of someone, as well as another scene in which a woman is in labor. The thing about the woman is that she is clearly a vampire. After much mayhem we flash forward to the present day where a group of workers is moving an old cemetery so that a housing development can be built. Of course they find the body of the vampire woman and her child. After taking it back to the mortuary one of them pulls the stake from her chest and all hell starts to break loose.

The Good: The pacing of this film works very well. There isn’t a dull moment as the script moves the story along briskly. Much of the story is told in a series of flashbacks, which in many other films I’ve seen appear to be forced, but it is done here very well. The acting is quite good considering that this is a low budget horror film. I really enjoyed the take on the vampire myth, adding to it the ability to create and control zombies.

The Bad: The makeup effects on the two vampires are pretty bad. In the close-ups you can actually see the edges of the appliances, which is very distracting. Also the filmmakers chose to use CGI to add the gun flashes and didn’t follow them up with bullet hits on the zombies. It really looks awful, which given the rest of the film is a damn shame.

The Score: 2 out of 4

If you are a fan of low budget films I think that will enjoy this movie. It has its flaws, but there is talent as well as an interesting story to be told.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-23T14:03:00.000-07:00

Let’s Scare Jessica to Death

Synopsis: A couple and a friend arrive in a small town to take over a farm that they have just purchased on a small isolated island in upstate New York. As soon as they arrive they meet a young woman that is staying in what she thought was an abandoned house. Strange things begin to happen as they begin to deal with the locals. We also find out that Jessica, the man’s wife has a history of mental health issues. What happens to them? Will they survive their stay?

The Good: The cinematography on this film is pretty good. There are some shots of the lake that look great. Another thing that the film has going for it is the location. The house and town that they filmed in is very creepy in that small town sort of way. Other than that there isn’t a whole lot going for this film.

The Bad: This isn’t a very good film. I can’t imagine that anyone could read the script and think that this film had to be made. The pacing is terrible, with many slow parts that will just bore you to tears. The logic of the characters or lack thereof boggles the mind. The dialog is laughable, and not in a good way. The acting is passable at best, and in some cases just not at all believable.

The Score: 1 out of 4

I consider myself a fan of horror films and I was looking forward to seeing this movie. Many very talented people have praised this film, including Stephen King. I was to say the least very disappointed.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-21T09:12:00.000-07:00

Blood Diner

Synopsis: This film begins with two young boys playing in their living room when their uncle bursts thru the door. We find out that he is on the run from the police and has come to the boys to make sure that they will continue his work. After leaving them he is shot down. Flash forward twenty years to his nephews resurrecting him so that he may help them return the evil goddess Shitar to life. What follows is a twisted story of blood sacrifice, cannibalism, and torture. Are the boys successful or do they fail as their uncle did before them.

The Good: This is a really fun movie. If you are a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis you are going to love this film. The gore is pretty well done and what isn’t works well with the comedic overtones of the film. The acting is a bit uneven, but again it works well in this movie. Some of the bits are incredibly funny, including an incident with a deep fryer and one of the victims. The movie is paced very well and the running time goes by without a lull in the action.

The Bad: At times Blood Diner can be a bit silly and over the top. This is the only reason that I didn’t give it a perfect score.

The Score: 3 out of 4

If you are looking for a serious horror film then this isn’t for you. But if you are looking for a good time then pick up a copy.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-21T00:11:00.000-07:00

I'll have another review up on Saturday. You know I make my own deadlines and then miss them.......

2006-10-17T08:17:00.000-07:00

Mulva Zombie ass kicker!

Synopsis: In this little film from Low Budget Pictures a frumpy chocolate obsessed girl and her morbidly obese friend do battle on Halloween night with the armies of the living dead. Along the way they manage to pick up a myriad of other characters including a guy in a monkey mask, and Bill Cosby obsessed neighbor who is played by a white guy in black face. Together they try to save Mulva’s Halloween.

The Good: Not a damn thing!

The Bad: Well for one the acting is just terrible. Not over the top or cheesy, but wooden and painfully amateurish at best. The story is lacking any real cohesiveness at all. It appears to be nothing more than a series of gags strung together loosely at best by the narrative of Mulva. Characters are introduced and then forgotten rapidly. The makeup effects are done poorly, even by the standards of a low budget movie. Not to mention that the sound drops in and out, making the dialog nearly impossible to understand at times, which in a way may be for the best.

The Score: 0 out of 4

Take my advice; don’t waste your time on this film!

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-13T06:37:00.001-07:00

Sars Wars: The Bangkok Zombie Crisis

Synopsis: Well I’m going to do my best to briefly describe the plot to this film. A wealthy young woman is kidnapped by a group of fairly inept criminals and secreted off to a large high-rise condominium. Her father seeks out the help of a mysterious old man, who himself sends his best student to rescue her. All while this is happening the Sars 4 virus breaks out in the building, which also houses a club populated by drug taking party kids. So everyone ends up locked in the building, which is quarantined by the government once they discover the Sars 4 outbreak, which by the way kills and turns its victims into zombies. Add to that a zombie cat’s tail and a mutant giant snake, and well all hell you get the idea.

The Good: Well this film isn’t boring. The “horror” aspects of this little gem are strictly played for laughs, and it does that well. The characters are funny, and they sneak many movie parodies into the story, but don’t linger on them. Over all the film is very tight and entertaining.

The Bad: CGI. I know that they are playing this for laughs, but the CGI is just terrible. I can understand the giant snake having to be CGI, but they also obviously used it to do many of the bullet hits. I mean how hard is it to use practical effects shots for bullet hits. The before mentioned snake is just terrible as well. It seems to me a bit more effort could have been made on the effects in this movie.

The Score: 1.5 out of 4

If you are a fan of Asian horror films you will probably like this one. Though at the current $25 cost I think it is a little pricey. If you aren’t a fan of Asian horror I would recommend staying away from this.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-10T10:55:00.000-07:00

Evil Aliens

Synopsis: A crew from a television show head off to a small isolated island to investigate the reports of an alien abduction and pregnancy. Along for the ride are a couple of actors for a reenactment as well as a UFO “expert”. Do they get to the bottom of the mystery? More importantly will they survive their encounter with the Evil Aliens?

The Good: To begin with the cast is top notch. Many times when a Horror Sci-Fi comedy is made the actors will “ham” it up, this does not happen here. Along with that the filmmakers know that they are making a horror comedy, but they don’t hesitate on the horror aspects. No punches are pulled here; you get plenty of blood with your laughs. There was clearly a great deal of work involved with the Alien makeup effects and ship interiors because they look great!

The Bad: Sometimes I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here. The only complaints that I have about this movie involve the use of CGI effects. Really bad CGI effects! There are two shots in particular, one involving a ship crashing into a building. The other involves a gag with a piece of farm equipment chasing and catching aliens. These effects shots look terrible, and are noticeable enough to pull you away from what is happening in the movie.

The Score: 3 out of 4

This movie has yet to be released here in the United States yet. It is traveling around the country playing in limited runs in some of the larger cities. Check out the website to see if it coming anywhere near you. If it is really go out and see it, you won’t be disappointed.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-09T10:41:00.000-07:00

The Redsin Tower

As an attendee of the Cinema Wasteland convention over the weekend of October 6th I was able to attend an advanced screening of the Redsin Tower from Toe Tag Pictures.

Synopsis: A group of friends decide to party at the supposedly haunted Redsin Tower when the cops break up the party they were going to attend. Included in this group are the requisite stoner, jock, as well as a pretty young woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend of 6 years. Will they survive the evening, or are they all doomed?

The Good: This film was clearly made by a group of really talented people. The acting is very good for a lower budget film, especially the female lead. Camera work and lighting are very well done, which gives this film the feel of a much larger budgeted product. I can’t say enough about the special effects in this film. They are outstanding! They stay away from CGI and do practical effects, including a particular scene involving a wrist and an axe that had me squirming in my seat.

The Bad: There are really only two issues that I have with the film. First it begins very slowly. It takes an hour for the main characters to actually arrive at the tower and for the action to start. I applaud the filmmaker’s attempt at character development, but it seemed a bit much. In addition to that the story can be a bit confusing at times. I’m not quite sure if they wanted this to be a ghost film or a “slasher” film. Also with the story it isn’t really clear how or why one of the characters towards the end makes this intuitive leap and knows how to save the day. I really don’t want to go into more detail and ruin the film, so I’ll keep it vague.

The Score: 2.5 out of 4

There are a few issues with this movie, but it is worth a viewing. The guys at Toe Tag pictures are very talented, and I’m looking forward to their next project. Keep an eye out for an advanced screening near you and check it out.

Feel free to contact me at horrorfanreview@aol.com

2006-10-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

So this is something that I’ve been thinking about doing for quite a while now. You see I have two real passions in my life, writing and watching horror films. So I thought what the hell lets write reviews about the films that I watch. Since I had neither the skills to do a website or the time to learn I decided to use a blog to get it out on the net.