Change Your Image
nealnels
Born 2/17/66 (Do the math...)
I have worked in retail for over 33 years... Most of them in Media Sales (Movies/ Music)
Own over 6,000 DVD's. A lot of them are Horror and/or Science Fiction. And a lot of them are B-Grade Films. That's the way I like 'em.
I've written a few reviews. Mostly out of rage and/or disgust...Occasionally out of love and/or appreciation.
Love all types of Movies and Music!
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Breeders (1986)
My vote for the best double-feature title with "R.O.T.O.R."
Soooo many facts to be stated:
I'm giving "Breeders"(1986) 5 stars because, like "R.O.T.O.R.," it falls squarely into the "So Bad It's Great" category.
This movie is not to be confused with "Breeders" (1997), although I am not entirely sure it's not a re-make or sequel. It does appear very similar in look and story-line. It's IMDb page even features screen shots from "Breeders" (1986). But please do not be fooled, and demand the original!
"Breeders" was filmed back-to-back with "Mutant Hunt."
The same director was at the helm of "Robot Holocaust" (1986). That film only ranks a 2.1 and holds the distinction of being in IMDb's bottom 100. "Breeders" scores a 3.4 which only tells me that there is an appreciation for this sort of movie. I do own "Robot Holocaust" but only in the MST3K version. I would love to find the original cut on DVD!
"Breeders" was released in 1986 and "Mutant Hunt" was held in the can for another year. (Probably to follow "Robot Holocaust" as a pseudo-sequel.) I don't own "Mutant Hunt," (which receives a healthy 3.6 rating) but rest assured, I will find it.
Tim Kincaid (AKA Joe Gage/ Mac Larson... etc, etc.) was/is (who knows?) a director of gay porn. "Breeders" could hardly be any less GAY. The only thing remotely gay about it is the photographer character. In fact, one could call this movie- the most opposite of gay you can get this side of straight and/or lesbian porn. My partner and I are gay, and I'm sure two, of very few, that have a deep appreciation for this movie. If you're looking for male eroticism in a Tim Kincaid "film", see "Robot Holocaust." It features MANY scantily clad muscular men. But please believe me that "Breeders" is the much better BAD movie.
Alright, facts aside, let's chat awhile about "Breeders." This film, much like "R.O.T.O.R.," doesn't waste time trying to make sense. The acting is non-existent. The script is even worse. The sets are worse than that. And the story-line and special effects are even worser(sic). Why they wasted precious film on this atrocity is a blessing for THOSE of us who understand and love these sort of movies. (Do you see what I did there?)
One may even question if Kincaid was doing all of these horrible things on purpose? I certainly hope not. I dislike, and can usually tell, when a B-movie is being made; to be a B-movie. I hope the man was dead serious. That makes it all the funnier for me!
Let me outline the train-wreck that is, "Breeders:" There's... an unseen (for most of the movie) rubber suited monster. The itty- bitty-titty-committee walking around naked (for most of the movie). A stupid detective and an even more inept doctor- trying to solve the case of the "breeding" alien. Even the title of the film is incorrect. There is only the one alien trying to impregnate these "virgin" (yeah, right!) ladies; so I'm not sure why "Breeders" is plural. A nurse who comes home from work- showers, changes clothes, entertains a guest, and cooks dinner- ALL in the same room! And an ending (that takes place in a New York(?) subway tunnel(?) that should go down in infamy. Several naked gals bathing each other in a humongous tub of seaman. (I may have used another word here; but we'll see if this one even gets through.) The only thing that could possibly tear the audience's eyes from the bathtub... would be a man that turns inside out and becomes a half- human/ half-alien child...thingy with extremely large teeth. Oh, and it's kinda on the needy side. The needy alien child thingy and all of the bathing beauties are killed when the detective drops a power- line in the seamen. Credits should have rolled at this point, but I guess we had to fill in a bit more of this 77 min. film's running time. Soooo... we are treated to a (I'm hesitant in saying "another," because it is really the "only") sex scene; or shall I say, after-sex scene. We find the stupid detective and inept doctor in bed together sweating like they just had a good time. (Ya- know-what-I-mean...) And just when one is thinking, "It could possibly... in some parallel universe... work out for these two," the lady doctor starts turning into an alien. This presupposes many things: That this movie had NO intentions of making any sense. Yay! That the doctor was a virgin (before her time with the detective...just now.) And.... that, even-though, the audience hardly ever saw the doctor away from work and/or the detective... she still had time to get it on with the alien.
In conclusion, if you feel like I do about exquisitely bad and tasteless cinema... Please feel free to treat yourself to my suggested double-feature of "Breeders" and "R.O.T.O.R." (Take a gander at my review of this movie too, just to get a taste of what you're in store for.) They'll let you down... in all the right ways!
R.O.T.O.R. (1987)
Since I'm here, I've just got to say something in defense...
I'll give this movie 5 stars because it is sooooo bad it's great! Yes, I'm one of THOSE people. Please check out my soon to be written review on "Breeders." Which I will also be giving 5 stars, for the same reason. I am WELL aware that I will be saying very little here- that hasn't been mentioned in the 65 articles written before me. But bear with me... I'm hoping this review brings attention to "R.O.T.O.R." for THOSE that may have missed it. It takes a special kind of mind to appreciate this type of film.
I watched "R.O.T.O.R." for the second time in the same year. And I intend to watch it many more times in the future. Whenever I've had an especially bad day and need a good laugh. I may even double- feature it with "Breeders," you know, if the first movie... and some alcohol... doesn't do the trick. By-the-way, I've seen "Breeders" at least four times already. And just when I thought THAT movie's script couldn't get any worse/ hysterical, along came "R.O.T.O.R."
Now, just for the record, one should know that the entire soundtrack of "R.O.T.O.R.," both voices and music, was lost- and has been completely re-dubbed (badly) and re-scored (with dramatically over- the-top-80's-pop "action" music!) So the world may never know the ACTUAL script for this film. And as horrible of a plight that might be for most movies... it may have MADE this one. Who knows? I, myself, would pay big bucks to hear or read the original dialogue. But I'm not sure it could be any more tragic.
This film makes microscopic sense. The sets, characters, logistics, conversations (not to mention; narration), music placement, editing (or lack thereof), time-line, look and feel of EVERYTHING in this film could hardly be more WRONG. The best word I can think of to describe the vibe is "Odd." It's all extremely off, or at least, askew. So one should not try to follow this movie in any one train of thought. Just let it wash over your brain like several shots of tequila.
If "R.O.T.O.R." wasn't so mind-numbingly funny on its own, I would have loved experiencing it as an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000." I'm noticing that I've checked off the "May contain spoilers" box, and haven't revealed any story-line. Well, this is because I want THOSE special people, like myself, to experience this movie at least fairly virginally. (Now that's funny right there!)
I will leave you with this... My favorite quote:
"Look, it took three weeks to get this Shower together tonight. And look achyou. Ya look like ya got both eyes comin' outta the same hole!"
Your guess is as good as mine, folks???? I gotta say, that while perusing these reviews, this quote is hardly ever mentioned. The reason might be that the entire script is one big target. This film is as quotable as Shakespeare, but for all the wrong reasons.
May (2002)
You "May" not like this...
Before all of you fans, of this sort of thing roll your eyes and get all perturbed, rest assured... I get this film. I understand every little thing about it. This is why I'm going to explain how stupid I believe this movie is so that even you "movie freaks" that truly BELIEVE you are SUPPOSED to admire this sort of drivel, will understand how wrong you are...
May is the sort of character that's been done to death. I'm even a fan of some of these films. The ones where the protagonist is a socially inept psychopath; usually the victim of MOMMY ISSUES. I could easily list several movies that use this premise, only, in a much more interesting way. What's up with May's parents disappearing after the first five minutes anyway? She couldn't be over 30. This would make her parents in their 50's. If she doesn't have any friends, and her Mother seemed like the type to keep it that way, why wouldn't she be in contact with her? This is the lack of reasoning I hope to point out in this review.
Now you're saying, "It's a dark comedy/fantasy. It's supposed to be slightly incoherent and disjointed. It's from the point of view of a damaged mind. It's not SUPPOSED to make sense." This is all very well for you. And if this train of thought makes you feel better... OK. But I'm going to continue anyway and hopefully convince you otherwise.
I get that it's not REAL LIFE. But, come on! Events happen in this film that don't/ shouldn't happen EVER. One never leaves a recorded message and forever awaits a reply by holding their face three inches from the phone. No one is so lonely they have homosexual relations just for kicks, especially when it is glaringly made apparent they are straight. If May works as a veterinarian's assistant, this would presuppose she went to college. Wouldn't she have been privy to several social scenarios? She tells a customer that she "can" sew his dog's dead leg back on! She must also have multiple personality disorder. Her attitude changes with every outfit; as does her hair and make-up. If your ONLY "friend" is a doll in a glass case (that is BADLY cracked and broken) why would you bring it into a classroom full of young blind students? (And if you like the "My doll is my best friend" story-line; Please seek out other, much better, titles like, "Love Object" made just one year later.) In the classroom scene May's first line to the kids is, "Guess what this is?" Why would one tease blind people in this way? THEN she invites them to touch, said sharp object. Again, why would one do this? The stupidity then shifts to the children. They MUST hold this touted item. En mass the kids all have a hold of the box and are trying to wrestle it away from May. It, of course, comes crashing to the ground. May is appalled, not because she has created a very bad situation for the children, but because her doll has come out of its box! The stupidity shifts once again to two other teaching supervisors, in the same room. Their heartfelt reaction is flashed to, but the audience never sees them again. Kinda like May's parents. But for most of YOU, this doesn't seem to be important. (See several posts, for this film, that SUPPORT characters disappearing.) "It's free!" the kids shout. The blind children crawl, hands and knees, over the glass to get to the doll. Oh yes, there will be blood. And, oh no, no one will come to their rescue. Especially distraught May.
Then May grows a set. This is why this DVD will remain in my collection. And the only reason I give this movie 3 stars. It suddenly becomes a very interesting film short. If I had just fast-forwarded to the last ten minutes, I would have saved myself a lot of pain. Actually, I found this movie so droll and stupid I had to watch it in installments of 30 minutes. I was falling asleep AND pulling my hair out at the same time. James Duval is ever-so-quickly introduced. This is a good thing. Obviously James had nothing better to do that day than rub ice on his nipples. And do horrible things to his hair. Girl with, "Beautiful legs" is also thrown in last minute. May goes shopping for body parts. This is no mechanic's joke, although, it probably should be. Oh, and it's Halloween. The best line in the entire film is when May passes a trick-'r-treat'r on the sidewalk while she's pulling a cooler. Passerby says, "Great costume," to May, also noticing the cooler. "Do you have a couple of cold ones?" To which May replies, "Yes, yes I do." That's lead balloon humor right there! It's so cliché it's hysterical.
Words can not describe how happy I am there are no deleted scenes on my DVD. The only ones I would accept, anyway, would be explanations for May's dementia. This film certainly doesn't need any more scenes of her just sitting around doing nothing, it's chock full of that. Oh, one more comment. May kills her friend's cat because it wasn't being supportive of her when she needed it. So what does she do? She kills it, because she is angry... at the time. THEN, she wraps it in cellophane and keeps it in the freezer, telling Blank, "He's my friend." Remind me to never befriend lonely psychopaths. Wait, how would I know? How do I know I'm not one? What I DO KNOW is that I may give "May" one more chance. I do occasionally feel masochistic.
So, for all of you lonely types out there that IDENTIFY with this movie, seek help... and see better films. Watch "Carrie," for goodness sake. At least she was a lot more creative... and entertaining.
Night of the Creeps (1986)
Was CHEESE ever made better than in the mid-80's?
...I don't think so. I love Cheese. Any kind. Any product there of. And is there any decade more worthy of being ridiculed than the 80's? Again, I don't think so. It was a time of anything goes. Flashy colors, strange hair styles, good music with bad lyrics (and/or vice versa), and, of course, way over-done horror/comedies that look like very long music videos. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this movie.
Probably because every crevice of this film oozes cheese-whiz. Let's start with every character having a last name of a famous Horror-Movie Director. Carpenter, Cronenberg,...etc. They had my heart with just that. The two leads are Chris, a nerdy ginger and his muscular dystrophy ridden dorm-mate J.C. (that seems to be in love with Chris...? I won't go into the IMPLIED homosexuality here. If you want my comments on this issue look under the posts for this film and find the one summarized: J.C. CRUSH ON CHRIS?) There's a pretty girl that belongs to a sorority and her over-blonde boyfriend that belongs to a fraternity. Oh, and some slugs that come out of a frozen dead guy that go in search of fresh brains and create zombies. What more does one need in this type of movie? Except, maybe, Tom Atkins! And let's have him way over-act the someone-done-him-wrong detective. Now we've almost achieved perfection...
The script is not wonderful. The special effects are (probably on purpose) cheap and, duh, cheesy. The acting is sub-par (again, probably on purpose.) There are very pretty girls with itty-bitty-... (you know whats.) There are think-they're-good-looking guys... but not really. And my last cut-down would have to be NOT being a fan of the new DIRECTOR'S CUT. I preferred the original ending. Zombie Dog walks up to lead girl. She bends down to pet him and he spits a slug into her mouth. Credits roll... Much better than the over-long pan of the "ONE" slug that's left going into a, GASP, cemetery. Where it can be fruitful and multiply. Oh, yeah, there's a shot of the spaceship, from the beginning of the movie, using a searchlight to (yeah, right) find the lone slug.
Put all of this together and you understand my rating. It's pleasant enough, but not as good as, oh let's say, "Phantasm," or (a better comparison might be...) "Tourist Trap." I also have to mention that "Night Of The Creeps"-type movies have been made by the dozens, especially between the late 70's and 80's. But, I'd like to think that this one was made in parody or homage to those that came before it.
It's better than a decent waste of time. And, for the type, you could do a lot worse. Just let the cheese wash over you! And laugh at all the intentional and unintentional humor.
Tourist Trap (1979)
"Such a pretty girl." And such a pretty film...
Where to begin telling you what a wonderful thriller/ horror movie I think this is. Somewhere behind "Phantasm," but definitely in my top ten favorite films of all time. It was '79 fore Crimany's sake, the perfect time for horror movies. The planets were aligned oh-so rare, especially for this film.
Director David Schmoeller didn't fare so well after his first effort. I will give nods to "Puppet Master," and "Crawlspace" under the watchful eye of Charles Band. But "Crawlspace" is so overacted and underdone it barely registers on my cheese-meter. "Puppet Master" does. Anywho... I just think everything went well while making "Tourist Trap."
It's ever so 70's, cheesy, atmospheric, and above all creepy in the right amounts. Chuck Connors should have won some kind of acting award for his performance. It is dead-on perfect for the part. I'm sure that if I ever ran into this character in real-life on a foggy night I would just mess my pants and run. There is no reasoning with this psycho. Speaking of... "Psycho," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" were unquestionably influences on this film. Right down to Davey's preferences of dressing feminine, yet talking deeply masculine. Being that there were, at least, the three main personalities bouncing around in his brain... Mr. Slausen, his Wife, and Brother Davey. Connors handles the physicality, speech patterns, and mind-set of each personality deftly. Everyone else, ...meh. Sure Tanya Roberts' Becky is sexy, and looks great tied up. Poor Woody was in a great opening scene, but there was no acting required. The same goes for the rest of the cast except for possibly Molly. Blonde, naive, just put her in an Old West bonnet, Molly. Why, oh why is she hanging out with the rest of these over-sexed, pot-smoking, heavily drinking people? In real-life THEY would never be friends with the likes of Molly; and vice versa. This actress' overacting is forgivable for a couple of reasons: It just plain works in this atmosphere and for the character. And some of the last five minutes of the movie are frame-for-frame the last girl in peril from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." I'm serious. Watch the end of "T. T." and tell me the shots of Molly don't mirror those of the girl from "T. C. M." when she's at the "dinner" table and after she escapes.
I have to give big kudos to all of the excellent mannequin work done herein. It's a tad odd that Davey excelled at making WAX figures, yet outside of the "museum"/ gas station- the rest were all mannequins. It works creepily well, mind you; but I'm sure this was due to budget reasons. If you ever want to scare the hell out of me just put a mannequin in my front yard that has a jaw dropping mouth and sings, "AHHH," in a breathy voice.
"Every year young people disappear." This movie's concept has been around for decades, but not so well done as in "Tourist Trap." Sure, the story is trite, and the dialog is just above par. But the camera angles, editing, sets, delivery, music, and (yet again) atmosphere came together in such a way to make a perfect thing. That thing being a cheese-ball 70's horror film that looks, sounds, and feels great.
And one last thing... Have we noticed how many time the same cut of this film has gone from a PG rating to an R? Schmoeller admits to MAKING an R-rated movie, and wanted it that way; but it ultimately ended up with a PG. The R rating would have been based solely on the terror factor, being that nothing else in this film could be considered offensive. Even the Director wouldn't let his children see this film. I wouldn't show it to yours either, unless you want to give them nightmares for a very long time!
Cathy's Curse (1977)
So many spoilers you'll never have to watch this movie...
"There's something wrong with this house, I just can't explain it." Well, hopefully I CAN explain this garbage well enough to spare most of you the intestinal pain it caused me. Here we go, I'm sorry...
Title card (a badly painted piece of card-board straight out of a silent film) flashes (and I MEAN flashes. One has about 1.5 seconds to read what it says) on the screen. It tells us that a mother is leaving her husband and daughter, but taking her son with her. Boy, talk about favoritism. Bad cut to daughter crying on her bed holding a tragically ugly doll (that looks like an over-grown version of either the Living Dead dolls or the ones that go to Monster High.) She's explaining to her father what the audience just read on the card. Father grabs (10 year old?) daughter by the arm screaming what a BITCH her mother is. Bad cut, again, to another title card telling us father and daughter are in hot pursuit of wife and son. Why? Do they really want this bitch back? Bad cut, (Oh, I can't keep this up. All the cuts are bad. The entire film. Hey, I'm all for hiring the handicapped; but getting Helen Keller to edit this movie was a really bad idea.) Suddenly a rabbit hops across the road in front of the car. Daughter doesn't want daddy to hit it so she pleads with him to swerve out of its path. The car has reached the dizzying speed of 5 MPH at this point and tumbles, ever so gently, approximately 6 feet down (not even the entire length of the car) into a ravine. Because of this "impact" the doors seem jammed and the hood is on fire. But-Yay for the bunny! The daughter and dolly are conscious, but poor daddy has left this earth... and the movie. (Lucky bastard) Girl naively tries to wake her father. Does she try another door? NO! She screams, the flames get higher, and I guess she dies... because then the movie cuts to twenty years later.
The original mother has passed on but George (the son she took with her) has a wife and daughter. The new family moves into the old house. Wife's name is Vivian, daughter's name is Cathy (the titular character.) Cathy is near in age to her dead aunt (insert bad Pink Panther joke here) Laura (the girl that died in the crash.) Cathy explores the house one day and finds a doll (the ugly one that used to belong to Laura) up in the attic. It looks OK considering it burned in a car twenty years ago, except its eyes are now sewn shut. (Which makes it even SCARIER) Cathy becomes possessed by the spirit of Laura living inside the doll.
Possessed Cathy takes out a few people. Mostly women because Laura, the possessor, was told all women are BITCHES. Cathy starts with her mother, Vivian (who has already had several nervous breakdowns). Cathy never gets around to killing mom. What she does is vanish and reappear a few times, make a stairway and light fixture shake, and misbehave a tad. This is enough to send mommy back to the loony bin. A nanny steps in for a moment, but Cathy mentally pushes her out of a second story window. Making it look like a suicide. Cathy then turns her attention to caretaker Paul. One night while daddy's at work (a construction job we never see him at) she gets Paul drunk. A very easy task. She then makes Paul hallucinate rats, spiders and snakes. (Oh my) None of the creatures does anything to hurt Paul, but he is distressed by it. Cathy teases Paul outside with the doll. You see, Paul is convinced the doll is evil and must be destroyed. After running ten feet Paul falls to the ground and has what appears to be a stroke. He's not dead though. Probably because he is a MAN and therefore not a BITCH. There is a woman medium that visits Vivian for tea. Medium holds a picture of Laura and her father and proceeds to speak in tongues, shaking and wailing. When Vivian gets the picture out of the mediums hands it's as if nothing happened. This medium comes to visit Vivian one night (not knowing she was back in the bin) and ends up in the attic where Cathy is throwing her voice to sound like her mother. Medium sees Cathy, a portrait of Laura, and Laura's mother- who tells Medium to leave the house and never come back. (Sound advice) Then there is a very loud noise that causes Medium to cover here ears and run from the attic.
Phew. This is how it ends. Mom takes a bath that, in her mind is filled with blood and leeches. She dries off, puts on a robe and heads downstairs to confront Cathy. She, also, is convinced that the doll must be destroyed. Dad is just getting home from work and the house won't let him in. He breaks a window and steps inside. Cathy is between them in the dining room. Her face looks badly burned and she's insisting on being called Laura. Mother grabs doll from Cathy and rips the stitches away from its eyes. A few bottles and mirrors burst, there is a super imposed face of Laura over the front of the house that fades, and then it's all over. Cathy covers her face with her hands, then takes them away to reveal she is no longer burned (possessed). She reaches toward her mother and whimpers, "Mommy." Credits roll- Thank God!
Phantasm (1979)
My favorite movie of all time, and that's saying something!
The reader of this review may just want to hop on down to the third paragraph. This second one is pretty much just about me and will tell you nothing about the film. And... I'm just curious. How does One write a decent review WITHOUT revealing spoilers? Hmmm...
I've been putting this off for a long time. I'm not sure I will enlighten anyone on this film more that the 244 reviews before me; so, I'm pretty sure I'm doing this for ME. Let me just preface this (for those of you who haven't visited my profile) by telling you I have a DVD problem (much like women and shoes. Take it sexist if you will but we all have one buying problem or another.) I own over 4,000 DVD's. Not as large as some (just search movie collections on tube sites) but much more than your average collection. So when I choose "Phantasm" as my favorite movie it's got some weight behind it. And I say MY favorite film because it's completely my opinion. I'm not here to make it yours. I used to manage a video store in Las Vegas. The last two questions I wanted to hear from a customer were, "Is this SUPPOSED to be good?" and, "What do you recommend?" To the first I would usually reply, "I guess; the reviews are good." To the second I would always reply, "Nothing." I tend to like B(ad)-Movies. Who wants to recommend a movie where the customer will come back angry? Hopefully no one. I would tell people that my opinion is most probably not theirs'. This said...
The first time I saw "Phantasm" was in the summer of '79 at an outdoor theater in Oshkosh, Wisconsin when I was 13 1/2 years old. (Ewww, it's a math problem...) I'm just saying I was very impressionable. I'd have to say it was my first horror movie. I could not have been introduced better. "Friday The 13th" was still a summer away. I may have also seen "Tourist Trap" in '79. Good times. I thought "Phantasm" was a foreign film. In my mind this movie could not have come out of the U.S. And time did nothing but confirm this belief. In the following years I was to see many, many Italian horror movies. For me "Phantasm" fit perfectly into that way of film making. Its richly colorful palate and its barely understandable storyline, not to mention the score, placed it squarely, for me, into foreign-film brackets. And just look at the last name of the director. How Italian can you get? I used to watch their lips very closely to see if there was an English overdub. None of this is true, of course. Although Don Coscarelli was born in Libya with obviously Italian heritage. Who would guess he grew up in Long Beach, California?
So what do we have here? A (foreign-looking) horror-science-fiction-mystery. One of very few, I'm sure. I dislike not understanding a storyline in a film. In fact, I'm usually the guy that figures out, very early on, how the movie is going to end. A lot of the time the way I see an ending is better than the way it usually does. So I watched "Phantasm" over and over and over... Until I was fairly sure I got it. I also watched the sequels many times in hopes that this would help me further understand. Keep in mind Don C. just wanted the movie to be fun. Stanley Kubrick once said, "A film can be real or entertaining, it's very difficult to be both." And entertaining it is! It's one of those movies you just let flow over you the first couple of times before you start picking at it. It's glossy, fast paced, and ever-so 70's. It, like many things to come in the 80's, didn't have to make sense. It just had to be cotton candy for the senses. Now I know there are a lot of you reading this and saying (probably out-loud) "How did he not get this?" I was 13 people! I'd (probably) seen my first R-rated film (let alone a horror movie.) My parents didn't own a VCR until 1981. And... I didn't own a copy of it until 1987. So all I had to go on was an outdoor theater experience... twice maybe. Eight years after that I was playing catch-up.
My interpretation? You don't want or need that from me. Read the other 244 reviews. I'm sure they're full of interpretations and opinions. Besides, you know how I feel about recommendations. Just know that I watch "Phantasm" and its three sequels at least once a year. They are precious pieces of time for me. They certainly started a rather large ball rolling where my film collecting is concerned. I will give you one opinion on my way out. 75% of my favorite HORROR movies came out between '77 and '80. I'll say it again, Good Times!
Amityville II: The Possession (1982)
Why, oh why does this movie get such a bad rap?
Let's start off with some boring facts. I know no one wants to read them, but they must be faced. Although this film is based on Hans Holzer's supposedly non-fiction book about the DeFeo Family tragedy, it is, in fact, screen-written by Tommy Lee Walace (hold your applause until the end please) and not to be taken so damned seriously. I can understand the realism confusion here. If this movie is based on a factual event and book (very much so promoted that way too, like its counterparts), then why change the names and what really happened? I'll tell you... It's An Embellished Fictional Re-Telling. In other words, much more interesting to watch than if they'd made the real story. Not to mention we wouldn't want anyone suing over misinterpretation, including Ronny DeFeo. If he's even still with us?
It's a horror movie folks. It's made to be scary and entertaining. In my opinion it does both of those in spades. Creepy as hell, at least in the first hour. The pacing is break-neck, for this type of film, again, in the first hour. And what happened to Jack Magner. I know the old standard is you're only as good (or wanted) as your last film. And I think that's what it is. Mr. Magners performance should have been based on his part, but ended up being based on how much the audience seems to hate this movie. I also love how his character's name is Sonny instead of Ronny (off, literally by the next letter in the alphabet).
This is one of those movies I pick to watch on a stormy night that makes my skin crawl. Keep in mind I own 4,000 DVD's and half of them are horror movies, so I have plenty to choose from. It's a film full of dread, a quality newer horror movies have forgotten about, and I truly miss and appreciate. Remaining truthful here, I kinda wish the credits would have rolled about 70 minutes in, instead of 105. The last half hour just seems tacked on to make it longer, and give the special effects people more to do. It's also a study in how guilty can we make the priest feel. Who, by the way, does come off as gay with another priest as his boyfriend. Although the ghost of the daughter that was killed by her brother confronts the priest at the end by asking if he wanted to have sex with her in the confessional. You'll note he never answers this question, he just sort of winces in angst as if wanting to tell her, NO, I"M GAY!" If that wasn't a spoiler this certainly is: I believe that after the priest asks the possessing demon to come into him, and it does (we know this because of his pulsating veins) he should have shot himself after asking God for contrition. They could have done it as a sound bite when the camera does its last pull-away from the house. It's not like this character gets used in future sequels. And I'm not sure a priest would want to live possessed by a demon. You'll also notice he was given a gun by the detective before taking Sonny out of the prison.
So, if not taken too seriously and one lets the beginning creepiness just wash over them... and one doesn't base this movie on the supposed truth, one could truly enjoy this horror movie. You can't truly tell me that the disgusting trap door in the basement and the ghost POV doesn't effect the hairs on the back of your neck!
The Island (2005)
Can we say, "Parts: The Clonus Horror?"
I just HAVE to know I was the FIRST person to realize that "The Island" was a complete rip off of "Parts: The Clonus Horror." I realized it three minutes into the film while sitting in a theater having bought a ticket that now lines Michael Bay's pocket. Like he needs it. To add salt to my own wounds, I now own "The Island" on DVD. Relax, I only paid $4.00 for it. Anywho, I was outraged that not one shred of credit was given to the writer of "Parts: ..." Being that Mr. Bay just made a perfect copy of "Parts: ..." with better funding, he falls into a category I call Same Movie- More Money (or, S. M. M. M.). I wouldn't have a problem with this if credit was given where credit is due. After I knew there was a problem I guess a few more people figured it out and eventually the director of "Parts: ..." sued Michael bay and won siting something like 146 similarities. Bully for him!
Disturbing Behavior (1998)
A scoop of this a pinch of that...
First things first... I know that any given "Newer Pop-Horror" film can be broken down into a recipe of other "Older Classic Horror" films. Yes, I also know that there is still some originality out there, I just wish I'd find it more often. Maybe I've seen too many movies...?
I just HAVE to know I was the FIRST person to realize that "The Island" was a complete rip off of "Parts: The Clonus Horror." I realized it three minutes into the film while sitting in a theater having bought a ticket that now lines Michael Bay's pocket. Like he needs it. To add salt to my own wounds, I now own "The Island" on DVD. Relax, I only paid $4.00 for it. Anywho, I was outraged that not one shred of credit was given to the writer of "Parts: ..." Being that Mr. Bay just made a perfect copy of "Parts: ..." with better funding, he falls into a category I call Same Movie- More Money (or, S. M. M. M.). I wouldn't have a problem with this if credit was given where credit is due. After I knew there was a problem I guess a few more people figured it out and eventually the director of "Parts: ..." sued Michael bay and won siting something like 146 similarities. Bully for him!
Now that I've gotten that off of my chest, let's continue on to "Disturbing Behavior." A fairly complete rip-off of "Strange Behavior." They barely changed the title, for Pete's sake. The original title of "Strange behavior" is "Dead Kids," but we couldn't have a movie released in America under THAT title, so we changed it from its original Australian title. So, I'm going to give you, in only MY opinion, what I think the recipe for "Disturbing Behavior" is. And keep in mind that stuff from above. I wouldn't have a problem if after stealing ideas from other writers that they were tossed a few crumbs of recognition from the recipe.
A Whole Heepin' Bushell of "Strange Behavior" (AKA "Dead Kids")1981
A Cup of "Stepford Wives" 1975
Half a Cup of "Death Warmed Up" 1985
And just a pinch of "A Clockwork Orange" 1971
Mix together thoroughly and bake (EDIT- call it what you will) until your 16 year-old audience of 1998 accepts it as a glossy S. M. M. M. and... Enjoy!
We could call this a spoiler... if one knows how to follow a recipe. If it makes you feel any better; I do own the films "Parts: The Clonus Horror," and "Disturbing Behavior." I'm sure that one would never gather from this review that I actually like this film. It's colorful, attractive, and moves quickly without a lot of explosions. Like cotton candy... it's easy, and fun, to swallow.
Christina's House (2000)
Do we see a similarity to "Black Christmas?"
Change just a couple of things and we have an updated, "Black Christmas." It's Summer. It's in a family household instead of a sorority house. That's it! Creepy guy lives in walls and attic of house and offs the occupants. The ending even has the attic light coming on just before the credits. Though it's a replacement, the killer is still in the house... a-la Billy! You vintage horror fans know what I mean.
Don't get me wrong, this movie is still a decent waste of time. Although it does squarely fit into the new horror type-casting of weird people we don't like and can't wait to be killed. This also makes everyone a suspect, even(more so)the seemingly innocent ones. I do so love the trap door that drops victims into a saw-blade laden funnel.
It's worth a look, but don't waste any money on it. There are many other more worthy titles.