GARDEN TOOL MASSACRE

Garden Tool Massacre Movie Review

Charles Scavolini is sent to a mental institution after killing his wife. Seven years later, he escapes, and returns to his home, which is now filled with partying teenage boys. Chuck is none too happy about this new arrangement, and the youths soon pay...in blood! The zero dollar budget film was shot in the UK in 1997, but didn't get an official release until SRS Cinema brought it to the world in 2020. If you are adding zero budget plus 1997, your sum may be "a group of friends shooting something on a camcorder". If this was your calculation, well done! 

Bonus points if you also pictured this

This movie was indeed shot (at least partially) on glorious VHS, and if you remember watching movies this way, you may find yourself searching for the tracking button a time or two while watching this one. If you read my review of City of the Vampires, you know a bit about my own personal experience shooting on VHS. You also know of "parties" my friend Brian would throw, and that they were always nights of guys wondering out loud where all the girls are (the true battle cry of teenage guys at parties)--Garden Tool Massacre has a lot of that going on as well. 

"I swear I invited some!"

This movie starts off surprisingly well--we see Charles killing his wife, and get a very slow moving warning about what is to come. There is little speaking at the start, and the first ten minutes set a wonderful atmosphere. We know this won't last, however, and as soon as the lads living the house are introduced, the interest level plummets. Nobody expects any great acting from a movie such as this, so I won't even touch on that. No, the downfall isn't in the acting, but in the lack of anything of substance happening for much of the movie. The boys wonder where the girls and pizza are. One dances like Crispin Glover in Friday the 13th Part IV. One insists everybody call him "Psycho". They wonder where the girls are. You get the picture--there's a whole lot of filler between the opening and when Scavolini inevitably makes his way to the house to kill the victims with, yes, garden tools. Once he arrives, the death scenes are quite impressive for a group of people with no money to work with. The ending is a bit anti-climatic, but to be honest, your interest has likely left by then anyway. At just 70 minutes, the movie seems much longer, as it is clear they were throwing stuff in just to get to what would be considered a feature-length film. Still, you have to give writer/director/producer/one-man-band David Hinds credit for doing what he did with the limited resources he had--there are many, many similar films that are much worse than this one. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Garden Tool Massacre Movie Trailer

CIRCUS OF THE DEAD

Circus of the Dead Movie Review

A group of clowns from a travelling circus kidnap a family, forcing the father, Donald (Parrish Randall), to make some tough choices in order to save his daughters. Along the way, the painted psychopaths go on a killing spree, and the blood pours in buckets. This movie was shot in 2014, released in 2017, and is the product of Billy Pon. Nicknamed "Bloody Bill", Pon is a veteran in the haunted house industry, and Circus of the Dead is his feature length debut. If you are automatically assuming a guy with extensive experience working on haunted houses would know how to bring some rad visuals to the screen...well, you're right. There is a lot to like about how this movie looks, and at times, you sense you are walking through a really good Halloween attraction. 

Now would be a good time to turn around

The clowns are a mixed bag--Bill Oberst Jr. shines as Papa Corn, the leader of the outfit. Oberst brings a very unsettling presence to the character--I've always believed the quiet, meticulous villain to be scarier than the loud, screaming type, and as a calm killer, Papa Corn is as creepy as any character you'll come across--unfortunately, this is shattered when, for some reason, the character becomes more the loud, obnoxious clown you would expect, and a character that just screams iconic becomes throwaway. As for the rest of our clowns, we have a giant who laughs incessantly, a dwarf who barks or yelps instead of talking, and one who smoke cigarettes the entire time--none are developed beyond this. Randall is a horrendous actor, making it hard to get behind his character, or even care what happens to him...or his family, for that matter.

2000 called, Donnie Boy

There's not much bordering on suspense here--the laughing and yelping kill any hope of it building up. The violence is amped up to extreme levels--if I didn't know any better, I would think Bloody Bill was making a political statement, or even delving into the media coverage of violence as a theme, ala Natural Born Killers, by using it to such excess...I suspect Pon's nickname would lead us to believe otherwise, and that nothing more than a gorefest was intended. There's nothing wrong with this amount of violence in a film, of course, but when the shock factor is used to this extent, every move after becomes predictable, and that certainly hinders this film, all the way to the ending we see coming for at least an hour. As disappointing is the very dark, almost grindhouse feel of the film in the beginning being traded in for horror and even action film cliché shots, such as the entire gang walking in slow motion, the camera mounted on the hood of the car and looking in, and the sped up shots to enhance the madness unfolding. Circus of the Dead is a movie filled with potential, and one with a fantastic start--once it gives in to the tried and true, the potential dies, and we are left with a fairly forgettable film. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Circus of the Dead Movie Trailer

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON

An American Werewolf in London Movie Review

American students Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne) and David Kessler (David Naughton from the "Be A Pepper" Dr. Pepper commercials) backpack...wait. You don't know those commercials? A youngster you must be. For those of us old enough to recall those ads, simply hearing the phrase "be a pepper" triggers the song from the deepest, darkest depths of our memory bank. For those of you not old enough to know what I'm talking about...well...here you go...

You're welcome

Back to it--the Americans are backpacking around the UK when they are attacked by a werewolf. Jack gets killed, while David begins to feel a bit...transformed. If you're reading this, there is a very good chance you have seen this movie, or at the very least, you have heard of it. A long-time personal favorite, I'm surprised that after twelve years of writing these reviews, I've never dedicated the time to taking a look at this one (though I did mention an attraction based on the film in reviewing something else). Brought to us by famed and (primarily) comedy film director John Landis, this 1981 flick indeed mixes laughs with scares, and does a wonderful job finding a balance between the two elements, something incredibly hard to pull off. The scene in the London Underground, when the werewolf emerges from the top of the frame as we see the victim trying to escape up the escalator, is one of the more terrifying things you will see in any movie, and is one of my all-time favorite shots. 

"Maybe I got a Milk-Bone"

The most recognizable scene in the movie is likely the transformation one--40 years after this movie was made, this still holds up, and is universally recognized as an iconic moment in horror history. The makeup and special effects are fantastic all throughout the movie, and is just one of many reasons Rick Baker is considered one of the greats in the makeup effects world. The story itself is fair enough--there is nothing groundbreaking on this end, but there's enough to keep you interested, especially when the lads are at The Slaughtered Lamb, hanging around the weirdo locals. That said, there is nothing offensively bad about the movie...unless you're Dr. Pepper, that is. Naughton lost his gig as their spokesman for doing nude scenes in this film. There is plenty of carnage along the way, all leading to an ending that is somewhat anticlimactic, but gloriously abrupt. Again, I assume if you're reading this, you've seen An American Werewolf in London...if by chance you haven't, do yourself a favor and buy it. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 8

An American Werewolf in London Movie Trailer

HACK-O-LANTERN

Hack-O-Lantern Movie Review

A cantankerous old man (Hy Pyke) is the leader of some nondescript cult that offers sacrifices during Halloween. His life goal seems to be getting his creepy grandson/actual son (we're not sure) Tommy (Gregory Scott Cummins as an adult, Bryson Gerard as a child) to join the world's most generic sect. Will he join? Will he stand up to his weirdo grandpappy? Most importantly, will you care? 

This one came out in 1988, the time when the 80's slashers from the early part of the decade began to morph into dime a dozen, watered down versions of the classics--Hack-O-Lantern is an oddity that both fits this mold, but also brings enough of the absolutely bizarre to stand out a bit. The movies has what you expect from 1980's slashers, but the ratio of what you get is not the standard formula, as the blood is fairly minimal, while the amount of nudity is much more than in most similar movies. The acting is bad...really bad. Pyke is less sinister and more fingernails on a chalkboard irritating, and it doesn't get a lot better from there. There's not a lot in the form of scares with this movie either, and several parts of the film include scenes straight out of left field. At one point, adult Tommy dreams of being in a music video with the band D.C. Lacroix  (credited as D.C. La Croix)--if this isn't weird enough, the video includes the other band members being zapped away by laser beams from the obligatory glam-metal "hot chick" of the video, and it ends with the same model beheading Tommy. If that's not enough, there is also a scene of a stripper at a Halloween party, and another dancer with a snake--there seems no reason for either to be there, but we do see the stripper as a different (?) character in another scene. Still not enough? How about a random stand-up comedy routine just outside the party? I'm not making this up, I promise. Finally, to put a bow on all the unusualness, Massacre Video, who own the rights to the movie, sued a YouTube user for streaming the movie illegally...and took it to People's Court...in 2021! I had no idea that television show even made it into the 21st Century! If you're curios, the Plaintiffs won.

We've all seen this 

The climax includes hilariously bad fight scenes, a bit of a twist, and a cheeky final few seconds. Is Hack-O-Lantern a good horror film? No, it certainly isn't. However, if you are into complete acts of randomness, you may want to hunt this movie down...legally, of course. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Hack-O-Lantern Movie Trailer

FEAR STREET PART THREE: 1666

 

Fear Street Part 3: 1666 Movie Review

For the conclusion of the trilogy, we journey back to where it all started--Union, in 1666. As I believe the only proper way to truly review this movie is to dive into the deep end with it, I will warn you now--there will be spoilers ahead, and despite the name of this blog, this review won't be real quick. I repeat...THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

At the conclusion of Part Two, we saw Deena (Kiana Madeira) sort of jump into the body of Sarah Fier, all Dr. Sam Beckett style. 

Minus the awesome blue lighting

Deena realized that stopping the curse wasn't as easy as they suspected, so we start Part Three off in 1666, where Deena is living the life of Sarah. We discover that Sarah, much like Deena, has a secret girlfriend--her name is Hannah, and she is played by Olivia Scott Welch, the same actress who plays Samantha, Deena's girlfriend, in 1994. We also see many of the other actors from both 1994 and 1978 appearing as different characters in 1666, which is cool and makes sense for some of the characters, but seems gratuitous for others. I am not a huge fan of most films with a colonial setting, and this flick did nothing to change my mind. The movie makers did a nice job with the look, but the acting was certainly a struggle here, as most of the talent had difficulty with the accent and slip in and out of it often. The violence is there, but scaled back a bit from what we saw in 1994 and 1978. 

Tommy...less violent, more insane

There's not a lot happening in 1666, but it is rather fast paced, and that will make sense soon. What we need to know is this--as expected, Sarah Fier is not really a witch. Though it has been believed for hundreds of years (and a few hours, from the viewer's perspective) that Sarah put the hex on Shadyside and made a pact with the devil, the movie delivered what most of us probably expected and few of us wanted--the tried and true tale of a falsely accused witch. No, the true maker of the pact with Satan was Solomon, a fella whose bloodline eventually leads to somebody we know from 1994 and 1978.

He doesn't seem so Goode now, does he?

I was really, really hoping that when we got to 1666 we would see Sarah as a true evil, chaos-causing witch, and they actually tease this at one point when Sarah declares something along the lines of "If it's a witch they want, then a witch they will get", and I prepared for all Hell to be unleashed upon the ignorant--alas, once Sarah arrives in the tunnels, she discovers Solomon has already made the aforementioned pact with the evil one, and is appalled...by him doing pretty much precisely what she was going to do! Solomon's deal was to deliver sacrifices in exchange for wealth and success, and this was passed on for generations--hence Goode being sheriff, and his brother the mayor of Sunnyvale. So they get into a fight, she loses her hand, and Solomon delivers Sarah to the pitchfork and torch-wielding simpletons who have been hunting her down to hang her and Hannah for being witches. At the tree, to save Hannah, Sarah falsely admits to being a witch, further stating she corrupted Hannah and that Hannah was innocent--this works, and just prior to being hung, Sarah promises revenge on Solomon. This all happens over the span of about an hour, and once Sarah hangs, the movie transitions brilliantly back to 1994. 

So

Cool

Back to the present, Deena knows Sheriff Goode is behind all the evil, and she rounds up the remaining troops in an effort to take him down. They end up at the mall where it all started (well, the mall that is built on top of where it all started) and come up with the most convoluted plan ever to kill one person--why they couldn't just hide and shoot Goode once he arrived is beyond me, but hey, we got some cool neon and black light stuff going on, and another Carrie reference, so I guess that makes it acceptable. 

Groovy

The demon ghost killer people show up, and in a cool scene, they fight and (temporarily) kill each other. It is teased that Ruby is making her way there to unleash the terror, but once she finally arrives, she does little. Naturally, Deena ends up in the tunnel with Goode (and Samantha, who, I guess, never went full demon?) and we see the sheriff's demise--to say it's anticlimactic is an understatement. Everything that happens from there is dreadfully bad (did they get lost in the tunnel?), and a sequel, or continuance of the story, or another trilogy, or something else, is teased. 

Can we just leave that here?

After really enjoying the first two films of this trilogy, I was very much disappointed with the final one. Visually, the movie was wonderful, and it still had a couple surprising developments, but sadly, they were not where we wanted them, and that's in the story itself--the final stretch develops pretty much as you expect it to, and there's really nothing satisfying about this. Obviously, if you watched the first two films, you will want to view this one to finish it off...maybe a better idea is to imagine the third film in your head. 

On A Scale Of One Ten: 5

Fear Street Part 3: 1666 Movie Trailer

HAPPY HELL NIGHT

Happy Hell Night Movie Review

It's time for that all-American college institution ritual everybody loves so much...yes, it's pledge night, and at Winfield College, this is taken so seriously they have a competition to determine which house can be the biggest jerks to the freshmen. When he discovers his younger brother, Sonny (Frank John Hughes), has been having an affair with his girlfriend, frat boy Eric (Nick Gregory) sends him and a friend off on a mission to photograph a priest named Zachary Malius. Who is Malius? He's a dude who killed seven pledges 25 years prior, and has been in an insane asylum since. Naturally, Malius escapes the asylum and unleashes vengeance on the college...good job Eric. Your drove of jackasses are the winners! 

As picked by him

Yes, this movie is as bland as they come, adding more evidence to my argument that the 1990's was the worst decade for horror flicks (this one was released in 1992). In the first act, we meet the characters, and none of them are even a little bit interesting--the acting is amateurish at best, which makes this even worse. One, Ned, does look like Kevin Bacon dressed as a creeper for Halloween, so there's that--the actor, Ted Clark, is probably the worst of the bunch, which is really saying something. We also have Henry Collins. This character escaped Malius, and is the father of Sonny and Eric. Why do I bring him up. Believe it or not, in this low budget film you have probably not heard of, he is played by two people you almost certainly have heard of--Darren McGavin...

"He looked like a deranged Easter Bunny, I tell ya!"

... and Sam Rockwell.

"Me? An Academy Award winner?

The shooting and editing are arguably even worse than the acting, complete with hilariously bad slow-motion action. Though unoriginal, at least something started developing at the start of the film, but somewhere in the middle it just comes to a complete halt, and the focus turns to Ned, who, as it turns out, doesn't just look like a creeper, but actually IS one. We find he has hidden cameras set up in various places and uses them to watch naked chicks. This doesn't really add anything at all to the story, and feels very much like they realized there wasn't enough to produce a feature-length film, so they threw in a bunch of nudity to fill the time. One of these scenes (minus any actual nudity) features another pre-stardom familiar face--Jorja Fox.

Who are you? Who who? Who who?

While it is fun seeing some recognizable people, their actual screen time is minimal, so if you're a big fan of Rockwell, Fox, or McGavin, don't get too excited for this. The ending is so cheesy and uninspired you may find yourself laughing. In a movie that offers little else, the death scenes are surprisingly well executed, so not all is lost...they're also not good enough to warrant a recommendation to watch the entire movie. If your thing is seeing stars before they were famous, check out Happy Hell Night for the few minutes you actually see said stars; otherwise, there's no reason to watch this one. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

Happy Hell Night Movie Trailer

FEAR STREET PART TWO: 1978

Fear Street Part 2: 1978 Movie Review

The survivors of Fear Street Part 1 break into the home of C. Berman (Gillian Jacobs), who then tells the tale of her time at Camp Nightwing in, you guessed it, 1978. We flashback to this disco-tastic time and place, where we meet sisters Cindy (Emily Rudd) and Ziggy Berman (Sadie Sink of Stranger Things fame), a young Nick Goode (Ted Sutherland), a bunch of campers and counselors, and a masked maniac killing them--yes, the second movie in the Fear Street trilogy is a not-so-subtle nod to the slasher genre, and more specifically, the Friday the 13th films. 

The fourth Tommy?

C. Berman tells the teens her sister was killed in 1978, so a large part of this movie is trying to figure out which sister survives--this may leave you guessing right up until the end. Clues are dropped along the way, and references to David Bowie will either help or confuse (I personally thought it was a stretch that C named her cat Major Tom when the guy who killed her sister was named Tommy, but I got past it). We also get more of the history of the rivalry between Shadyside and Sunnyvale, and see that little has changed between 1978 and 1994.

Hatred turned up to the max

 The first film started the trilogy off strong, and the second outing kicks it up from there. As I mentioned when reviewing 1994, there wasn't a great deal of 90's nostalgia with that movie, but with 1978, this changes--this movie comes really close to capturing the look and feel of films from that time. The music is what you would expect from the era, and ranges from the aforementioned Bowie to The Runaways to The Velvet Underground to disco. The acting is decent--Sink and Sutherland are likable, McCabe Slye is creepy as Tommy, and Jacqi Vene nails the pot-smoking, free love chick character--Ryan Simpkins is a bit of a struggle as Alice, and the rest of the cast is just sort of there, the result of minimal character development, but certainly acceptable as inevitable victims. The carnage is unrelenting, and some of the death scenes are brutal and graphic. We even have child campers being offed, though they don't go so far as to actually show this happening like they do with the older victims. Without giving away too much of the central plot of the trilogy, we learn how to end the curse in this one, but the final scene (back in 1994) shows this may not be as easy as it seems, and we get a tease of what is to come in the final film. Fear Street Part 2: 1978 does a wonderful job of carrying the story laid out in the first film. It also feels more like a Friday the 13th movie than some of the films from the actual franchise do--even if the movie had nothing else at all going for it, that alone makes it worth watching, but fortunately, there is a lot to like in 1978.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Fear Street Part 2: 1978 Movie Trailer

VARSITY BLOOD

Varsity Blood Movie Review

A group of high school football players and cheerleaders go to a creepy, abandoned house to celebrate Halloween. Once there, they are stalked by a maniac dressed as the school's mascot. If this sounds unoriginal, it's only because it is. This 2014 movie truly brings nothing unique to the table, but does kind of, sort of have a 1980's slasher throwback feel to it at times. Because I am sure you're wondering, before we continue, here's what the aforementioned mascot looks like. 

Jinkies!

After a decent opening, you wait a long time for the next killing--this time is spent with nothing happening except teenage melodrama, complete with mind-numbing dialogue. If you want to get drunk like a high school jock on a Friday night, take a shot every time somebody refers to somebody else as "Babe" during this stretch of time. None of the characters are interesting or even the least bit likable, and are so interchangeable I actually had a hard time remembering which character was which--not that it matters at all. The acting is atrocious, and the worst of them ends up being the killer, which leads to some really dreadful deliveries after he is revealed. Speaking of the reveal...man, that reveal. If you are a fan of the old Scooby-Doo cartoons, you will know what they are doing here. This doesn't really fit the movie at all, and if I actually cared about how this film turned out, I might have been outraged at this scene, but it provided one of the few moments that approached being entertaining. Lots of caffeine and a few decent death scenes will get you through the movie, which teases a sequel at the end...please don't. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 3

Varsity Blood Movie Trailer

FEAR STREET PART ONE: 1994

Fear Street Part 1: 1994 Movie Review

Shadyside has quite a history of violence, tragedy, and bizarre events--the most recent is a slasher killing teens in a mall...and a curse...and a witch...and ghosts...and, well, yeah, there's a lot going on in this Netflix original, but I will try to present it to you with minimal spoilage. The title should tell you two things right off--this is the beginning of a series of films (a trilogy, to be exact), and it's set in 1994...oh, the stories I could tell about 1994...but you are not here for that, and I don't have all week, so let's stay focused on this movie. Fans of R.L. Stine may also recognize the title, and yes, these movies are based on the author's books, but if you are expecting something geared toward the younger audience, you are not quite ready for this flick, as the blood is plenty and the f-bombs are excessive. Coming out of the gate, you will get the overwhelming feeling you have seen all this before--if you think to yourself "this is some odd combination of Scream, Stranger Things, and The Outsiders", know you are not alone. 

Children of the Socs?

This one starts off strong, with a scene that will make even the most cynical of us miss the mallrat days just a bit--the black lights effect in one store is particularly cool. 

Killer

After a promising (albeit heavily borrowed) opening sequence, the movie slows considerably, as we find out about love interests, the early days of the internet and chat rooms (I had no idea of the existence of either in 1994), and the rivalry between Shadyside and Sunnyvale. We also get to hear a lot of cool music from those days (though being a music geek as well as a movie one, I noticed a few songs used had not yet been released in 1994), and meet the main characters--I could have done without Simon (Fred Hechinger), but the rest are fine. If you are wanting that nostalgic feeling for the 1990's that movies such as It brought for the 1980's, you won't get much of it here--between the opening sequence and the showdown at the grocery store near the end, the nods to the time the story is set in are subtle (the band posters and stickers were my personal favorites). Once the murkiness of the plot clears up a bit, the remainder of the movie is a wonderfully fun ride, with slick flashbacks, villains that may remind you of 2001's Thirteen Ghosts, and a few twists. The ride lasts right up until the end, which leaves us eager for the next film--and we don't have to wait long! All three movies are shot, and Part 2 will be released July 8, followed by the third film July 16--and my reviews will appear soon after! 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Fear Street Part 1: 1994 Movie Trailer

THE SHED

The Shed Movie Review

A hunter named Bane (Frank Whaley, Vacancy) is attacked and turned into a vampire. He takes refuge from the sun in a shed on a farm. Teenager Stan (Jay Jay Warren) lives on said farm, and after he discovers the creature, he's not quite sure what to do with it--his best friend, and fellow bullied fella Dommer (Cody Kostro), on the other hand, has an idea. 

"Remember when Henry wanted to get rid of Billie?"

The premise seems cool, though the comparison to the Creepshow segment "The Crate" is glaring. I have always been a fan of Whaley, who I believe to be one of the more underrated actors of his time, but he is terribly underused in this movie--though, until they showed him in vampire form in the shed, I did picture him killing his victims in there with a 1964 Gibson SG. Speaking of acting, most of it in this film is atrocious--making this worse is the lack of any character being even somewhat likable. The dialogue adds to the misery, as it's mind-numbing and lazy. You may think "Ooh, I heard this is set in the 1980's, so that part will be cool!", and you will be disappointed. There are no cell phones, and we see some cassette tapes, but other than that, there's no real 80's feel here--that said, one of the many movie mistakes is seeing cars that came out decades after the 1980's ended. Looking for such mistakes was truly the highlight of this film, and it's enough to keep you going. The vampires look somewhat cool, so a bit of credit has to be given for this as well. This movie just sort of plods along--you don't care what happens to the characters, but curiosity over the vampire in the shed is there. Also there, most unfortunately, is the worst cover of "House of the Rising Sun" I have ever heard. There's nothing original or interesting going on in The Shed, and honestly, there's no reason to spend time with it. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

The Shed Movie Trailer

VAMPIRE IN VEGAS

Vampire in Vegas Movie Review

Sylvian (horror legend Tony Todd) is a three-hundred year old vampire who has hired a genetic scientist (Delia Sheppard) to come up with a cure for his condition. The serum fails, and now vampires are wreaking havoc in, you guessed it, Las Vegas. The movie starts off with shots on and around The Strip in Vegas--as this is one of my favorite cities, I very much enjoyed this opening--unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. 

I stayed in that room once...up there...to the left

Oy, where to even begin? How about here--nothing in this movie borders on being even the least bit scary. Tony Todd seems bored out of his mind, and must have been wondering how his career led him to doing this movie. Despite having Vegas in the title, other than the opening (which I'm certain was stock footage), we don't see the city at all--in fact, much of the feature looks like it was shot on green screen. The CGI is horrendous. The vampires are strippers who look like they may have been plucked from a nearby porno shoot or plastic surgeon's office, and interestingly enough, there's no actual nudity in the film. 

Looks like surgeon's office it is

The acting (using this term is a stretch) is amateurish. The story is dreadful. The directing is uninteresting. The ending, if you can make it that far, is absurd--of course, you won't care by this point. There is a somewhat catchy techno song that plays over the credits--it probably isn't even that good; my excitement for this movie finally being over likely made it sound better than it actually was. If you are a Tony Todd fan, you may be tempted to watch this movie...don't. I am as big a fan as there is, and believe me when I say there's nothing to see here. We know our main man will take on just about any role, but he deserves better than Vampire in Vegas. I did, however, learn one very important lesson here--I'm never again letting my girlfriend pick a movie for me to watch.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 2

Vampire in Vegas Movie Trailer

HIDE AND GO SHRIEK

Hide and Go Shriek Movie Review

A group of high school kids go to a large furniture store, owned by one of their parents, to have a party. Unfortunately, a killer soon arrives, and a bloodbath ensues. I have to admit, before even watching a second of this film, I had already given it at least a star or two for having such a wonderful title. 

"It's totally rad"

On their way to the party, the youths all get out of the van and run around it before getting back in--I know what we called this back in the day, but I'm pretty sure if I say it now, somebody, somewhere will be offended--I'll just rename it the bored white kids with nothing better to do whilst stopped at a red light fire drill. 

I'm not sure they even do this in China

Once the youngsters are all at the store, this movie feels very familiar--if I say "a group of teens partying at a creepy location split up and explore the building", which movie are you picturing? That's rhetorical, but there are probably at least a dozen movies from the 1980's alone that fit this description--not that I'm complaining, as I am a fan of most, if not all, such flicks. One thing that certainly separates this from most is the first teen to go--I obviously won't give it away, but will say it surprised me. The ending is also somewhat of a surprise, but we'll save that for, well, the end. 

Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves!

Aside from a few exceptions, the movie plays out as you expect--there's bad acting (but in that charming 1980's manner), the characters are largely interchangeable, the bodies begin falling as the survivors try to escape the killer...you get the picture. That said, for having such a large cast, the kills are few. The death scenes we do get are decent, and range from happening off screen to a beheading that may or may not have inspired a scene from Final Destination 2. There's not a lot of consistency with the killer--at times he seems to have Powers of Pain level strength, but when we finally see him, he's less Warlord and more Mulkey Brother. The lighting is bad for most of the film, though sometimes it does sort of look like some odd nod to the iris shots of the silent era--when viewed with that in mind, it's much more tolerable. Speaking of lighting, it gets splashed with lots of red in the final third of this movie--combined with the quick, frantic editing, the movie suddenly feels like a throwback to the grindhouse days. This all brings us to the ending, and the reveal of the killer--the surprise here is not so much in who he is, but rather his relationship with another character in the movie. Again, I won't journey off into spoilerville, but this was a movie element you didn't see a lot of in 1980's horror, so much credit must be given for uniqueness. If you measure Hide and Go Shriek in terms of what is traditionally considered to be a "good movie", it will fail--no, this is not a good movie, but all the bizarre individual elements do add up to form a very entertaining film, and one I can't help but to recommend. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Hide and Go Shriek Movie Trailer

CAVEAT

 

Caveat Movie Review

Barrett (Ben Caplan) hires Isaac (Jonathan French), a loner suffering from memory loss, to look after his mentally ill niece, Olga (Leila Sykes), for a week...in an abandoned house...out in the middle of nowhere...and on an island. Let us also add that Isaac has no idea where this island is, he can't swim, and, upon arrival, is told he has to wear a locked jacket with a heavy chain linked to it, and the other end of the chain is connected to the very dark, creepy basement. All of this adds up to my main issue with this movie--who would agree to keep this job? He is not forced into this in any way. We are also not told of any critical need for money Isaac may have. So why go through with this insane plan? 

"I had nothing better to do"

This 2020 film comes to us from Ireland, and is a Shudder Original, so head over there if you want to check it out...after reading this, of course. The film starts off well, with Olga creepily walking around the house, holding the most terrifying looking rabbit I've ever laid eyes on. 

She's seen enough of him

After a rough time getting Isaac in place for the rest of the story, the movie gets far more interesting. This is not a loud, in your face slasher type flick, but rather much more like a Japanese ghost story movie--a slow burn, with visually disturbing moments and an unnerving atmosphere. This is a three characters show, and to their credit, all three of these performers do a nice job--with less talented actors, this could have been a disaster. The final third of the movie brings plenty of suspense, a little blood, and some twists and turns, leading to an ending I suspect most will either love or hate--I lean toward the former. This film could have bordered on being outstanding had we been given a better reason for Isaac to accept this job (not to spoil anything, but near the end, we find even more reasons why he should have turned the money down)--as it is, Caveat is still a chilling horror movie that is certainly worth checking out. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Caveat Movie Trailer

LIFEFORCE

 

Lifeforce Movie Review

A spacecraft in charge of observing Halley's Comet comes across three human-looking space vampires...yes, you read that right. The creatures are brought to Earth, and, of course, chaos ensues. Meanwhile, Col. Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback) seems to be falling for the female vampire, credited simply as "Space Girl" (Mathilda May)--she spends much of the first thirty minutes of the movie walking around naked and killing people.

This is all you're getting here

This 1985 film, directed by Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre), was a disaster in just about every way possible upon release--it bombed in the box office, was panned by critics, and chopped up by editors. The movie can now be found in the form it was intended to be, but wow, is it ever a bizarre ride. I've really just kind of scratched the surface of the story, but that could be because I'm trying to make sense of the senseless--in fact, don't even bother trying to follow what is going on--just enjoy this movie for what it is. This flick really has it all--the good, the bad, and the so bad it's good, and this starts with the special effects. When they are good, they are fantastic, especially the practical effects. 

Vampire zombie thing

On the flip side, we have the bad...and it's really, really bad.

Outer space discothèque

The acting is much the same, and Railsback is so over the top at times you wonder if what you are seeing is amateur hour or absolute brilliance. There are scenes near the end that, for a few seconds, look like Ghostbusters slipped into some strange parallel universe. There is a fair amount of blood, and Patrick Stewart of X-Men fame even pops in for a little bit. The movie was based on a book titled The Space Vampires, and I don't have any idea how closely it follows said book, but at almost two hours (the uncut version I watched), the movie runs long. This all leads to an ending that is as baffling as the rest of the film. The world was not quite ready for Lifeforce when it was released in 1985...in fact, it probably still isn't ready for it. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 6

Lifeforce Movie Trailer

THE AMUSEMENT PARK

The Amusement Park Movie Review

An old man walks into an all-white room and asks another old man there if he would like to go outside--no, this isn't the start of a joke, but is the beginning of The Amusement Park (well, kind of. It actually begins with another old man telling the viewer what they are about to see). Anyway, the old man who was already in the room appears disheveled, and warns the much more optimistic elderly man against going outside. The other guy ignores him, and steps back out the door, and right into an amusement park. This movie from 1973 is about as unusual as it gets--it was commissioned as an educational video about age discrimination, but was directed and edited by George A. Romero...yes, THAT George A. Romero...so it turned out a bit more disturbing than was wanted, and was shelved. This was assumed to be lost entirely until, in 2017, a 16MM print was discovered. This was restored, and voila! The movie lives once more for the entire world to enjoy.

Enjoy is maybe not the correct term

The overall message of this film is that getting old sucks--I think most of us knew that already, but the levels of absolute hell we see the senior citizens in this film endure are gut-wrenching. Symbolism is the name of the game here--there's not much blood at all, and no gore, but my goodness, is this movie terrifying. The amusement park setting is fun, and the juxtaposition of that being the backdrop to the very real world problems presented in this feature is beyond surreal. More than anything, the movie is depressing--we see the old folks being treated poorly, but as I watched, an even more depressing thought entered my mind--everybody in this film, even the very youngest, are either dead, senior citizens themselves now, or at least well into their fifties and about to face the same problems our main character here deals with. If that thought wasn't depressing enough, another one popped in there --senior citizens today are probably treated even worse than they were almost fifty years ago. All this said, this flick, which is under an hour long, is worth checking out for the stylistic merits alone--it's not a traditional horror, but is unquestionably horrific.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

The Amusement Park Movie Trailer