CULT OF THE COBRA

Cult of the Cobra Movie Review

Six American Air Force men encounter a snake charmer, who will let them be the first outsiders to view the ancient transformation of a woman into a snake, but on just two conditions: they pay a hundred dollars, and they cannot take pictures. Naturally, one of the dopes takes a picture (with flash, no less) during the ritual, resulting in a curse being placed on them, and the snakewoman stalking them back in New York City. This 1955 feature gets off to a good start, jumping almost immediately into the action. The snakewoman we see in the ritual is...interesting...

...here she is...

..but from this scene on, we always either see her in her normal human form or as a very cheap, fake cobra. Faith Domergue plays Lisa the Snakewoman, and does a decent job with the role, as do the actors playing the Air Force guys, though the script does little to build character with any of them. Also appearing in the film (far too little) is Kathleen Hughes as Julia. You may recognize Kathleen from somewhere else...

Where have I seen this face?

The story is a decent one that takes a somewhat unexpected turn near the end--I could have done without this, as it takes away the callous nature of Lisa too much. The big problem with the movie is the execution of the snake attack scenes. We are given a very fake looking snake, complete with first person shots from the point of view of the snake that look blurry and...sparkly?

Snake Vision!

This all leads to a fairly anticlimactic ending that at least finally SHOWS the transformation on screen. Overall, Cult of the Cobra is a fun little movie that simply falls well short of the potential it had.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5



Cult Of The Cobra Movie Trailer

INVISIBLE INVADERS

Invisible Invaders Movie Review

Invisible aliens arrive on Earth to warn they will destroy everybody on the planet if the humans do not surrender. When the threat falls on deaf ears, the invasion begins. Now it is up to a couple scientists, the daughter of a scientist, and a member of the military to figure out a way to stop the invasion. This 1959 film is actually quite an interesting film. The aliens make their presence known by entering dead bodies, giving us a precursor of sorts to the legendary Night of the Living Dead--the zombies here, referred to as "The walking dead", look strikingly similar to those George Romero would use in Night of the Living Dead almost a decade later.

The Walking Dead

Naturally, there is a lot of 1950s sci-fi silliness here: repetitive shots, the over-dramatic narration of the story, the repeated use of newspaper headlines, the use of stock footage--and why in the world do the aliens drag their feet when they walk while invisible? Oh yeah, so they could use "special effects" to show the dirt moving and nobody there to do it. Also, the aliens, with their "advanced intelligence", have determined the moon is a planet, not, you know, a moon. The first alien to make contact refers to the moon as a planet not once, but twice. Still, all this stuff really only adds to the charm of the movie for me. The acting is what you would expect from this era. The pace of the movie is really well done, but it is a short film, clocking in at just 67 minutes. One thing I really disliked about the movie was the sounds they use, especially in the final five minutes of the film--it really made the movie almost unwatchable. The end also felt extremely rushed and left a lot to be desired. This really is a nice little movie, however, and could be described as inspirational for movies to come. If you're a fan of movies from this era I recommend this one.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5



Invisible Invaders Movie Trailer

NEWS: HALLOWEEN TO MAKE A RETURN

So I am going to go against what I typically do on this site and bring you some somewhat breaking news. It was reported today that Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the masterminds behind Feast, have teamed up to bring us Halloween Returns. Casting got underway today with shooting set to start next month. This will NOT be directed by Rob Zombie, and reportedly will not have anything to do with the Zombie films, and will not be a direct sequel of the original film. Instead, it is said to catch up with Michael years after his initial killings as he sits on death row, with the offspring of his original victims either coming after him for revenge or simply being next in line as he continues his carnage.

A few things come to mind as I ponder yet another retooling of a classic horror film. First, it's Michael Myers, so of course it has potential to be really good. The fact they are calling it Halloween Returns may be a jab at the two films Zombie made, as in saying "Zombie came way out of left field with his take, so we are bringing back the Michael you know", in which case, fine, I can be on board for that--not that I hate the Zombie movies at all--I actually quite enjoy them, but I know they alienated a lot of fans of the original. Lets face it though: the original Halloween and part two are masterpieces of horror, the third one does not exists in my mind, and the fourth and fifth films were decent enough, but the wheels completely fell off after that, so to me what Zombie did was a redemption of sorts for the character and series. All that to say this: when Melton and Dunstan (who is taking over as director) say Halloween is returning, I ask "from where?". If you follow the story of the first (even if you ignore every sequel after it), which was based in the late 1970s, and the new film is set in 2015 or 2016, Michael would be well into his sixties--this hardly screams scary to me. Short of going this route, you are simply rebooting the franchise (again), something that could have very hit or miss consequences (as Zombie's films did).

The next thought that comes to mind--Myers is in prison (not an insane asylum as in the Zombie film), awaiting execution--does this mean we see Michael's face for at least the beginning of the film? Certainly they would not have him wearing a mask in prison. How exactly does he escape a maximum security prison? Are they going to go all super-natural with him, ala Shocker? (God I hope not) The suggested premise of the film seems pretty absurd, and I am holding out hope it is a joke.

Finally, I really hope they do not bring Dr. Loomis back for this one. Mention him to show respects to him, possibly even explain his fate, but do not make him a character in the film. I am a big fan of Malcolm McDowell and believe he did all one could do with the character in the Zombie films, but seeing anybody other than the late Donald Pleasence play Loomis is tragic.

I am cautiously excited about Halloween Returns. The guys behind it have done some really good stuff in the past, so the potential is there, but we all know how some of these films tend to turn out. If you have any thoughts on this I would love to read them in the comments section below.

UPDATE: I can't believe it was so long ago that I wrote this. This movie did come out, and was quite a bit different than what the initial reports of it said would be (thank God). Catch my review of the movie, titled simply Halloween, not Halloween Returns, here: Halloween 2018

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

The Bride Of Frankenstein Movie Review

Having survived the fire at the end of Frankenstein, The Monster is on the loose again. This time around, another mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), has the idea of creating a companion for The Monster. This movie starts out interestingly, as Mary Shelley, the author of the novel that inspired the original movie, explains to her husband Percy and Lord Byron that the story of Frankenstein does not, in fact, end as the movie does, and proceeds to tell the story that is the movie Bride of Frankenstein. I vaguely remember seeing this movie as a child, but this is the first time I have watched it since, and I was actually somewhat surprised to see the amount of comedy thrown in here and there. Unfortunately, most of it is unfunny and very much takes away from the entire theme and feel of the film. That said, there is a lot to like about this movie. Hollywood legend Boris Karloff does a fantastic job as cinemas most misunderstood misfit, The Monster, making him both terrifying and likable. I sort of wish they had not made him speak in this film, but this does result in him delivering one or two of the more memorable lines in film history. Elsa Lanchester is phenomenal in her iconic, albeit brief, portrayal of The Monster's Mate. I really, really wish she was in the movie longer than she is. Everybody knows who this character is...

...but many may not realize she is only in the movie for about five minutes. Lanchester herself, however, is in the film longer, as she plays not only the mate, but also the aforementioned Mary Shelley.

Elsa as Mary

Colin Clive returns as Frankenstein and also does another stellar job. One thing that really stands out to me in this film is the effective use of lighting to set the mood--at times this looks downright creepy. Another scene that I found particularly weird was when Pretorius was showing Frankenstein the people he had created. The special effects used to create this scene, to me, were breathtaking for a film shot in 1935. The scene seemed a bit out of place and walks a thin line between surreal and absurd, but it is one you will not likely forget. Even the credits for this film are interesting, as Karloff is credited simply as "Karloff", and Lanchester is not credited as The Mate. Instead, "?" is credited as The Monster's Mate. If that were not enough wackiness, the credits show at the start of the film, and when they show again at the end of the film they are headlined "A Good Cast Is Worth Repeating". I think the film tends to drag at times, which is unfortunate for a movie that is only 75 minutes long to begin with, but the last ten minutes or so, which combine heartbreak, horror, and splendid cinematography are and absolute must see

Our happy couple?

This movie is considered a masterpiece in Hollywood and horror movie history, and rightfully so. It brought back a legendary movie monster while introducing a new one, and eighty years later both live on as icons. If you can get past the misfires of the attempted comedy, you will find great pleasure in this movie.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 8

 

 The Bride Of Frankenstein Movie Trailer

RITES OF SPRING

Rites of Spring Movie Review

A group of small time criminals kidnap the daughters of a wealthy family, demanding a ransom for their safe return. At the same time, a farmer (Marco St. John) kidnaps two girls, continuing a pattern of missing girls that has taken place since the mid 1980s. This movie combines these two plots pretty effectively, resulting in a decent horror film here. The acting varies widely, ranging from the screaming of the girls being unbearable at times, to a very good performance by AJ Bowen of You're Next fame as the one person who sees this entire situation as messed up. We find out the girls have been kidnapped at the start of each spring as a rite (hence the title) and a sacrifice to the...creature thing...

...him...

...who, in return, brings a good harvest. To me this movie was a throwback to so many movies I have enjoyed in the past, from 70s grindhouse films to 80s and 90s scarecrow B movies. The creature itself is actually pretty scary, as he moves very quickly and is sadistically violent. The blood and gore is here, but there's not too much that it's distracting, and the movie tends toward old school effects and away from CGI, which score points in my book. The music and cinematography are also very good in this movie, and there are some interesting plot twists along the way as well. However, not all is well here. The movie is tragically short (81 minutes), there are plot holes and loose ends here and there (what happened to the little girl anyway?), and the end leaves a little to be desired (even taking into account the bonus scene after the credits). Even with these shortcomings, Rites of Spring is a pretty good little indie horror film that I think is worth a viewing.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Rites Of Spring Movie Trailer

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE MASSACRE

The Slaughterhouse Massacre Movie Review

A couple young fellas take their girlfriends to an abandoned slaughter house where years prior a loner named Marty Sickle was killed. Naturally he has returned to terrorize anybody who comes near his place of death...or maybe he died...or maybe not. The movie kind of says both. He may have had his head cut off. But then again, maybe he didn't, but of course in the end, that is the only way to kill him, because, you know, that's how they killed him before, except he is not headless now. Yes. this gibberish basically sums up this horrid mess that looks like some college project gone awry. The sound is terrible throughout most of the film, and the video looks like it was done on a high tech camcorder from the 1980s. They loved using slow motion in this film too, which is a personal pet peeve of mine. To me slow motion should be used in sports replays and...well, that's all really. I have said before that when you see the same name repeated over and over in the credits it's probably a pretty awful movie--that happens here with writer, director, producer, editor, and even Marty Sickle himself, Paul Gagne. And lets talk about ol' Marty a second. His voice goes from sounding like Freddy Krueger to, well, not, and it happens so often it's hilarious--if that's not enough he looks like some weird cross between old school Undertaker from the 1990s WWF days and a simpleton brother of the talented actor Giovanni Ribisi.

"My name's Marty Sickle. People call me Marty Sickle" 

This movie borrows a ton from many other movies from the past that did absolutely everything better. The continuity errors are pretty much everywhere. The acting--I won't even go into how bad the acting is. There's also a stoner character (of course) named, what else, "Stoner", who, among other things, calls for help at one point with the exclamation "Yo! Sheriff dude!" and attempts to cop a feel on the chalk outline of a dead body....my girlfriend had warned me this was the worst movie she has ever seen, and while I wouldn't go that far (she has yet to experience the masterpiece that is Hill 171) I would say it's not far off.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 3

The Slaughterhouse Massacre Movie Trailer

THE SNOWTOWN MURDERS

 The Snowtown Murders Movie Review

This movie, based on a true story, tells the tale of John Bunting (Daniel Henshall), the most notorious serial killer in the history of Australia. However, if you are expecting a bloodbath, this is not the film for you. This centers more on the psychological effects Bunting had on Jamie Vlassakis, the sixteen year old son of his girlfriend Elizabeth. So instead of gore and blood, what we have here is a slow burn story that lasts two hours and results in little payoff. That said, Henshall turns in a fantastic performance as Bunting, and Lucas Pittaway does a pretty good job as Jamie, the impressionable kid. The interesting thing about Bunting is his victims--he didn't go after so-called "innocent" people. Instead, Bunting targets people he sees as not fit for living--drug addicts, pedophiles, etc. The movie does a decent job showing the impact Bunting has on Vlassakis, but at two hours, this is a lot to sit through. Also, a warning: some people are going to have a very difficult time understanding a lot of the dialogue. The accents of some of these actors is very thick. If you are expecting a traditional horror movie, The Snowtown Murders is not one--it's more a psychological thriller, and a fairly average one at that.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

The Snowtown Murders Movie Trailer

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005)

The Amityville Horror Movie Review

Young couple George and Kathy Lutz (Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George) and their kids move into a house that was once the sight of grisly murders. Soon after, strange things begin to happen, and George starts to lose his grip on reality. This remake of the 1979 classic is enough like the original to maintain the story, but different enough to keep you interested while establishing it's own identity. George does her typical good job in the movie, and Reynolds, surprisingly, is fairly creepy.

Just kill the kid already!

Some of the quick shots throughout the film are genuinely scary, and there is a fair amount of gore in it, but nothing it over the top. It's also worth noting this is based on a true story, though how much of the real story is true is of question. Unfortunately the end of the movie is somewhat anti-dramatic and disappointing, and the acting of most of the supporting characters--in particular Jesse James as Billy--is dreadfully bad. Honestly, you will find yourself hoping George just offs the little brat. Still, this ranks as one of my favorite remakes, and is a film I recommend.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 8

The Amityville Horror Movie Trailer