Live-In Fear (2014)

"In the snowy Utah mountains, an ancient being terrorizes four friends as they try to survive."

There aren't many independent horror movies which I've waited over two years to see (or even cared about for that matter), but Brandon Scullion's "Live-In Fear" is one of them. In fact, it was way back on Friday, October 26th, 2012, that I first mentioned this movie, and earlier today, thanks to Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66, I finally got to watch the HD screener.

Is "Live-In Fear" all that I expected it to be? Well, yes and no. I was mostly looking forward to the wintery setting, "The Shining"-style madness, and of course, the performances by Maria Olsen, Arielle Brachfeld, and the equally lovely Sarah Greyson. There's undoubtedly nothing to disappoint anyone too badly with these three actresses involved, but—and there's always a but with these things—the "cabin in the woods" (or rather "lodge in the snow") story itself is a tad confusing in places.

The good news is that this movie now exists and it won "Best Grindhouse Feature" at the 2014 Los Angeles RIP Horror Film Festival. Fans of Arielle Brachfeld (from "The Haunting of Whaley House") will also be pleased to learn that she won "Best Actress" for her role as Mallory at the same festival.

The bad news is that "Live-In Fear" is still another C-grade indie horror which isn't for everyone's tastes. You can't compare something like this with a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, and so I'm not going to be foolish enough to try. However, when despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the story ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense, there's always room for criticism.

Nice retro poster. It reminds me of the '70s.

I was fine with everything (sort of) for the first 53 minutes. "Scooby Doo"-style villains and "Cassanda" tropes aside, each of the characters has dark secrets which are revealed in due course. Coupled with the usual low-budget horror bloodshed, this makes for some decent entertainment overall.

Admittedly, I found myself distracted by the scenery and ogling Sarah Greyson (whom, I have recently been informed, was in the "Road Rules" TV show) as Becca with her Bettie Page hair, but the camerawork is competent enough for the most part, and the sound has some unnerving ambient additions which first made me wonder if there was something wrong with my speakers and then caused me to worry that I was hearing things which weren't supposed to be there. Trust me, you'll notice these things too, and many more.

Written and directed by Brandon Scullion, "Live-In Fear" is a co-production between Brandon's Iodine Sky Productions and Maria Olsen's MOnsterworks66.

Maria Olsen is very attractive in her earlier scenes (and a bit scary later) as Seth's mother, and she definitely gives the younger actresses a run for their money, even if the aforementioned Arielle Brachfeld as Mallory is the one who is meant to stand out the most. Aiding and abetting them is David Lautman as Seth and Chris Dorman as Eric, neither of whose characters I warmed to, and with good reason considering the reveals.

The supporting cast of Geoffrey Gould, Myles Cranford, Charlene Geisler, and Nancy Wolfe are okay-ish, but Nancy Wolfe (who played Susan Atkins in the original 1976 "Helter Skelter") is the obvious stand-out here. None of them have very much screen time.

Sadly, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very scary movie, and it kind of takes itself too seriously for what it is. I actually prefer the latter element in a horror genre movie rather than everything being played for laughs (although I know other people don't feel the same way), so that's another point in its favour.

There's some nice blood and gore in places, which we all like, but there could have been more. Practical effects of various qualities appear throughout, several of which are unintentionally comical, but I can't say any more without spoiling them for you.

Eric is not a very nice man.

The only thing which threw me right out of my willing suspension of disbelief was what can only be described as a "WTF moment" around the 54 minute mark. Something far too weird happens with a younger version of Mallory (played by Charlene Geisler) which had me puzzled for the 4 minute duration of the scene. It makes absolutely no sense even with a second viewing, so I'll generously put it down to padding. The scene could be excised with no great loss, although with a running time of only an hour and 20 minutes, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very long movie anyway. It also has, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unsatisfying "Epilogue".

"Live-In Fear" did not quite live up to my expections, and I highly doubt that it's truly "the most disturbing film you'll see in your lifetime" (as the voiceover in the trailer suggests), but it certainly left me shaking my head and wondering, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

I recommend "Live-In Fear" for fans of this subgenre of indie horror movies, but it isn't good for anyone with mainstream tastes. It's hardly "The Evil Dead" despite some superficial similarities, but then again, it doesn't try to be either.

Having said that, "Live-In Fear" is likely to be one of the best micro-budget indie horrors that you'll see this year. Give or take a plethora of unrealistic situations and responses (which abound in all horror movies), I enjoyed it.

Baby Shower (2011)

"Four ex-classmates get together to celebrate the pregnancy of one of them. The venue chosen for the party is a country house located one hour away from the city. It has been a while since the four of them saw each other for the last time, and one recently committed betrayal threatens to destroy their long and deep friendship. The revelation of a dark secret and a series of violent deaths transform the baby shower into a nightmare. A very disturbing one."

Something which surprised me after watching "Baby Shower", and then looking up reviews to steal pictures from, is that there aren't any positive reviews of this movie to be found on the IMDb (or anywhere else for that matter). That seems very odd to me, and means one of two things: either not enough people have seen this movie yet, or a lot of copying and pasting has been done from one review to another. Bearing in mind that the "critics" in every case mainly retell the story in their own spoilerific words, I have no respect for any of them, least of all one who hated the movie because it had subtitles, and another douchebag who I know didn't give it his full attention because he practically lives on Twitter.

I have no idea what director Pablo Illanes did to upset these "reviewers" apart from placing non-comedic versions of the "Sex and the City" girls in the middle of a Chilean forest and bumping them off in fabulously gory ways—especially as I think the whole idea is absolutely fantastic—so just because he's managed to bring one of my own sordid dreams to life, I'm going to give "Baby Shower" a thoroughly positive review to redress the balance.

Okay, I admit that in my imagination, it would only be the most irritating characters from "Sex and the City" being tortured in insanely erotic ways that wouldn't ever legally make it to film, but you have to take what you can get. Obviously, nobody would want to see anything bad happen to Charlotte (Kristin Davis), since she's the only pretty one in the show, and I'm pleased to say that her lookalike Ángela (Ingrid Isensee) doesn't suffer too much either (except emotionally!). Everyone else does—oh, yes, indeedy—and there's lots of blood, nudity, and mean-spiritness to enjoy here!

Aside from (but including) the boobs and blood, the cinematography is sometimes quite beautiful, especially for a low-budget foreign movie (if you can call $900,000 low-budget!), and the location looks the part. Where logically there should be spaciousness, the atmosphere is parodoxically claustrophobic, and that takes some doing, especially as the camera looks at everything you want to see and quite a few unpleasant things which most people don't!

"You have to let go of who you were to become who you will be."

With a hint of "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and a little bit of the craziness from "Inside" (2007), the plot itself isn't the most original, but it's handled in a much better way than either of those aforementioned borefests. Let's face it, I might like "Rosemary's Baby" myself, but it's still 45 years old and has become horribly dated now. It was never very believable to begin with, and teenagers are more likely to laugh at it. On the other hand, "Inside" is simply an overrated idiot play with unrealistic gore, and I'll never understand its appeal if I live to be a hundred.

Thus, even with its stereotypical characters which aren't really developed, and other clichés such as non-functioning cell phones abounding, "Baby Shower" is much more suitable for a modern audience, especially if they're sick puppies like me who appreciate realistic woundings and creative kills. The fact that the actresses are some of the best-looking women in Chile also doesn't hurt. Just pick out your favourite and enjoy her for as long as she remains on screen.

Once again, I'm not going to give any spoilers because I hate it when other people do that. Suffice it to say that the sexy "Samantha" character called Olivia (Claudia Burr) steals the show from creepy lunatic Soledad (Patricia López), but the rest of the cast are still impressive. In particular, Sofía García, Francisca Merino, and Kiki Rojo don't play typical helpless victims; they fight back and scream very well indeed!

The only eyecandy for the ladies is Álvaro Gómez as Julio whose first appearance is shirtless and riding a horse, so you can imagine the impression that makes! He's not quite Marcus Tandy from "Eldorado", but women shouldn't be watching horror movies for hunky men anyway. To be honest, women shouldn't ever watch horror movies like this in the first place because they'll only bitch about the gratuitous nudity, misogynistic violence, and rape afterwards. I've had enough of those prudes to last me a lifetime, and I'm sure you have too.

As "Baby Shower" isn't available on DVD yet (except in Germany), you'll have to be a Netflix subscriber to see it legally anywhere else, but you should definitely check it out if you're into the gory stuff, and unlike some dumbass reviewers, you don't mind reading subtitles.

Highly recommended.

Gallowwalkers (2012)

"A cursed gunman whose victims come back from the dead recruits a young warrior to help in the fight against a gang of zombies."

Made seven years ago but still not due to be released until August, "Gallowwalkers" stars Wesley Snipes in a comicbook-style fantasy which is more like "The Crow" being played out on the set of a Sergio Leone western than "Blade" no matter what the promotional posters and trailer might want you to believe.

Pirates have already uploaded this film to the usual sites out of spitefulness rather than helpfulness, but as I'm a huge Wesley Snipes mark and will be buying the DVD anyway, I feel no guilt about succumbing to the streaming temptation. I'm not in the loop of chosen people who was sent a screener copy anyway although I damned well should have been. It's not going to taint my honest review of "Gallowwalkers", but it does leave a nasty taste in my mouth that someone who the distributors did trust with a screener then uploaded it.

Rather than spoil the big surprises of "Gallowwalkers" with a synopsis of what little plot there is, especially as I could describe it in one or two sentences and know that I'd done a good job, I have to begin by correcting an error in the IMDb description which I've quoted above. "Gallowwalkers" is definitely not about zombies. Thank God for that! Instead, it's a $17,000.000 hybrid of spaghetti westerns and "Hellraiser"-style fantasy-horror with laconic Wesley Snipes making a lot of strong poses and looking surly while far less well-known performers attempt to act around him. While not exactly brilliant, it's a typical Wesley Snipes movie.

There are worse things out tonight than vampires.

I say "performers" rather than "actors" because there isn't a whole lot of acting to talk about. Apart from the action scenes, and a fantastic cameo by Patrick Bergin, "Gallowwalkers" is mostly (but not entirely) one of those movies where once everybody got dressed up, they thought it would be enough to carry them through rather than putting any more effort in. Since it was filmed in a desert in Namibia, I'm sure the heat could be blamed for the overall listlessness, but that's not a satisfactory excuse for having the atmosphere of a cheap SyFy channel movie rather than a product designed for theatrical release.

Long camera shots, barren sets, very little dynamism, and stylistic homages to "High Plains Drifter", "Hang 'Em High", and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" show that director Andrew Goth loves his Clint Eastwood westerns, but none of it comes together in the "cultish" way that I'm sure he wanted it to. I don't know the full story of why "Gallowwalkers" sat on the shelf for so long, but I assume Wesley Snipes' incarceration for tax evasion may have caused so many rewrites and a such a nightmare for the editors that we're lucky to have this movie at all.

To be brutally honest, "Gallowwalkers" is a bit of a mess, and there are some very weird elements in it which aren't properly explained, but as a salvage job, it's actually not bad overall. There are a couple of plot holes and a few loose ends, but I've obviously seen far worse things which other reviewers rave about. The good news is that it's not as boring as "Jonah Hex" (2010).

One intentionally quirky thing which sticks out is that the major characters are never named except in the end credits. I'm not sure if they were named very quickly and I missed it, but I don't think so. I suppose it doesn't matter because, for all intents and purposes, Wesley Snipes is the black version of "the man with no name", and the gang he fights is another generic and instantly forgettable bunch of baddies anyway.

Nice coat, dude!

Kevin Howarth tries hard to inject some menace into his role as the boss of the bad guys, and Riley Smith is likeable as Wesley Snipes' recruit, but everyone else is barely more than eyecandy. Nobody has more than two or three lines each throughout the movie, and the beautiful girls are underused to say the least. Tanit Phoenix, Simona Brhlikova, and Alyssa Pridham all shine in their few minutes of screen time, but none of their characters go anywhere. Simona Brhlikova is the best as the bad girl member of the gang, but Tanit Phoenix's character has almost no purpose whatsoever. Alyssa Pridham only appears in flashbacks for obvious reasons.

Of interest to Brits of a certain age, former children's TV personality Derek Griffiths has a role in this as Mosca. Yes, he's one of the lucky few whose character actually gets a name. His prosthetic make-up stands out more than he does, but it's nice to know that he's still around.

Due to its nature, there's nothing scary about "Gallowwalkers", but the violence and gory set pieces are nicely done. Gunshots which smash large chunks out of their targets and bullet holes with blood spurting out of them are always enjoyable. Decapitations are simply a bonus! There may not be anything here that hasn't been seen before, but the effects are very good, and there aren't lots of quick cuts to ruin them.

If you're a Wesley Snipes fan and can appreciate a very flawed movie which is more style over substance, you'll probably enjoy "Gallowwalkers". You might even find yourself saying the word "Lush!" on more than one occasion. I did, and I'm not that easy to please.

V/H/S/2 (2013)

"Searching for a missing student, two private investigators break into his house and find collection of VHS tapes. Viewing the horrific contents of each cassette, they realize there may be dark motives behind the student's disappearance."

I wasn't going to watch this after how much I hated the first "V/H/S", but faced with the choice between "V/H/S/2" or "The Purge" (aka "The Strangers 2022"), I decided against the PG-13 claptrap.

Yes, I know that choosing between "V/H/S/2" or "The Purge" is like choosing whether to eat warm vomit or cold vomit, and normally I'd pass on both, but there's nothing else new to watch. One thing is for certain though, it doesn't matter how many good reviews "The Purge" gets about its alleged "social commentary", I'm done with Bumhole Productions. I won't be watching "InSHITious 2" either.

As far as sequels go, "V/H/S/2" is technically better than the original. Even though it's only more faux "found footage" with shakycams aplenty, extra cameras where there shouldn't be cameras, and no explanation or logic behind why any of these movies would be on obsolete VHS tapes in the first place, the excessive gore makes up for it.

Unfortunately, the stories are just as weak as before with lots of bad acting and "WTF" moments which give away its amateurish composition. 13-year-olds or any of the ADHD, games console generation will undoubtedly love it. Giving credit where it's due, the pacing is a hell of a lot better this time though.

I was pleasantly surprised that "V/H/S/2" didn't make me want to toss my cookies within the first five minutes. There's never a good reason why anyone should need to take Dramamine before watching a movie in the comfort of his own home. It's always nice to be able to finish a movie that you've paid to see online (or anywhere else for that matter).

Numerically, I rate "V/H/S/2 as a 3 out of 10, but as it's a new movie which most of you haven't seen yet, I'm not going to go into depth about the reasons why.

Instead, I'll post my Twitter feed (edited into the correct chronological order) so you can read my reactions as they happened. Some people got a kick out of when I did this for the "Evil Dead" remake although I actually put more effort into those.

A SPOILERIFIC TWITTER COMMENTARY WILL FOLLOW.
Do not read any further if you want to watch "V/H/S/2" on your own.

No idea what her name is, but she's very pretty.

I didn't put any timings before each Tweet this time because I couldn't be bothered. You can easily match them up to each segment though.

I'm watching V/H/S/2 (57 others are watching) http://bit.ly/ZBrKvD #GetGlue #VHS2

Nice boobs. It'll be all downhill from here. #vhs2

Eeek! A penis! #vhs2

If another penis shows up, I won't be watching any more of it. :( #vhs2

No acting ability or camerawork ability whatsoever. #vhs2

Apple product placement. ::yawn:: #vhs2

Why is it that the 5 people in the world who use Macbooks all have to be in horror movies? #vhs2

A bionic eye? Really? OMG This sucks. #vhs2

If they can't hold a camera steady, what's the point? This isn't film, it's YouTube. :( #vhs2

This is the worst POV I've ever seen. Where's the camera? On top of his head? Supposed to be in his eye. :( #vhs2

So if you get a bionic eye, you can see ghosts with it? Somebody should have told Steve Austin that. :( #vhs2

This bionic eye guy has a really big house. Probably a rent boy. #vhs2

He lives in a great big house like that but he wears a plastic Casio watch? You have to be kidding me. #vhs2

Oh, God! The girl was born deaf? So she's Jaime Sommers now? Drinks beer too? Low-class skank. #vhs2

Tits ahoy! #vhs2

Scientists capable of creating a bionic eye transfer the data from it to low-tech VHS tape? Yeah, right. #vhs2

I just knew it would have an "If thyne eye offends thee, pluck it out" ending. Gah! Seen it all before in "Body Bags". #vhs2

So who's the meth lab chav in the Macbook video? Probably has an ASBO. #vhs2

iPhone placement. ::yawn:: #vhs2

I think we can see where the camera was mounted on the first dude now that we have the mountain bike nerd. #vhs2

Wait. He has a camera on his handlebars looking at him too? What a whore! Must be a YouTuber. #vhs2

"I've got a big fucking stick!" Really? Am I bothered? Face. Bothered. Face. Bothered. I'm not even bothered. Zombies? Gah. :( #vhs2

Give a film school student a camera and what do they do? Make a zombie film. Shove it up your arse! #vhs2

"He's like covered in blood." LIKE covered in blood? How LIKE covered in blood is that? Ketchup maybe? That's LIKE blood. #vhs2

Self-aware zombie? Fail. #vhs2

Bored with the third story already. No idea what language the guy is speaking. Korean maybe? #vhs2

Translator chick is hot. #vhs2

Blair Witch stick figures? Really? #vhs2

Who put the subtitles in when they transferred it to VHS tape? #vhs2

Who is filming what? Seems to be a lot of extra cameras in the third story. #vhs2

Did they leave a camera filming from the boot of their car? Why? #vhs2

I've eaten a whole bag of Bugles (Nacho Cheese flavour) watching this. #vhs2

Ok, I admit that Stanley knife to the throat was good. #vhs2

Nice bit of splatter in the third story. #vhs2

But now it's turned into Quake. :( #vhs2

Baphomet wants his daddy! "Papa!" LOL #vhs2

Lots of snot. LOL #vhs2

They are making a movie with a dog-cam? 'Murica. :( #vhs2

Bah. Aliens? Aliens don't exist. What utter horseshit. #vhs2

I think they killed the cute little dog. Fuck the makers of this film. #vhs2

The chav shot himself. Flinched. Missed. Blew his face off. Most common accident for potential suicides. Now he's Zoidberg. #vhs2

The wraparound story made no sense. Ah well, another one for the video game generation. :( Crap. #vhs2

It was easier to watch than V/H/S, but... meh. Some nice gore effects, but why all the extra cameras, and who put the films onto VHS? #vhs2

My rating for V/H/S/2 = 3 out of 10. Not scary. Not shocking enough. Seen it all before but filmed with steadier cameras. #vhs2

I'm not sure what the names of each segment in this anthology are, and I don't really care that much to look them up either. The third segment with the cult is easily the best, but the second with the zombies is kind of okay too. In both cases, there are too many extra cameras floating about which makes a mockery of the "found footage" gimmick. The wraparound story is just a waste of time.

My biggest criticism of "V/H/S/2" is that there are too many zombies in it. Two segments and the wraparound story are full of zombies, and like most people, I've already seen enough zombie movies to last me a lifetime.

Brazil (1985)

"A bureaucrat in a retro-future world tries to correct an administrative error and himself becomes an enemy of the state."

It's not often that I don't know what to say about a movie, but having watched "Brazil" for the very first (and second) time today as part of my Christmas movies selection, I don't know how to categorise it. I'm not even sure if I enjoyed it or not. I think I did in some ways, but I still wanted to hate it all the way through.

"Brazil" is a surreal, sci-fi fantasy set in an Orwellian future which annoys me almost as much as "1984" itself. I've been watching a few sci-fi movies on the side lately and, since I'm a natural pattern finder, all these dystopian futures are the same from one movie to another. There's always a big, bad government and some neo-noir style lead character who turns out to be the unprepared hero of the piece amidst a load of technology which makes absolutely no sense.

I'll eventually review them, but I've also rewatched "The Matrix" (1999) and "Dark City" (1998) this weekend for absolutely no good reason at all other than entertainment. I'm not sure if that's the purpose behind them, but I keep feeling that I've seen the same story over and over ever since "Metropolis" (1927). It makes me glad that I'm not a real sci-fi fan because the clones and lack of originality in that genre even outweigh the current problems with horror.

In some ways "Brazil" is also a horror movie. There's some nice gore and definitely a nightmarish atmosphere to the arty-farty nonsense which makes it suitable for a horror fan, but there's comedy too which really messes things up. If it wasn't for the slapstick and satire, I think I would rate "Brazil" as a great film rather than a turd trying to be cleverer than it is. As I said, I don't really know how to classify it or rate it properly because it's not in a style that I'm used to.

The funny thing is that I got caught up in the story even though the plot is as simple as they come with a predictable twist at the end which I thought was going to be an even bigger cop-out. I honestly expected it to be another "it was all a dream" movie or to go into "brain in a vat" territory. I hate those "we don't know what reality is" pseudo-philosphical stories especially as the whole concept is "meta" in the first place. If I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to watch a movie, I don't want any more layers of unreality to throw me right back out of it. That's where bullshit like "Inception" (2010) failed to impress me.

All I can say for sure about "Brazil" is that it has a great cast of some bigger names than I thought I'd ever see in the same movie, and it pretty much wastes the talents of every single one of them. I'm surprised that they ever worked again. Robert DeNiro? Well, he's never been that good anyway, but Bob Hoskins playing Mario before actually playing Mario is just plain weird.

Kim Greist, who plays Jill (the girl of Jonathan Pryce's character's dreams), looks a lot better in a wig even though she does nothing for me, but I could say that about any of the actors and actresses in this. They all look the part, but their characters' reactions to each other and their lack of depth ruins everything they do. It's impossible to care about any of them except in short bursts and then it's like they never existed. I swear it's possible to forget about everyone in the movie within seconds of hearing their last line.

"Brazil" is all style over substance at the end of the day and not very memorable except for the way it looks. I get that it's a satire or parody of some kind, but it's not funny. If it's a satire of the sci-fi genre itself, it's kind of insulting.

Sci-fi masochists everywhere who want to enjoy a combined brain-numbing and ass-numbing can now appreciate the new Criterion Blu-ray of the 142 minute long "fifth and final" director's cut which was released last week. Allegedly, it's better than the Universal version and my DVD version, but I'm sure that's like saying eating hot vomit is worse than eating cold vomit. I never want to watch "Brazil" again.

Cemetery Man (1994)

(AKA Dellamorte Dellamore)



"A cemetery man must kill the dead a second time when they become zombies."

Allegedly, there was a time when Rupert Everett was considered one of the hottest British actors. I assume that it was just after "Another Country" (1984) or "Dance with a Stranger" (1985) and not at any point after "Hearts of Fire" (1987) which is when I stopped caring about his acting career. I didn't even know about "Cemetery Man" until the horrible "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" remake last year and, of course, I still don't own a copy of the Anchor Bay DVD because it's stupidly expensive. At nearly $50 for a new one, Amazon can keep it.

Thanks to YouTube and its multitude of VHS rips, I finally got to see what all the fuss over "Cemetery Man" was about. I would like to say that I was disappointed, but I was actually quite entertained by the whole mess.

Basically, it's an Italian zombie movie, slightly comedic, and either way past its sell by date or too ahead of its time. It's a cult movie for sure, but it's such a particularly odd one that I can't pigeonhole it or even decide if I really liked it or not.

"Cemetery Man" looked a bit cheap, Rupert Everett's performance as Francesco Dellamorte was all over the place, and I was very confused about why Anna Falchi appeared three times in three different roles. I assumed that all these things were due to some artsy-fartsy contrivances which I'm too stupid to understand so I let them go. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to Italian filmmaking or recognising the parodies and metaphors.

I honestly know nothing about the comic book or graphic novel which "Cemetery Man" is supposed to be based on either. It may even be a real book for all the research that I bothered to put into it. I'm a grown man who stopped reading papery media a very long time ago although I did read the "Vamps" series around the same time as this movie came out. Not that it has anything to do with it really, but I'm in no position to say whether anything on screen matched the original story.

One thing which I liked was the romantic story struggling underneath all the surrealism. Call me soft, but I've always thought that Rupert Everett excelled in the romantic leading man roles in spite of his sexual preferences in real life. Hey, it's acting and that's what he does. All the romantic scenes between Rupert Everett and Anna Falchi worked really well. It was all the other weird stuff which I wasn't too keen on.

François Hadji-Lazaro as Gnaghi provided a lot of disgusting comic relief although there wasn't that much to be taken seriously in the first place. I think he did a very good job and the bizarre ending of the film changed everything which I thought about his character.

Although you would think that it was the bad zombie make-up and gory kills which would stand out the most, it was actually Anna Falchi's breasts which were the most memorable part of the movie for me. She's one of the most beautiful women who I've ever seen, but, since she's nearly the same age as me, I doubt that she's quite so special now and I've got no desire to track down any more of her Italian movies to find out. She was obviously cast as eyecandy as her acting really wasn't that great.

If I was to rate "Cemetery Man" as average, I'm sure that I'd be doing it a disservice in terms of Italian horror movies. It was a lot better than 99% of the ones I've seen. Compared to even its American counterparts from the same year though, it was pretty dreadful and, of course, it wasn't scary in any way either.

I was going to post the full movie from YouTube at the top of this review, but it's easy enough to find for yourself. There's a dubbed English language version and an Italian version with subtitles available which runs slightly longer due to some extended sex scenes. I'm going to recommend that you watch the former because hearing Rupert Everett dubbed into Italian really doesn't work so well.

Drive-in Cult Classics 32 Movie Collection

I know how you all like a bargain. I also know how some of you live vicariously through my trips to the pawn shops and other retail establishments as I go in search of cheap horror DVDs. This time, I went to Target to see what I could find.

Although the selection at Target was considerably better than the 20 or so titles in the horror section of Best Buy (which actually has a few good $4.99 deals at the moment), the only thing I left with was the "Drive-in Cult Classics" collection which is currently on sale at $9.99. Very appropriate since, according to Google, June 6th is the 79th anniversary of the first drive-in movie theatre.

Isn't the artwork lovely? Well, no, but I suppose it'll do.

I'd thought about getting this pack a few times before, but this time, I had $3.80 back from my recycled cans (yes, all Monster energy drinks) which sweetened the deal even more (especially as I already had a few of the films in other Mill Creek Entertainment packs).

Mill Creek have been releasing these mostly "Crown International" movies since they took over BCI's catalogue. There are quite a few more sets which again repeat some titles and/or add a few more. Whether you buy them depends on what you are looking for specifically or if you just like collecting Mill Creek packs (as I do). On my travels, I've seen "After Dark Thrillers", "Dangerous Babes", "Gorehouse Greats", "Cult Terror Cinema", "Girls, Guns and G-strings", and "Savage Cinema", but it's very likely that there are others.

Here is a scan of the back of the "Drive-in Cult Classics" pack (albeit with some of the titles incorrectly labelled) so you can see what it looks like. I know it's not that exciting. The DVDs inside do not contain the movies in the same alphabetical order which is a little bit annoying. I probably don't need to mention that they aren't the greatest transfers either, but I will since these are probably the only transfers of these films available anyway.

Since that second scan is hard to read, here are the now corrected titles (again in alphabetical order). The horror movies are highlighted in bold.

The Babysitter Best Friends Blood Lust Blood Mania Blue Money Carnival of Crime Cindy and Donna Click: The Calendar Girl Killer The Creeping Terror The Devil's Hand Double Exposure The Hearse Hot Target Land of the Minotaur Lurkers The Madmen of Mandoras

Malibu Beach Malibu High Night Club Pick Up The Pink Angels The Pom Pom Girls Separate Ways Single Room Furnished The Sister-in-Law The Stepmother The Teacher Terrified They Saved Hitler's Brain Trip with the Teacher Van Nuys Blvd. Weekend with the Babysitter

I don't really know if any of these movies were ever shown in a drive-in cinema, and I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't actually "cult classics", but the collection had to be called something. It's better than "The Bumper Pack of Crappy Movies Which You've Never Heard of Before".

Of course, only a small percentage of these movies are horror, but since only 5 of them were in the "Gorehouse Greats Collection" (Blood Mania, The Devil's Hand,The Madmen of Mandoras, Terrified, Trip with the Teacher), I thought it was still a very good deal. I haven't had time to watch any of them yet, but I'm sure I will when I've run out of modern movies later in the year.

I don't have cable TV or Netflix anymore, I don't leave the house unless I really have to, and obviously, I get bored a lot. That's my excuse for buying these Mill Creek Entertainment packs of terrible movies, and I'm sticking to it. I also like the cover-art, such as it is.

It appears that you can also buy these "Drive-in Cult Classics" in other smaller packs for exactly the same price if you are careful. Some of them are from Mill Creek Entertainment and some are by BCI with exactly the same artwork just to confuse you.

Just don't buy the BCI issued "Volume 4" as it has nothing worthwhile on it, it's out of print, and greedy sellers are now asking ridiculously high prices for it.

The Crow (1994)

"A man brutally murdered comes back to life as an undead avenger of his and his fiancée's murder."

I know that I'm going to be torn apart for this but I rewatched "The Crow" earlier and now wonder why I put it in the "Video Vault" since it isn't actually a horror film at all.

I hadn't really thought about it too much before but I can now see that "The Crow" was little more than a comicbook reworking of "High Plains Drifter" (1973) or "The Wraith" (1986). We all know the tragedy that surrounds Brandon Lee's finest hour and "The Crow" is still a great film but is it horror? No.

Seventeen years ago, horror movies had dried-up in much the same way as they have recently. People and, more importantly, the studios just weren't interested. Coppola's "Dracula" (1992) had been a bigger success than it would have been in the heyday of the '80s and we were yet to discover the joys of "trendy teen horror" films such as "Scream" (1996), "The Craft" (1996), and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997). Into the middle of this came "The Crow" and, quite frankly, we were all completely blown away by it.

Unfortunately, we've now had slews of badly made no-budget handycam independents, torture porn and CGI fuelled remakes to sour our taste buds so when it comes to reviewing (or quite literally re-viewing) "The Crow" there is always an element of seeing it through rose-tinted glasses. Personally, I love nearly everything about "The Crow" and what it stood for at the time so of course I'm biased.

From the noirish, neo-gothic, and just completely dark and uncomfortable setting of Alex Proyas' alternative Detroit (actually Los Angeles), everything about "The Crow" screams horror movie. Brutal murders, returning from the dead and, let's be honest, more than a few nods to Edgar Allan Poe, should place "The Crow" firmly in supernatural horror territory. But, if you look past these gimmicks, the heart of "The Crow" is an action film.

Thus I've been torn about keeping it in the "Video Vault" for the same reasons that I wouldn't necessarily put "Batman Returns" (1992) in there either. Is it nasty, scary or horrific enough to stay?

Well, I'm pleased to say that, if you are in the right frame of mind, "The Crow" is absolutely terrifying at times. Horrific? Yes, indeed. Brutal? Some of the kills easily equal anything from the the 2000s but they are done with considerably more style. "The Crow" may have had a target audience of wannabe-goth comicbook nerds but I'm sure it can still hold its own for horror geeks as well.

The only weak points of "The Crow" are in the editing. Since I've already alluded to Brandon Lee's accidental death at the time of filming, you know that "The Crow" isn't exactly how it was meant to be. The admittedly very skilful editing obviously saved it but you can't help but wonder what might have been. Well, I know I do. The bits that have always thrown me are Eric's weaker more human moments towards the end but some people love those even more than the badass version.

Since I doubt that any of us haven't seen "The Crow" there's little point in me going through how awesome the acting is, especially Michael Wincott as "Top Dollar", David Patrick Kelly as "T-Bird" and. my favourite, Jon Polito as foul-mouthed pawnbroker "Gideon". I can even admit to fancying Darla (Anna Levine) for all the wrong reasons though perhaps I shouldn't.

So, yes, I am still recommending "The Crow" to everybody. This is what my generation had back in the day instead of "Twilight" and I think we got the better deal. It may not be a real horror film per se (and how I hate "South Park" for making me sound like an emo when I write those words) but it certainly contains enough genre elements to make it such. If we can can count the also comicbook action film "Blade" (1998) as a horror because of the vampire elements then I think "The Crow" should be seen as the ultimate supernatural action movie too.

What do you think?

Spider Baby (1968)

(AKA "The Maddest Story Ever Told")



"A caretaker devotes himself to three demented adults after their father's death."

Since my last post, a few people have asked me about Jack Hill's "Spider Baby" so I decided to do a quick review of it.

Starring several former big names such as Lon Chaney, Jr., Mantan Moreland and Carol Ohmart (best known as Vincent Price's wife in "House on Haunted Hill") plus a few that would be even more well known including Quinn K. Redeker (Oscar nominated as a writer for "The Deer Hunter") and, of course, Sid Haig, "Spider Baby" is a cult film featuring one of the first "adults behaving like little kids" scenarios.

Obviously, the real star of the show is the eponymous "Spider Baby" played by the late Jill Banner. No, she's not half-spider and half-baby or anything quite so ridiculous as that but her character, Virginia, certainly has a lot of other things wrong with her. Not only does she look amazingly like popstar Lily Allen but she has a fictitious disease called "Merrye Syndrome" which causes her to mentally regress backwards as she grows older. So at the age of 18 (which she was when "Spider Baby" was filmed in 1964), she acts like a very naughty and vicious 6 year old. She also likes to play at being a spider but I'll get to that later.

Basically, the whole Merrye family are afflicted with this syndrome due to inbreeding. Virginia, her sister Elizabeth (Beverly Washburn), and her Brother Ralph (Sid Haig) are the ones we see most of but there are also aunts, uncles and cousins who have all suffered the same fate.

As is nearly always the case with a horror film like this, everything would be just fine if only other people would leave the family alone. But this is one of the blackest and sickest horror comedies of the time so you know that isn't going to happen.

I was fine with all of it, especially the curiously sexy Virginia playing "spider" by tying people up and stabbing them to death with a pair of kitchen knives, but Ralph killing a cat for dinner was a little bit unnecessary. You don't get to see anything of course because you never get to see anything nasty happen in films of this nature, and it adds even more disgustingness to the dinner that Lon Chaney serves, but I hate it when bad things happen to cats in horror movies.

Rather than tell you the whole story, suffice it to say that this film is weird. As an even more dysfunctional family than "The Munsters" or "The Addams Family", most of the comedic elements work, though, as it only took a week to make before spending four years tied up with financial problems before it was released, you have to view "Spider Baby" as a product of its time.

Don't get me wrong, "Spider Baby" isn't a bad film at all. Sid Haig is reminiscent of the pinhead from Tod Browning's "Freaks", all the girls are beautiful (especially Carol Ohmart later on in her black underwear!), and, even though this is pure B-movie fodder, the story is written well enough to keep you watching right until the end. Most of the time, you can almost forget that it's a comedy too. If you've ever seen the original "Little Shop of Horrors" then this has the same vibe. It's not too serious but it leaves realism out of the picture as much as possible.

I'm probably in danger of losing my good taste in horror movies by watching so many of these sillier ones because I have to admit that I really like "Spider Baby". I like it enough to add it to The Vault so, even though I intended to go from A to Z, you'll just have to forgive this little gem cropping up so early in my alphabetical rewatching of everything else.

"Spider Baby" may not be an uber scary or very serious horror film but it is certainly worth a watch on one of the streaming public domain websites. Yes, it's a public domain movie so it's free! You don't even have to buy the "Director's Cut" DVD to watch "Spider Baby" unless you want to watch it on your big TVs with a little bit of extra footage and a commentary by Jack Hill. If you really like horror films though, you'll already have put this in your collection anyway.

Alligator (1980)

"A baby alligator is flushed down a Chicago toilet and survives by eating discarded lab rats, injected with growth hormones. The small animal grows gigantic, escapes the city sewers, and goes on a rampage."

I first saw "Alligator" when it was introduced to an unsuspecting British public by Alex Cox, director of "Repo Man" (1984), in one of his far too short seasons of cult '80s films on BBC2's "Moviedrome". According to my Googling, this was actually in 1994 so, obviously, I was way behind the times with my knowledge of cult '80s American horror movies as I'd never even heard of it before. If it was ever shown theatrically in the UK then it certainly wasn't near me. Even my local Blockbuster didn't have a copy of it, and they had just about everything. The DVD version was only released in 2007 in America so there are probably still quite a few people who have never seen it.

The director of "Alligator", Lewis Teague, went on to do a couple of better known Stephen King adaptations, "Cujo" (1983) and "Cat's Eye" (1985), both of which I feel are hugely overrated by genre fans. I can barely make it through "Cujo" without wanting to slap Dee Wallace's character silly and "Cat's Eye" is a mixed bag which I only like on a personal level because it has cats in it.

There is a terrible sequel to "Alligator" called, imaginatively, "Alligator II: The Mutation" (1991) which coincidentally stars Dee Wallace who I've only just mentioned. Don't worry though, she isn't in "Alligator".

Having to rewatch "Alligator" again after all these years isn't really too much of a chore though. It may be little more than "Jaws on land" with a ridiculously large alligator instead of a shark but it isn't as camp as the trailer above makes it out to be. It isn't quite as serious as you might hope for either which is something that some people might appreciate more than others. I didn't notice any obvious parody of any other monster movies myself, but I suppose, given the subject matter, that it goes without saying.

"Alligator" isn't a bad film at all really but, thirty years on, it is getting dated. It's not embarrassingly dated apart from a few effects and some of the dialogue, but it still feels oddly cast and more like a TV disaster movie. I think that's more due to Robert Forster's presence than anything else though as most people would only associate him with a slew of '70s cop shows rather than his work in horror films.

Apart from the stupid premise, based on an urban myth, that if you flush your pet alligator down the toilet it will grow massive and eventually come back to get you, I still managed to find "Alligator" very entertaining. Of course a sick puppy like me has no time for all the contrived tense moments in the sewers but thoroughly relished people being eaten, especially the infamous kid in the swimming pool scene, not that you really see anything.

It's not often that kids get killed in horror movies as there appear to be some weird laws about what you can do with "minors" in a film. Well, obviously, all that has changed for the better with all the films about evil kids but, back in 1980, an innocent little kid getting eaten must have been more shocking. "Jaws" still did it first though.

All the gore, severed arms and legs, is quite fake looking now, but at least it's there. For the time, it was pretty damned good and the alligator itself isn't let down animatronically either. Some of the scenes involved a real alligator with scale models and if you look too closely you'll spot the flaws. My advice is to not look too closely and to concentrate on the good stuff.

"Alligator" is nicely paced apart from some minor lag in the middle where among other things a very stereotypically '70s celebrity big game hunter is introduced. Henry Silva plays Brock, the aforementioned hunter, with just enough arrogance to make you dislike his character instantly but not much else. If "Alligator" has a major flaw, it's this section of the film, which you can predict the outcome of a mile away and just want to be over. This is wrapped around a S.W.A.T. team driving the alligator out of the sewers into the city which is the least credible part of the whole thing anyway. As if people wouldn't notice a 30-40 feet long alligator trying to hide in the middle of Chicago.

Running jokes about Robert Forster's male pattern baldness abound and, if you look carefully at various wall posters and paintings in the background of some scenes, you will see that there are even more attempts at self-mockery concerning the subject of the film itself. If, like me, you have no sense of humour then you'll just be entertained by the attention to detail which is like something Joe Dante would do.

Anyway, as has been duly noted, "Alligator" borrows a lot from "Jaws" including various set pieces and even the background music. I don't think anybody was out to rip anyone else off here though as "Alligator" has its own fair share of original moments along the way too. It's about as similar as comparing two Westerns and saying that they are the same because they both have cowboys and indians in them. One could be "Rio Bravo" and the other could be "Carry on Cowboy", but that's as far as you could use the analogy to compare "Jaws" with "Alligator". "Alligator" isn't a comedy spoof as such, but you know that it isn't taking itself all that seriously either.

I really liked the first half-hour of "Alligator" and the action-packed end even though it was all way too predictable. I think the pacing was generally okay and even bits which seemed like padding added some little detail which tied things together. I'm glad that I rewatched "Alligator" again and can thoroughly recommend it. It's no more gory than "Jurassic Park" or "Jaws", but is still R-rated for no good reason at all (that I can think of) apart from a couple of minor swear words and some semi-nudity from Robin Riker.

If you can still find "Alligator" on DVD (I noticed that Amazon only has 7 left in stock) and you don't have any other man vs. alligator horror movies in your collection then you need to buy this. "Alligator" is everything that "Lake Placid" wanted to be but failed at, and you can be sure that with the success of films like "Piranha 3D" someone somewhere is already thinking about remaking it.