Because nobody likes spending an hour reading a movie review, I bring you Quick Horror Movie Reviews, a site offering to the point reviews of horror films from a guy who has seen thousands of them. From the classics to the hidden gems, the slashers to the creatures, the multi-million dollar blockbusters to the direct to video awfulness, it's all here! Read, enjoy, and for the best experience, go old school and view the desktop version!
"There's an epidemic out there! Mothers are eating their children!" This line, uttered by one of the worst actors in the movie (and that's saying something), perfectly summarizes this film--of course, so does the title, but hey, it never hurts to reinforce your point. I will admit, there are two things that combined to inspire me to watch this movie--the fantastic title, and that it is an 80's horror film (1988, to be exact). There's not an 80's horror movie I won't watch, and when I come across one I have never seen before, I get more excited about watching it than I probably should. So when I saw this one on Tubi (a fantastic source for such movies), I started watching it almost immediately. We get everything we expect from this movie--almost no budget, bad acting, a nonsensical plot, cheap makeup...you get the picture.
"Yes, we see"
This one is classified as a comedic horror film, but honestly, the biggest laughs are the unintentional ones--the comedy they went for was mostly unfunny, though what the scientists see when they look into the microscope really did make me laugh out loud. There is blood here...in fact, there are gallons of it, and the special effects are better than they should have been. The main drawback of the movie is indeed the acting--as if the general awfulness of it wasn't bad enough, practically everybody in this movie looks and sounds like the New Jersey Nightmare crew that terrorize Florida every winter and summer. That aside, Flesh Eating Mothers was much more entertaining than I expected it to be, and if you watch it, be sure to sit through the credits, as the song that plays during them is awesome.
Liza Merrill (Catriona MacColl) inherits an old hotel in Louisiana. She plans to restore and reopen it, but what she doesn’t realize is the building was constructed over a gate to Hell. Italian horror legend Lucio Fulci brings us this movie, which was shot in 1981, released in 1983, and re-released uncut for the first time in the United States in 1998 by Grindhouse Releasing, Cowboy Booking International, and Quentin Tarantino's Rolling Thunder Pictures. As is the case with most of Fulci's films, this one is heavy on atmosphere and visual effects, while a bit lighter on a story that approaches comprehension. If you know this about Fulci, you accept it and enjoy what you came for, and if you are into old-school horror special effects, you will love this one.
They grab you by the throat
The gore and bloodshed are extreme in this one, from exploding heads to torn out eyeballs to a scene of several spiders eating a man's face, and the practical approach to these scenes is breathtaking--horror filmmakers of the 21st Century, put your computer down and study the techniques used in this movie...please. The acting is a bit sub-par, but there is nothing so bad it will take you out of the movie. If you try to follow any semblance of a plot, forget it. While there is a line between all the characters that creates a story, this is very loose, and as is the case with Fulci's movies, this one feels more like a dream, where things kind of make sense and follow a pattern, but not really. No matter--The Beyond combines wonderful special effects, tons of gore, and more than it's fair share of surprises, all adding up to a horror flick that is worth checking out.
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.
After being released from prison, Terry Hawkins (Roger Watkins) decides to shoot snuff films--movies that show actual killings. He gathers up a group of fellow lunatics, and the carnage begins. If you have never heard of this film, there's a lot to know about it...and that's before even getting to what you see on the screen! In the spirit of the title of this blog, I will condense the fun facts--Watkins is also the writer, director, producer...basically one-man band of this film, but he used many pseudonyms in the credits. In fact, everybody involved with the movie did, so when you see the credits, the names are all fake. Though shot in 1972, the film was not released until 1977 because Watkins was being sued by one of the actresses in the movie. Having given up on the movie, Watkins himself had no idea it even made it to the screens until 1979 when somebody recognized him. Furthermore, nobody had any idea who anybody in this film really was until 2000, when Watkins finally admitted to being the man behind it. Finally, the movie gained notoriety in the grindhouse circuits upon it's 1977 release, as rumors spread it actually WAS a snuff film. There is more to the story of this film, and I encourage you to check it all out...after spending time on my site, of course.
Don't even ask
Now, back to the movie itself. As I mentioned, this is grindhouse to the bloody bone, and in all honesty, is one that should be approached with caution. If you are not a huge fan of extreme gore, stay away...far away. The movie looks like it was shot on a home video recorder circa 1968, so the presentation may be off-putting to some as well. I personally love the looks, as we see the film scratches and occasional missing frame. There are tons of plot holes, but alas, there's also an explanation for this-- the film runs 78 or 76 minutes (depending on which version you come across) but was original 178 minutes long! The dubbing is awful, and unfortunately, not in an entertaining way--it's actually the thing I dislike most about this movie. The acting is so-so, with nothing being too great or horrible. Watching this movie through a year 2020 lens, you may find it funny to think people believed this was a real snuff film, but if you can imagine being in 1977 and seeing this, it's actually fairly easy to get it--you just didn't see most of this in movies back then. There is some disturbing stuff here, from the severing of one character's limbs to rape to the beating of another character, all being captured on camera by another character. Perhaps most interesting about this movie is the apparent anti-violence message--much like the 1997 film Funny Games, this is a movie that makes a statement about how entertainment, and the movie industry specifically, shamelessly exploits violence, rape, and murder by exploiting all three. Also worth noting is that Watkins was inspired to make this movie after reading a book about The Manson Family murders--it was actually originally intended to be a movie about the family, but that was changed at some point by the writer/director/actor/potential father of Dwight Schrute.
"False"
I love, love, love the gritty visual presentation of this movie--the definition of "grindhouse film" should have a picture of this movie next to it. I also appreciate how ahead of its time the movie is, and everything Watkins tried to do with it. Unfortunately, the lack of comprehension as a result of the heavy editing and the very poor audio dubbing are so bad they're hard to get past. If you're a fan of grindhouse or extreme gore films, this should be on your must-watch list. If you're fascinated with the history of horror, you should consider checking it out as well as, in spite of the title, it's not at all a ripoff of The Last House on the Left and, historically speaking, should be given more consideration than it gets. While I may never watch this movie again in the form it's currently in, I would be more than happy to check out the full 178 minute version should it ever see the light of day.
After three college kids go missing in a wilderness preserve, police find a tape the trio had recorded. As the police try to piece together the clues about the students, they are also trying to solve the case of a missing child, and as fate would have it, the kid is on the tape as well. These elements add up to a hybrid type movie--it's mostly shot as a found footage film, but there are also many parts that are shot more traditionally--while not completely original, this combination does still stand out. Much of the beginning of the film is spent getting to know the three college students. We have the lead, Amanda (Johanna Braddy, The Grudge 3); her best friend, Kim (Lili Mirojnick of Cloverfield); and Chase (Morgan Krantz), the dude who kind of wants both of them. After arriving at their destination, Chase and the girls end up walking across land that happens to also be a burial site--we all know how that goes.
"We're going where?!"
Indeed, there is a lot to sit through before getting to the action, but this one has a somewhat smarter feel to it than most found footage films. Part of the credit for this has to be given to the writer and director, Mark Edwin Robinson, as he avoided the horror trappings of college-aged characters--he managed to make them more than one-dimensional caricatures of real-life people, which is what we usually get with similar movies, and he didn't make them so obnoxious you can't wait to see them die. On the flip side, this movie does fall victim to one obstacle most found footage movies cannot escape--why, even during the most dire of times, is the person holding the camera still focused on recording everything? This is addressed to a degree, as there are times in the film the characters use the camera for light, but more frequently, we see them focused in on the horrors in front of them instead of trying to escape them. The primary villain, or monster, of the movie is a bit too generic and undefined to leave a lasting impression, though there are a couple scary moments in the film. Unfortunately, the ending will leave you a bit disappointed as well. The Levenger Tapes is a decent horror flick, but ultimately one that does not live up to its potential.
In a wonderfully awful scene, Paul Carlson (Chase Cordell) takes a shot to the head from a loose piece of a meteorite. The result is the young man turning into a "Moon Beast", a sort of half-man, half-reptile creature that stalks at night. Shot in 1972, this movie was meant to make it to the big screen, but instead got shelved for 4 years before making it's grand debut...on television. Let's get this out of the way right off the bat. If you are wondering what a Moon Beast looks like, here's a glimpse...
He's fantastic!
Yes, our star is a guy in a rubber suit and mask, and it's so bad it's good...as is most of the rest of the movie, for that matter. The acting is hilariously inept--Leigh Drake's portrayal of Kathy is must-see, and Gregorio Sala, the movie's Ahab, Professor Johnny Longbow, reaches out to his inner William Shatner to turn in a performance that is almost as bad. The dialogue is a struggle, but will provide some laughs. Speaking of laughs, you MUST see the special effects in this movie. They are beyond horrible, but so entertaining!
This scene, in particular, is glorious
The end of the movie is a bit of a letdown, but hey, at least it looked awesome. Having visited Albuquerque, where this movie was shot, it was cool seeing some scenes and being able to say "Hay! I've been there!'. At one point in the movie, Paul tries to off himself by jumping out of the Sandia Peak Tramway He makes this jump at about 15 feet off the ground--as somebody who has made that ride, let me assure you, the Sandia Peak Tramway goes MUCH higher. I vividly recall the employee in the car stating we were almost 10,000 feet above the ground, or "an 8 second fall", so had Paul waited a bit, the Moon Beast would have certainly succumbed to such a plummet. Further note about my trip up that mountain--seconds after the guy made this declaration, and mere feet from the very top landing, our car had to stop for what seemed an eternity, as it was deemed unsafe to land due to the high winds. So instead of resting safely at the top of the mountain, we dangled, swaying, thousands of feet (or 8 seconds) above the ground. In another side note to that trip, I, along with our friend Charlie, teased my girlfriend on the way to this adventure, telling her she would be scared going up and down the tramway--she laughed, as both Charlie and myself trembled in terror, certain our fate had been determined. Back to our movie--Track of the Moon Beast is another entry from my 50 Chilling Classics collection--like most of the rest, it is a poor movie, but this one is so much more fun to watch than most of the rest. I'll certainly watch it again some day.
A professor takes some of his students on a search for the Yeti. Will they find him? If they do, will they escape? Most importantly...will you care? The answer to all three is no--yes, that may be a spoiler, but in all likelihood, you won't watch this movie anyway. In case you do have interest, fair warning now--there are more spoilers to come. This one comes from 1974, and looks like a few guys working at the local movie theatre donated two weeks of pay for the budget. The gem of this, of course, is the Yeti, who not only looks like a guy in a Yeti costume, but IS a guy in a Yeti costume.
"Boo!...uh, I mean...arghhh!!!!"
When I say it's a guy in a costume, I don't mean the movie is presenting this as a Yeti terrorizing people, and it happens to be a guy in a rubber suit, so don't picture Godzillahere. In the movie, it is a guy in a Yeti costume trying to scare people to death. Why? Well, I'm glad you asked. The whole point is to scare people to death instead of, say, shooting them, to keep them more appetizing...yes, Shriek of the Mutilated is not, in fact, a creature feature, but a cannibal movie. So, I give the movie credit for that bit of misdirection, though one has to wonder how any of the characters could be fooled by an old guy who maybe stands five-nine in a Yeti suit when every legend we hear about Yeti, or Bigfoot, or The Bumble, or so on, has them over seven feet tall, but this only adds to the unintentional hilarity in a movie absolutely filled with it. Other than this, the movie is what you expect it to be--awful, and complete with terrible acting, atrocious directing and shooting (the whiteout effects are particularly bad), a slow pace, and rubbish dialogue. The best thing about Shriek of the Mutilated is indeed the title of the film--it has to be one of the greatest movie titles ever. If you read this review, you know about the twist, which leaves no real reason to watch this movie. If you didn't read the review...you're likely not reading this, which is blowing my sleepy mind way more than it should be.
