The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)
Watched March 28, 2009

SYNOPSIS
The plot includes skeletons, mutants, aliens, forest creatures and science. I'm not going to expand on that.

SHORT REVIEW
"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is hilarious from start to finish.

REVIEW
I like sci-fi movies from the 50s. Their wooden acting, nonsense plot and overall awful-ness just make me enjoy them greatly. "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" perfectly replicates those B-movies by giving us ultra-wooden acting and overall ultra-awful-ness.

A scientist and his wife go to the woods to find an asteroid made of Atmospherium. But, it appears as if they're not the only ones after the Atmospherium. A couple of aliens need it to help start up their ship so they can get back home. And, the evil guy needs it to bring the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra back to life. Who will get to the Atmospherium first? Will the Lost Skeleton be found? And what of the mysterious mutant that has escaped from the alien's ship? All of these questions will be answered in "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra", filmed in glorious Skeletorama.

It seems like just about every line uttered in the film is quotable. And almost all of them are funny, if not hilarious. "Seriously, Betty, you know what this meteor could mean to science. It could mean actual advances in the field of science." "I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything." "Why shake when we could touch other things... like lips?" The list could go on and on. There are so many classic lines in here, it's scary.

Speaking of scary, there's really no way this could be considered a horror film, so if you want one of those, don't see this. Actually, see this anyway, because it's pretty much amazing.

This is going to be a pretty short review, because there's nothing really to say about "The Lost Skeleton" except for the fact that it's really, really funny, almost to the point of being genius sometimes. And the film has so many jokes shoved in it that I'm sure it has a lot of replay value.

If there's any flaw in the film, it's that some jokes or scenes go on for far too long than they should. There's a scene between the evil guy and the aliens where they talk about sharing that really wasn't that funny to begin with, but then it's dragged on for another minute or two, so I was almost to the point of yelling "Get on with it!" Fortunately, these instances are far and few between, so you can get back to the hilarity pretty soon.

Ah, how I loved this movie. I might even consider buying it, and I don't buy many DVDs unless they're on sale. So, that's just a sign of how good it is. I give "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra":


5 out of 5 chainsaws (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

Re-Cycle (2006)

Re-Cycle (2006)
Watched March 29, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A young author finds herself in a world where everything that has been abandoned lives.

SHORT REVIEW
"Re-Cycle" has dazzling visuals and an interesting plot, but I only thought it was alright.

REVIEW
The Pang Brothers really should just stay in Hong Kong. I really liked "The Eye", and "Re-Cycle" is pretty good, too. But when they come over to America, they make these awful movies like "Bangkok Dangerous" and "The Messengers". What is it about the U.S. that spawns these awful movies from otherwise pretty talented filmmakers? It's quite strange.

I wouldn't say "Re-Cycle" is on par with "The Eye", and it's really only horror for less than half of the movie, but I have to say that it is a pretty good fantasy movie. The first part of the movie deals with the main protagonist in her apartment writing her new novel. But, it appears like the supernatural forces from the story she's writing are loose and in her apartment, and she's having some pretty creepy encounters. This part of the film is pretty damn good, is very suspenseful and has some genuine scares.

But then, suddenly the film switches gears. It was weird that the tone switched so quickly, because I was expecting a horror film all the way through, but for the most part, "Re-Cycle" is a fantasy, almost a fairy tale for adults, like "Pan's Labyrinth". The author is transported to some other world, which is soon revealed to be the place that everything that has been abandoned goes. Interesting premise, and it's pretty well executed, because of its great and memorable visuals. Among them is a cave of aborted babies, which is pretty creepy.

Speaking of caves of aborted babies, the film has a very prominent anti-abortion message.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
The main character has a little girl helping her through the entire movie, and at the end, it's revealed that the little girl is actually her baby she aborted eight years ago. The protagonist begs and begs for the little girl to come with her back to Earth, to which the girl responds "you had your chance to live with me." Boom. Schooled.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
I'm definitely not one of those crazy "Choose life or I'll kill you" people, but the movie actually did make an alright anti-abortion case that makes you think about your stand on abortion. And even if you are pro-choice all the way, it doesn't make the cave of aborted babies any less awesome.

Well. I'm done. I have nothing else to say. The visuals are cool, but really, I can't say I loved the movie. You haven't seen anything else like it, but I wouldn't put "Re-Cycle" on the top of your "Must See" list or anything. I give "Re-Cycle":

3 out of 5 chainsaws (IT'S ALRIGHT)

Spookies (1986)

Spookies (1986)
Watched March 28, 2009


SYNOPSIS
A bunch of twenty-somethings stumble upon a haunted mansion and are hunted by some dude who is obsessed with chess, who needs said twenty-somethings to revive his dead love that actually hates him, and all the while, Billy's parents forgot his birthday so he stumbles upon same haunted mansion. Don't worry, watching the movie won't make the plot line make any more sense.

SHORT REVIEW
While "Spookies" doesn't make a lick of sense, it's pretty entertaining due to its copious monster effects and 80s-ness (is that a word?).

REVIEW
The story behind "Spookies" is actually quite interesting, and also quite sad, because what could have been a pretty damn good film was screwed up pretty bad. So, "Spookies" was once known as "Tortured Souls", which was about a group of teenagers who find an old mansion and decide to party hard. Unfortunately, the old mansion is filled with Chinese ladies who turn into spiders, zombies from Evil Dead and flatulent mud men. Yes, flatulent mad men. More on that later. But, anyways, "Tortured Souls" was finished, but there were apparently issues with the financial backer during post-production and the two directors of "Tortured Souls" were fired. Then, said financial backer hired some chick who made porn films to finish the film. The porn chick cut the "Tortured Souls" footage down to about 40 minutes, and then padded out the rest of the running time with newly shot footage of some necromancer dude trying to revive his dead love, all the while hiding in birthday presents to scare little kids. The two completely different films were edited together, and bam-o, we have "Spookies".

It really is a shame, because this makes the film virtually impossible to follow, and almost ruins the film. That damn financial backer. The "Tortured Souls" footage is actually pretty good, and even though it's not great, the final product of that film definitely would have been better than the "movie" we got to see.

The main thing that makes the film entertaining is all the very well done creature effects. We've got hordes of zombies, Asian spiders and beams of light that have the power to age, all of which are very well done. I'm sure if there were giant half-Asian, half-spider women in the world today, they would look somewhat similar to the ones portrayed in the film. But, alas, there are no spider women, so I can't say that for sure. I'd say my favorite monster was the giant Grim Reaper statue that comes to life. It's pretty freaking awesome, but, alas, when giant Grim Reaper statues are thrown off a two-story building, for some reason, they explode, so it didn't last for long. My other favorite are the muck men. I have no freaking idea what the filmmakers were thinking when they created said muck men, but god damn is it hilarious. First off, I watched the film on YouTube (Spookies isn't available on U.S. DVD, unfortunately, so I had to watch it online). So, the horny rebel and girlfriend are in the basement, when suddenly, these cool-looking mud men come out of the ground and attack. Suddenly, there are copious farting noises. I was convinced the user who put the film on YouTube added the farting noises to add humor to the movie. That's how oddly placed these noises are. To make matters worse, these flatulent mud men can be killed with just about any liquid at your disposal, making them quite possibly the least intimidating movie creature... ever.

The characters are all cardboard cutouts; we've got the rebel who just wants to party, we've got the responsible couple who looks about 20 years older than everyone else in the cast and we've got the obligatory horny teenagers. Overall, nothing special in the character area. Does that matter? No.

It's the footage shot after the "Tortured Souls" footage that almost ruins the film. We're treated to the story of Kreon, a necromancer magician dude who loves this one chick, who hates him so much, she poisoned herself just to get away from him. But alas, Kreon still feels like stalking her, so he brings her back to life somehow. I'm still not really sure how, but it has something to do with the people inside the house. Again, try to make sense of this plot.

And for reasons unknown, porn chick decided to throw in some kid who may or may not be mentally retarded. This kid's parents forgot his birthday, so he goes to the mansion, where there's a birthday party set up for him. He somehow ignores all the gaps in logic and decides his parents threw him this birthday party. He ends up being buried alive. Yes, this part has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

You know, I like ranting about this film. I could just keep talking about it, but I'm just gonna stop. Even if the film isn't perfect (far from it), I really wish "Spookies" got a DVD release so more horror fans could witness this. It's, at the very least, a very entertaining movie that really should be more well-known that it is right now. Even though the film would have been better if it stayed "Tortured Souls", I still liked "Spookies" and give it:


3 out of 5 chainsaws (IT'S ALRIGHT)

Critters 4 (1991)

Critters 4 (1991)
Watched March 27, 2009


SYNOPSIS
The Critters are back... in space!

SHORT REVIEW
"Critters IV" is just so unremarkable in every way, that there's no real reason to watch it unless you really love the "Critters" series.

REVIEW
I remember watching the first "Critters" probably four years ago. I remember absolutely nothing about the film, but I do remember I watched it. And, apparently, I liked it, because I recorded "Critters 4". Yes, I've had "Critters 4" on my DVR since either 2005 or 2006, I think 2006. What's sad is that that isn't even the oldest movie I have on my DVR. I've had "The Mangler" on there since August 2005. Someday I will watch "The Mangler". But, yesterday, I made the decision to watch "Critters 4".

Overall, I've seen worse (*cough*April Fool's Day*cough*) but I bet if you ask me in six months what happened in the movie, I wouldn't remember. It's just not memorable at all. There's really just very little to say about it. It was pretty much unremarkable in every way possible.

The plot line is basically just the plot line for "Alien", replacing the aliens with Critters. A space ship goes to a deserted base, Critters get loose, and kill everybody that you'd expect to be killed. Bam. Movie over.

The humor is mostly pretty lame, with most of the jokes coming from characters being stupid or ex-wife jokes. Yep. Ex-wife jokes. I may have laughed once, but I don't remember at what.

Don't expect gore as "Critters 4" is rated PG-13. Also, don't expect scares because it's also predominantly a comedy. Hmm... maybe I would have liked this film in 2005 or 2006 or whenever I recorded it, because then I would have been closer to its intended audience. Ah well.

Well, overall, I'd just say skip this and watch the first "Critters", except I can't really vouch for that being good because I remember absolutely nothing about it. It's weird, usually I remember at least SOMETHING from a movie I watched a long while ago. The first one must be as completely unmemorable as this one. Anyways, if you want some space action, I'd just go with "Alien". I remember things from "Alien" and I haven't seen that in a while. So that must be good. I'm rambling on a little bit. I give "Critters 4" a completely unremarkable:


2 out of 5 chainsaws (PRETTY BAD, SKIP IT)

The Killing Gene (2008)

The Killing Gene (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A series of deaths are occurring in New York, some with a mysterious equation carved into the victim's body. A couple cops must figure out what's going on and stop the killer with a troubled past.

SHORT REVIEW
Even though it starts off pretty boring and confusing, if you stick through to the end, you'll find a pretty intense crime thriller in "The Killing Gene".

REVIEW
I'm starting to really like Dimension Extreme films. Some of the best films from the last couple years were Dimension Extreme offerings, such as "Black Sheep", "Teeth" and "Inside". While I wouldn't say "The Killing Gene" is on par with those three, it is a pretty good film.

First off, I'd say that "The Killing Gene", also known as "W Delta Z", is more of a crime thriller than a true horror film. Just a quick clarification for those who want a full-on horror movie.

But, crime thriller or not, it's still a very good film. The plot line is intriguing, asking if you would kill someone you love to save yourself from being killed. It kinda makes you think. The killer, who has a troubled past, of course, captures people and tortures them, always giving the option for the torture to stop if they kill the one they love most, i.e. their son, their grandmother or their pregnant wife.

Unfortunately, the first 30-40 minutes really isn't that good. It's pretty confusing, and while it all gets clarified later on, it's really annoying to not really know what's going on. Also, you really don't learn a lot about the film's main characters until later on either, so that's kind of annoying as well.

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
Also, it's pretty damn obvious who the killer is once that character is revealed. It's actually obvious from the very beginning, as the identity of the killer is pretty prominently given away on the DVD cover. It doesn't take much effort to figure out that the scarred-up, angry-looking chick on the cover is PROBABLY the killer. This wouldn't be a big problem, except the film takes an hour concealing the identity of the killer, and then the film suddenly switches gears into more torture-oriented territory after the identity is revealed. It just seems a little uneven.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

Also, the torture scenes you do see are pretty gruesome. Particularly the big final torture scene at the end, which even made me squirm in my seat. Something about nails to the fingernails gets me every time. Viewers uninitiated to gruesome blood and gore will probably find a couple scenes very hard to watch.

Well, you know, I don't have that much to say about "The Killing Gene". The plot line is pretty intriguing, and the film is overall pretty good. I give "The Killing Gene":

4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

April Fool's Day (2008)

April Fool's Day (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Exactly one year ago, a group of friends accidentally killed someone. Now, that someone is back, and unless someone confesses to the murder, then every one of them will die.

(ULTRA) SHORT REVIEW
"April Fool's Day" is a piece of shit.

REVIEW
You know they're running out of remakes when they are remaking films like "April Fool's Day". I guess they're done remaking the classics, and now they're moving on to the not-so-classics. Soon, they're going to start remaking movies that nobody has actually heard of, like "Night School" or "Graduation Day". Or "Blades".

SPOILER PARAGRAPH FOR BOTH APRIL FOOL'S DAY MOVIES
SPOILER PARAGRAPH
SPOILER PARAGRAPH
But, anyways, I'm pretty sure the only thing anyone remembers from the original was the ending, where it's revealed that none of the killings were real, and were all just a really elaborate April Fool's Day joke. So why the hell would they use the same ending as the original? This automatically erases all elements of surprise from the movie, because, really, the only people who watch Direct-to-Video horror movies are the people who love horror, and therefore, have seen the original. It's pretty f'ing stupid, in my opinion. To make matters worse, the ONLY thing that is the same between the remake and the original is the twist ending. The entire rest of the film is completely different, and doesn't even have the same basic plot line. So why the hell would the filmmakers decide to keep the "twist" ending that everybody knows the "twist" to? Alright, I'm done ranting.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

Pretty much everything in "April Fool's Day" is awful. All of the characters are annoying rich kids, so you don't give a shit whether they die. The plot line is just a sad rip-off of films such as "I Know What You Did Last Summer". The death scenes are among the worst in recent history. And the acting is bad.

The film also takes too long on the set up. Normally, a film would take about 5-10 minutes setting up the plot for the rest of the movie, i.e. killing off the character that died exactly a year ago. Except "April Fool's Day" takes a half hour to kill off this character. Not to mention the half hour you have to sit through before said character is killed off is basically just an episode of "Gossip Girl" or some other awful show like that. I mean, it has the two spoiled rich kids with the dead parents who care too much about their reputation, the gay gossip writer, and the stalker dude who films a girl incessantly. Now, I've never seen "Gossip Girl", but those characters sound like they would be lifted right off that show.

And then, after the half-hour of "Gossip Girl" B.S., you're treated to another hour of the most pitifully done death scenes you've ever seen. I mean, these are on par with the kills from "One Missed Call" and "Prom Night" (the remakes). They're bloodless and are less scary than a 5-year-old's Halloween costume. You've got the most laughable drowning scene that you've ever seen, you've got the worst hit-by-a-car scene that you've ever seen, and a couple more kills that are probably just about the worst you've ever seen. Are you seeing a pattern here?

The ending (see above spoilers if you just want to see the ending and spare yourself 90 minutes) also just feels tacked-on and doesn't work near as well as in the original. Plus, after the "twist" ending, they feel the need to tack on another "twist" just to try to make the film even stupider. I won't spoil this one, but I laughed out loud, it was so bad. I laughed out loud.

Honestly, I think all you readers (all you nonexistent readers) get the point. "April Fool's Day" is awful. You shouldn't even consider wasting your time on this nonsense. I'd say it's one of the worst horror movies of 2008 and it basically does nothing right whatsoever. I give "April Fool's Day":


1 out of 5 chainsaws (GOD-AWFUL)

Seed (2008)

Seed (2008)
Watched March 27, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Serial killer Max Seed is electrocuted twice and buried alive, but digs himself up and returns to have his revenge on the people who tried to kill him.

SHORT REVIEW
"Seed" is pretty damn bad, but nowhere as bad as Uwe Boll haters want you to think it is.

REVIEW
I have no problem with Uwe Boll. This may be because I haven't seen the films that are considered his worst (I've only seen this and "In the Name of the King", which really wasn't that bad). Maybe I'll hate him as much as every other film fan in the world if I see "Alone in the Dark" or "House of the Dead", but at the moment, I think there are much worse directors in the world. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (director of "Disaster Movie", "Epic Movie", "Date Movie"), for example, make Uwe Boll look like Kubrick by comparison. I also think Boll's d-bag antics are pretty damn funny.

That being said, "Seed" is a pretty bad movie. But I've seen much worse. Much, much worse. I honestly think the only reason "Seed" is so despised (it has an abysmal 2.4 rating on IMDb) is because Uwe Boll directed it. If the exact same film was released without Boll's name attached, I'm betting it would have gotten at least a somewhat better response.

But, I'm not saying it's a good movie. It's actually really stupid. The killer, Seed, has no on-screen presence, and is not scary at all. The entire film has no suspense whatsoever. The only scares are dumb "jump scares" that you'd expect from PG-13 crapfests like "Prom Night".

The blood is mostly pretty bad CGI, and looks very fake most of the time. Not only that, but the deaths you do see are way too long and drawn out. A prime example of this comes about an hour in. In a scene that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie, you see a woman tied to a chair and then for literally 5 minutes, Seed takes some hammer-axe thing to her head. 5 f'ing minutes. It's quite possibly one of the most ridiculously drawn-out death scenes in horror movie history. The scene also isn't shocking, as neither of the actors are convincing, and the CGI blood is so god-awful that it almost makes it laughable. The scene is also so sporadically shot, it's ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Seed was filming himself kill this lady. So, he sets up a camera to catch all the action. So why does the camera keep zooming in and out and shaking as if the cameraman had cerebral palsy? It really doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned kill is the best shot out of all of them; mostly due to the fact that the whole rest of the film is so fucking dark, you can't make out what the hell is happening. It's as if Uwe Boll decided to save money by just going ahead and not hiring a lighting crew. The police raid of Seed's house is ridiculous, as it's basically just 10 minutes of complete darkness and some grunting noises. Plus, I think the cameraman was also having some sort of seizure, because of the parts I could see, the camera was shaking around so much, I thought I was watching "Cloverfield".

Also, the characters are the definition of cardboard cutouts. You learn absolutely nothing about any of them, to the point that you can't tell any of them apart. But, most of them are actually competent actors, except for the main policeman. Just watch the dream sequence including this actor that's about five minutes in, where he gives such a bad performance, it's laughable. "DOES ANYONE SEE THE KILLER? NO! THAT'S THE KILLER! STOP THE BUS! DON'T GIVE HIM YOUR BABY! NO!" It's ridiculously bad.

But, I gotta give Boll some props for actually having the balls to kill off people you don't expect to die.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
The ending sequence is uncompromisingly brutal, where the main guy's daughter sees her mother get killed before her eyes, and then watches her dad graphically shoot himself live on a TV screen. To add insult to injury, Seed then locks her up with dead daddy to watch him decompose. Not many filmmakers would have the balls to do that.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

The thing that has gotten the film most of the attention its getting is its graphic depiction of (real) animal killings at the beginning. While it has virtually no point to the rest of the film, the footage is pretty shocking. Another potential shocker is the scene where police officers watch Seed's filmed footage of a baby decomposing and being eaten by maggots. Like I said, not many filmmakers would have the balls to do that.

But all of the brutality is to make a point that humans are awful beings. Don't you all just love horror movies with morals?

After reading some reviews on Netflix (by the way, the film is one of many available to watch instantly on Netflix) afterwards, I actually gained some respect for "Seed". There were many one-star reviews, saying that the film is "absolutely revolting" and "despicable", and there were many reviewers that said they could not finish watching it because it was so sickening. While I had no trouble finishing it (I guess I'm just a bad person), I realized something. Isn't horror meant to shock? Doesn't this mean that "Seed" is a great horror film? Horror films like "Inside" and "Martyrs" are praised for being truly shocking, disturbing and hard to watch. So I guess "Seed" actually made its point well. There are truly awful people in this world, and the film may have opened people's eyes to that. This epiphany of mine didn't make me change my mind that the film was bad, but it did make me understand the point of the movie. And, since I guess it did its job well, I'll give "Seed" an extra chainsaw and give it:

2 out of 5 chainsaws (PRETTY BAD, SKIP IT)

P.S.:I almost considered giving it 3, but then I remembered that the actual film was damn awful. But 2 out of 5 is pretty good considering the director is considered the worst in the world.

Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV (2000)

Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV (2000)
Watched March 26, 2009


SYNOPSIS
Tromaville's favorite hideously deformed monster hero of superhuman size and strength is back to fight his doppelganger, to save mentally retarded children and to save his wife's baby.

SHORT REVIEW
If you like Troma or the Toxic Avenger series, you're sure to like this one. If you don't like Troma, then this sure won't change your mind.

REVIEW
I can't understand why some horror fans dislike Troma. From what I've seen from them, their films are pretty amazing. Sure, there's no real redeeming value at all to them. The special effects suck, the acting sucks, and they have plot holes the size of Texas. But, do I care? No. Because when you sit down to watch a Troma film, you know you're going to have fun. Especially if they are actual Troma productions, and not just being distributed by Troma. Because "Blades" sucked and that was a Troma distributed film. But, if Lloyd Kaufman directed it, it's pretty much guaranteed to be fun as hell.

And "Citizen Toxie" is no exception. The film is as politically incorrect as humanly possible. It has mentally retarded children getting shot in mass amounts, man-whores, monster rape, the KKK, drunken kabuki men, and more. Not to mention the massive amounts of gore and nudity. It's pretty damn great.

The gore is great, and there are plenty of smashed heads, disembowelments, exploding monster penises and face peelings to keep even the biggest gorehound happy. And if you're in the mood for gratuitious sex and nudity, boy, do I have the film for you. I think there was actually too much nudity, because I don't think nudity should be the main point of a horror film, but, hey, that's only my opinion.

The movie's also hilarious. The other superheroes in the film are amazing. From Master-Bater, the half-rapper, half-sex offender, to Dolphin Man, all of the superheroes are pretty damn funny, and it's a shame that many of them don't have that much screen time. Especially Lardass, The Toxic Avenger's sidekick for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The parts with him were among the funniest. Any superhero that fights with sausage nunchucks is amazing.

Unfortunately, there's a good amount of the jokes that just suck. Toilet humor just isn't that funny, and "Citizen Toxie" has so much toilet humor, you'd think it was made by second graders. If they would have cut out the toilet humor, in exchange for some more really good gags, I think "Citizen Toxie" might have even surpassed the original "Toxic Avenger".

As it stands right now, however, the original is, in my opinion, much better, and is by far the best in the series. I'd say "Citizen Toxie" is the 2nd best though. The 3rd one is god-awful, but I actually really liked the 2nd one. I give "Citizen Toxie":



4 out of 5 chainsaws (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Deep Red (1975)

Deep Red (AKA Profondo rosso) (1975)
Watched March 25, 2009
NOTE: I watched the 126-min. cut of Deep Red.


SYNOPSIS
A pianist witnesses the murder of a psychic, and teams up with a reporter to find the killer before they are killed.

SHORT REVIEW
"Deep Red" was great. This is a very short "short review".

REVIEW
I'm going to admit up front, I'm not the biggest Argento fan around. The other movies I've seen from Argento were "Suspiria" and "Opera"; I thought "Suspiria" was good, but highly overrated, and I thought "Opera" was pretty stupid. Sure, both are stylish as all hell, and "Suspiria" is one of the better looking horror films I've seen, but I could never really get into them, and I felt pretty disappointed after watching both of them. But, I'm glad to say that "Deep Red" restored my faith in Dario Argento, and I'm hoping the next film of his I watch is this good.

The film's got it all. It retains what I liked about "Suspiria" and "Opera", that being the style. It features some gruesome murders, all of which are shot well and will satisfy most gorehounds. The plot is intriguing, as are the characters.

That's not to say the film is without its flaws. There's way too much comic relief in "Deep Red". It's as if Argento felt that the film was too gruesome or whatever, so he just shot a bunch of scenes with this stupid reporter chick who is always trying to be funny. She never is. It's actually pretty annoying. Maybe the shorter cuts cut out all this BS and keep to the interesting plot, but the 126-minute cut sure doesn't. It's unfortunate, as it ruins all the atmosphere and suspense that the film builds so well.

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
And the murderer is just some comic relief character who has about 5 minutes of screen time, which I thought was pretty stupid, to be honest.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

It pisses me off when I get things spoiled for me in films, so I have an alert. I hope that was obvious enough.

What is it about Italian movies and their extremely awesome music? I swear, the score for this and other Italian horror movies ("Stagefright" and "Demons" come to mind) just make me want to get up and dance. I don't know why, but that weird jazz-rock music they play is just crazy awesome. It's also quite distracting, as weird jazz-rock music doesn't quite fit with people getting their teeth smashed in. I guess it's less distracting than the ear-piercingly loud heavy metal music Argento picked for the death scenes in "Opera", but still...

On a completely different note, please don't get this film from Netflix. God damn Netflix. The DVD they gave me didn't give me the option to watch the film in Italian with English subtitles, which I prefer to do during foreign-language films. So I had to watch the English dub. But, then the DVD kept switching from English to Italian to English to Italian. It's really pretty annoying when a couple lines are in English, then suddenly they're speaking Italian. Especially when the languages switch mid-sentence, as it did a couple times. Upon further research, it appears they lost part of the English dub, so I guess it isn't really the DVD's fault. But could they at least have had better subtitles for it? Every f'ing line, there's a spelling or grammar mistake. Sometimes, they don't even bother putting subtitles! There was probably 3-5 minutes of the film that I missed every line of dialogue, because it was in Italian with no subtitles. What the hell. Get a better DVD copy.

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
Not to mention the goddamn DVD started skipping right when the murderer gets decapitated by an elevator. That's just so disappointing when you don't get to see elevator decapitations. Missing elevator decapitations because of scratched DVDs make me want to decapitate people with elevators.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

Wow, I'm ranting a little bit. I guess that's my cue to end my review. I'd give "Deep Red" a 4.5 out of 5, but since I don't accept half-chainsaw reviews, because of the awesome music, I'll give "Deep Red":

5 out of 5 chainsaws (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)
Watched March 25, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A young man goes to Spain to investigate his sister's untimely death, and soon learns that there's more to the story than he thought.

SHORT REVIEW
"The Pit and the Pendulum" is a very well-acted and suspenseful horror, and is especially recommended if you are a big fan of Poe or Vincent Price.

REVIEW
"The Pit and the Pendulum" is just one of those movies that I have a hard time writing a review for. I enjoyed the movie, but not to the point of raving about how amazing it is. And it didn't really have many discernible flaws to point out to you readers. So, I basically have nothing to write about. So, this may not be that good of a review.

I don't watch many 60s horror movies, because it's not my favorite horror time period, but I have to say, out of the other movies I've watched from that era recently, I think I liked "The Pit and the Pendulum" the most. It's never dull and will keep you on your toes the entire length of the film. For a movie that is almost fifty years old, it's also quite suspenseful. It doesn't depend on blood and gore, instead, it builds creepy atmosphere and a sense of dread.

Vincent Price is great, as usual. There's no weak points to the cast, and they all do a good job portraying the character they are playing. The plot is engrossing, especially if you haven't read the story it's based on in a while, so you don't remember what happens next. That's how it was for me, as I haven't read the story for a good while.

This is the second Poe/Price/Corman movie I've seen (the first being "Tales of Terror"), and I look forward to seeing more. "The Pit and the Pendulum" gets:





4 chainsaws out of 5 (VERY GOOD, SEE IT)

Blades (1989)

Blades (1989)
March 24, 2009




SYNOPSIS
There is a rogue lawnmower killing people at the Tall Grass golf course.

SHORT REVIEW
If you've always wished that "Jaws" starred a killer lawnmower instead of a killer shark, then, boy do I have a movie for you. For anyone else, you can do a lot better than this.

REVIEW
So, the first ever movie on "I Watch Horror Movies." I probably should have watched something that somebody's actually heard of, but that didn't work out as planned. I wanted to watch "Deep Red" last night, but I was too busy listening to the new Mastodon album. Since "Deep Red" is 120 minutes long, I needed a shorter movie to watch. Somehow, that ended up being "Blades", an obscure late 80s Troma flick.

"Blades" is apparently a comedy-horror movie, but in reality, it's basically just "Jaws" with a lawnmower instead of a shark. The plot of "Jaws" is basically ripped-off completely, right down to the "shark hunter" being replaced with a "lawnmower hunter" and the shark gutting scene being replaced by a lawnmower gutting scene. Yes. A lawnmower gutting scene.

You'd think all of this would be funny, but it's not. Despite "Blades" being a "spoof", I really think there were less than ten "jokes" in the entire movie. The only mildly funny scenes are the lawnmower attacks, and those are just about nonexistent.

Speaking of nonextistent lawnmower attacks, "Blades" is really slow-paced and pretty boring. Other than a few bloodless cut-away death scenes, virtually nothing happens in the first hour of the movie. So, by the time something actually DOES happen (there are a couple pretty cool "lawnmower-eating-legs" shots), you could really care less. And that's really unfortunate, because the last thing a movie about a killer lawnmower should be is boring.

Overall, the movie is just too dull to be memorable, and the lawnmower attacks are too few and far between to be cool. There's no scares or suspense, because you know everything that's going to happen if you've ever seen "Jaws". So, it's not a good comedy and it's not a good horror. "Blades" gets:



2 out of 5 chainsaws (PRETTY BAD, SKIP IT)