HELLRAISER (2022)

 

Hellraiser Movie Review

Because we know Hollywood has limited ideas these days, Hulu brings the world yet another horror remake few asked for: Hellraiser. A brief history--in 1987, Hellraiser, a film written and directed by Clive Barker, and based on Barker's own novella, The Hellbound Heart, was released, and it kind of took the horror world by storm. The movie was a standout during a time that saw horror movies beginning to decline, and its lead character, Pinhead, became an icon in the genre. Two really good sequels, Hellbound: Hellraiser II and Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, followed. In a perfect world, this is when the franchise would have died, but as horror fans, we know better. Seven more sequels followed, and none were any good, but we knew it was only a matter of time before they rebooted the whole thing. So here we are...Hellraiser being remade, and titled Hellraiser once more. 

It makes me want to cry too!

Riley (Odessa A’zion) is a drug addict living with her brother, Matt (Brandon Flynn), who decides he's had enough of her and throws her out. Feeling guilty, he goes looking for her and disappears after coming in contact with a mysterious puzzle box, which Riley and her boyfriend had stolen. Hellraiser fans will recognize the box, of course, and Riley, her dude, her brother's dude, and the other roommate (not a dude) go on the hunt for Matt. Riley is as annoying as any lead character I can recall, and, unfortunately, that sinks the movie right out of the gate. We can rely on the cenobites to help out, of course, but it takes a painfully long time for them to appear. Speaking of painfully long, this movie clocks in at over two hours, and there's not nearly enough interesting stuff happening to keep you hooked that long.

"Speak for yourself!"

The cenobites take on a much different look than we're used to, with some good and some bad. Generally speaking, I'm a fan of what they did with the faces, and less so of what was done with the bodies. I very much prefer the look from the original films, and think the flesh/muscle suits look a little hokey--that said, the look does work well on one or two of the cenobites. One character in particular it doesn't work well on is our feature star, Pinhead.

AKA The Priest, or Hell Priest...whatever your pleasure

If you haven't seen the movie yet, you may be wondering what the remaining cenobites look like, so here goes...

Masque

The Gasp

The Asphyx

Chatterer

The Weeper

The Mother

There's one more, but that one's kind of a spoiler, so I'll say no more. Overall, I was surprisingly satisfied with the cenobites--I wish the kills felt more like they did in the original films, but that's a mild complaint. As is common with remakes/reboots, there were several nods to the original films, and a few made me grin. The look inside Leviathan, a reminder of Hellraiser II, was especially cool. There's a nifty little twist near the end, and the final scene is also rather memorable. This remake of Hellraiser is frustrating--there's so much to like about it, but so much else weighing it down. Having a lead character who is so unlikable, who puts everybody in danger, and who does nothing really to redeem herself is bad--trying to make her into some sort of hero in the end is unbelievable and predictable. The acting was lacking across the board. The story was fair, but certainly not enough to justify 121 minutes. This movie is probably better than most of the original's sequels that came out after Hell on Earth--this statement, however, does not put it in any elite category. 

On A Scale Of One to Ten: 5

Hellraiser (2022) Movie Trailer

SCREAM 5

 

Scream 5 Movie Review

Ghostface is wreaking havoc on the small town of Woodsboro...again. First, the title--this was billed as a relaunch of the franchise, so they titled it Scream, but it's a direct sequel to the fourth movie, and also falls in line with the rest of the franchise, so it will henceforth always be referred to (by me anyway) as Scream 5. At one point, the film itself actually makes light of all this by referencing the movie within a movie, Stab, which is up to its eighth installment. With that out of the way, let's take a closer look at the first film in the franchise to, sadly, not be directed by horror legend Wes Craven. 

It looks familiar already

In this one, we start off with teen Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega of Insidious: Chapter 2) being attacked by somebody wearing the familiar Halloween costume. She actually survives, and we meet her sister, Sam (Melissa Barrera), and a group of friends, all more or less based on, and related in some way to, characters we have already seen in the franchise. Familiar faces Dewey (David Arquette), Gale (Courteney Cox), and Sidney (Neve Campbell) join the battle and really put in perspective just how old the original Scream movie is now. Just as in the films before it, this one is very self-aware, and is so much so it's actually somewhat detrimental. Just like in the previous films, there's some humor, but it's seldom actually funny in this one. Just as in the other films--actually, I could go on and on about this, but let me instead get to the point--part five has a real lack of original ideas. With the exception of visions of an actual ghost... 

"Seriously?"

…there's really nothing new brought to the table with the fifth film. The story is dull, the characters are largely irritating, the writing/dialogue lazy, and, probably worst of all, the identities of the killers (don't look at me like that--you knew there would be two) are disappointing--one you see coming a mile away, and the second was arguably the least important character in the movie until the reveal. 

"That's just hurtful"

Not all is bad though. The gore is plenty--some of the scenes are surprisingly graphic, and the practical effects are impressive (the CGI used in other scenes, well, less so). Ortega is fantastic as Tara. The Dewey/Gale stuff is scaled way back, which certainly helps. We get voiceover cameos from some of the stars of the original film--have those ears out for Drew Barrymore, Henry Winkler, and, yes, Matthew Lillard. The back and forth regarding the battle of the classic slasher versus so-called elevated horror is amusing. Most unfortunately, the ending is disappointing, with far too many survivors. 

"We have failed you"

I decided to skip seeing this in the theater, and I'm happy I did--instead, I used a code to get a free DVD rental from the local Redbox.

Yes, that's still a thing

I'm happy that all watching this mess cost me was the gasoline it took to get to the box (though, at these gas prices, I may have been better off going to the AMC). Scream 5 may be the worst of the franchise--yes, I know Scream 3 wasn't great either, but at least that one had the always awesome Parker Posey. A sixth movie has already been announced, and is set to be released in 2023. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Scream 5 Movie Trailer

SLASHER (Season One)

Slasher Season One Review

It's Halloween 1988, and a maniac enters a couple's home, murders them, and removes the baby from the wife's body. Fast forward to present time, and the baby, Sarah (Katie McGrath), is grown, and with her husband Dylan (Brandon Jay McLaren), purchases and moves into the house where her parents were killed--because that sounds like a wonderful idea. No word on where Sarah was for thirty years, but judging by her accent, I'd say she spent some time in Ireland. 

"Why would you say...oh"

Slasher was a series on the now-defunct Chiller...

Anybody else remember, and miss, this?

..and in 2016, this is the season that kicked it all off. The series ran four seasons, with each season consisting of eight episodes. This first season was titled The Executioner, and it doesn't take long to learn why. With Sarah's return to Waterbury (before you start watching, I'll save you the time--it's a fictional place in Canada), there also comes another wave of the murders, with the killer dressing identically to the original killer--this is no spoiler, as we learn early the original killer is in prison. As the executions continue, Sarah visits her parents' killer, Tom Winston (Patrick Garrow), in prison, seeking advice on how to capture the new assassin. This all very much has a Silence of the Lambs vibe to it, which brings me to the primary drawback of this season--so much of what is happening feels stolen from established films. Another glaring example of this is the killer bases his (or her?) murders on the seven deadly sins.

"Sounds familiar"

We see that immoral acts have taken place for decades in the small town, and it seems nobody is innocent. There is a decent story underneath it all, and several twists and turns are added along the way to attempt to justify eight episodes. Had they cut away some of the subplots and shortened this down to four episodes it would have been much stronger...or, if you were going to have so many subplots, fill in the gaps for all (what did Robin ever do about that huge debt?). Much of the acting leaves plenty to be desired, as the cast is certainly a case of taking the bad with the good. These setbacks aside, there is plenty to enjoy as well. This is a horror series, and when you have a killer wearing some sort of mask and/or costume, you want it to look cool, and this one looks...

Killer

There is a good amount of blood and guts for the gorehounds out there, and it's fun trying to figure out who the killer is (my girlfriend called it four episodes in). Some of the death scenes are unique, and the small town setting and scenery are visually pleasing. This is the only season I've watched at this time, but I have read the series was similar to American Horror Story in that several actors appear throughout as different characters--unfortunately, The Executioner, while fun at times, doesn't give the viewer the excitement of looking forward to the next season.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Slasher Season One Trailer

THE INVISIBLE MAN (2020)

The Invisible Man Movie Review

A few years back, Universal announced their plan to create what they termed "Dark Universe", a collection of remakes of the classic Universal horror films. They had planned out which films would open in which order, had allegedly signed many stars to be in the movies, and they kicked it all off in 2017 with The Mummy, a Tom Cruise action flick that was bashed by critics and bombed at the box office. The film dropped hints at movies that were to follow, but after what they deemed a failure to launch, Universal scrapped the whole Dark Universe idea of tying all the films together, and decided to take a less ambitious approach--no more A-list stars, and no more $125,000,000 budget. For their remake of The Invisible Man, they turned to the masters of low-budget, big screen horror films, (Blumhouse Productions), a director and writer with a swell writing resume (Leigh Whannell, Saw, Insidious), and a star who, while no household name (yet), has turned a lot of heads the past few years (Elisabeth Moss of The Handmaid's Tale). What could they do with a budget of "just" seven million dollars, or roughly 5.6 percent that of The Mummy?

"Choose your words wisely"

I'll get this out of the way now--this movie is far different from the 1933 film it is a remake of. If you have seen the original, you know the movie surrounds Dr. Jack Griffin, played wonderfully by Claude Rains. The remake is less about the actual invisible man and more about Cecilia Kass (Moss), the woman he is tormenting. Also, Jack becomes Adrian here--remember when I mentioned the stars Universal had in place for these movies? Johnny Depp was originally set to play Griffin, but he was replaced by relative unknown Oliver Jackson-Cohen, who may as well have been a cardboard cutout in his scenes--he really is that stiff, and the world will have to settle for wondering what could have been had Depp remained a part of the project. Moss, on the other hand, is wickedly good as the woman slowly falling into madness. The writing and directing are slick, and the visual effects are...different, but they work. At just over two hours, the movie feels a bit too long--cutting some of the scenes of Kass and her new housing near the start would have helped tremendously, but once the movie gets going, it maintains its suspense throughout. The ending, while not on the level of some of the other stuff Whannell has given us, is quite memorable and executed well. I'm going to be honest--when I saw the cast and the trailer for this film, I had no interest, but having checked it out, I will admit to being pleasantly surprised. 

"That's acceptable" 

On June 15, 2017, I wrote about Dark Universe. In that piece, I shared my thoughts on how I believed Universal should approach the remakes: "First and foremost, and this may seem obvious, but MAKE THE MOVIES DARK! Bypass the action adventure feel and the cheesy one-liners you gave us in The Mummy and go back to what the original films were: scary!" I added: "Finally, and possibly most importantly, I would forget the huge budget and especially the CGI. Have the guts and originality to make these movies without the crutch of CGI....Put these movies together the way they were meant to be, and you will not only win over the love of the millions of people who grew up watching the original films, but you will also pull in the people tired of watching overblown CGI-ridden snoozefests--plus you will save tons of money, enabling the profits to be much greater." As I mentioned, the 2020 remake of The Invisible Man was made for seven million dollars. To date, they have grossed over one hundred thirty million worldwide. Universal...when should I be expecting my check in the mail?

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

The Invisible Man Movie Trailer

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D

Night of the Living Dead 3D Movie Review

When the dead come back to life, a group of people find themselves held up in a country house as they try to survive. This is another remake of sorts of the George A Romero classic, but if you are thinking “Hey, another awesome remake, like the 1990 one”, you are oh so wrong. Not that this is a terrible movie--it's just very different. Before I get into what I mean by that, I'll start off with what will likely catch your attention when you see the cover of the movie--the legend himself, Sid Haig (House of 1,000 Corpses), does indeed star in this movie, and his performance is every bit as wonderful as you would expect.

"Thanks Josh!"

The rest of the performances are what you would expect from a movie that likely saw a majority of its budget go into the 3D presentation--I'll say nothing about that, as I didn't see the movie in that format, but in 2D, it is painfully obvious a lot of what we see was done just for the 3D effect. The film lacks any real direction, as it seemingly can't figure out where to go. We start off with a shot of the original Night of the Living Dead being shown on a television, then move to a road that looks similar to the one in the original film--much like in the Romero classic, we see siblings heading to a cemetery, so we think this will indeed be like the 1990 movie--a direct remake. When we see what unfolds in the cemetery, it becomes clear that is not the case. For the remainder of the film, we see some scenes that are similar to those in the original film, some characters with the same names and other references to the 1968 movie--we also see the people in the house watching Night of the Living Dead on television--one guy, who is already dead, by the way, points out the similarities of the movie and what is happening in real life...yes, it's a mess. The zombies look horrible, but there is something about the makeup that will make you smile. There's a bit of gore and Haig there to help you make it through this movie, but not a whole lot more. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Night of the Living Dead 3D Movie Trailer

HOUSE OF WAX

House of Wax Movie Review

When Professor Henry Jarrod (horror legend Vincent Price) refuses to make his wax museum appeal to the macabre, his business partner burns the museum down, severely injuring Jarrod in the process. Partnering with a new sculptor named Igor (future action star Charles Bronson) and an assistant named Leon (Nedrick Young), Jarrod rebuilds, and this time, the wax figures are even more human than the previous ones. House of Wax is considered one of Price's finest works, is a remake of the 1933 film Mystery of the Wax Museum, and made an absolute ton of money for Warner Brothers upon its release, as well as in the years to come. It was also released in 3-D and in color, which was rare for its time--needless to say, there is a lot of stuff in here done for no other real purpose than to make those in the theatre believe something was flying toward them.

Hide the popcorn

There is a lot going on in this movie, and the pace is fantastic. Price is wonderful in this film, but that should surprise nobody. Some of the rest of the acting is a struggle, but there is nothing offensively bad here. The story itself is a very interesting one, and will certainly pull you in. Some of the visuals are stunning, from the detail of the wax figures to the shock of them melting to the horrific look of the menace killing the locals. 

A phantom of another sort

This movie would have benefitted from more likable heroes--as it is, not much effort is made to make us care a lot about them. The ending is a bit intense, but ultimately a letdown, and the final scene is a bit too absurd. Even with this, House of Wax is an enjoyable film, and it's easy to understand why it is considered a classic and is held in such high regard.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

House of Wax Movie Trailer

GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS (From The Theatre)

Godzilla: King of the Monsters Movie Review

Giant monsters—some evil, some not—are unleashed and do battle around the world. That is the part of this story that attracts fans of the genre, so really, not much else is needed, but we do get much more in this 2019 big screen blockbuster. The plot revolves around the idea of a group of radicals wanting to unleash all the giants monsters that have been hiding out underground so they can eliminate humanity and take the planet back. Of course, we have the good guys fighting this idea, and they enlist the help of Godzilla to stop the other monsters (or Titans, as they are called here), namely King Ghidorah (aka Monster Zero), the three headed terror we all know and love. If that level of awesomeness isn’t enough, we also have Mothra and Rodan in this one, rounding out the fearsome foursome from the original Toho films.

Rodan

Mothra

Ghidorah

Godzilla

This being an American film in the year 2019, we know the monsters will not be guys in rubber suits anymore, which kind of makes me sad—I am not a fan of CGI at all, but I have to admit, they did an incredible job with the monsters here. They are all terrifying, and all hold true to the originals while adding some extra coolness. I was a bit apprehensive about how they would look, but I was truly impressed by all of them. Literally the only change I would have made about any of them would have been giving Godzilla a longer neck to look more like the traditional monster, but otherwise, they all look amazing. There were times during this movie--especially when some of the monsters were first revealed--that I was so happy and excited I almost jumped out of my seat. I wondered if we would see the Shobijin, Mothra's twin fairies-- we don't, but the small beauties are at least hinted at--Dr. Chen (Ziyi Zhang) tells the story of Mothra and shows a photo of twins from a picture titled "Infant Island, 1961"--I had told myself that Chen was as close to the twins as we would get in this film, but I really smiled when Zhang appears again as Dr. Ling, seriously hinting at Ling being Chen's twin sister. Speaking of the acting, it is actually, for the most part, pretty good in this movie, and you will recognize several people--Vera Farmiga (The Conjuring, Orphan) and Millie Bobby Brown (Stranger Things) play mother and daughter Russell and both turn in the performances you would expect from them. Ken Watanabe (Inception) and Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water) return from Godzilla, and Bradley Whitford (The Cabin In The Woods) and Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) are added, so there is no lack of good acting in this movie; on the flip side, Kyle Chandler as Mark, the father/husband in the Russell family, is awful. A performance such as the one he turned in is bad enough on its own, but it really sticks out when surrounded by so much better acting. This can, however, be overlooked, as we don't really watch these movies for the acting--when it is good, it's just an added bonus. Adding another layer to this film is the plot itself--it calls into question who should be the dominant force on this planet, and if humans are the worst thing to happen to Earth--I know where my vote lies.

I'd snap at least twice

I cannot say enough how much I loved this movie. As I mentioned, I did see this in the theatre, so if it's still playing as you're reading this, I recommend watching it on the big screen--it's worth the extra money to do so. I was excited when I read fellow Columbus, Ohio native Michael Dougherty (Trick 'r Treat) was writing and directing this film, and the excitement was well founded. Dougherty pulled off something that is not easy to do when tampering with old favorites--he stayed true to the original films and brought elements of what we loved from them while adding new wrinkles to the story, combining everything perfectly. Godzilla: King of the Monsters could have used a better actor in the role of Mark, and I would have loved to have seen more cities destroyed, but just about everything else about this film is spectacular. In case you're wondering, yes, King Kong and Skull Island are both mentioned in this movie, and the post-credits scene hints at what we may see in next year's Godzilla vs. Kong--I can't wait.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 9

Godzilla: King of the Monsters Movie Trailer

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010)

I Spit On Your Grave 2010 Movie Review

After being brutalized by a group of rednecks, writer Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) seeks her revenge. I was hesitant to see this remake of the 1978 film of the same name, as I figured it would not come close to the brutality and despair of the original—I was wrong. This movie, from the initial torture of Jennifer to her revenge, is absolutely unrelenting. Butler does a really good job as Jennifer, both as the victim and especially as the predator later. The acting of the rednecks is not quite as good, and it is really weird seeing Daniel Franzese of Mean Girls fame play this type character. The writing of the redneck characters is so good that you really come to hate them and cheer when they meet their demise. Unlike in the original, Jennifer uses a more sneak attack method here, but the results are just as good. The revenge deaths are interesting and graphic—a Saw comparison would be a fair one. 

Eye see what you mean

One thing this movie is missing that the original had is the grindhouse feel. Considering this film was never intended for a mass theatrical release, it would have benefited from this style of shooting. At times, this feels almost like a step by step remake of the original movie, with the names even remaining the same, but there is plenty of difference offered up here as well. This is not a movie for everybody—some of it is really hard to watch, and I may never watch it again myself. Still, it is a movie that is far better than I expected, and I would say it is a slight bit better than the grindhouse/sexploitation classic that inspired it.. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

I Spit On Your Grave 2010 Movie Trailer

DEADLY INSTINCTS (aka Breeders) 1997

Deadly Instincts (Breeders) Movie Review

A meteorite crashes, and the alien riding on it must breed with humans to keep its species alive—lucky for him, he crashes right near an all girls school, and is soon living below it. It will not take long to realize you are watching a bad movie here—the plot is absurd, the acting is bad, the dialogue is laughable, and, if drinking is your thing, take a shot every time you hear an actor slip in and out of their accent (a largely English cast in a movie set in Boston). All this said, this film is SO bad there is an unexpected entertainment value that will keep you going. There is also a space girl, appropriately named Space Girl (model Kadamba Simmons), who could be good, could be bad, but she keeps popping up throughout the movie, and is really the only somewhat interesting character in the film.

Simmons

Upon researching Simmons, I found she was murdered by a psychotic ex-boyfriend not long after doing this movie. While certainly not a master of the art of acting, it is not a stretch to imagine Simmons having a long career as a model and B-movie scream queen--she certainly had the look for it. Back to the movie---the heroes turn out to be a teacher (Todd Jensen of Wrong Turn 3: Left For Dead) and the student he is having post-class affairs with (Samantha Janus, aka Samantha Womack, a fairly well-known English television actress)--somehow every woman in the school looks at Jensen as if he were the world's sexiest man--apparently they don't get out much. We get a lot of unnecessary scenes involving our couple, some gratuitous nudity, and, very occasionally, a look at the alien--he's not as impressive as he is on the cover of the movie. 

This happens too

None of this really adds up or makes much sense, but it all leads to an ending that is as disjointed and bizarrely entertaining as the rest of the movie. Also of note, this is a remake of the 1986 movie Breeders--maybe I will track that one down some time. Speaking of the name, this film is actually known as Breeders in most of the world, including its original release--in fact, it was only changed to Deadly Instincts for the German television release, but kept that name when released on DVD via an Echo Bridge 5 movie collection titled...wait for it...5 Horror Movies--yes, I own this. Deadly Instincts is in no way, shape, or form a good horror film, but it has just enough of the strange and inept charm to make it worth watching.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Deadly Instincts (Breeders) Movie Trailer

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990)

Night of the Living Dead Movie Review

Back in 1968, George A. Romero directed one of the all-time great horror films, Night of the Living Dead. The film was ground-breaking, putting zombie movies at the forefront and creating the blueprint for the genre that has been followed since. In 1989, a group of movie people decided to remake this classic, and brought in special effects wizard Tom Savini to direct, making this his feature film directorial debut. They also brought in relative unknown, but soon to be horror icon, Tony Todd (Final Destination, Candyman) to play Ben, the lead character...and it worked. Released in 1990, this film was one that was seemingly on cable channels all the time by the mid 1990s--during the decade of the nineties, I must have watched this movie about a hundred times. This version was much more accessible at the time than the original, making many think of THIS movie, not the original, when they heard Night of the Living Dead--and that is not as tragic as it initially sounds. 

"Wait...what did you just say?"

Seeing Todd as a sympathetic hero is kind of weird, but he pulls it off well. Patricia Tallman is memorable as Barbara--the performance isn't great, but something about it will leave an impression. Tom Towles (House of 1000 Corpses) really steals the show as Cooper, the villain you will want to reach through the television and choke. Towles truly makes you hate this character. The rest of the cast is hit or miss, with some of the acting bordering on unbearable, though Heather Mazur is creepy in her brief appearance as Zombie Sarah, pictured above. Savini and company pretty much stick to what we know from the original film, with more gore, and with the moral of the story intact, albeit more in your face. Imagine a world where rednecks are running things...I shudder to think. Is this movie as good as the original? Of course not. Is it a really, really good remake? Yes...yes it is. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 7

Night of the Living Dead Movie Trailer

CABIN FEVER (2016)

Cabin Fever (2016) Movie Review

Practically the exact same movie as the original 2002 film of the same name, this one features less talented actors, less effective shots, and less overall creepiness. I'm not sure what the demand was for a remake of the original Eli Roth film, but somebody thought it would be a good idea.

"Why would anybody do that?!"

To paraphrase my girlfriend: This movie contained "no horror elements except maybe the dog", it was "like an episode of Monsters Inside Me", the twist was "stupid, because they kept showing us it was in the water the whole movie", and she asked "Were we supposed to be scared of the hillbillies?", adding "If so, I wasn't. They weren't scary at all." This all began when we were discussing lists of movies we were disappointed in, and turned to the worst movies we have seen recently--she named Cabin Fever as the worst horror movie she has seen in a while--I wouldn't go that far, but she skips most of the stuff I watch. That said, this one isn't exactly near the top of my list of best movies I've seen lately either. Watch the original, and skip this one.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

Cabin Fever (2016) Movie Trailer

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Movie Review

A group of friends on their way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert seek help from the sheriff (R. Lee Ermey) of a small town after a hitchhiker they picked up kills herself—unfortunately for them, the sheriff is also the patriarch of a family of killers and lunatics. This 2003 version of the 1974 classic still stands out to me as one of the best horror movie remakes of the 21st Century. Because this movie is so different than the original, I will keep the comparisons to the original to a minimum here—I will say this outing is a lot bloodier than the original, not as scary, and much more slick—to that point, when you watch this movie, you have to understand two things: the original was a low-budget grindhouse film with no expectations of achieving any sort of huge commercial success (much less becoming the iconic film it is today), while the 2003 version had a much larger budget and was created for mainstream popularity and acceptance. It is important to keep that in mind while watching this movie, or, if you saw this one before the original, keep that in mind while viewing the 1974 film. Anyway, some of the more ominous themes of the original film are dropped here, but that doesn’t necessarily make this version any less intense. The actors do a decent job, and director Marcus Nispel and cinematographer Daniel Pearl do a fine job making us believe the events of this film are actually happening in 1973. Another nice touch to the film is bringing John Larroquette back to narrate the film, as he had done the original. The story itself, of course, is a disturbing one, and some of the scenes are likely to leave you feeling a bit uneasy.

This scene certainly ruffled some feathers

`

We know from the beginning which of the friends will be the one to make it to the end, so no surprises there, but after such a strong build up, the climax of the film feels a bit disappointing—still, the 2003 edition of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a very enjoyable horror flick that, for better or worse, kicked off the trend of remaking classic horror movies that continues 14 years later.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 8

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Movie Trailer

THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN (2014)

The Town That Dreaded Sundown Movie Review

In 1976 a movie titled The Town That Dreaded Sundown was made--this film was based on actual events, specifically a 1946 killing spree dubbed "The Texarkana Moonlight Murders". That is a fairly terrifying film that I will one day get around to reviewing--the 2014 The Town That Dreaded Sundown is some sort of strange hybrid of remake and sequel. We start this film with a scene of people in Texarkana gathered at a drive in theatre to see the original The Town That Dreaded Sundown on Halloween night--this is a take on a real life event wherein the city of Texarkana shows the 1976 film every year around Halloween. So we establish right from the get go that the 1976 film was just that--a film. However, the 1946 killings were very real, and now the killer appears to be back to wreak havoc on the town in 2013. The killings are practically identical to the ones from the 1976 film, which were similar (but not really) to the real life murders.

Don't think too hard about it

We see early that this film delivers in the gore, and that's done very well here. The cast is pretty likable--for the most part they don't hit us with the usually horror cliché characters, except the pastor, who is of course a lunatic (and played wonderfully by Edward Herrmann of The Lost Boys in one of his final film appearances). The direction and editing of this film leave a lot to be desired--it is so jumpy and distorted that it unintentionally ads a comedic element that feels way out of place in this film. The movie is actually fairly enjoyable and will keep you interested...until the reveal at the end takes absolutely all the air out of the balloon. A movie that feels so plausible should never deliver such an impossible ending, but alas, The Town That Dreaded Sundown does just that.

They should have gone with the ending from this one

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

The Town That Dreaded Sundown Movie Trailer