"Five carnival workers are kidnapped and held hostage in an abandoned, Hell-like compound where they are forced to participate in a violent game, the goal of which is to survive twelve hours against a gang of sadistic clowns."
Yet another adaptation of "The Most Dangerous Game", but this time populated with the usual American white trash characters and psycho clowns which are the norm for Rob Zombie's movies. Maybe he has something against Juggalos, or maybe he likes them? I really don't know. What's far more evident is how there isn't a whole lot of anything very original about "31".
In other words, "31" is Rob Zombie's version of "Hostel" and "The Running Man" with his very beautiful wife Sheri Moon Zombie as the star, and Malcolm McDowell picking up a pay cheque for doing not very much except play dress-up and chew scenery in the background.
Jeff Daniel Phillips as Roscoe Pepper and Richard Brake as Doom-Head steal every scene they are in, but Richard Brake is the most memorable as a cross between Rorschach from "Watchmen" and a much better version of The Joker than in any of the "Batman" movies.
The rest of the cast play mostly disposable characters who exist only to be killed off before you even have time to care about them. Everyone runs around stabbing, bashing, slicing, and wielding various weapons against each other in a very satisfying manner if only this movie had been made 10 years ago. The kills aren't very inventive, but they are competently executed. Pardon the mostly intentional pun.
Malcolm McDowell punctuates all the expected blood, gore, and violence like something out of Derek Jarman's "Jubilee" (1978), but there's not really enough of him to stand out like he often does. Shame. Fan favourites Meg Foster and E.G. Daily make up for this to some extent by adding more pathos to their performances and characters than the rest of the movie actually deserves.
Minor spoiler: Sheri Moon Zombie has lovely wrists, but the open ending is annoying.
Nicely shot, "31" isn't a bad movie, and it's certainly much better at storytelling than "The Lords of Salem" (2012), but Rob Zombie's best work still begins and ends with "The Devil's Rejects" (2005).
"Young babysitter Amanda arrives at the Lloyd residence to spend the evening looking after their young son. Soon after the Lloyds leave, a series of frightening occurrences in the gloomy old house have Amanda's nerves on edge. The real terror begins, however, when the child's biological father appears after recently escaping from a nearby mental institution."
As I've been watching a few films containing outstanding portrayals of nutters recently, it would be remiss of me if I didn't say something about Peter Collinson's "Fright" (also known as "I'm Alone and I'm Scared" in America).
Although I'm one of those people who would argue until I'm red in the face that the plot of "Fright" paved the way for "Halloween" (1978), I have to admit that John Carpenter probably had no idea of this film's existence when he made his slasher classic. Psychos escaping from asylums and seeking revenge was nothing new in the horror genre even in 1971, but whereas John Carpenter added a few supernatural abilities to Michael Myers, "Fright" (scripted by Tudor Gates) deals with a much more human and sympathetic villain.
"She's a sensible girl. She won't be frightened."
"Fright" is almost a film of two distinct halves due to focusing first on Susan George as babysitter Amanda and then eclipsing her performance with the late Ian Bannen as nutty Brian. When I say "almost", it's because Susan George in her skimpy lilac mini-dress absolutely carries this film from beginning to end.
Obviously this isn't just a story with two actors such as "Sleuth" (1972), but the others are little more than supporting roles. Honor Blackman does her best to act paranoid as Helen, Cockney geezer Dennis Waterman tries to be Amanda's desperately horny boyfriend Chris, and George Cole as Jim is, well, just the same slightly amusing George Cole as he ever was. There's nothing wrong with any of their performances, and none of them are merely two-dimensional bit parts, but as I said, this is Susan George's vehicle most of all.
"From now on, the world is your lobster."
Since I wasn't really alive at the time that "Fright" came out (1972 in the USA), I have absolutely no idea about what the critics' reaction was to it. If you compare "Fright" to "The Exorcist" (1973), it's obvious that horror movies really increased in nastiness in little over a year. I know that it's like comparing oranges with apples, but "Fright" seems like a throwback to a much tamer world of horror movies. The fact that it contains some quite brutal violence and lots of screaming yet still retains a PG certification does little to persuade me otherwise.
I suppose there's just something a lot more cosy about British horror movies which the censors didn't pick up on, plus most British filmmakers didn't often go for gritty realism until much later than their American equivalents. Consequently, "Fright" is full of well-mannered Brits all saying "please" and "thank you", although on one occasion Susan George lets a lovely four-letter expletive out, and there's never any doubt in your mind that this is a horror movie.
"I wrote the theme tune, sang the theme tune..."
If this was an American horror, Susan George's cussing would have one of those annoying clichés which would set her out to be either morally or mentally unstable. In "Fright", not only is our heroine very much a prototype for the even more foul-mouthed Margot Kidder in "Black Christmas" (1974), but you know that she isn't an innocent dumb blonde with a pretty face. It makes her character real.
Of course, Susan George is a fantastic piece of flawless eyecandy (or "tottie" as we Brits say) as well as being a feisty final girl. I really don't know a lot about her as an actress, but I do know that she was footballer George Best's girlfriend at one point, was married to Simon MacCorkindale, loves horses, and also starred in the infamous "Straw Dogs" (1971). If she ever looked more beautiful in a film than she did in "Fright" then I want to see it.
"Here's Brian!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it really.
Once creepy Ian Bannen turns up, however, Susan George is almost pushed completely out of the limelight by his acting prowess. Although he's not nearly as good in "Fright" as he is in "The Offence" (1972), there are some obvious parallels between the way Ian Bannen plays Brian and the suspected paedophile Kenneth Baxter.
Maybe it's because he does a trademark mumbling thing every so often, but Ian Bannen really gets under my skin (or on my last nerve). I know it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, but there was just something very sinister and menacing about Ian Bannen in every role that I've ever seen him in. He was probably a lovely man in real life though, and weirdly, that shows through too in the scene with his screen son (Tara Collinson) which looks improvised rather than scripted. I even felt a little bit sorry for nutty Brian because he's more to be pitied than blamed.
I really don't have anything else to say about "Fright" other than recommending that you watch it. Yes, it's a little bit dated now but not in a bad way. It's not really very scary or exciting either when compared to modern slashers, but it still has some effectively tense scenes.
Trivia lovers will note that the two stars of ITV's "Minder", George Cole (who played Arthur Daley) and Dennis Waterman (who played Terry McCann) were both in "Fright" eight years before their famous partnership. Oddly though, they have no scenes together.
Also watch out for a couple of self-aware "meta" moments which pre-date the "Scream" series by a quarter of a century.
R.I.P. George Cole, OBE. He died at the age of 90 on August 5th, 2015.
"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."
I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.
From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?
The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.
Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.
Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!
You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.
I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.
What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.
Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.
It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.
I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.
One final little rant and I'm done.
I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.
And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.
There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.
If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.
"Laurie Strode struggles to come to terms with her brother Michael's deadly return to Haddonfield, Illinois; meanwhile, Michael prepares for another reunion with his sister."
I started writing this post at 5 o'clock in the morning while I was still trying to process what I saw when I watched Rob Zombie's "Halloween II" for the first time last night. After another nap, I've even slept on it twice now, turning it over in my mind as I drifted off to sleep, and, now that I'm fully awake again, I still can't get past the fact that I really enjoyed it.
The thing is, I really hated Rob Zombie's "re-imagining" of "Halloween" (2007). I'm not even joking when I say that I use the DVD for a coaster. It keeps my cold Monster energy drinks from ruining the surface of my computer desk, and that's a far better use for that movie than any pleasure which I got from watching it.
I'm no dummy and I realise that Rob Zombie seemed to go back on his word many times over the years about hating remakes or having anything to do with ever making one. I even know that he claimed to not want any part of directing a sequel until, of course, somebody made him a financial offer which he couldn't refuse. I can't blame him for it. To be honest, if somebody offered me millions of dollars (or just one million for that matter), I'd turn heel and throw all my integrity out of the window for a comfortable lifestyle too. There's not one of us who wouldn't do the same thing, so let's not be hypocrites, okay?
Contrary to what all the major critics and ranters on YouTube would have you believe, "Halloween II" isn't actually a bad horror movie at all. Give or take a few flaws, it's also far from being the worst of either the old franchise or the rebooted one. Not that I need to defend Rob Zombie's decisions, but let me just address some of the criticism in an attempt to show you what I liked about the film.
The biggest problem for most people was that Michael Myers (AKA "The Shape") as played by Tyler Mane, didn't look or behave much like the old version, but why should he? The original 'Halloween" series was supposed to be made up of different stories, hence the existence of "Halloween III: Season of the Witch", and it was only because the fans demanded it that the idea was abandoned in favour of more Michael Myers and all the continuity errors which followed. None of the versions of Michael Myers are exactly the same, and silliness abounded with his supposed supernatural strength right from John Carpenter's "Halloween" in 1978. The people who are still that hung up on the look of the mask, Michael's physique, or his mannerisms, simply weren't paying enough attention to the other movies.
I saw nothing wrong with the new version of Michael Myers at all other than the continuity being lost a little bit by replacing the younger version with a different actor, namely Chase Vanek instead of Daeg Faerch. As for the adult Michael looking like a mixture between a bum and a wrestler with a beard like Rob Zombie's, does it really matter? All anyone wants from Michael Myers is to see him kill everybody in his path in the most brutal manner possible, and he certainly did that.
If, like me, you've watched the "Unrated Director's Cut" of "Halloween II", a major problem seems to be that the adult Michael speaks one word at the end. It's a bit odd but not something which couldn't be explained. After all, he could speak before and during his time in the asylum. He just chose not to.
Yet more haters really disliked the "White Horse" motif, its psychological implications, and the fact that a physical white horse appeared along with the deceased Deborah Myers and the young version of Michael Myers. It wasn't supposed to be supernatural but a glimpse inside Michael's mind. Most people didn't get it.
Some people just don't like Sheri Moon Zombie anyway and hate the nepotism whereby she gets cast in all of her husband's movies. Again, why shouldn't Rob Zombie do exactly what he wants? He's the director and if he wanted to throw a giant bunny into the middle of the film for no reason whatsoever, that would be his decision. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if it was just random, but the "White Horse" motif and the ghostly-looking Deborah Myers were supposed to be a link to another aspect of the story which, if you have a brain which hasn't been addled by watching no-budget backyard epics, you start to realise a long time before the end.
I will also defend Sheri Moon Zombie for a number of reasons. Not only is she absolutely gorgeous, but she's a damned good actress. Maybe she doesn't get as much opportunity to show her range in the "Halloween" movies, but people seem to forget how great she was in "The Devil's Rejects" (2005) as Baby. I don't even like the film that much, but I liked her in it. I'll put it bluntly, I probably wouldn't have watched any of Rob Zombies films if Sheri Moon Zombie hadn't been in them. Would I have watched "Halloween" or "Halloween II" for the dubious charms of Scout Taylor-Compton or Danielle Harris? I think not.
The stupidest comments I've heard or read online about "Halloween II" have all centred on Scout Taylor-Compton's performance as not being the same as Jamie Lee Curtis'. While she might not be the best actress in the world nor was Jamie Lee Curtis either. Do people not realise that there's a script involved in movies which might not bring the best out of an actor or actress? As much as I like the original version of "Halloween", Jamie Lee Curtis was as wooden as she could be in it and didn't exactly light up the screen with her presence. Laurie Strode was never a very interesting character anyway.
In the original version of "Halloween II" (1981), not that this was a remake in much more than name and the initial setting, Laurie Strode was far more unrealistic. Call me cynical, but the only reason anyone even cares about that film is because of Pamela Susan Shoop's boobs in the hot tub scene.
Scout Taylor-Compton gave a very realistic performance as Laurie Strode considering what her character had been through. If you had been stabbed, disfigured, seen your friends get killed or hacked about in front of you, would you not become unstable too? The whole premise that she was low-class (for lack of a better term) to begin with, and didn't have the greatest coping mechanisms, just made her more real to me. The more unrealistic character was actually Danielle Harris' version of Annie Brackett who seemed to be either in complete denial or far too confident for her own good. Why she gets defended by "Halloween" fanboys just because she was in the earlier "Halloween" movies is a mystery to me since her acting ability is also minimal.
The "white trash" aesthetic of Rob Zombie's movies gets a lot of flak for no good reason too. Since I've been living in America and encountered so many people like that, I can say that these characters are representative of the norm rather than an exception. Unlike the middle-class comedy movies which the more political part of the Hollywood machine throws at the rest of the world to encourage the myth that America is so great, the uneducated, constantly swearing, drunken "white trash" of Rob Zombie's movies are the reality. Maybe they aren't all as psychotic, but even that is debatable from my own experience.
I'll get off my soapbox just as quickly as I got on it to say something about the "Dr. Samuel Loomis" character as played by Malcolm McDowell. I thought he was great as the "prima donna" which everyone who gets a little bit of fame is likely to become. He even worked to some extent as comic relief between some of the most savage kills I've ever seen in a horror movie. The only valid criticism which I will uphold about "Halloween II", was that Loomis didn't contribute a lot to the plot other than revealing a secret in his book which Laurie Strode wasn't prepared for. I never thought Donald Pleasence was all that great in the role so Malcolm McDowell was a decent upgrade.
Since this review has turned out to be a lot longer than I wanted it to be, I'll just wrap it up by saying that I now consider "Halloween II" to be one of the greatest modern horror movies of the last decade. The gore is outstanding, the tension maybe not so much, and, as usual, there are no scares, but, as much as I wanted to hate all the characters, I ended up caring about them to some extent. The characters were interesting to me rather than likeable, and that set 'Halloween II" apart from nearly all of the more contrived horror movies which I've endured so far this year.
If you were also deterred by Rob Zombie's first "Halloween" movie, the haters, rumour mongers, and message board arguments, you might want to watch (or rewatch) "Halloween II" yourself now that it's had a few years since its release. I'm going to surprise you all by putting "Halloween II" in "The Vault". For $5 from Wal-mart's bargain bin, it was a nice surprise, and I highly recommend it.
"A group of kids go to a Halloween party, only to have to face down a group of demons."
Okay, I've reached the end of my "Night of the Demons" week and I've saved the best until last. Ironically, since I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, this 2009 update was well worth enduring the torture of the original movies for.
The remake takes all the best elements from the trilogy (and the worst) but recreates them so slickly that it's actually rather brilliant in its accuracy. Of course, a lot of that is due to director Adam Gierasch and writer Jace Anderson, who both know their stuff and have an impressive list of credits behind them. Some of it is accidental or lucky too, but that's always the way with movies. There will never be a perfect movie, horror or otherwise.
Although Hull House is abandoned in favour of the Broussard Family Mansion in New Orleans, complete with an opening scene in the style of a silent movie (which gives a better backstory than any characters could with their own exposition), everything important from the previous movies is here.
In many ways, "Night of the Demons" isn't so much a remake as another sequel. Maybe it should be called a "semake" or "requel" even though neither of those is as catchy as the "premake" term which we all used for "The Thing".
Call me shallow, but what I enjoyed most was having all the "hot chicks" from the other films replaced with truly hot ones rather than the "girl next door" types who the nostalgic fanboys all rave over. The most beautiful modern horror actresses are all here including Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, Bobbie Sue Luther and Diora Baird. I don't include the cameos by Linnea Quigley or Tiffany Shepis because neither of them does anything for me, but I'm sure they suit the tastes of others.
There's no cameo by the original Angela which is surprising but not really necessary anyway given that the new "Angela Feld" is a completely different character to "Angela Franklin". For those who like trivia, according to the IMDb, Amelia Kinkade is now some kind of literary "Doctor Doolittle" and loves cats. I can't fault her for either of those things, but as I've never found her very attractive or scary as Angela, I was pleased with the upgrade.
Having mentioned cats, seeing both Diora Bird and "Boobie" Sue Luther dressed as catgirls for Hallowe'en, really ups the eyecandy quotient for me. As much as I love Monica Keena, their costumes really upstage her. Their roles may be a bit two-dimensional, but at least they are played by real actresses with some current popularity rather than a bunch of wannabes or has-beens who were dragged in off the street only to disappear into obscurity again.
I'd also never realised just how beautiful Shannon Elizabeth really was until she was all Gothed-up and, should I ever do a top ten list of hot Goth girls in horror movies, she'll definitely be number one.
But enough about all that sexiness, what you really want to know about is why I thought this was such a good remake. As much as I would like to tell you everything, such a list would create so many spoilers that it would ruin the film for you. Instead, I'm just going to briefly describe some of the most outstanding points.
Just like the original and the second sequel, the story begins with a "home scene" of girls getting ready for a party. This also sort of ties in with part of the first sequel, but the setting there is obviously different.
I've already mentioned the cat costumes, That idea came, of course, from "Night of the Demons III". Angela in the remake also has a pet black cat which was reminiscent of the one from "Night of the Demons 2". Cats are very important to me, as you know, and I look out for such details.
Even more pleasing to me is that much more was made of the stupid lipstick trick from the original "Night of the Demons". I always thought it was completely random and out of place, but in the hands (and breast) of Diora Baird's character, it's reworked into something extremely gruesome, and as weird as her demonic sex scenes in the movie.
The faux-lesbian kissing scenes and other seductions are all done as expected, although a wine bottle replaced the pistol of the second sequel in a much hotter way. There's a lot more nudity and sex overall, but, hey, it's the 21st century now and that's exactly what we want! The gore, the scares, and the horror (especially the horror) take second place to the sleaziness, but on the plus side, at least this movie has a plot. In spite of some borderline "gratuitous fillers", it never appears to be making things up as it goes along.
I also noticed that the sets really looked the part. They hint at the disused funeral parlour of the first two movies, but it isn't the same place, and it feels like a real building this time. It's all much darker and creepier, and, as far as Hallowe'en parties go, it's the perfect setting.
Although the characters in the other movies are teenagers played by older actors, there isn't even any attempt to make the thirty-somethings in this appear any younger. They don't have to act all nasty and rebellious for the sake of their dialogue. What comes out of their mouths is often quite witty and endearing. I wasn't alienated by any of the main characters, and that's a very good thing. I even liked Edward Furlong's role!
Even though it keeps the uneven quality of the trilogy and goes for the light-hearted approach more often than outright horror, there are some great effects. Some of the goriest, weirdest and bloodiest effects that I've ever seen are made up of both practical effects and such nicely done CGI that it's hard to tell which is which. I expect, if really looked into, a lot of what I thought was CGI was actually practical (and vice-versa) except in some extremely obvious cases. I've been fooled before, and I'm not a "practical effects Nazi" anyway. As long as it looks good on screen, it's good enough for me.
I enjoyed "Night of the Demons" so much that it's going into "The Vault". If there's one movie which is typical of everything (and everyone) in the American horror movie industry from the first decade of the 21st century, this is the one.
"A young bride-to-be is being stalked upon by a serial killer. She gets help from a former lover, but will they manage to escape?"
I bought "He Knows You're Alone" from Big Lots quite a while ago due to a few people talking about it on various horror forums. I only got round to watching it all the way through for the first time a couple of days ago because, unfortunately, it turned out to be one of the most amateur and boring films that I've ever had the misfortune to fall asleep to.
According to the IMDb, this "Halloween" clone was shot in just 15 days although how it even took that long beats me. Filled with terrible acting, hardly any gore, and being dated beyond belief, is only the tip of the iceberg for all the bad things I could say about this film.
Not only are several scenes almost identical to "Halloween" (1976), including shots of the killer standing outside the victim's house and looking up at the window, but the score sounds so similar to John Carpenter's music that I'm surprised that there weren't a few lawsuits at the time.
By far the worst thing for me was the pace at which the story unfolded. As much as I appreciate character development and exposition, I'd prefer it if there was some purpose behind it and not just a load of padding. None of the drawn out and stagey talking scenes made me care about any of the characters.
Freckly-chested Caitlin O'Heaney in the lead role of Amy Jensen was certainly not as strong as Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode and was actually a hundred times more annoying especially at the end where she could only run about twenty feet before stopping to see if the killer was going to catch up with her.
The only things which did interest me were what was going on it the Staten Island background. Seeing a sign for cigarettes at only 65c amused me especially as they are nearly $10 now, and, of course, all the really old electronics from 1980 are fascinating.
Of course, the main claim of "He Knows You're Alone" is that it has Tom Hanks in it for less than five minutes as a psychology student and Paul Gleason (aka Principal Richard Vernon from "The Breakfast Club") for even less time than that. I have no idea if any of the other actors and actresses were famous for anything because I don't think I've ever seen them in anything else.
I admit that the opening "film within a film" scene fooled me and, even though the technique wasn't very original, it was probably the best part of the whole thing other than the only pretty actress (whose name I don't even know) getting naked for a somewhat gratuitous shower much later on. I struggled to pay attention to everything inbetween since the rare occasions when anything did happen were so short-lived and bloodless that it really failed miserably as a worthwhile slasher.
At least the story tried to be original with the psycho initially going after brides-to-be but even that aspect was inconsistent as he randomly killed nearly everybody else too. It was all pretty tame stuff though and a certain car stunt was completely ridiculous.
"He Knows You're Alone" isn't even bad enough to be funny, it's just boring and bad. I'm not even going to get into discussing the terrible depiction of police work or the poor acting skills of Lewis Arlt as an obsessed detective who managed to do as little as possible. I still have no idea what the purpose of his character even was.
The ending alone is enough to guarantee it a place in The Dungeon even without the stupid tacked-on epilogue. I do not recommend this film.
