HALLOWEEN ENDS

 

Halloween Ends Movie Review

Halloween Ends starts with a babysitter named Corey watching a brat named Jeremy. The child falls to his death, and Corey may or may not have been the cause. Fast forward a few years, and Haddonfield, still trying to recover from the latest Michael Myers spree, gears up for Halloween. Before I continue, I will warn, there will be spoilers...let me repeat...

THERE

WILL

BE

SPOILERS

If you're a fan of the Halloween franchise, you're probably familiar with the many timelines--if you're not, I'm going to simplify it and only focus on what matters for this film. The original Halloween movie came out in 1978. In 2018, we got Halloween, a direct sequel to the 1978 film (why they titled this one Halloween instead of Halloween Part 2, or Halloween II, or something similar, is beyond me). In 2021, we saw the sequel to that movie (the third film in this timeline), Halloween Kills. This brings us here, to the fourth and (alleged) final Halloween film--at least in this timeline, but we know it's only a matter of time before a reboot of some sort comes along. 

"This contract clearly states I'm done after this"

If you're a fan of--or have at least seen--most of the Halloween films, and you dislike Halloween III: Season of the Witch strictly because Michael isn't in it, you may end up throwing things at your television while watching this movie. While it's not the case that Michael is completely out of the movie, it's no stretch to say he's replaced--if you want to be kind, we'll say he gets a tag team partner.

Tag me in!

You will likely see it coming in the movie, but here's a spoiler warning for this review as well--Corey goes a little mad and becomes the aforementioned partner after an odd encounter that sees Michael drag Corey into a drainage pipe, grab his throat, and then...not kill him. Why? Who knows. But Corey sees the evil, and it possesses him...I guess? As for Corey, Stephen King fans (and John Carpenter fans, for that matter) will immediately recognize the blatant ripoff off of nod to the character Arnie from Christine. 

He's only missing the tape on the glasses

Even more than the look, the development/unraveling of Corey is almost parallel to Arnie--that said, Rohan Campbell did a wonderful job with the character, turning in the movie's best performance. The kills are down significantly from the previous film, and Michael's are down even more. A major complaint with the previous film was it felt more Friday the 13th and less Halloween--this movie kind of felt like neither, but the deaths we do see are gruesome for sure. As has been the trend, there are more nods to the previous films than you can shake a butcher knife at. The are few actual scares, but maybe a surprise or two thrown in. The movie is terribly long--this is a 90 minute flick at best, yet it pushes nearly two hours. After sitting through watching somebody else kill the folks of Haddonfield (and that doesn't even really start until almost an hour in), we finally get Michael vs Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), and to say the ending is underwhelming is an understatement. 

I think even his mask has grown grey hairs

Halloween Ends is as dull and soulless as the two movies that preceded it. We are a culture that is hungry for nostalgia, and there is no shortage of companies looking to cash in on that. But, to quote The Wedding Singer (which I can't believe I'm about to do on this site), "I grew up idolizing guys like Fonzie and Vinnie Barbarino... Do you know what happened to Fonzie and Vinnie Barbarino?... Their shows got cancelled because no one wants to see a 50-year-old guy hitting on chicks." The context here is slightly different than in that movie, but the general idea is similar--perhaps the reason these three movies never should have been made in the first place is because none of us should have ever reached for that nostalgia and wanted to see elderly Laurie fighting elderly Michael. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Halloween Ends Movie Trailer

SWEET SIXTEEN (AKA SWEET 16)

Sweet Sixteen Movie Review

Just shy of her sixteenth birthday, Melissa Morgan (Aleisa Shirley) arrives in a small town. Soon after, a series of murders begin taking place. Could the mysterious Melissa be behind them? That's the premise of this low budget 1983 film that has a bit more whodunit than the average slasher. In fact, the movie may attempt to go too deep for a slasher, especially one from this time period. We meet a slew of characters, have a few subplots, a red herring or two--of course, we still have what you likely came for, which is the blood. Though the deaths are fairly high, the scenes are rather tame, so those looking for a lot of gore may be disappointed. There's also plenty of the other 1980s horror staple, nudity, thrown in.

Don't look so surprised

The acting from the primary characters is surprisingly decent--the minor characters, on the other hand, are rough. The rednecks taunting and harassing the...who knows what the politically correct name will be at the time you are reading this, so I'll just say the...not white person subplot had already been done a million times in movies by the time this one came out, but all the actors involved did a good job and it actually tied nicely into the ending--plus, it's always fun seeing racists get their comeuppance. The twists and turns at the end are a bit much, and the slow motion absolutely kills the climax of the film. There's nothing terrific about Sweet Sixteen, but there's nothing terrible about it either--it's a perfectly average horror movie. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Sweet Sixteen Movie Trailer

TRICK OR TREATS

 

Trick or Treats Movie Review

Several years after being admitted to an insane asylum, Malcolm O'Keefe (Peter Jason) escapes, vowing revenge on his ex-wife, Joan (Carrie Snodgrass), for having him committed. What he doesn't know, however, is that Joan is out on the town, and the house is occupied by Linda (Jackelyn Giroux), who is babysitting Christopher (Chris Graver), a brat of a child who continuously pulls tricks on her and reminds me why I never wanted kids. He's irritating, but is he the most annoying child in horror history?

Nope

Dubbed a slasher, this flick has very little actually happening. We see the kid tricking Linda repeatedly (how she kept falling for his nonsense is anybody's guess) and Malcolm escaping the asylum in drag--there's a repeated gag about guys mistaking him for a woman--it's not funny the first time...or any time after that. In fact, the film attempts comedy several times, and never quite hits. One could argue it borders on being a parody of the horror genre--the best example of this is when two women are editing a horror movie, providing the most entertaining and interesting part of Trick or Treats. After what seems an eternity, Malcolm arrives at the home, and we have our first death scene--70 minutes into the film. From there, it's Linda trying to avoid Malcolm, until the killer meets his fate in a most ridiculous manner. 

Watch your step

The acting is bad, but honestly, they didn't have a lot to work with. David Carradine (Q: The Winged Serpent), who I'm convinced would take on any role to make a buck, shows up long enough to establish Joan has remarried...and to sexually harass the babysitter. The story was dull and made little sense--the fact that Malcolm has no contact with Joan after his escape is mindboggling. The final 20 minutes bring the movie up somewhat, but practically everything that happens before it (save for the editing scene) is a test of patience. If nothing else, Trick or Treats proves that not all 1980s horror is awesome.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

 

Trick or Treats Movie Trailer

MARDI GRAS MASSACRE

Mardi Gras Massacre Movie Review

A madman is killing prostitutes during Mardi Gras...or at least, sometime prior to Mardi Gras (more on that momentarily). Not only is he killing them, he's sacrificing them in some bizarre Aztec ritual.

"Hailing from Tenochtitlan, and weighing in at..."

If the plot and silly looking costume reminds you of a movie that would have been made ten or fifteen years prior to when it was actually shot (1978), you're not alone. Aside from the obvious (a million similar movies were made in the 1960's), this is also explained somewhat in that this movie is kind of a sequel to the 1963 flick Blood Feast. Another interesting note to this film is it was on the UK video nasties list, and actually received an X rating in the United States--though I'm honestly not sure why. There is nothing really eye-catching as far as presenting anything new or shocking, and the violence we see is so absurdly fake looking it's a wonder anybody took it seriously at all. The killer, whose identity we know from the start, takes a woman to his apartment, ties her to a table, cuts her hands and feet, and then cuts her heart out--sounds interesting, but the cutting out of the heart is done on a torso that is so clearly a prop you will actually laugh when you see it.

Look in the bottom right

This scene plays out almost identically three times, with three different women. We also follow a police officer, his prostitute girlfriend, and his dopey partner as they chase the killer. We see random fights breaking out, several scenes of strippers and go-go dancers, and a street performing dancer who should have given the others some lessons. The dialogue is dull--you could probably not listen to a word anybody says and still have a complete understanding of what is happening. Don't mute this one, though--the music is the best part of the film. The song that plays during the ritualistic killings is fantastic, there's a good bit of hot funk, and more disco than you can shake your bellbottoms at--yes, I said, in part, that disco is one of the best elements of this film--this really tells you most of what you need to know, but continue I will. The acting is atrocious, and gets even worse during the few dramatic scenes. One fascinating thing happening throughout is the sheer number of people looking directly at the camera for a moment. This happens so often you wonder if there is some sort of running gag happening. 

"End scene? Oh, not yet?"

Finally, there's the whole Mardi Gras thing--remember in Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, when you expect Jason to be causing havoc in, you know, Manhattan, only to watch the movie for over an hour before seeing The Big Apple (or Vancouver, as it were)? It's the same deal here--you see no hint of Mardi Gras whatsoever until 74 minutes into the movie, and when we finally see the party, it's only for about four minutes.

I always pictured more...beads

Mardi Gras Massacre is a hard one to score--it certainly is not a good, decent, or even mediocre horror movie, but there is enough going on to keep you interested, right up to the abrupt, police-chase filled, unsatisfying ending. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

Mardi Gras Massacre Movie Trailer

CEMETERY OF TERROR (Cementerio Del Terror)

Cemetery of Terror Movie Review

A group of bored teens at a party decide to liven things up by stealing the corpse of a serial killer and performing a ritual to bring him back to life--what a great idea! Meanwhile, a gang of younger kids out trick or treating find themselves in the same cemetery that housed the ritual. Finally, on his way to save the day (eventually), is Dr. Cardan, played by the legendary Hugo Stiglitz. 

The face of a hero?

This 1985 Mexican film has a painfully slow start--we get a lot of introduction of the characters, build up of the party, and little else--and this goes on for about 50 minutes. Stick with it though--once the teens get bored of the party and kidnap the cadaver, this one takes off. When the reanimated corpse makes it to the party, the kills come fast and often--so often, in fact, you will begin to wonder what the rest of the movie will consist of. The answer, of course, is switching to the children, but what you may not expect is that at that moment, this slasher film all but transforms into a zombie movie! Yes, the killer himself was technically a zombie, but here, I'm talking about corpses rising from their graves to pursue the kids. Some of the visuals are quite entertaining--the zombies look like they came from Michael Jackson's Thriller video, the lights coming from the graves remind one of a haunted house attraction, and the set looks like it came from an Ed Wood film.

"Dang, I left my lava lamp on"

Take the above elements and throw in some slick practical effects and you have the makings of a really fun flick. The ending will have you rolling your eyes, but there is a bit of cheesiness with it that may also make you smile. Had the first 50 minutes or so been more interesting, this could have been a classic--as it is, Cemetery of Terror stands as evidence that patience sometimes pays off nicely. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 6

Cemetery of Terror 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

THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP ZOMBIES!!?

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? Movie Review

Jerry (Ray Dennis Steckler, who also produced and directed the film) is hypnotized by a gypsy and turned into a killer who can't remember his actions--God, you have to love these simple plots. Digging deeper (but not much), we find that both gypsy Estrella (Brett O'Hara) and her sister, stripper Carmelita (Erina Enyo), have the hypnotic skills, and Estrella has a history of not only putting fellas under her spell, but also of throwing acid on them to disfigure their faces, and keeping them enslaved--these are the "zombies" and "creatures" mentioned in the excessively long title that honestly is the only reason I decided to give this movie a shot, the curiosity of seeing the length of the title under the picture up there being too much to resist, so don't expect to see anything bordering on the traditional zombie or creature we are all used to, and, in fact, all love.

"Now look into my eyes"

This oddly-named 1964 flick is likely even more bizarre than you are picturing. It hailed itself as "The First Monster Musical", but managed to underwhelm in both the musical sense and the monster sense. 

Or maybe don't see it?

It's obvious I'm a fan of horror, but, if done well, I am also a fan of musicals--this was not done well. The musical element seems to exist only to add to the run time--worse, they sound bad, the dancing is dreadful, and there are far too many numbers. 

One of many

In fact, they take up most of the first 45 minutes, when we finally see Jerry turn, complete with a painstakingly long hypnotism sequence and, eventually, Jerry's hilarious psycho killer face. 

They likely laughed as they died

The acting is atrocious from start to end, the story is uninteresting, the dialogue is mind-numbing, and there is little in terms of consistency. Based strictly on these merits, this movie has nothing whatsoever going for it--it has been put on many lists of worst movies ever made, but I'm not going to go anywhere near that. Granted, it's still not a great movie, but there is plenty happening to keep you glued. I've said it before and I'll say it again--I'm a sucker for carnival and amusement park settings, and a good bit of this movie takes place at the now-defunct The Pike in Long Beach, California. These shots are fantastic, and make the viewer long for just one day at the park.

Uncrowded beaches existed then?

I want to ride this one!

Maybe not this one

Correction: Definitely not this one

Dominguez on the Sandia Peak Tramway

The movie is filled with fascinating, unsettling images and sounds, with the next scene seemingly having little to do with the one before it, making the entire experience feel like a dream at five in the morning after having one too many drinks or joints. The end is as strange, with a very drawn-out chase scene that sees the pursuer almost not even trying to catch the fleeing Jerry as both struggle with the terrain much more than either should. This leads to a rather unsatisfying ending. This movie (the title of which I refuse to type again) is a hard one to rate--it's far too bad to garner any decent score, but its surreal presentation is such that I can't help but recommend watching it at least once. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 4

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? 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

HALLOWEEN KILLS

Halloween Kills Movie Review

Michael Myers (predictably) survives the fire at the end of the 2018 Halloween film, and is once again on a warpath. This time, Tommy Doyle (Anthony Michael Hall of 1980's John Hughes movies fame), Lindsey Wallace (Kyle Richards reprising her role), and other side characters from the original Halloween film track down the killer, while Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) spends most of the movie in her hospital bed...seriously. You may already know this, but I'll go over the history anyway. The 2018 Halloween film was a direct sequel of the original 1978 movie--all other Halloween films do not exist in this universe (hence Laurie still being alive and not being Michael's sister, no Jamie Lloyd, no mysterious white horses, no Busta Rhymes, and, most importantly, no backstory showing us Michael is the way he is because of school bullies, a stripper mom, and an alcoholic stepfather). The 2021 film is a sequel of both, serving as the third film in this timeline. 

"Got it...I think"

You've probably guessed the main issue I have with this outing--the primary story in the Halloween films is Laurie vs Michael, yet, as was the case in Halloween II (the 1981 version, not Rob Zombie's), Laurie spends most of her time in the hospital--in fact, we never see her and Michael on the screen at the same time in this movie. It would be like if you went to watch Hulk Hogan vs Rowdy Roddy Piper in 1985, but when you got there, Hogan faced Cowboy Bob Orton instead, and Piper never appeared--Orton was a side character in the feud, just as Tommy, Lindsey, and the others are in this movie--as a side note, I'd like to imagine a reality where Piper won the WWF World Title from Hogan and we never saw the Hulkster again, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. 

"...and the NEEEEEEEW..."

If you watch this movie for no reason other than the death scenes, and you have no investment in the story, you will have plenty to enjoy. There are no fewer than 31 kills in this film...yes, 31. Unfortunately, they are less Michael Myers and more Jason Vorhees dressed as Michael Myers. The atmosphere that made the 1978 film so creepy is gone, replaced by kill after kill, just like, you guessed it, Friday the 13th. If this is a good thing or a bad thing will depend on your slasher preference, but the kills are certainly graphic. The acting is fair--there's nothing terrible, but nothing that will garner an Academy Award either. I am generally a fan of Hall, but was kind of disappointed with his portrayal of Tommy, so that was a personal letdown. Also worth noting is the wonderful job they did bringing Dr. Loomis into the movie. They went old school here, using practical effects to make the art director of the movie look like the late Donald Pleasence, the original Dr. Loomis. 

Donald Doppelganger 

Oddly, for as much as the movie disregards anything that happened in any Halloween films outside of 1978 and 2018, it sure references these movies often--diehard Halloween franchise fans will delight in some of this. What is slated to be the final Halloween movie (at least of this timeline) is due for release later this year, and Halloween Kills feels very much like exactly what it is--filler to lead us up to the finale. 

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Halloween Kills Movie Trailer

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2022)

 

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 Move Review

A woman attacked by a maniac in the 1970's returns forty-some years later to get revenge--no, it's not Laurie Strode. It's also not Jennifer Hills. This is Sally Hardesty, the lone survivor of the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Unfortunately for her, Leatherface has gone into hiding, so for almost fifty years, Sally has had to wait. This changes when a group of young twenty-somethings hit their parents up for money (I'm taking an educated guess here) to buy a ghost town in Texas. There, the group comes across...you guessed it...Leatherface.

In all his grey-haired glory

If you saw the 2018 Halloween movie, some of what is happening here will be familiar--much like that film, though it is a sequel, this one doesn't have a part number after the title--both Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre share original films name. Just as in Halloween, this movie follows the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie only, dismissing any remakes, sequels, or prequels that came before. Also, in both, our killers and main hero are of advanced age--senior citizen advanced. This brings me to a major issue I have with this movie--Leatherface has to be around 70 years old here, making him immediately far less imposing than when he was young. The guy has been in hiding for fifty years--are we to believe that during that time he has kept himself in prime condition to run down screaming teenagers? Apparently so, though his figure tells a different story. We can only imagine how much better this film would have been had it been set in 1983, giving Sally ten years to prepare for her revenge, and keeping Leatherface young enough to still be a believable, menacing villain. Not that much of the film centers on Sally--instead, our focus is more on the aforementioned youngsters coming into town to restore it.

Because these people are SO much more interesting

All four of these characters are immediately unlikable, and nothing is done throughout to change this. A few other characters are introduced--the all-knowing old guy at the gas station, a stereotypical Texas redneck, a couple cops--and they are only slightly less irritating than the main four. In all likelihood, you will find yourself wishing for the death of every single character you see, including Leatherface, just so they may stop making these films. The gun-toting redneck is the would-be hero, but alas, Dollar Store Thor is no match for the masked madman. 

"Bring it on, Tex"

The story is thin. The action is often predictable--Leatherface will have somebody cornered, only to have somebody else save that character--this happens so often you actually expect it every time you see the masked one. The acting is atrocious from top to bottom. If you're curious, Olwen Fouéré plays Sally (Marilyn Burns, who played Sally in the original film, died in 2014), and she is almost as invincible as Leatherface himself.

"It's just a flesh wound!"

Not all is bad here, however. The gorehounds will absolutely love this one--there is a ton of bloodshed and extremely graphic violence, and the effects are done exceptionally well. Some of the death scenes are so brutal they look almost too real. An entire bus full of annoying people arrive in the town--you know this is done to increase the body count, and my goodness, what a body count! Leatherface with a chainsaw in hand and on a bus filled with people you want to see killed is just as awesome as you are imagining. Some of the other scenes in the movie are equally impressive, including the field of dead sunflowers, which make for a beautiful but unsettling image. The final scene adds another satisfying moment, sending the viewer away with a bit of a shocker (stay tuned for the post-credits scene as well). Upon its release in 1974, the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre movie shocked audiences and helped change the horror film landscape--the 2022 sequel fails to capture any of the magic that made the original a classic, and is destined to spend eternity in the lake of mediocrity, swimming with most of the rest of the TCM films.

On A Scale Of One To Ten: 5

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 Move Trailer

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