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