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

My Bloody Valentine (1981) vs My Bloody Valentine (2009)

 

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Directed by: George Mihalka

Starring: Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, Keith Knight, Cynthia Dale, Alf Humphreys and Don Francks

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 On Valentine’s Day twenty years ago the small mining town of Valentine’s Bluff was rocked when a tragic cave-in trapped five miners. When search and rescue finally uncovers the men, there is only one survivor, Harry Warden. Deeming the mine collapse to be the fault of his supervisors who had left early that evening to attend the Valentine’s Day Dance, Harry murders them both the following year. Harry was committed to Eastfield Mental Hospital and the town did not have another Valentine’s celebration for two decades. Now, in 1981, Harry has become little more than a legend and the town has decided to have a Valentine’s Day Dance once again. However, someone isn’t happy about this and will do anything to keep it from happening. Is Harry Warden back in town or is someone else following in his footsteps?

               Despite the praise this slasher gets in the horror community, this has never been one that I’ve loved. That’s not to say it isn’t entertaining – it is, but I find it lacking somehow. The basic storyline is fine and the premise held a lot of potential, but for me it didn’t quite get there.

               I feel one of the biggest drawbacks of this movie is the characters. They’re not unlikable, but they don’t really have much personality or development either. Many characters fall to the killer’s pick axe without the viewer even knowing their names. The plot centers on the love triangle between Sarah, Axel and TJ, with both of the boys vying for the role of her love interest. They’re so caught up in fighting each other for that spot that they do not seem to care what Sarah wants at all. Frankly, neither guy deserves her; she’d be better off alone. Sarah herself is fairly bland, only starting to get a personality in the third act when she needs to support her friend and get them both to safety. The sheriff is so worried about causing a panic in town that he doesn’t mention the trail of murders to anyone, allowing the main group of twenty-somethings the ignorance of thinking it would be safe to throw a party after the Mayor cancels the dance. 

               The kills are creative and brutal. The special effects are well done – the standout definitely being the corpse in the dryer. The setting of the mine in the final act provides the perfect creepy atmosphere for a stalk-and-slash with the dim lighting and claustrophobic tunnels. The viewer is just as lost as the characters in the maze of unlit underground passages, unable to determine the best mode of escape. Unfortunately, the tension isn’t really there as we follow the dwindling group, because, as mentioned above, there is nothing interesting or compelling about any of them.

               There is little to no nudity – just a close up of a girl’s breasts clad in a lacy bra and a bunch of dudes showering. I did like that the movie promoted safe sex by having a male character pull out a condom as he and his girlfriend prepare to make love. Aside from the nameless girl in the opening sequence, the women aren’t obviously objectified, and actually work together and support each other. Toward the end of the film, Sarah takes charge and guides her distraught friend through the mines in hopes of leading her to safety. We don’t see enough of girls helping girls in these flicks and we should change that.

               This is not a bad little slasher film by any means, but it’s not one of the most entertaining either. It has the slower pace of Halloween or BlackChristmas and the gore of Friday the 13^th, but ultimately does not have the likeable characters or quality writing that made those films the classics they are. It is a solid entry into the slasher subgenre, and many in the horror fandom love it, but for me it is simply average.

6/10

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

Directed by: Patrick Lussier

Starring: Jensen Ackles, Jaime King, Kerr Smith, Tom Atkins, Kevin Tighe

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 In 1999 there was a collapse in the Hanniger Mine trapping six men. The only survivor found by Search and Rescue was Harry Warden, who had snapped and killed the other five men so he wouldn’t run out of air. Found in a coma, Harry is transported to the local hospital, where he wakes up and begins a killing spree ending in his death. Ten years later, someone has taken up Harry’s pick axe and the murders have started again. Is Harry Warden truly dead and buried? Has he come back or is it someone else entirely?

               If you know me you know I’m not typically into remakes – mostly because they’re usually done on films that are perfect as is and still hold up to this day. However, in this case I felt that the original held promise that it didn’t live up to and a remake could change that. This movie had a chance to make something great – it had a good cast, a solid storyline to work off of and a decent budget – but they blew it.

               The characters were something I’d really hoped would be improved upon. As stated above, the original characters were very bland and lifeless, not really inspiring the viewer to care for them. This flick took these characters and turned them into assholes. TJ is now Tom, who, after nearly being murdered during Harry’s massacre, left town for a few years to get away from this experience. He returns after his father dies to take care of the estate and determine what to do with the mine. Once there he learns Sarah, his girlfriend from ten years prior, is now married to the Sheriff, Axel. The love triangle is still very much part of the story, and this time I care even less about it.

               Tom is the only character I give a damn about, and, no, it’s not just because he’s played by Jensen Ackles. The minute he returns to town he’s treated like a pariah. Everyone in town believes his mistake in the mine ten years ago caused the cave-in and thus the murder spree of Harry Warden. Also, he’s deliberating on selling off the mine which is the town’s livelihood. It’s obvious he’s carried the events of the past around with him and that he doesn’t want to be back at all. With the way the townspeople treat him, why should he care at all about them? Sell off the mine and take the money to live a nice life far away from there.

               Tom is still hung up on Sarah, and I cannot understand why. They had no chemistry in the scenes where they were supposed to be a couple. Also Sarah blames him for her walking into the mine during Harry’s murders (even though he was getting something out of his truck) and states she got with Axel because “he was there for me” during that horrific incident – the one that nearly led to Tom’s death, but whatever. 

He only stared death in the face while she ran, no big deal. 

She is resentful of Tom leaving, and I do understand her hurt, but at the same time, if she was acting like he didn’t do enough to protect her I don’t blame him at all for leaving. The entire town hates him and his girlfriend is now hero worshiping Axel. I would have left too.

               Axel is an absolute piece of garbage. Not only was he trying to get with Sarah while she was with Tom, he also treats her like crap now that she’s his wife. He’s jealous and possessive when Sarah has one conversation with Tom. He screams in Tom’s face that she’s “my wife, the one I have sex with!” in the middle of a hospital. Yet he’s cheating on Sarah with Megan, her employee at the grocery store that barely looks over eighteen while he’s in his late twenties to early thirties. Gross Axel, not only are you cheating scum, you’re predatory trash as well.

Apparently the actress was about 26, but she looks barely out of high school. 

               Other than the main three, the side characters are all equally unlikable. Megan is proudly sleeping with her boss’s husband, Ben and the retired Sheriff Burke have some shady secrets, the deputies are rather useless, and everyone else is just knife fodder. Also, what was the point of Sarah and Axel’s child? He is in literally two scenes and has no lines. He and his nanny could have been scrapped in exchange for a plot that made any damn sense.

               While this version does hold on to the basic premise of the original film, it veers off into a mess. Yes, it is Valentine’s Day (or close to it), it’s the anniversary of a prior murder spree, and there’s the love triangle, but that and the original character names are all that remains. There is a party scene at the mine but it is very brief and just serves as exposition for the later events. Many people are killed at random that have nothing to do with the original party massacre or Harry Warden. These deaths were pointless and could easily have been cut without the film losing anything.

               Another area that was decent in the original but could have easily been improved upon is the gore effects. The original did well with what they had, but their budget was limited and modern effects could have brought an upgrade. Instead, the effects were far worse in many respects due to terrible CGI. I get that a lot had to be done that way due to the 3D gimmick, but it looked awful – the girl’s head that was split in half by a shovel was obviously computer generated, and laughably bad. 

Seriously, what is this?

The kills in general were okay, the best ones being ripped from the original (i.e. corpse in the dryer). The brutality is still there but the CGI blood ruins it for me.

               Where the original lacked nudity this version has it in abundance. Both male and female characters appear in the nude. We get middle aged man butt (Trust me, there is only one man in this film who the female viewers want to see naked, and it sure wasn’t that guy!) 

My apologies, Jensen. 

and  full frontal from the character of Irene – who is naked for at least ten minutes, from the sex scene to chasing her dickhead partner into the parking lot with a gun, to being chased and cornered by the killer. Not only do we get all that, but there are multiple scenes were the police are watching the video tapes made by her creepy old-man lover and many pictures of her naked corpse. There is also a very pervy close up of the character Megan in her panties, and a crotch shot of her underwear again as she climbs through a window in a mini skirt. Again, this girl looked barely legal to me, and the exploitative shots of her are very uncomfortable.

               The women in this film are treated like trash. The men see them as objects to possess, use and cast aside as they please. The only “friends” Sarah has are Irene, who she seems to have grown very distant from over the past decade, and Megan, her employee that is banging her husband. While the original had girls supporting girls, there is barely any female interaction, and when there is it is catty and awful (Sarah and Megan) or an employer / employee relationship (Sarah and the Nanny). Irene is the stereotypical “slut” of the film and she is, of course, punished for her promiscuity. Even the female motel owner, a little person, was extremely sexualized (did we need to focus on her breasts? Really?),

 and, I feel, also exploited for her size, having her be flung up and tacked to the ceiling like a rag doll. She has a total of maybe two minutes of screen time and all it consists of is her boobs, her flirting with Tom, and her demise. She seemed like she could have been a fun character, but ultimately added nothing to the story except to pad the body count.

               This film tried to take the elements from the original that worked and ride on those successes, but couldn’t make them work within the context of this story. The tense, claustrophobic atmosphere of the mine is not utilized to its full potential. The original was actually shot in real mines and had to use the lighting already installed, making the scenes darker and creepier. This version has well lit tunnels and tries desperately to recreate the creepiest scenes from the original, such as the mining outfits dropping from the ceiling, the dryer corpse, etc. The mining uniforms dropping from the ceiling surrounding someone was built up in the original, in this film it was completely random. I find it hard to believe a grown woman can fit inside a normal household dryer, never mind the corpse cooking so thoroughly in the maybe ten minutes between the character’s death and the discovery of her body. (The body in the original was in a much larger dryer overnight.) The killer smashing a few lights in the mine during the final confrontation was intimidating. That action being extended to around ten lights – and the lighting still being bright as ever in the scene – could not recapture the tension of its predecessor. The final showdown even taking place in the mine at all seemed forced because that was where the original ended, not because it made sense.

               I have so many questions. How did the killer get from the office door to the back alley in two minutes then carve out the victim’s heart, display it in a chocolate box, write on the wall in the victim’s blood and get the hell out of dodge in the next five that it took Sarah and Axel to arrive? For that matter, how did the killer know which vehicle in the motel parking lot belonged to the naked bald jackass or when he would be coming out to drive away? How did the retired Sheriff know there was a killer in Sarah’s house? Why would you waste time calling the police on the landline when a killer is after you and you could just hit the store’s alarm button? Why did the Valentine box only start dripping blood once it was in Axel’s hands? Does this director have a cage fetish? (There’s A LOT of cage imagery – the bed springs, the mining cage and the security grates on the grocery store’s office window.) 

Why did I subject myself to this? Who knows!

               This poor attempt at a reboot, squandered any potential it could have had by taking the, rather tame by comparison, source material and turning it into an exploitative piece of garbage. They had the cast, they had the budget, they could have made something great. Instead they took a quaint little early ‘80s slasher that managed to avoid a lot of the typical tropes, and add everything this subgenre is criticized for. It’s like they took a look at the original and said, “You know what this needs? More naked chicks, awful characters, crappy CGI effects and some blatant misogyny! Also cages because they get me hot!”

               I know I am in the minority for disliking this remake, but I honestly cannot understand why anyone would enjoy it. I was excited to watch this because I heard so many in the horror community raving about how great it is. Did we watch the same movie? This remake did not do justice to the original, in fact it stamped out everything that worked in its predecessor, replacing it with bad CGI, soft-core porn, and characters that all deserved to bite it. There are plenty of movies that share these elements and don’t bastardize prior, superior films, nor take themselves as seriously as this flick does. Stick with the flawed original. Maybe someone will get this story right someday.

Next time, please listen to Sidney ^^

4/10

April Fool's Day (1986) v. April Fool's Day (2008)

April Fool's Day (1986)

Directed by: Fred Walton

Starring: Jay Baker, Deborah Foreman, Deborah Goodrich, Ken Olandt, Griffin O'Neal, Leah Pinsent, Clayton Rohner, Amy Steel and Thomas F. Wilson

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Mystery, Horror Comedy

Rated: R

It's April Fool's Day and a group of college seniors are embarking on a fun weekend at Muffy St. John's secluded island mansion. These young twenty-somethings are prepped for a weekend of good food, good company, a bit of partying and a bit of sex. What they are not prepared for: being picked off one by one by an unseen assailant.

The plot is reminiscent of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, a story I absolutely adore. Both in this film and Christie's novel, a group of people are invited to a secluded island mansion where they receive clues pointing to character secrets and are slowly picked off one by one. However, while Christie's novel is highly crafted and suspenseful, this film takes a more relaxed, fun-loving approach with the characters hanging out, having dinner and pranking each other well into the evening.  The kills don't begin to happen until well after most of the characters are tucked into bed and the characters  don't begin to realize anything is wrong until the first body is discovered the following afternoon.

 Despite the easy-going air this film takes, the film is able to bring the suspense. The secluded island setting and the fact that it can only be reached by boat gives the film a claustrophobic feel, knowing these characters are trapped on the island with the killer until help arrives. A score reminiscent of the Friday the 13th films does well to remind the viewer that this is a horror movie and sets a darker tone as people begin to disappear.

The best way to generate suspense is to have likable characters. Here we actually have a rarity in the slasher subgenre where the characters are seemingly more than just the cliches typically portrayed in similar movies. These folks are relatable. These are young people realizing this is their last big hurrah before they graduate and are forced into true adulthood, and they honestly don't know what they're doing which is refreshing and realistic. The girls talk openly and honestly about sex - the "virgin survivor" trope is unwelcome here, as there isn't a single virgin among them. Both Kit and Nikki are very open with their partners about what they do and do not want in the bedroom, and Kit is even a little aggressive about getting it. The girls also are self sufficient and don't hide behind the boys when something needs to be done. The guys all seem like real friends that laugh and joke around. They aren't afraid of being close to one another and even jokingly show affection. Chaz and Arch have what can only be described as a bromance, which isn't common among male characters in horror.

This is a film that is either loved or hated by those in the horror community due to the twist ending - some find it clever, others find it awful. Another complaint many have is the lack of gore and nudity. I am of the former school of thought. I find the ending to this movie a little farfetched, but clever, fitting for the theme, and a refreshing change of pace for the genre. Also, while I am a lover of creative kills and gore, the lack thereof does not ruin the film for me as the timing and locations of the discovery of the bodies was almost perfectly done. This is just one of many films that prove offscreen deaths can work just as well as onscreen kills if the cast and atmosphere are strong enough.

Overall, this is an under-rated 1980s gem with likable characters, a good mix of humor and suspense, a lack of gore, and a twist ending that you'll either enjoy or despise. It is worth at least one watch for all horror fans.

6.5/10

April Fool's Day (2008)

Directed By: The Butcher Brothers

Starring: Taylor Cole, Josh Henderson, Scout Taylor-Compton, Joe Egender, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Samuel Child, Joseph Mckelheer and Sabrina Aldridge

Genre: Slasher, Horror

Rated: UnratedApril Fool's Day 2007: the Cartier siblings Desiree and Blaine are hosting the Debutante Ball for their new friend and aspiring actress, Torrance. When Desiree's rival, Milan Hastings shows up, Desiree devises a prank to ruin Milan, a prank that inadvertently goes horribly wrong and results in Milan's death. One year later, someone knows the truth behind Milan's death, and will stop at nothing to destroy those involved.

This "remake" is more like a cross between I Know What You Did Last Summer and Cruel Intentions than the original film. Aside from the twist ending, this could almost be listed as a remake in name and theme only.

The likeable, somewhat realistic characters of the original have been replaced by arrogant, self-absorbed and filthy rich little shits young people in their late teens or early twenties. There isn't a single likable character among them, and quite frankly, I wanted them all to die. The only somewhat decent character was killed in the 2007 "prank." Desiree is a venomous bitch who craves money and being the center of attention. The film tries to redeem her from the heinous person she is in the beginning of the movie by subjecting her to the deaths of her friends, but her reactions to these deaths are so stupid the viewer just finds another reason to dislike her. In fact, none of the characters find redemption, and those that weren't so bad in the beginning find a way to make themselves unlikable by the end. Then, SLIGHT SPOILER, in the end, you find out the killer's motive wasn't to avenge the death of Milan at all, but as revenge for something far more selfish and pathetic.

The setting has been moved from a secluded New England island to in-town in one of the Carolinas. While the move from the north to the south doesn't bother me, the complete removal of the secluded claustrophobic atmosphere does. Instead of being stranded and having to await the arrival of the constable from the mainland for help as the characters in the original had to do, the remake's characters are literally running and/or driving all over town. They could have sought help from anyone at any time, but due to a cryptic warning from a package delivered to them at a Milan's grave, they decide not to do the one thing that could actually save them - going to the police. Yes, before anyone brings it up in the comments, Blaine does make an attempt at phoning the police, but only to report Charles's murder, not to get help for the danger he and Desiree are in.

The death scenes provide more gore and substance than those of the original, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Sure we see someone get electrocuted (in an elaborate scheme impossible for a human killer to enact), hit by a car, drown, get their throat slit and take a gunshot to the head at close range. However, these deaths are not effective because the viewer cannot bring him/herself to care about any of the victims. I was glad to see each of these vindictive, self centered assholes get taken out, and, considering their personalities, the deaths weren't fitting enough - especially when the twist ending is taken into account.

While the twist ending in the original lightened the tension and brought the film to a close on a happy note, the remake uses it as a tool to prove just how painfully privileged, conceited and greedy the characters really are. As stated above, the killer's motive wasn't about avenging Milan's death at all, but centered around his/her own selfish gripe with Desiree that relates to the night Milan died.

Over all, everyone in this movie needs a punch in the face. There are no likable or relatable characters, the death scenes are alright effects wise, but not moving in any other way, and the setting removes any atmosphere the original achieved. The story is something resembling the demented spawn of I Know What You Did Last Summer and Cruel Intentions crossed with the brats from My Super Sweet 16. Despite all this, it's not even so much anger inducing as it is bland and forgettable. Skip this and watch the original instead.

3.5/10

Krampus (2015)

Directed by: Michael Doherty

Starring: Adam Scott, Toni Collette, David Koechner, Allison Tolman, Conchata Ferrill, Emjay Anthony and Krista Stadler

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Horror / Horror-Comedy

A disillusioned young boy, fed up with his dysfunctional family, loses his faith in the spirit of Christmas. He gives up hope that he will ever have another enjoyable Christmas with his family and turns his back on the season. In doing so, he unwittingly unleashes the demonic evil spirit Krampus upon himself and his family. Krampus arrives to take from and punish those who don't believe.

I didn't know what to expect going into this film. I knew that I liked the cast, enjoyed the trailer and thought the subject matter would be interesting. I was hesitant due to the PG-13 rating, as that often tends to water down what could be a great film. Fortunately, that was not the case with Krampus.

The film opens to a satirical, but sadly, not that exaggerated, Black Friday mob scene to the tune of "It's Beginning to Look a lot Like Christmas" and continues at a upbeat pace, combining horror and comedy, until the credits roll. This film has a lot to say about the modern family's view of the Christmas season and doesn't try to sugar coat it. The people in this film have lost the aspect of enjoying the company of loved ones during the Holidays to a consumer-driven, resent-filled feeling of obligation to buy numerous gifts and put on perfect celebrations for family and friends. Krampus comes to town to remind everyone of what really matters this time of year.

I really cared about Max, the boy who finally gives up on having a happy holiday. He loves the season and tries to keep the magic alive, even though he knows he's too old to believe in Santa. His only friend is his Omi, who communicates with him in German. His cousins either tease and torture him or do not speak to him at all. It is after his cousins Jordan and Stevie humiliate him at dinner that he finally loses all hope and love for the Christmas season.

My next favorite character was Omi. She has a true affection for Max and does what she can to comfort him when his parents cannot or will not do so. She is wise and willing to sacrifice herself to protect her family.

The only other standout character was Tom, Max's father, who seems a little weak and tied to his job at the beginning of the film, but really comes through as the terror of Krampus begins to unfold. He never second guesses the need to protect his family and will stop at nothing to keep them safe - even the family members he doesn't like very much.

The rest of the characters weren't very likable and really had to work for me to want them to survive. Max's mother, Sarah, is the stereotypical yuppie perfectionist Mom that keeps her house perfect and serves gourmet dinners every night. Her sister, Linda, and brother-in-law, Howard are the exact opposite - beer guzzling, junk food loving, gun toting, football worshiping rednecks with a brood of misbehaving children. Howard favors his son, Howie, Jr., and seems to wish his daughters were also born boys.  Stevie and Jordan, Howard and Linda's older daughters, are bratty little jerks and I wanted so badly to reach through the screen and knock their heads together. Howie Jr. did nothing but sit around, eat and look dumb - a useless lump that Howard has placed on a pedestal. Rounding out the herd of children is Max's sister Beth, who isn't in the movie much, but is the only other decent child over the age of two. Lastly we have Aunt Dorothy, the bitter, alcohol swigging spinster, who appears just to be at the festivities to antagonize everyone. She does have some great lines and a moment of badassery, however.

The film was very well-acted and well-cast. Everyone fit their roles well, with standout performances by Krista Stadler as Omi and Conchata Ferrill as Aunt Dorothy. The entire cast managed to play the film straight, even in the more darkly comedic scenes, making them more believable despite the ridiculous level the film reached in places.

There isn't much for blood and gore, but that is made up for by a great creepy atmosphere and an assorted array of horrific looking villains. The horror begins during a blizzard with white-out conditions. The characters can barely see a foot in front of them and have to cling to each other when outside so no one gets lost in the snow. The vehicles on the road and neighboring houses are found abandoned and iced over, the rest of the population seeming to have disappeared overnight. There is no power in the home or phone service due to the storm, so the house is lit by the fire in the hearth and candles or flashlights. Lastly, more and more menacing-looking snowmen keep popping up in the yard in front of the house. This isolated, creepy atmosphere creates a tense backdrop for the initial chase sequence, adding a foreboding feeling to an already suspenseful scene.

Krampus may be the main antagonist, but he is far from alone in his reign of terror on Max's family. What were once harmless children's toys become twisted, vicious killers that attack, and in some cases, eat, members of the family. Gingerbread cookies are probably the most darkly comedic as they come to life and lure family members to their doom. Then there's the unseen monster under the snow that will gobble up a person in seconds and the demented looking elves that act as soldiers for Krampus himself.  Krampus is disturbing to look at, but ultimately doesn't get much screen time. Still, the scenes involving him are the most suspenseful and dark, all comedy lost in favor of the darker, horrific elements.

Then ending is left open to interpretation, which has caused confusion among viewers, but is something I liked. I enjoy when a film leaves me thinking after it ends, and Krampus succeeded in doing just that.

Overall, an enjoyable Christmas Horror-Comedy that manages to both bring the laughs and the suspense. Dark humor, an intimidating, strong central monster with multiple disturbing minions, a strong cast and a tense, foreboding atmosphere make for a fun, entertaining movie watching experience.

7/10

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

Valentine (2001)

Directed by: Jamie Blanks

Starring: Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Jessica Capshaw, Jessica Cauffiel and Katherine Heigl

Genre: Horror, Slasher

Rated: R

After Shelley, a pretty young medical student, is brutally murdered, her friends from Junior High begin receiving perverse Valentine’s Day cards. As the girls try to figure out who may be behind the creepy cards and Shelley’s murder, the killer continues to stalk, and any of them could be next.

This film is just one of the many “hip,” self-aware slasher clones that spawned from Scream, yet I have a soft spot for such flicks. These clones were my introduction to horror culture, coming out just around the time I was old enough to start watching my soon-to-be favorite genre. No matter how poorly they were received, or made, I can still find some good qualities in them.

For instance, Valentine isn’t a great movie by any means, but I find it entertaining. The story is a generic slasher plot and the characters aren’t really that likable, but it does have its good points. The cherub mask that the killer wears is creepy and some of the death scenes are pretty inventive – my favorite involving the hot tub. I also liked that the deaths were linked to things the girls said or did in the beginning of the film, for example, “I’d rather be boiled alive.” It is a clever use of foreshadowing that I find fun.

The acting has its ups and downs. I don’t really find Marley Shelton to be a strong enough actress to carry the film. She plays sweet and innocent well, but lacks the strength to be believable as the film’s heroine. Denise Richards didn’t really have to stretch too much to play Paige, either, as Paige is all about being sexy and sultry, and that’s what Denise is. I wish Katherine Heigl could have been utilized more, as I generally enjoy her work. Out of all the girls, Jessica Capshaw was the only one who really seemed to bring her character to life. Dorothy is the least likable and most developed female character, with her self-esteem issues, jealousy, and anger at the world. David Boreanaz is as charming as ever as Adam, making girls swoon with his adoration for Kate. (Although why he loves her so much is a mystery, she’s sweet, but she’s bland.)

I did like that the girls all seemed to be very confident women and didn’t let guys treat them like garbage. Well, all except for Dorothy, anyway. Kate keeps Adam at a distance due to his drinking, Lily bails on her man when he proves unfaithful, and Paige “takes care of” a guy who disrespects her, in a rather unpleasant manner. These girls may be one- dimensional, but they have self-respect, which is nice to see.

What this film tried to do, and failed at, was create a twist ending the viewer cannot see coming. It’s obvious very early on who the killer really is. While the reveal is a crafty construction by the actual killer, the audience isn’t going to fall for it. I do, however, like how subtle the twist is, happening right before the credits. If you blink, you may miss it.

There are also little bothersome things that leave me with questions. How did the killer drop the rose by the hot tub without being noticed? How many people have access to Kate’s apartment? It seems like everyone and their brother is always creeping about in there. What was the relevance of Kate’s water not working? What happened to Brian?

Overall, it’s not a well-made film, or well-written, but it is entertaining, and it does have its moments.

5.5/10

Black Christmas 1974 vs Black Christmas 2006

Black Christmas (1974)

Directed by: Bob Clark

Starring: Olivia Hussey, Margot Kidder, Andrea Martin, Keir Dullea and John Saxon

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

Its Christmas time and the girls of Pi Kappa Sig are getting ready to head home for the holidays. They begin receiving obscene phone calls, but think of them as nothing more than a demented prank. As they go about their celebrations an intruder goes unnoticed creeping into the house. As the girls are killed off one by one, our heroine, Jess, alerts the police and together they try and catch the killer.

                Noted as the First American Slasher, Black Christmas (1974) has become a cult classic for genre fans, and it is easy to see why. This film has all of the elements that make up a great horror film - the most prominent of these being the atmosphere. Despite the fact that inside the house appears to be cozy and cheery, the viewer can’t help having a sense of dread. After all, the audience knows what the characters do not – that there is someone else in the house. The exterior of the home is only showed in shadow and at night, making it appear a lot more ominous than the real house actually was. We also get a few point of view shots from the killer as he breaks into the house, spies on the girls and prepares for a kill.

                The kill scenes are modest, but ultimately more effective. Only three of the deaths are shown onscreen, yet only one of them really shows the death. The audience gets the idea of how the character is being murdered, but doesn’t actually see it happening. As most horror films post early 1970s delved into the use of special effects and gore, this film is a nice change of pace. The amount of blood is minimal and many of the deaths go unseen, playing into the suspense factor.

                This film does keep up the suspense throughout the entire story, both dealing with the killer hiding in the attic, the creepy phone calls, and the subplots that interconnect. The audience is always wondering if that phone ringing is the killer calling the girls (and if it is, what he is going to say – as each call gets progressively more disturbing) who is going to die or what Jess is going to do about her own problems. It helps that the characters are likable and fleshed out well enough for the actors to give them each a presence.

                The acting and characterization in this film is very well done. The characters are believable as college students and friends and also very memorable. Olivia Hussey was already a seasoned actress before she took the leading role as Jess and she was great as usual. However, it’s Margot Kidder’s Barb that steals the show as the sarcastic alcoholic of the group. Barb is not afraid to fire back at anyone, from the obscene phone caller to the police sergeant, and creates a bit of comic relief in an otherwise dark film. It’s also nice to see that these girls are more than just two-dimensional knife fodder, as both Jess and Barb clearly have other things going on in their lives. After them, Ms. Mac, the housemother, is the most memorable, with her sarcastic remarks and hidden collection of booze – quite possibly a future Barb. Keir Dullea is convincing as Jess’s neurotic and somewhat intimidating boyfriend, Peter. The other girls, Phyl (Andrea Martin) and Claire, stand out much less, but fit into the mold just fine.

                I really liked how this film tackled issues that many films today are still afraid to tackle: abortion and alcoholism. Many films show a character who drinks constantly, but not many bother to look into why. Its clear that Barb’s alcoholism stems from a bad relationship with her mother. Abortion was a fairly new thing in the 1970s, legally speaking, so to have a character in a film contemplating the idea is a brave move on the part of the writers and director. These two elements really stand out, marking this as one of the first intelligent slasher films bold enough to try something a bit different.

Overall: Great acting, camera work, characterization and atmosphere make this film the classic it has become. It is suspenseful and claustrophobic, but also intelligent. It deals with real issues that affect college students making the characters more believable and likable. Tie into that a little taste of humor and you’ve got quite the amazing film.

8.5/10

Black Christmas (2006)

Directed by: Glen Morgan

Starring: Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Lacey Chabert, Kristen Cloke, and Andrea Martin

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 If anyone has been following my blog, they know that I’m very tough on remakes. This one is no exception, especially considering how unnecessary this remake was. In my opinion, the original holds up very well as far as relatable characters, suspense, atmosphere and chills, but apparently Hollywood begs to differ. Enter Black Christmas (2006), a modern retelling that adds little to the story and takes quite a bit away.

The plot is very similar to the original film. Once again we have a house full of sorority sisters preparing for the holidays and receiving creepy phone calls. One by one, over the course of an evening, the girls start to be picked off by an escaped mental patient who once called their house his home.

                In this version, we learn a lot more about “Billy and Agnes” – the two names used frequently in the disturbing calls the girls received in the original film. While the killer’s back story was kept a secret in 1974, the 2006 version brings the audience yet another tale of twisted abuse and neglect that made the killer do the things he does. The 1974 phone calls hinted at something sinister that had happened, this film held nothing back. Severe child abuse and cannibalism? Sure, why not?

                Along with the mystery surrounding the killer, the creepy atmosphere is gone too. There aren’t any point of view shots and the house doesn’t seem ominous in the least. The film was supposed to take place during a snow storm (how original) but I didn’t even realize that until halfway through the film. The phone calls aren’t really that scary either – they try to capture the essence of the original calls but lack the intensity. Plus, these calls are clearly scripted while the originals were improvised by director Bob Clark.

                Not only did this remake remove all mystery surrounding the killer and the eerie atmosphere of the 1974 classic, it sucked the personalities out of the sorority girls as well. That was really disappointing considering the cast of well-known actresses like Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Lacey Chabert – all of which have promising careers ahead of them. The only girl that stood out was Cassidy as the heroine, Kelli. All of the others blended together in a rather monotonous stream of victims. Winstead’s character is supposed to be from the south, but we only hear a bit of a southern accent in one portion of dialogue from her. Trachtenberg’s Melissa is supposed to be the more caring sister, but even that is barely shown. There was also an attempt to revive Margot Kidder’s Barb in the character of Lauren, but while Barb had a sharp wit, Lauren comes off as angry at the world and rather unlikable.

                In addition to what was removed from the original story, unnecessary clichés were also brought to it. As aforementioned, I didn’t really like having the back story provided for “Billy and Agnes.” I personally find it creepier not knowing anything about past events and the killer him or herself. The fact that the audience never learns anything about the killer in the original makes it stand out. Instead, the viewer receives another version of the current horror cliché – the extremely abusive childhood that made the killer snap. We also have a nude shower scene and a sex tape that are utterly pointless and add nothing to the story. We also get the classic “power failure in the middle of the storm” scare and the death while checking the fuse box, as well as the old “severed head falling out of the car” gag. It feels like the people behind this wanted to make this as unoriginal as possible.

                The kills tried to pay homage to the deaths in the original film – but didn’t work as well. They happened too fast for my liking, focusing more on the gruesome aspects than on the suspense and helpless atmosphere. Instead of deaths barely seen, we have characters choked and stabbed in rapid succession, and many shots of eyes being gouged out and then eaten by the killer. That’s not so much scary as it is gross.

                There were a few things I liked about the film, however. I really liked that Andrea Martin (Phyl from the 1974 version) was brought back as the house mother. I thought that was a very nice touch and fun little homage. Also, the use of the crystal unicorn (a very memorable prop from the original) as a murder weapon was another nice nod to the film’s predecessor. The gore effects weren’t bad either, though slightly redundant.

Overall: This film had the potential to be quite good with the talented cast, bigger budget, and modern special effects. Instead, writer/director Glen Morgan decided to use gross-out gore and every cliché he could think of to turn a classic film into typical modern teenybopper slasher drivel.

4.5/10