Jack-O (1995)

 

(AKA Jacko Lantern)

Directed by: Steve Latshaw

Starring: Linnea Quigley, Maddisen K. Krown (as Rebecca Quicks), Gary Doles, Ryan Latshaw, Catherine Walsh, Rachel Carter, Cameron Mitchell and John Carradine

Genre: Horror / Slasher / Horror-Comedy

Rated: R

During the early years of the twentieth century, sorcerer Walter Machen was lynched by the men of the Kelly family for his crimes of magic use and murder. At the time of his execution, Machen cursed the Kelly family, swearing a demon would rise up and take his revenge. Not long after, many of the Kellys are brutally murdered by said demon, but not before one of them is able to put an end to the creature’s rampage. Decades later, a group of partying teens unwittingly release this entity, now dubbed The Pumpkin Man, from its consecrated grave and it returns to its mission of vengeance upon the town. It is up to the descendants of both the Kelly and Machen clans to stop it once and for all.

I saw this as part of a cheesy horror triple feature at the Drive-In on Saturday night, and good Lord, it was terrible. This is bad in the “actually awful” sense, not the guilty pleasure or “so bad it’s good” way. My husband and I were able to riff on it enough to make it somewhat bearable, and there are some fun moments, but for the most part you’re not missing anything if you skip this one.

First and foremost, the acting is atrocious from almost everyone involved, the exceptions being Quigley and Carter as the Miller sisters. The child actors seem to be trying their best, but they are obviously very inexperienced and lacking proper direction. The casting of Ryan Latshaw as the young protagonist, Sean, feels like a bit of nepotism on the part of the director (they are father and son). Ryan is adorable but his performance is rather flat and lacks the energy and personality it takes to carry a film. The rest of the cast sound like they are simply running lines in the initial read through rather than performing actual takes while filming. Many lack any sort of inflection in their tone while reciting dialogue – like they are simply regurgitating statements robotically. Even veteran actor John Carradine appears to be phoning it in, although, to be fair, his scenes are stock footage from 1985, shot three years prior to his death in 1988, so he probably wasn’t at his best and likely thought the scenes would never be released. The actors playing the caricatures of the conservative couple and Rush Gingbaw (parody of Rush Limbaugh) seem to be having fun, at least.

The opening is weird, depicting Sean sitting by a campfire in the woods with a strange knife-wielding man insistent upon telling him a ghost story. 

 “Please, Mister, if I listen to your creepy story will you let me go home?” - My husband 

While it is never clarified, I believe the opening scene is one of many nonsensical dream sequences the film subjects the audience to throughout its short run-time. The man in this scene shows up again later as a very weird neighbor that cannot contain his obnoxious, maniacal laughter. Both this character and the first scene could have been cut entirely as they don’t add anything to the storyline. The movie probably could have opened with the original attack in the 1900s and done a time skip to present day, dropping the unnecessary beginning and character altogether.

The special effects are pretty laughable, but at least the film seems aware of this and appears to poke fun at itself in this department. From cartoonish lightning bolts and electric currents to an over-the-top burnt corpse one IMDb user described as a “flame broiled Muppet” and an obviously fake severed head that is gritting its teeth in a grimace,

This HAS to be a Knowing Wink, Right?

all effects seem to be a knowing wink to the audience that the filmmakers understand how cheesy they look. 

The deaths were also relatively silly, but at least entertaining. The Final Destination style death by toaster is hilarious, as well as an actor very obviously spitting fake blood out of his mouth when his character is supposed to be dead. That had to be intentional, right? If not, the editor is either really lazy or trolling the audience.

Toaster Death Complete with Terrible SFX

With deaths like those described above and the lackluster special effects, I suspected this had to be intended as a horror-comedy rather than a straight slasher flick. I had to dig and read other reviews to confirm this theory however, as both IMDb and the film’s Wikipedia page only list the genre as horror. Maybe the other reviewers and I are simply giving this film too much credit, but I will give the flick the benefit of the doubt and infer the comedy was intentional until I learn otherwise from a credible source.

Of course, as this is a low-budget B-Movie starring Linnea Quigley, she gives the expected nudity the target audience is looking for. She has a gratuitous shower scene that lingers heavily on her breasts and butt as she slowly washes herself. The scene has no point to the story and could easily have been cut, but obviously we need something to drag in an audience. There’s also a bonus topless scene from Rachel Carter, so there is plenty of nudity to appease the audience members attracted to women. It still doesn’t make the film worth watching. You can probably find screen caps, gifs and/or videos of these scenes via Google if you’re that desperate to see them.

I am surprised that the movie doesn’t fall victim to the “onscreen nudity and/or sex equals death” trope. Neither girl is “punished” for her sexuality, which is a nice change of pace in B-grade slashers. Sadly this doesn’t prevent them from being hit on by perverted middle-aged men, such as when Sean’s father tells him ‘You can look but you can’t touch’ while giving Carolyn an overt once-over – referring both to Sean’s interest in Jim’s motorcycle and his own interest in her. 

Gross! Like him being married is the only reason he can’t be with Carolyn and she would be interested at all. 

Bro, that’s Linnea-freaking-Quigley, you don’t stand a chance. Sorry, not sorry.

Carolyn's face says "I'm uncomfortably humoring you, Mr. Kelly."

Sean’s dad, David, certainly seems to consider himself quite the ladies man, which is a bit optimistic on his part, considering his average middle-aged appearance. He flirts with both Carolyn and Vivian, both of whom are far out of his league. He makes no attempt to hide this from his wife, and while she teases him about Carolyn as she’s aware he doesn’t stand a chance with her, his friendship with Vivian does make her suspicious. Vivian’s only interest in David is his heritage and the connection between their two families as she is a descendant of Walter Machen, and it will require them to work together in order to lay the killer demon to rest.

The characters themselves aren’t bad, but they are very one-dimensional. Sean seems like a sweet kid who always tries to do the right thing and both his parents seem like good people (with the exception of David’s wandering eye) who turn their garage into a haunted house each Halloween for charity. Carolyn is probably the most likable and well-rounded character, taking her job as Sean’s babysitter seriously and doing her best to protect him when they find themselves in the sights of The Pumpkin Man. The conservative couple neighboring the Kellys, Carolyn, and Vivian is nasty and annoying, though it is very obvious they are supposed to be, and it is pretty satisfying when we’re rid of them.

According to the Wikipedia page, per the audio commentary on the tenth anniversary DVD release, this film is supposed to be a statement on the “’political polarization and the culture war in 1990s America’ through its conservative suburbanite characters.” An attempt was definitely made, especially with what at the time would have seemed like over-the-top stereotypes of conservatives and the in-movie version of Rush Limbaugh they worship being contrasted with their charitable and loving neighbors. If this was released today, the right wing would definitely be decrying it as garbage created by the “woke left.” (We can agree that it is garbage, just not the reason why.) However, while the attempt at political/social commentary was made, it didn’t really succeed in actually saying anything. There are many great horror films that succeed in this area, but this is definitely not one of them.

This is a skippable attempt at a supernatural slasher horror comedy. The acting is bad even by B-movie standards, the effects subpar and the story bland. There are a few fun scenes and the typical nudity expected of a movie like this, but it’s nothing worth seeking out.

3/10

Home Sweet Home (1981)

AKA: "Slasher in the House" 

Directed by: Nettie Peña

Starring: Jake Steinfeld, Peter de Paula, Don Edmonds, Charles Hoyes, David Mielke, Leia Naron, Lisa Rodriguez, Collette Trygg, Sallee Young and Introducing Vinessa Shaw

Genre: Horror / Slasher / B-Movie

Rated: Not Rated

It's Thanksgiving and the Bradleys are planning a large get together with friends. The turkey is in the oven, the veggies on the stove, and the guests are arriving. Little do they know that an uninvited guest will be crashing the party - an escaped mental patient on PCP who plans to kill them one by one.

This flick is definitely one of the weaker entries in the slasher genre - especially from 1981, the peak of the "Golden Age" of slasher films. There is little if anything positive about this movie.

The acting is absolutely atrocious. Jake Steinfeld should stick to selling exercise equipment and stay out of the acting field. He is laughable as the killer, breathing heavy, grunting in an almost sexual manner and laughing maniacally. His performance was extremely over the top and did not match the serious tone of the movie. The rest of the cast was fairly wooden, with the exception of Peter de Paula as Mistake, who, while a bit annoying, was the only cast member who seemed to have an ounce of personality.

The characters were all fairly unlikable as they were so dull. I couldn't bring myself to really care about any of the characters except the little girl as she was innocent. The adults were all stiff and could only seem to think about getting in each other's pants, despite there being children in the house. Many viewers rant about Mistake being incredibly annoying, running around with his mime make up and electric guitar with portable amp - but he seemed to be the most developed character in the entire movie. Sure, he was irritating with his constant guitar playing and sure he liked to barge in on people about to have sex, but he was also great with Angel, his little sister, doing magic to make her smile and looking after her when the adults were ignoring her. It's also clear his father is a jerk who doesn't care about his son at all. I may be reading too much into a B-movie character, but I'd say Mistake's antics were an attempt to get attention - for a lot of kids even negative attention is better than no attention at all.

I began to take a liking to Jennifer and Scott toward the end of the movie, but they became pretty stupid once they realized the danger that lurked outside the home. They both swore to protect Angel, but both forget her in the house when they run outside, then Jennifer forgets her again while running from the killer ten minutes later. Without giving anything away, the ending proves Angel is the most intelligent character in the film.

The kills and gore leave something to be desired as well. This is a very low budget flick so many of the kills are lacking the blood and guts factor. The bloodiest kill is the old woman that the killer hits with his car at the beginning of the movie. The rest are bloodless where they shouldn't be, dull and unmemorable, with the exceptions of the death by electrocution and the character crushed under a car hood while attempting to steal a battery. There are plenty of low budget horror films that have done bloodless kills right and managed to maintain the horror and suspense factor, this flick is certainly not one of them.

The lighting is also very poor. Most of the scenes shot at night are very hard to see as they are almost completely dark. A few of the kills were shot like this, presumably to save on special effects. There are many moments in the final third of the movie where you have to listen to the dialogue to discern what is happening because you cannot see what is happening on the screen. 

Overall, this is a relatively tame, boring slasher flick with a laughable killer, watered down kills, unlikable characters and poor lighting. Unless you are a dedicated slasher fan, I recommend you skip this one.

2.5/10

Meatcleaver Massacre (1977)

AKA: "Hollywood Meatcleaver Massacre" and "Morak"

Directed by: Evan Lee

Starring: Christopher Lee, Larry Justin, J. Arthur Craig, James Habif, Robert Clark, Bob Mead, and Doug Senior

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Supernatural

There has been an attack on the Cantrell home. Home invaders have severely injured Professor Cantrell and murdered the rest of his family. Now, the professor and acclaimed occult researcher lies unconscious in a hospital bed, his soul summoning an ancient demon, Morak the Avenger, to bring justice down upon the perpetrators. He knows who they are, and they will pay with their lives.

The title of this film is very misleading. There are no deaths related to a meat cleaver. In fact, there aren’t really any interesting deaths at all. There is no gore to speak of, and the violence happens so quickly, the viewer isn’t even sure what is happening. When we are dealing with characters as despicable as the guys in this film, the deaths should be long, drawn out, creative, and gory, not blink-and-you-miss-it or leaving you wondering what just happened.

The editing is very choppy, jumping around sporadically throughout a scene, and often splicing two different scenes together, confusing the viewer. For example: we see Dirk slam against a mirror, bleeding (orangey colored blood!), then we see him sitting in a chair lost in thought, then we’re back to him and the bloody mirror, then the chair again. Then there’s the whole scene where Dirk is contemplating suicide, about to slit his wrist, then realizes he’s late for work, so he decides against it. Really? Couldn’t we have left that ridiculous scene out? Did it do anything for the story?

The lighting in the film is terrible. There are many scenes, especially when a death is about to occur, and the entire climax, where it is hard to see anything at all. It was difficult to discern what actually happened in the final moments of the climax, I’m still not entirely sure about the events that unfolded.

It is really hard to get into a film when you don’t like the characters. The only decent one is the Professor, everyone else is either annoying, disgusting or boring. I can’t feel scared for characters I do not care about. I felt the home invasion could have been a very suspenseful, intense scene, but the film plows on through it, leaving the viewer thinking, “Well, that happened.” Those were characters the audience could have gotten behind and rooted for, but instead we don’t even know their names. Meanwhile, the audience is subjected to the annoying repartee of Sean, Dirk, Phil and Mason, the morons behind the Cantrell murders – and don’t even get the satisfaction of seeing them die brutally.

The only thing this film has going for it is the appearance of horror legend, Christopher Lee, bookending the crappy schlock. Lee discusses interesting supernatural occurrences that slightly relate to what the professor was teaching in class. These anecdotes are more interesting than anything else the flick has to offer. I’m not sure why such a legend would appear in such bland dreck, but even he could not save it.

Overall, this is a boring supernatural slasher with unlikable characters and terrible lighting and editing. It’s not worth your time.

3/10

Cheerleader Massacre (2003)

Directed by: Jim Wynorski

Starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Lenny Juliano (as Leonard Johnson), Summer Williams and April Flowers

Genre: Horror, Slasher, B-Movie

Rated: R

A group of cheerleaders, their coach, two male classmates and their van driver suffer car trouble on the way to a meet. Stranded in the mountains with a blizzard coming, the group hikes into the woods taking shelter in a random cabin. Unbeknownst to them, there is an escaped killer on the loose and heading their way.

I chose to watch this flick looking for a fun way to round out a night of movie watching. I love B-horror: the cheesiness, the bad special effects, the lame acting – but I was not expecting something this God-awful. Everything about this film is terrible, and not in the funny kind of way.

The plot itself isn’t that bad – a little clichéd, but still a fun premise for a low-budget slasher flick. Having teenagers trapped in a mountain cabin during a blizzard is a fun idea and one not often adopted. There’s something about a winter setting that makes slashers creepier to me, normally, but not with this film. For one thing, the blizzard talked about throughout the flick never comes. There is snow on the ground once the characters are in the mountains, but no snow begins to fall. The escaped killer isn’t scary in the slightest, and the climactic twist is extremely predictable by character name alone if you know your 80s slasher villains.

The acting is absolutely atrocious. These are supposed to be high school cheerleaders, yet they are obviously being played by women in their late twenties to early thirties. The coach doesn’t look any older than her students. They all act like they’re in a very bad high school play – like they’re reading their lines off of a cue card next to the camera. The only time they seemed to act naturally was during the nude/sex scenes – which shouldn’t be surprising since the imDb profiles for many of the actresses list porn titles.

There really was a lot of unnecessary nudity. There’s a locker room shower scene where all the girls are naked, a sex scene between one of the girls and one of the douchey stoner guys who tagged along, a shower scene for the coach, and a girl-on-girl three way scene dreamed up by the pervy van driver. None of these scenes were tastefully done and I felt like a voyeur watching these girls run their hands over their bodies and do things to each other. The three way with chocolate sauce in the bathtub was over the top and gross – not because it involved three women, but because I imagined the overpowering scent of cocoa filling the room and the awful yeast infections to follow. I know the male viewers will love these scenes – the women are attractive and do have great figures, but as a straight woman, they were not for me and served absolutely no purpose in the story whatsoever. I don’t like to mix porn with my horror, thanks.

Not to say there really was any horror. I get that the budget was very low and there was probably little room for special effects. However, they could have gone the route of many classic low budget slashers and used bloodless kills – such as the plastic bag kills in Black Christmas (1974) or strangulation deaths like those in Halloween (1978). Instead they stuck with off-screen kills which aren’t necessarily bad, but when you have no suspense or characters to care about, it doesn’t work for the film. What little blood they did use looked like fruit punch. I’ve made better fake blood for my Halloween parties.

The costuming was also ridiculous. These girls are supposed to be cheerleaders but there are no uniforms to be seen. They practice in regular street clothes rather than sweats or workout gear, shower, and then put those same clothes back on. I know the budget was low, but the actresses couldn’t have supplied their own clothing changes? Every girl has at least one pair of sweats or yoga pants hanging around. A goof like this could have easily been avoided, but I guess the director really wasn’t looking to be taken seriously. Also, the aforementioned blizzard is coming, yet everyone is walking around in skimpy cotton shirts, many of them not even having jackets to keep them warm when the van breaks down. If there’s a blizzard coming, how is it warm enough for t-shirts? Maybe it’s a different climate where this movie was based, but where I live, if there is going to be a snow storm, it’s way too cold for summer clothing.

The entire flick looks like it was shot on someone’s camcorder. The style is very amateur and reminded me of the in class Public Service Announcement I filmed for my intro to production class in college. As my excuse, that was the first time I’d ever gotten behind a camera. However, Jim Wynorski is an experienced director who has done projects such as the classic B-movie Chopping Mall (1986) but has apparently also worked on some porn since then. Here’s a hint, Wynorski, keep the two genres separate, and go back to making cheesy goodness like Chopping Mall when venturing into the horror realm.

Overall, if you’re looking for a fun, cheesy B-movie, this is not it. If you want a soft-core porno with mild violence and a crappy slasher story bookending it, this is the flick for you. 

1.5/10