therealcmr Reviews

555 (1988 Video)

HG Lewis Did Films Like This Better

[3/10 · 15 February 2024]

555 is one of many films made in the 80's solely created for the home video market. Meaning that it was released straight to VHS to many Mom and Pop shops around America. Some of these movies showcased early and young talent. Some of which would go onto bigger and better things. The majority of these sorts of films, however, were terribly made movies that showcased more of a passion to make slasher and gore films, than to create something cohesive and polished. 555 clearly is trying to be better than its brethren with it merging the detective/cop genre with the slasher and gore genres. Something that HG Lewis basically established with Blood Feast. But that turns out to be 555's biggest weakness. It tries to be better than it really is, and as a result, it falls flat just about in every area where it should entertain.

The plot has to do with a Hippie serial killer murdering young couples making love. The police are stumped and the only witness is an old war veteran. With the killer seemingly smarter than the cops, will the killings ever stop?

555 does a lot wrong when it could have easily done so much right, given its small budget. The acting is quite frankly all over the place. It ranges from non existent to completely over the top. A lot of times in the same scene, when there is no reason for it. The dialog doesn't help the actors any. Again, you have seen it all before if you saw Blood Feast. The difference is that the writer seems to be happy having every character swear like a sailor. Sometimes for no reason. I also feel bad for all the actresses in the film. It must have been in their contracts that if you appear in this movie, you must take your shirt off because every actress does just that at some point in the movie. Minus one lady who keeps a white blanket over her as a set up for a cheap gore effect.

The camera placements and cinematography in general are about as basic as it gets. If you have seen Blood Feast, you already know what I am talking about. Basically the idea is to set up the camera on the tripod, move it as little as possible, and capture every actor in the same frame as many times as possible.

All of those other issues can be totally excused if the film delivers in the one area that is most important, in these sorts of films. The gore. 555's gore is... well... pretty mild compared to what that VHS cover art might have one believe. Yes, the film features that decapitation. But that is about the best you can expect from the films SFX department. Most of the killings end up off camera, or blood is just thrown on a nude lady. There just isn't much going on here. And with a movie that features that hilarious cover art, one would think they were renting a true gonzo gore extravaganza. Sadly, one would be disappointed.

About the best I can say about 555 is that the title makes no sense, aside from some graffiti art in the background in one scene. And that the film is easy to laugh at since the acting and dialog is just hilariously atrocious. But I wish there was more for me to recommend here. I usually love these sorts of crap films, but 555 just never really did it for me. Check out any HG Lewis film instead. Or, if you are looking for films from the 80's in this genre, look for Blood Cult, Video Violence, Truth or Dare, Campfire Tales, or The Abomination. All those are way better films than 555, and way more entertaining.

If anything, when things are this rough, all one can do is get a good laugh out of it. And that is all I got.

Campfire Tales (1991)

Grade Z Gold!

[8/10 · 10 February 2024]

If you made it to this review, you are either looking to see every film Gunnar Hansen played a part in, or you somehow stumbled across this movie hoping to find a decent little anthology film. Regardless, Campfire Tales is quite a little known "Grade Z" no budget horror anthology film with Gunnar Hansen telling "scary tales" at a campfire with some bozo teenagers. Being an anthology, the stories are a little bit of a mixed bag. However, for no budget enthusiast's, even in the films weaker moments, it finds a way of being surprisingly entertaining. In a wildly unintentional sort of way.

Gunnar Hansen plays a hobo who stumbles across several dopey teenagers having a campfire. They reluctantly invite him to sit at the fire, where he proceeds to tell a wide array of classic urban legends.

The first story being the classic Hookman tale about an insane asylum escapee who terrorizes a girl after he brutally murders her boyfriend by disemboweling him and repeatedly beating him in the face with his hook hand.

This story is the most standard of all the stories here. The plot is absolutely nothing original. It simply plays as a platform to showcase some gruesome effects. And that it does. Aside from that the filmmakers do attempt at some lighting that is reminiscent of Dario Argento films from the 70s. Everything else falls flat though.

The second story is a bit more engaging featuring two moronic potheads trying to score some weed in the city. They meet up with Dealer Frank who sells them some supreme reefer. It's so supreme that it causes physical deformities, and continued use ends in one rotting away to nothing. This story is hilarious. It makes potheads out to be angry scumbag losers who need a fix like they are addicted to heroin. The weed they purchase literally looks like grass that was pulled out of an overgrown lawn. Seriously, this one needs to be seen to be believed. It makes Reefer Madness look like kindergarten class (Reefer Madness is even featured in a brief segment). It takes that kind of anti weed exploitation and turns it into such an over the top exercise, even anti drug groups would be mortified. Whether this was intentionally made as an antidrug short, or as a parody of one, it's one of the most memorable stories out of the bunch.

The next is a, surprisingly, Christmas horror story that seems to have jumped right out of an old EC Comic Book. Featuring all the classic elements of those old comics, including a deceitful family member who murders his mother over inheritance money, on Christmas Eve. The twist in this one does not feature an escaped maniac dressed as Santa. Instead, this one features a truly horrific Monster Santa, known in the tale as "Satan Claus". According to the children in the story, if one has been bad Satan Claus comes and "chops you to pieces", or something like that. Well, you can imagine where this is all going. Aside from the mostly lousy acting, Satan Claus actually is again one of the better stories. Technically, it appears to be light years better than the last two stories, in terms of just about everything. I imagine this is probably because the young filmmakers were finding there "groove" at this point in the production. Not a bad outing with Satan Claus himself being the major highlight. We even get "Satan Reindeer".

Last of the stories is one about a pirate shipwrecked on an island inhabited by zombies. The nod to Lucio Fulci's Zombi is clear as day here. Hideous zombies on a remote island isn't exactly new territory. However it is the way the filmmakers technically made this story that becomes more tribute to Fulci. Specifically in its zombie carnage towards the end of the story. It clearly cost the most. It is also the story with the longest running time. Almost serving as a short film compared to the length of the other stories. These guys loved Fulci and wanted to make this one the best of the bunch, and across the board it's the best of the shorts.

I always have had a soft spot for this film. My father loves a good anthology film and we rented this one way back in '91 or '92. And we both were dying by the end of the second segment. But as a guy in his early 40's now, and having made a few really crummy movies as well, I really admire this one. It really isn't that bad. Especially if one compares it to some of the SOV fare of the 80's. This is light years better than some of those films. The big thing here is to remain patient. The first story is a drag, but that second story should have you hooked if you like this sort of thing.

The Kindred (1987)

Not Great, Better Very Good Sci Fi Horror Flick

[8/10 · 17 December 2023]

First I want to say thank you to Synapse Films for releasing this film on Blu Ray! I can now retire my very worn out VHS and see the movie in its intended aspect ratio, along with the whole "watermelon scene".

As one might have guessed, I am very familiar with The Kindred. It's a movie I grew up with and watched endlessly. As a kid, I loved monster movies. Not so much Godzilla, but more in the vain of From Beyond, Galaxy of Terror, or even, to a much lesser extent, Creepozoids. So a film such as The Kindred just got my imagination roaring.

The Kindred takes a lot of nods from Lovecraft. In the film, scientist John Hollins discovers from his dying scientist mother (played by Kim Hunter!) that he has a brother he never knew about. Anthony. Turns out that Anthony is a giant hybrid monster with a lot of smaller siblings. John's mother orders him to go to her home and destroy the remains of the Anthony experiment. Like a good boy does, John assembles a team of peers with the plan to go to the home, discover the remains of the research, and destroy it. However there are two problems. The obvious being Anthony and the second being a completely deranged rival mad scientist Dr Lloyd (played with scenery chewing by Rod Steiger). He wants Anthony for his own mad experiments, and will do anything to get it.

For a relatively low budget monster movie, The Kindred has a surprisingly solid cast with acting that ranges from "decent" to "way better than expected". Let's start with the two major players, Kim Hunter and Rod Steiger. Both powerhouse actors back in their prime. Kim Hunter winning the academy award for her role in A Street Car Named Desire. And Rod Steiger winning the academy award for his role in In The Heat of the Night. However, Steiger's involvement in a film like this was not uncommon. I mean, this is the same guy who also went on to star in American Gothic. That's the 80's horror flick, not the TV show. Both actors put on wholly acceptable performances here. Scene stealing, to be fair. Sadly when they are not on camera, they are both missed.

The younger actors (at the time) are well rounded, aside from the lead John, played by David Allen Brooks. Brooks is unfortunately the only actor who wavers from just "ok" to "acceptable". He falls quite flat through most of the film, not able to convey the emotions he needs to unless he is yelling.

Next we have the always wonderful Amanda Pays. As some of you probably know, she is no stranger to the genre, having played in Leviathan and The Flash TV series. Pays' character of Melissa is unique in that she has the misfortune of turning into a fish lady and dying. It's hard to explain, but it is worth seeing in the film.

Talia Balsam plays John's love interest Sharon. She is not given that much to do aside from be annoyed with John for pining over Melissa. But that side plot is promptly dropped towards the end of the film, when her character instead becomes a "damsel in distress".

Timothy Gibbs plays Hart, a dorky student who gets attacked by one of the smaller Anthony's, yet survives to help save the day. Sort of. Gibbs was apparently the model used for Max Payne in the second game. In this film he gets quite melodramatic, especially towards the end of the film, when he escapes from the hospital, or when he is screaming for his girlfriend that may or may not actually be dead.

Peter Frechette plays Brad. Brad may well be the most well rounded character in the film. From the moment he appears it is made clear he is trying to quit smoking, and he really works that well into the character. The entire movie he does come across as kind of a jerk, and he's convincing. Peter is no stranger to the genre. Aside from this movie, I best remember him in the awful Hills Have Eyes Part 2 and the hilariously over the top The Unholy. If you have't seen The Unholy, it's well worth your time if you want a good laugh.

And last rounding out the cast is Julia Montgomery. Most of you might remember her as being from Revenge of the Nerds. In this film she is pined over by Hart. However she does't convey much emotion when it concerns Hart. Or much of any emotion at that, unless she is trying to survive.

When one watches a movie like The Kindred, they expect to be entertained with not only the production, but the SFX. A film such as The Kindred promises the viewer monsters and that's exactly what we get. There are a number of creature effects and monsters to mention in this film. Early in the film we are introduced to Dr Lloyd's "failed experiments", which are very zombie like in appearance. Think Day of the Dead. Throughout most of the film we get a lot of tentacles that seem to come out of the flooring and get into things like watermelons, or even steal small dogs. Speaking of watermelons, the films one big "gore scene" would have to be where one of the small Anthony's hides itself in a watermelon perfectly, without messing up the melon at all, only to burst out of it when a woman is driving and for it to brutally attack her. Regardless of whether or not we question how it got in the melon, the scene itself is really gruesome and easily the most shocking moment in the entire film. Finally, we get full sized Anthony, who is really a sight to be seen. It's right out of a Lovecraftian nightmare with tentacles attacking people, green aquatic like features, but deeply deformed. And a huge head with big red eyes. This thing is really the thing of nightmares. It's incredible. What's even more incredible is watching it die. The beasts death scene is a "slime bath". It's absolutely disgusting, and not in any of the normal gory ways. I have to say, the effects at display are absolutely worth the price of admission.

I have to say, I really like The Kindred. Yeah, it's easy to pick it apart or to make fun of the glaring plot holes, most of which involve Dr Lloyd. However, I feel a lot of that becomes part of the fun. And throw in some Lovecraftian sci fi horror elements, with a lot of tentacles and monsters, you have a recipe for a dumb fun movie. Well worth getting that Blu Ray from Synapse!

Mind Ripper (1995)

From Absurd to Ridiculous

[7/10 · 5 December 2023]

Mindripper aka The Outpost aka The Hills Have Eyes 3 is one of those flicks where, if one reads the description, probably already has a good idea of what to expect. However, in my opinion, Mindripper has a lot more to offer than the usual generic Alien clone. Most of this has to do with the outright ineptitude of just about everything in this film. Honestly, it makes for one great unintentional comedy.

In Mindripper, Jim Stockton (Lance Henrikson) and Alex Hunter (John Diehl) are scientists who have a genetics lab out in the desert they call "The Outpost". Out in the desert they discover a dying man and they bring him back to their lab to perform genetic experiments on him. Jim leaves the project due to ethical differences with Alex concerning the experiments. Later, Jim receives a call from Alex asking him to come back to the project. Jim, who was just in the process of getting ready to go on a trip with his ungrateful son Scott (Giovanni Ribisi), his obnoxious daughter Wendy (Natasha Greyson) and her dimwitted boyfriend Mark (Adam Solomon), decides to instead take the family to the outpost. When they arrive at the outpost, they become trapped as the experiment from earlier, now known as Thor, has broken loose and is eating peoples brain. Worse yet, because of the experiments, he now is completely invincible and immortal. Making fighting him and getting away virtually impossible.

When I first saw this film back on cable in the mid 90's, I thought it was just awful. Irredeemably awful film. And the fact that Wes Craven and his son worked on this one together, it just felt like a real slap to the face back when it came out. But after just seeing it again after all these years, my feelings have changed. Probably because I can actually appreciate a genuinely terrible movie now.

A lot of the issues with Mindripper root from its screenplay and the sheer lack of creativity when it comes to Thor. I will say this, the screenplay that wound up on screen is dreadfully bad. It's so bad that it would be impossible for any actor to work with it. Dialog such as, "Wendy - What doesn't make you horny? Mark - My Moms douche." Yeah, there is actually a lot of dialogue in the film just like that. And it looks like the actors are embarrassed at times to actually say some of these things. Lance Henrikson is the best towards the end of the film as one can see clear as day he is done with the production. He isn't even trying anymore. It's absolutely hilarious.

The Mindripper monster itself, Thor, could have been something nifty. But the idea never really finishes fleshing itself out, or even really developing. In the film, Thor stars out as a normal person, but as the film progresses, he loses all his hair. His ears fall off and he has a stinging tongue in his mouth that also sucks out brains. He looks a lot like what Crawford turns into in the film From Beyond, to be honest. As well as his appetite for brains... Only Thors make up looks unfinished. It just looks like there was maybe suppose to be more but the films budget was wearing too thin. It really does come across as disappointing. But yeesh, the actor playing the role, Dan Blom, goes all out in a role that becomes increasingly more laughable than anything that could be terrifying. By the end of the film, I was laughing every single time he was on camera.

The one positive that can be said about the film is the special effects. They were surprisingly gory with eye gouging and a whole lot of brains being thrown around. The sets, on the other hand, look as low end as they come. It all kind of reminds me of Creepozoids, now that I think of it.

There is honestly a laundry list of things wrong with this film. It's a movie that should never have made it past the screenplay. The fact that no one stopped and said, "Man, this is terrible" shocks me. Thankfully, as a result, we now have Mindripper to absolutely laugh at in its increasing stupidity.

Scalps (1983)

Surprisingly Entertaining Fred Olen Ray Flick

[7/10 · 27 November 2023]

Anyone who knows low budget films is going to know the name Fred Olen Ray. His body of work is massive, with almost all of his films being in the mid to extremely low budget medium. He is one of the most loved low budget filmmakers of our era. Having said that, I have never been a huge fan of actually having to sit down and watch one of his movies all the way through. At least not sober. His early film Scalps is a prime example of a film that works really well if one is slightly (or extremely) inebriated.

Ray must have been inspired by The Evil Dead and The Hills Have Eyes. The film is about several archaeologist sent out to the desert to work on a dig, despite warnings from the local natives. After several nights, one of them is possessed by Black Claw, an extremely vengeful Native spirit. He then proceeds to brutally murder the others, all the while slowly transforming into a demon.

Anyone who has seen one of Fred's movies, especially his early work, is going to know how poorly paced Scalps is. The acting is droll to wooden, with everyone just at the level of trying. The dialog is linear and only serves to push the story and not the characters forward. And as a result of that, in between the horrors and gore, not much is going on.

Having said that, the film still manages to not be outright boring. And I believe that can be heavily thanked to the films incredibly heavy handed atmosphere. With the soundtrack, the poor editing (even with creepy slow mo during chase scenes), the bizarro plot, the extreme moments of violence, it all gets tied together to create something that really is shockingly unique and genuinely creepy. As an outright low budget horror film, Scalps somehow manages to succeed.

For the gorehounds, there is not a high level of the red stuff. But the red stuff given is actually pretty decent. Throat slicing, scalping (of course), a beheading, bludgeoning, and arrows. Along with some of the ghastly gore effects we also get some interesting demon makeup. We also get a random cat ghost spirit for a few seconds that doesn't seem to make much sense. Oh, and I cannot forget about the floating Native Head that randomly appears to cause havoc. Such as when it blows to smithereens over a camp fire. The film is filled with a lot of randomness that doesn't quite come together. But that ambiguity is another element that somehow works in the movies defense.

One of the things about this movie that does crack me up is seeing Kirk Alyn in the role of the professor. For those of you that are not familiar, Kirk Alyn is the first actor to play Superman in live film. He portrayed the Man of Steel in two Serials (1948 and 1950 if memory serves correctly). He even had a very small role in Superman The Movie, along with Noel Neill, however the small segment was cut from the theatrical version. I am guessing that Fred used most of his very small budget to attain Mr Alyn for the role. Sadly for poor Kirk, he also succumbs to the evil Black Claw at the end when he is shot in the eye with an arrow, all the while hilariously yelling out "NO! NO!"

I am not trying to say Scalps is by any stretch a good film. It is not. Not even close. However, Scalps has a lot of creepy charm to it due to its ugly low end nature and soundtrack. It's also a fantastic movie to watch with some friends and a bunch of booze. Or just by yourself with a lot of smoke at your disposal. Either way, one should have a fun time with Scalps. It's bad in all the right ways and is easily one of the most watchable Fred movies.

La petite mort (I) (2009)

I Was Expecting More...

[2/10 · 23 November 2023]

This was a whim buy. I was recently on Unearthed's store site and had seen this movie floating around for some time now. Advertised as "From the director of Blood Feast" was never a huge glowing endorsement for me as I never saw Waltz's remake of that film. After doing some minor research on the film, it was brought to my attention that Ittenbach was responsible for the SFX. Being a huge fan of Premutos, Black Past, and, of course, The Burning Moon, I knew that La Petite Mort would at least have some redeeming qualities to it, even if I pretty much knew what to expect before I even purchased the film.

The films plot is about as hollow as they come. Three vacationers, one of which is blind for seemingly no reason, find themselves stupidly in a fetish club owned by women who create snuff films for profit. From there the three are kidnapped and tortured to death. That's pretty much it.

I have to say I was really quite disappointed with this film. The rating on this site is quite bad, but several of the reviewers have at least explained that the film is worth seeing for fans of Ittenbach and gore fans alike. But I disagree. There is nothing here that I haven't seen many many times before. Perhaps it is the 42 years of watching these sorts of movies that have jaded me. But La Petite Mort did a lot wrong in numerous departments.

Aside from Manoush as Maman, and Thomas Kercmar as The Kobold, the acting in this movie is pretty awful. The three leads are given ample time to make the audience give a crap about them. Matter of fact, the first 25 minutes of the movie is just those three wandering around. If there were ever an opportunity to have us connect with these characters, now would be that time. Instead the characters come across as annoying. And the blind character still has me scratching my head. Why include a character like this if there isn't going to be more to connect her to the audience? As well, during her inevitable torture and death, none of her blindness is even once used in her torture. As awful as that sounds, it feels to me like there was a huge lost opportunity there to really drive home the cruelty of the film. This is just one of several areas that ruin what could have been something really grisly.

And again, the acting from the three leads really ruin the extreme moments of the film. A movie like this is meant to really bother the viewer watching it. And the acting from those being tortured needs to be as realistic as possible. It creates empathy for the victims, making it a lot harder to watch and endure. This movie makes some small attempts at that basic idea, such as the male victim pleading with Maman not to cut his genitals off. But it falls shockingly flat. And then when the horrific act comes, it doesn't feel as impactful as it should. Because it is acted so poorly. It's a shame really because I really liked the performance from Manoush. Manoush is pretty much the only actor worth much of anything until Kercmar shows up.

So a lot of the viewers of this sort of stuff usually don't give a crap about acting and what have you. It's the red stuff. Acts of immeasurable torture and pain. Indescribable evil and torment. Well, I suppose this movie has a lot of that. But is it really worth it? If this is your first time viewing a movie like this, then sure, it would probably rock your socks off. But when you have grown up watching film such as the original Blood Feast (or any HG Lewis gore film for that matter) Mark of the Devil, Last House on Dead End St, Cannibal Holocaust, etc, the actual acts of violence one sees in La Petite Mort are absolutely old hat. And coming from Ittenbach, I expected way more creativity. Now that may not be his fault as he is not the director here.

Let me just outright tell you what to expect. A mouse trap to a tongue, which should mess your tongue up pretty bad, but the victim winds up talking like nothing is wrong. Numerous needles in a girls arm, only for the next scene for all those needles to be gone and with no visible scars. A man has his eyeball cut out from his head with a butcher knife. Then his manhood is cut off. The scene ends with one of the killers bathing in the mans intestines as they fall from his body. The blind woman is scalped revealing her brains for the world to see. Apparently the skin from her head must have been holding her brains in because she has absolutely no skull. She is scalped and the brain is just there, right under the skin. And she remains alive long enough to simply have her throat slashed. The final girl who got the disappearing needles in her arm is beaten mercilessly with a hammer to the head, until her brains fall out. And then in the next scene she appears to be perfectly intact. She actually is killed when she is stabbed in the gut.

I thought the torture and the kills lacked any sort of creativity to make it stand out from the rest of the genre. As well as the fact that they were not handled as well as they could have been. Again, this is a genre that relies on its ability to be realistic. And this movie does a lot to take the viewer out of that equation. The hammer to the head scene was poorly, poorly handled. The scalping scene was even more poorly handled. So much was so poorly handled that I found myself mostly bored and frustrated.

When I bought this movie I was really expecting to walk away feeling sick to my stomach. And I was also not looking forward to the experience as torture films are not exactly my favorite from the horror genre. But I really just found this film to be boring, poorly made, and disappointing in the areas in needs to shine the most. Torture films are not rocket science. The plots are always the same. However, what makes the good ones stand out are the films that find a good balance of empathy and gore. Without those elements films like these fall apart at the seams.

As it stands, La Petite Mort is not a good torture film. It is too frustrating to be among the better films in the genre and it does not do enough creatively to make it stand out among its endless peers. I can't recommend the film to any hardened gore fan. Maybe a beginner. But no serious gore fan is going to find any of this movie acceptable.

The Wicker Tree (2011)

In the Shadow of the Original

[6/10 · 18 November 2023]

Does The Wicker Man need any sort of introduction from me? Any fan of horror, or cinema in general, will know of or have seen The Wicker Man. And long have many of us who love the original awaited Hardy's spiritual followup. And it has quite the history of planning, writing, and production. However, in the long run, what we, the fans got, was something truly... how can I say it... frustrating. After three viewings of the film (over the course of roughly ten years) I have come to mildly appreciate some elements of the film. '

In the film Beth and Steve are born again Christians. Beth being a semi famous trashy country singer turned Christian Performer and Steve being more of a simple minded cowboy, more or less, "going along for the ride". When the two head out to Glasgow to spread their Christian message, they end up in a small village in the Scottish lowlands. It is there that their relationship is thrown into turmoil and become unwitting sacrifices in a Pagan ritual.

This movie is just a straight mixed bag. It looks wonderful. The Scottish and British cast are excellent. And the story might have something going for it. However, the two leads, played by Brittania Nicol and Henry Garrett, are absolutely dreadful when acting against the likes of Graham McTavish or Jacqueline Leonard. Their acting is so dreadful that it makes their inevitable demise rather anti dramatic. Thankfully the rest of the cast look as if they might have had some fun with the material. Particularly Clive Russell in the role of Beame. His screen time seems to be mostly made of comedy relief, in the way this film plays out, his comedy is actually somewhat a breath of fresh air. The audience even gets a cameo from Christopher Lee, playing a character that may or may not be Lord Summerisle from the original film.

The comparisons between this movie and its predecessor are inevitable, and will always be The Wicker Tree's biggest weakness. In the original film Sgt Howie is a devout Christian. Even up to his final moments he stayed that way. And that is exactly why he was sacrificed. In The Wicker Tree the two leads Beth and Steve are really just frauds. Phonies. Beth seems a bit oblivious to it as her character intentionally hides from her past. Like I said about Steve early about being "along for the ride", that truly is his character. He is no Christian. He just wants to get into Beth's panties, and when he cannot do that, he goes elsewhere. The point is, these characters are deeply flawed in comparison to Sgt Howie. Howie was a perfect sacrifice because of his devout nature. Beth and Steve are far from perfect. If anything, they are the opposite of that. This is what makes their demise feel absolutely lackluster. It feels like it doesn't mean anything.

Following in those same lines is the Pagan Cult itself, led by McTavish's Sir Morrison. A number of times in the film we are made to outright question whether or not Sir Morrison even believes what he preaches. In comparison to Lee's Summerisle, Morrison is again not devout. And I suppose this is the ongoing theme of the film. That even those that claim they believe, they really do not, it's just in how they were "raised".

Another comparison is in the storytelling. Unlike "Man", which plays out like a solid mystery with one of the best twist endings ever, "Tree" doesn't even attempt at mystery. The direction and narrative reveals throughout make the audience feel like they already know what to expect. That's not a good feeling when I go into a movie and early on I am hoping it doesn't end like I think it's going to. That's exactly what "Tree" does. It makes no attempts at twists or turns. It's all incredibly straight forward. Too straight forward, unfortunately.

The film does have its moments, however. It really is shot wonderfully. The color scheme is green and yellows, and it matches that Pagan theme really nicely. As well, Hardy has one or two moments that are noteworthy. The lead up to Steve's death is, in my opinion, handled pretty well. When Steve is about to be eaten by the cult in the ruins of the castle, there is a wonderfully dreadful build up to the whole event. And although we see very little gore, what we see is enough to give that feeling of deep dread. I liked that element. And again, the moments of levity I actually did welcome. Even if they felt like they belonged in a different film.

Overall I really don't hate this film the way a lot of people do. I did at first. Actually, I really hated it at first. But after three viewings over a long period of time, I do feel as if I can watch this movie without having that bad taste in my mouth anymore. It really isn't a horrible film. It's just very questionable as to why Hardy decided to absolutely turn everything he did in "Man" upside down in "Tree". It works to a degree, but as a Spiritual Sequel, it simply doesn't hold a candle to the original film.

If you haven't seen the film you probably should just stick with the original. But if you must see The Wicker Tree do your best to keep an open mind. It is the only way you will really enjoy the film.

Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

Not Quite as Bad as Mainstream Critics Made it Out to Be

[7/10 · 27 September 2023]

The 80's really did spit out a storm of sequels to films that didn't necessarily need sequels. Poltergeist is one such film that really didn't need a sequel. It had a definitive ending and anything else after could easily be viewed as "cash grabs". And that assessment would be correct. However, does this mean films like Poltergeist 2 are without merit? My answer may be bias as I quite literally grew up watching the film, but I believe Poltergeist 2 does have qualities that make it actually a fairly good follow up, if it a bit marred with a rushed post production.

The Freelings are unfortunately tormented yet again, one year later, by the same evil spirit that terrorized them in the previous film. Only this time around he is given a actually identity and backstory, that being crazed preacher Henry Kain (played incredibly by Julian Beck). Helping the family to fight Kane is Native Shaman Taylor (Will Sampson plays Will Sampson) who seems to have some unexplained link to Kane. Taylor teaches Steven how to "become a warrior" so he can battle Kane when the time comes. It erupts into an eventual showdown with Kane in the spirit realm with the Freelings this time actually beating the monster that has terrorized them since the first film.

Poltergeist 2 is a wild mixed bag of a film. It wants to be a family film, it wants to be a horror film. And in many ways it succeeds and fails at both of those elements. In the beginning the family drama elements work well enough. I enjoyed the addition of the Grandmother to the family and seeing the Freelings do their thing. At first.

Unfortunately there wind up being some things that go either undeveloped or were cut from the final product. Grandma is a seemingly important character. It is her death that allows Kane to begin wreaking havoc on the family again. However, this element to the plot and her character are never once made clear, or even referenced. This is one of many things about the film that are unclear. Another major plot element is between that of Taylor and Kane. They both clearly know one another, seemingly as adversaries. But again, this element never once branches out from the idea that maybe there is more. I imagine much of this was cut from the films Final Cut. It is my understanding that MGM rushed the films post and quite a lot of footage got cut. The most famous being the confrontation between Tangina and Kane. Something that apparently greatly upset Zelda Rubenstein.

And as for the Freelings as the movie progresses. Steven is the one character that becomes a bit grading. He is intensely dismissive to any sort of help or advice that Tangina or Taylor have to give him, even when it has been proven they know what they are talking about. He hasn't matured enough since the first film. Instead they try and have him mature over the course of this movie. But what that does instead is simply make him kind of unlikable for most of the film. The rest of the family are just fine, but like Steven, they haven't matured much since the first film. Yeah, Carol Anne is older now (wow has she aged a LOT in 1 year), and she now has psychic like powers, but again, it goes undeveloped. Actually, it pretty much becomes a total after thought by midway through the film. Was this something else that made it on the cutting room floor?

Two new characters to the franchise are Kane and Taylor, and honestly, they are the two best characters in the film. I have always admired Will Sampson ever since his performance in One Flew Over the Cookoos nest. And although I never thought he was much of an actual actor, his very presence on camera is worth its weight in gold. He plays himself, and that works really well for him. In his role of Taylor he plays that of a shaman, something Sampson apparently really was. He brings heart to the movie that the Freelings aren't able to really ever accomplish as a whole.

But the actor who really does steal every single bit of celluloid is Julian Beck. An actor who was not even well known, or even all that well established. Beck's gaunt appearance, and fire and brimstone performance, is mesmerizing as it is terrifying. Just watch the scene with Beck and Nelson. Nelson looks genuinely afraid of this guy. And the fact he was dying of cancer while making this film (his gaunt appearance) just makes his performance all the more powerful. He gives it his all, and I believe I speak for most of us when I say that Beck is easily the best part of the movie. A sad shame he started his career this late, but what a fantastically endearing role to go out on.

All three films in the series are known for their creative use of SFX. Poltergeist 2 has some very impressive work on display here. Even if Giger himself wasn't happy with the final result, and even with the cuts made, what the audiences still got were some really crazy and radically disgusting FX work here. On screen whirlwinds, zombies (some of which are actual cadavers like in the first film), braces that come to life (has to be seen to be believed), a horrifically disgusting vomit monster (played by an actual quadriplegic), a totem pole of pulsing and crying heads (some really creepy stuff), and Kane in his "Great Beast" form, which appears to be a mix of stop motion and prosthetics. And to top it all off, the audience actually travels with the Freelings into the "other side". Which is mostly filled with moving clouds and spirits swooshing about. I'll tell ya, as a kid, this movie had my imagination going crazy. And even as an adult, I have to give a big nod to the work on display here. It is just a shame that the effects seem to have been made the center of attention here. The films short run time clearly shows that MGM was hoping to bank off of that, and its returning cast.

Yeah, Poltergeist 2 is certainly a shadow of its predecessor. MGM's rushed post production and having the movie cut to just 90 minutes from a film that was apparently over 2 hours, is idiotic and shows they had little faith in their product and only wanted those box office returns. However, after all that, I still have a big soft spot for it. It probably is because I did grow up with it. But I do believe there is a good movie in here. It's just a bit marred up and has to be kind of put together by the viewer. It would be nice to see if there will ever be a work print available or any way to see what the movie was meant to be. Doubtful that will ever happen, but odder things have happened when it comes to what gets released nowadays.

The Abomination (1986)

Quite the Trip!

[10/10 · 27 September 2023]

Here's a blast from the past. For those of us that were lucky enough to have been born in the late 70's to early 80's (81 here), the video store was a treasure trove for low end horror films. For a kid like me, it was an outright adventure going to Video Den every Friday night and finding some of the crummiest movies and forcing my parents to watch them with me. Movies such as "I Was a Teenage Zombie", "Spookies", "The Deadly Spawn", or even "TerrorVision". Nothing was sacred in my household when it came to film. We watched all the bad horror films, and those were solid memories. The Abomination is one of those films I had always wanted to rent when I was a kid, but even my parents were chased away by the VHS cover art. So it was a no go in my home for years.

Fast Forward to about 2005. A friend of mine had been surfing around the net and found a link to a trailer for the film and sent it to me. Immediately I remembered how much I had wanted to actually see the film and a quick Ebay search allowed me to purchase a very good quality VHS of the film for a relatively low amount. Apparently they are quite hard to find nowadays.

Which leads me to the nifty fact that the movie has been released on Blu Ray by Visual Vengeance. It looks just like the VHS but at least it is preserved and comes with a LOT of features.

After all that you are probably wondering if the movie is even worth it or not. Well... yes and no, depending on what you want from a movie.

The Abomination has a scatter logical plot and is probably a little more complex than it needs to be. Cody is a young adult who lives with his mother who is obsessed with a televangelist called Brother Fogg. Apparently Brother Fogg must be such a miserable cuss that he somehow curses Cody's mom with a nasty tumor. This tumor is spat up and promptly thrown in the trash. However, the tumor is very much alive and decides it needs to host itself to something in order to live. Unfortunately for Cody it uses him as its host. While being hosted Cody is impregnated with numerous tumors that he vomits up and puts in various places around his home. He is also possessed by the creature and is forced to go out and find food for it. Food as in his friends and anyone else he comes across.

Whether intentional or not, The Abomination plays much like a nasty fever dream. From the films opening to the moment it ends, we are never really sure as to whether or not the film is a dream, a delusion, or the rambles of a mad man. The film is edited together in a way that does not make a whole lot of rational sense. Scenes repeat, sometimes several times over the course of the film. Much of the movie is without sound, except music. Which just lends further to its weird dream like narrative. Again, whether this is all intentional, or the director simply doing his best to try and be creative, it makes for a very strange and disjointed narrative. But it also adds a weird charm to it. Like the viewer is genuinely watching something potentially "otherworldly".

The SFX and gore in the movie are a complete mixed bag. However, given the films next to nothing budget, and the shear amount of effort that clearly went into these effects, they are not without merit. Most of the effects work went into bringing the Abomination and its numerous offspring to life. And although one can clearly see the creatures are outrageously low budget (toilet tumor monster comes to mind), I simply cannot ignore the work that went into this. I can feel how much the director loves monster movies, and it is pretty obvious the one thing he wanted to get right was the monster and the gore. And although the gore itself is pretty novice, the tumor monsters are a blast to watch.

One thing that is atrociously awful is the acting. I am guessing the movie was shot on Super 8mm without sound, so sound had to be edited in. And what we get is mostly stiff, lifeless acting across the board from everyone except for Scott Davis, whom plays Cody. No, Scott goes the polar opposite and gives a hilariously overboard performance. Every bit of dialogue to come out of his mouth, every single line, is read in the most exaggerated of ways. No kidding. It's hilarious hearing him yell out every one of his lines, even when there is no reason to. The only thing Davis has going for him is his look. Put those sunglasses on, splatter his deadpan face with blood, and he looks like a fantastic movie killer.

On a small little side note and nod, I really did love the use of the soundtrack, and the films main electronic theme. Yeah, it's all dated sounding and done on low end synths, but man, it's still a rocking soundtrack. Every time those arpeggio notes would start, it felt like I wanted to rock out with it.

Look, I am not even remotely saying this movie is a masterpiece. Far, far from it. However I believe if you grew up when I did and had a similar upbringing, I really don't think you can hate this movie. Actually it's really a weirdo gem of a grade Z flick. Way better than most of the SOV films of the era, and not quite as deranged as other grade Z fair such as "Splatter Farm", The Abomination is more of a unique, one of a kind sort of films. If you are older like me and grew up in the 80's and like low end crap from that period, you will enjoy this. But if you are looking for something with any sort of budget or mainstream appeal, than just don't bother, cause you will be wasting your time.

Tales from the Hood (1995)

Tonally All Over The Place, Still a Classic

[8/10 · 24 August 2023]

Man, Tales From the Hood. Easily one of the most rewatchable anthology films ever made. For many of us that grew up with the film, it's easy to see why we still, after all these years love it. But this review isn't here to blow fandom smoke up its caboose. For all I love in the movie, I also see some issues that are probably some of the reasons the film hasn't quite become the bigger classic it could be.

Tales From the Hood is, as stated, an anthology film. Specifically horror. By the time the mid 90's had arrived, anthology films were going out of vogue with the mainstream, having piqued in the 70's with the Amicus films, and reaching it's most mainstream film with the release of 1982's much beloved Creepshow. Tales From the Hood, oddly enough, takes more nods from the old British Amicus films than it does with more American films. Which is a really strange mix considering that its storytelling is inspired by social issues in the "hood". Tonally... it makes the film, at times feel really corny.

Let's go story to story.

The wraparound story, involving the hoodlums getting their weed back from the twisted funeral director (played wonderfully by Clarence Williams III) seems to intentionally be played for laughs. The acting, across the board, is totally exaggerated. However, it is Williams who seems to be all-in on the joke, and plunges himself head first into the role. It's hilarious watching him say his now infamous lines, practically yelling them. The wraparound story is, however, an odd way to feature the stories. Instead of having stories come from people who actually live in the hood telling ghost stories, or urban legends, director Rusty Cundieff instead ops for a way more classic approach that just calls to the 70's. It's this oddball mix of tones that immediately makes Tales From the Hood a love it or hate it endeavor.

The first story is about serious police corruption. In the story a young black rookie officer plays an unfortunate role in the brutal beating and murder of Martin Moorehouse, an important black political figure in the neighborhood, looking to get rid of drug dealing cops. One year later, the rookie officer is haunted by the spirit of Moorehouse and is told to summon the officers to his grave. There, Moorehouse comes back as a vengeful spirit and brutally murders the officers, in a vengeful state, leaving the rookie officer in catatonia.

The first half of this story is powerful and hard to watch filmmaking. It might be a bit too hard to watch at times. The beating by the police of Moorehouse is angering, and deeply unsettling. And I commend Rusty for having the guts to go all out with the social commentary here. Especially in the mid 90's. Unfortunately the second half turns into sort of a goofy parody of the first half. Rusty doesn't handle the horror elements as well as the social ones. What we get is Moorehouse going on a goofy rampage against the officers who killed him. And it gets really zany when one of those officers is turned into graffiti art. It's so zany in its second half that it truly takes away the dead seriousness in the first half. Rusty even has Billie Holiday's Strange Fruit playing during the beating segment! Talk about devastating! And for the second half to literally explode into such goofiness is just a shame.

The second story about a young boy fighting a "monster" is one of the strongest stories here. In the story, a young boy named Walter starts a new school, but his teacher, played by Rusty himself, notices that Walter has bruises on his body. When he questions him, Walter claims it's the "monster". Of course no one believes him. However, the teacher grows tired of seeing this poor kid come in every day with bruises. He decides to make a trip to Walters home and interrogate his mother. It turns out Walter is being seriously abused by his mothers twisted boyfriend, played fantastically by David Allen Grier. The situation turns ugly very fast as the boyfriend goes on one of the worst domestic situations in history. I mean, this guy is bad. Really really bad! Thankfully Walter discovers that he can defeat the monster by drawing a picture of it and destroying the picture. Walter had drawn a picture of the monster earlier and proceeds to twist it apart, killing the monster in the process.

This is one of the few stories that truly feels like it belongs in a movie called Tales From the Hood. There are no gothic undertones. It feels perfectly placed in the film. And again, like the first segment, it features one of the most disturbing scenes in the film. Grier's villainous boyfriend character has to be one of the most evil characters in celluloid. And the domestic scene is vicious, hard to watch stuff. I would have truly liked to have seen Grier in more serious roles after this. To this day I am impressed with his performance in this film.

The third, and possibly most infamous segment, is both hilarious and disturbing all at the same time. In this story, Corben Bernson (horror fans would remember him as The Dentist) plays a politician with some serious ties to the KKK. He is running for local office and has taken up residence at a local plantation that was known for its massacre of slaves. Obviously this angers the local community, but he doesn't care. What he doesn't know is that the mansion he has taken residence is filled with the spirits of the slaves, now reincarnated as puppets. During the night, the politician attempts to put up a battle against the puppets, only to be eaten alive in the end.

This is one of those segments that could have really driven down a nail with its social commentary. What Rusty does instead is create something that is incredibly awkwardly hilarious. I don't want to laugh at what is shown or said by Bernson's character on screen, but the way it is shot, the way it is acted, which Bernson delves deep into, comes across as simply hilarious, even though it really isn't funny. I do like the southern gothic atmosphere, even with sharp violins in the soundtrack to go with it. But the comedic elements of the story simply make it tonally strange to watch. Still, this one seems to be the most classic of the shorts. I just find it tonally off.

And the last story, Rusty's most original piece, feels like it belongs in a wildly different film. In this segment, hoodlum Crazy K kills another gang member, but it immediately gunned down by other gangsters. Before they can kill him, the police arrive and gun them down and arrest Crazy K. He is sent to prison for murder. While there he ends up becoming a guinea pig in an experimental procedure reminiscent of what Lil Alex goes through in A Clockwork Orange. From here, Crazy K is forced to take responsibility for all of his murders. However he refuses, and as he refuses, it is revealed that he was dying the whole time and he lost his chance for redemption.

This is the darkest segment here. Not even one moment of comedy in this one. Rusty goes all out with the social commentary here, which focuses strongly on black on black crime. The storytelling is angry and beats the viewer over the head like a hammer. One segment features Crazy K in a cell next to a horrific white supremacist, which will creep out even the most hardened viewer. Another segment features Crazy K being force-fed intensely disturbing images of dead black people, all the while Spice 1's Born 2 Die is blasting at the viewer. Woof. This is a rough segment. It is also probably the best segment. Rusty really finds his rhythm here. I wish the rest of the movie was on this level.

And then it all comes back to the wraparound segment, where it is revealed that the funeral director is actually Satan and the hoods were dead the whole time. This harkens immediately to Amicus's Tales From the Crypt where it is revealed everyone is actually dead and in hell.

Tales From the Hood is a wild mixed bag of a horror film. There is some powerful social commentary here, but most of the time it winds up being played for laughs. And the laughs do work, for the most part. But I also feel there was a real opportunity to make something more important, with horror themes wrapping themselves around true to life stories from the hood. The Crazy K story does that, and to a degree the Monster story does as well. But the other stories and the wraparound are so tonally bizarre that they wind up just hurting any real impact they could have.

Still, I have a huge soft spot for the film. It is a movie I loved as a teenager. But as an adult, and one that has way more experience in the world, it would have been nice to see a movie that hits those social issues with more seriousness. Regardless, I am still putting the movie on when its on tv.

Candyman (2021)

Not a Proper Follow Up to a Classic

[3/10 · 24 August 2023]

Candyman. That name alone should invoke quite a lot of memories for those of us that were kids when it came out. To this day I have always felt that the first Candyman film is all class across the board. Instead of being a generic slasher film, Candyman ends up representing a lot more than just a few nasty kills with a hook. We can analyze the film for its innovative commentary on white fears towards the black community in the early 90s. It's a major theme of the film. That along with its gothic, tragic romance subplot, Candyman remains one of the best horror films of the 90's. Then came along its clear cash grab sequels, which remain lifeless clones to the original film. Years later, Peele promises us a real sequel to the original film, basically disregarding the events of the 3rd film, and keeping the backstory for Candyman that was revealed in the 2nd film. I thoroughly enjoyed Get Out but was equally letdown by Us. I had a feeling this may be a hit or miss film as a result. Sadly, after 2 viewings, I have to give it a miss...

Candyman 2021 has a relatively hard to follow plot. The film has to do with the gentrification of Cabrini-Green, police corruption, and how Candyman works his way back into the hearts of the people that now live there. To tell this story the plot follows Anthony McCoy, who was the baby that was taken from Anne Marie by Candyman in the first film. Anthony is a starving artist who lives with his very successful art gallery director girlfriend Bri. While Anthony is figuring out what he wants to do with his next art exhibit, he discovers numerous lores involving numerous "Candymen" throughout the years. This leads him down a rabbit hole that ultimately decides his fate, along with that of everyone in Cabrini-Green.

The positives are that this Candyman certainly does not lack style. Compared to the original films two sequels, this movie looks like a breath of fresh air. Its style has a reminiscent look to that of Hitchcock at times. The way the movie opens up with everything in backwards is clever and one would think it leads into something even more clever...

The acting across the board is mostly good. The films two main leads, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Teyonah Parris, are fully capable in their respective roles. Particularly Parris. Unlike the role of Anthony, whom we never feel much empathy, the role of Bri is the only one in the film we feel anything. The problem is certainly not in the acting, but in the films writing of the main character of Anthony. He comes across as a cliche artist. A bit smarmy, opinionated, and lacking in much to attach the audience to his character. Maybe this is the intent. A way to showcase what living in a "white world" does to a black starving artist. If this is the intent, it is never really made that clear. He seems more like a parody of the character he should be playing. Since Anthony is the main protagonist of the story, we as the audience should be able to connect with him. But unfortunately it just seems impossible. He is just not very likable. Which is a shame because when the ending comes, and his fate is revealed, it doesn't really let off much steam. Honestly, I didn't really care what happened to him.

As for all the secondary characters in the film, none of them are given much detail outside of what you see on the surface. Gay characters are played like cliche gay movie characters. Art critics are portrayed as being snakes. Cops are portrayed as all being corrupt. This is another area of the movie that makes me shake my head. Why is every secondary character a cliche? Is this movie a parody? It's very hard to tell where that line stops or even begins.

One of the elements I love from the original film was the lack of actual onscreen kills. Aside from the psychiatrist getting ripped apart, the viewer never sees Candyman killing anyone. We only see the horrific aftermath. Something other directors like David Fincher picked up on and used the same idea for his film Seven. I loved this element in the first Candyman. It leaves a lasting impression and those images, particularly that of poor Bernadette's dead body, have stayed with me for 30 years. The modern Candyman does seem to sort of nod to the off camera kills. However, they are not handled well at all. The first film had some seriously dread soaked lead ups to the kills. One could practically be frozen by the tension buildups in that film. The new film just lacks any of that. There is absolutely no tension build, no suspense at all. Matter of fact, the film maintains, throughout, a one note atmosphere, even during the kills. As a result, one of the most important elements of any horror film, the actual horror, feels rather neutered. Nothing here is scary, dreadful, or clever. It's just... dull.

As for the idea of the whole "hive" thing. I honestly didn't care for it. It felt like more of an excuse to just not feature Tony Todd in the role that made him a household name, and a beloved figure in both the cinefile and black communities. I like the idea of having to bring Candyman back into the world of Caprini-Green, especially a gentrified one. But the hive idea muddles this interesting concept, and only adds to the confusion of the plot as a whole. Why not focus on the titular character? He is incredibly fascinating. But his legacy gets a bit marred with poor storytelling.

Last critique is the one that frustrates me the most. The political elements. I can't figure out if we are to take any of the politics we see in this movie serious or not. Every political point is played up to the most extreme. It's played up to the point of feeling ridiculous, like parody of real life. For instance, Anthony is clearly politically fueled, but he spouts off the same lines that we hear over and over again, and in a way that feels forced, and above all, obnoxious. Does he believe in his own political work with his art? Or is he just another talentless hack that is only using politics for his personal gain? That point is never made clear. Which makes connecting with Anthony even harder. But the biggest and most ridiculous element is the handling of the police. They are portrayed as ALL corrupt. Every one of them. This is specifically revealed in the films climax, when officers enter a room, where people are clearly on the ground, hurt and asking for help, only for them to open fire for absolutely no reason. No reason. I had to watch this scene several times to see if there was something I missed. A reason for them to open fire. But there is none. For me, this political statement about police just barreling into places and opening fire isn't realistic. I could believe it if the scene were set up differently. But I believe the case is that Peele and the other writers wanted to make the police look this way. Sorry, if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't work. And it doesn't work here.

Overall, good grief, Candyman 2021 is a mess. It looks nice, filmed expertly, but it's a DOA situation after the first few minutes are gone. This was not a well handled film and not the right way to bring Candyman back into the mainstream. No... Sadly it's just a mess. If another is made I really hope Peele and Co stay far away from it.

Saint Bernard (2013)

Non Commercial, Metaphor Heavy Film

[10/10 · 10 November 2022]

Just going to start off by saying, if you are looking for a linear, rational experience, just leave. Right now. And never come back. Saint Bernard will probably having you screaming at the TV claiming it is either the worst film you have ever seen, or amongst the worst.

If you are looking for a film that is radically different from anything commercial or conventional, then step right up and try to figure this puzzle out.

Saint Bernard, on the surface, appears to take place in a nonsensical, nightmare world. Kind of like a really disturbed version of Alice in Wonderland. From the beginning, Bernard had wanted to be a composer, but when a failed recital turns Bernard into a slithering worm, he appears to go on some sort of metaphorical nightmare journey that seems to be about self discovery.

This is a movie that begs the viewer to think way outside the box. Every scene is a metaphor, in some manner or another, that builds like a towering puzzle box.

Some of the metaphors are easy to figure out. Such as the failed recital scene, when Bernard cannot perform due to his use of drugs, and how he is horribly embarrassed to the point he slithers out of the recital, looking like a disgusting worm, because that is mentally how he feels. Or the scene towards the end, where it is heavily implied that Bernard's Uncle, whom he seemed to have a good relationship with, and had even mentored him, has actually molested him as a child. This is easily represented in his fondling of Bernard's head, and then how he immediately becomes aroused. To make it even more obvious, he tells Bernard, "You were always my favorite".

But then there are many other metaphors that are so difficult to figure out that the film becomes increasingly more confusing. Such as the whole scene at the police station. Although it is incredibly intriguing, with a makeup heavy performance from the late Peter Iasillo Jr as the Chief, none of it seems to amount to much, if anything at all.

This was my third viewing of the film and I seem to pick something up every time I view it, which helps to make sense of the film as a whole. However, Gabe beats the viewer over the head with such style that this film will never gain any sort of mainstream or commercial appeal. This movie is strictly for the arthouse viewer. And even that might be stretching it.

This isn't comparable to the films of Lynch or Jodorosky, as some reviewers have mentioned. Although I would say there is some influences, this is a highly original piece of work. I don't think it would be fair to make those sorts of comparisons.

For me, I go through phases of what I like to watch. Some days I want to have a fun time with a movie. I will put on a conventional slasher film. Other times, I want something that is going to challenge me and force me to figure things out on my own. Saint Bernard is easily amongst the most difficult films that I have seen. And I have seen and analyzed films such as Subconscious Cruelty or Melancholy of the Angels. But that is also what makes a movie like this endearing. Every time I watch it feels like an entirely fresh experience. I can't say that for most commercial films.

The Monster (2016)

Works as a Family Drama, Fails as a Horror Film

[5/10 · 27 May 2022]

The Monster, directed by Bryan Bertino, the same fellow that gave us the masterful The Strangers, is mostly a traditional style monster film with family drama about motherhood mixed into the fray.

A alcoholic mother is on a road trip to bring her daughter to her father, since taking care of her has proven too much for her, or her daughter, to handle. Along the way, the two blow a tire out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night. As they await a tow truck and ambulance, they discover they are not alone, as a monster lurks in the night woods, waiting for its chance to strike.

Bertino seems to enjoy writing dramatic character studies with subversive horror. Much like The Strangers, The Monster follows in those same lines. The first half of the film establishes the destructive relationship between a alcoholic mother and how it effects her daughter. The writing during these moments are powerful and heartbreaking to watch, with top notch performances from the two leads Zoe Kazan and Ella Ballentine. Matter of fact, these two actors lead the film almost entirely and their performances never let up. This aspect of the film is where its strength lay.

I wish I could say that the rest of the film was as good as the first half.

In the second half of the film we are introduced to our horror element. A monster waiting in the dark with the two fighting for survival. Unfortunately, the writing takes a drastically idiotic approach as one boneheaded decision after the next mar the films fantastic drama in the first half. I know Bertino knows horror. Just watch his film The Strangers. That's a genuine horror film. However, if I saw this film without the knowledge of the directors past endeavors, I would have thought he had never seen a horror film in his life.

Before I go onto what deeply frustrated me about the films second half (mostly the last thirty minutes) I will commend the director for straying away from ever really showing the titular monster completely. Everything is dark, and the tidbits we do get of the monster are handled incredibly well.

But that is where my commendation ends. The leads, as well as the side characters, make one stupid decision after the next, leading me to yell at my TV in deep frustration. No one really knows what they would do in a situation such as having to survive the night with a demonic monster waiting to eat you. But when the characters continuously make stupid decisions, it takes away from any sort of realism that came beforehand.

Throughout the night, the audience is constantly told that help is on the way. A tow truck shows up with the ambulance running a little behind. The tow truck driver is eaten alive by the monster. No one from the tow company seems to care that their tow driver never shows back up. At first, I could forgive this for narrative purposes. When things continue in this narrative, it starts to become increasingly frustrating. The ambulance shows up, with Mother and daughter seemingly saved. Until the paramedics are promptly eaten off, even when they have been given ample time to hightail it out of the situation. Mother gets into the driver seat and begins to drive off, only for monster to knock the vehicle off the road. This is where the biggest, most idiotic decision making comes. It is revealed the monster is afraid of the light. Mother, instead of having any will to fight, or really protect her daughter, decides to sacrifice herself by leading the monster astray with a make shift torch, allowing her daughter to potentially run away while mom is being eaten alive. I kept questioning this scenario. The two are surrounded by items that they could use to defend themselves from the monster. But Mom goes outside and essentially kills herself for no good reason. I kept saying, "The Monster is afraid of the light. Find a way to burn the sucker!!!" But alas, this decision comes from the daughter, after her mom gets herself killed for no reason.

Now, I get that the writer probably wanted to continue to play off of the drama from the first half. The mother sacrificing herself after being such a horrible person, redemption, forgiveness, etc. But it has to make sense. It simply doesn't make any sense. She kills herself basically leaving her daughter to die. Unfortunately the whole scenario at this point can only go in one of two directions, as the writing has been pushed back into a corner. Go with idiotic, cliche decision making, or go with the even more cliche approach. Fighting back and making weapons to defend oneself. At least the daughter eventually out smarts everyone by beating the monster utilizing items from within the ambulance to set it ablaze. There was no reason to have the mother die in such an idiotic way.

I can't completely dismiss the film as a miss. The writing between mother and daughter are, as I stated beforehand, powerful and very well acted. But the poor writing in the second half of the film becomes too frustrating for anyone that enjoys horror to get behind. Maybe it is the 40 years of watching these movies that have made me jaded.

Watch this film for the acting. Just be prepared to be increasingly frustrated in the films second half.