Disturbing Behavior (1998)

Disturbing Behavior (1998)
Watched October 25, 2009

Warning: Some spoilers follow.
"In Cradle Bay, it doesn't matter if you're not perfect. You will be."

Steve Clark (James Marsden) and his family just moved to Cradle Bay. On the first day of school, Steve notices that there is a group, the Blue Ribbons, who seem a little too perfect. Steve and his friend, Gavin, stumble upon the fact that a crazed doctor is transforming previously unruly students into completely perfect teenagers. It's up to Steve, his new girlfriend Katie Holmes, and some random janitor character to stop the Blue Ribbons and the doctor before they all fall prey to his nutso scheme.

I think the 1990s were probably the worst time for horror in recent history. Sure, there were your Screams here and there that were awesome and are classics, but for the most part, the films were just kind of "eh". Case in point: Disturbing Behavior. The film is never particularly good, but never spectacularly bad. It's merely forgettable. It's merely "eh".

But, honestly, I'm going to give the film a little slack as it is one of the many flicks over the years that was butchered to pieces by its distributor. I haven't seen a "director's cut" of the film, nor do I have the DVD, so I cannot watch the deleted scenes. Therefore, I have to judge the film on the cut that was shown on MGM-HD. It's not the theatrical release cut, as that has a "deleted love scene" with James Marsden and Katie Holmes. So, I assume it's the cut from the DVD release, which is supposed to pale in comparison to the director's cut. But, the film wasn't too good to begin with, so I'm not going to watch it again just to watch the director's real vision. I figure it's more or less the same.

Enough about theatrical release cuts and the like! I am here to tell you whether or not you should spend your precious time watching Disturbing Behavior. But, the problem is I don't really know how to answer that question. At first, I would say no. But then I would regret that decision, and say yes. But then I would say that it doesn't really deserve a full recommendation. So I'm just going to compromise, and say maybe, if the plot appeals to you.

The acting is acceptable, with the best actors in the movie being Nick Stahl as the paranoid Gavin, and William Sadler as the janitor character. Even though the janitor character is really stupid and pointless (why is he going so far out of his way to help these kids, even going as far as to kill himself to stop the doctor's plot?), I must admit Sadler did a good job portraying him. And Gavin, the best character in the movie, is greatly helped by Stahl's acting.

Speaking of Gavin, I don't think the filmmakers did the right thing converting him into a Blue Ribbon halfway through the film. The character was probably the most interesting thing about the entire movie, and after he becomes a Blue Ribbon, the movie becomes less interesting.

Overall, the movie isn't very good. But it isn't horrible. I'm going to use my favorite word again, and say it's just "eh". Eh. If you do choose to watch the film, don't expect anything great, and don't expect to remember much of it in a couple of months. If you don't watch the film, you're not really missing anything. "Disturbing Behavior" gets:

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

Cemetery of Terror (1985)

Cemetery of Terror (1985)
Watched October 24, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Half-slasher, half-zombie-movie, this Mexican flick follows a group of teens who happen to revive a psycho killer with some sort of ability to raise the dead and throw people around with his mind.

SHORT REVIEW
"Cemetery of Terror" isn't bad, but it's pretty forgettable and it suffers from bad pacing.

REVIEW
This is my first review for I Watch Horror Movies since June. I don't really even know why I'm trying to revive the site, because I don't have enough time to do so, but I have had over 2,000 visitors in the last few months, and I figure that's pretty good. So what better movie to revive my awful site with than a forgotten Mexican slasher flick that 99.9% of people don't give a shit about? Yay!

"Cemetery of Terror", released in Mexico under the name "Cementerio del terror" in 1985, is partly a rip-off of "Halloween" and partly a rip-off of "The Evil Dead". The first half of the movie is a bunch of dumbass teens who find a black book in the attic of an abandoned house, and decide to revive a dead man with the chants hidden inside it. Of course, the dead man they steal from the morgue turns out to be a psycho killer who may just be a demon from Hell. And so the teens are hunted one-by-one.

The second half of the movie follows a bunch of kids who somehow got the bright idea to go trick-or-treating in a graveyard (?) and end up trapped in said graveyard, with revived corpses chasing them around.

And then there's a doctor who is running around, yelling about he needs the black book to somehow kill the psycho.

"Cemetery of Terror" isn't technically a bad film, it's just that it's completely underwhelming, and you've seen it all before in the films it ripped off. That being said, it's pretty solid if you forget about the fact that it presents no original ideas. It's got some pretty good gore and kills here and there, and even manages to be suspenseful for brief periods of time. The 2nd half, the half with the zombies, isn't as good as the 1st half, but that's only because the zombies seem practically incapable of doing anything of use. For God's sake, they can't manage to kill one little stupid kid, not even the 10-year-old wearing the comically large Michael Jackson jacket.

I think the main problem with the movie is the pacing. For 40 minutes, nothing really happens. There are six ridiculously underdeveloped teenagers (Horny Guy 1, Horny Guy 2, Horny Guy 3, Scared Girl 1, Scared Girl 2, Scared Girl 3) that you have to follow along for a while. The whole point of this forty minutes is to basically show you that these guys are so horny, they are willing to steal a body from the morgue and hold a black magic ceremony just so the girls will get scared and maybe possibly have sex with them. This is a lot of work just to get laid.

But after that 40 minutes of nothing, suddenly there are six kill scenes in 15 minutes. That's like a kill every two and a half minutes. What really pisses me off is that there wasn't really even any point to the six teenagers, as they just walk around for forty minutes and then get killed immediately after they revive the killer. They could have stretched this part out a little more...

The kills are pretty gory, but they're never really that interesting. Almost every kill (if not every one) in the movie is the killer dude scratching people up to death with his nails. I don't know how the hell he makes his fingernails so deadly, but they're almost as effective as Freddy's razor gloves. If you want really inventive kills, "Cemetery of Terror" isn't the place to go, but there's enough gore to make them interesting.

Then, after the teenagers are dispatched, you meet some even more ridiculously underdeveloped characters, this time in the form of kids. Since they're kids, they don't even get the adjective of "horny" to describe them, they're all just scared. Doesn't make you particularly interested in the characters if all their characterizations are exactly the same. Then, the useless zombies are revived. Even though the zombies look pretty cool, like I said, they're completely useless and never accomplish anything in their part of the movie.

I feel like I'm dragging on a bit. Basically, this is just a "Halloween" rip-off (doctor tracks down his ex-psychiatric patient who happens to be a psycho killer) with some zombies thrown in to keep things interesting. Completely underwhelming and forgettable, but I've seen a lot worse, and if you're interested to see what a Mexican slasher would be like, this is one of your best bets. I'm giving "Cemetery of Terror":

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964)

Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964)
Watched June 1, 2009


SYNOPSIS
Six tourists are the guests of honor at Pleasant Valley's centennial, but little do they know, the guests of honor aren't going to be leaving.

SHORT REVIEW
The death scenes are great, and the rest isn't that great. It's better than "Blood Feast" though.

REVIEW
I'm still quite surprised that TCM would play "Blood Feast" and "Two Thousand Maniacs!", when they're supposed to be playing classic movies. I guess "Blood Feast" could be considered a classic, as it spawned an entire genre of splatter films, but "2000 Maniacs" was just Herschell Gordon Lewis' next film. I guess I shouldn't be complaining, though, as it gave me the opportunity to see some of the first gore films.

And "2000 Maniacs!" is much improved from Lewis' last effort. "Blood Feast" was mostly awful, and its semi-remake "Blood Diner" is leaps and bounds better in my opinion. Man, I love "Blood Diner". Anyways, back to "2000 Maniacs!".

The only reason most people are going to watch this film is to see the death scenes, I think. And for good reason, as that's the only good thing about the film. The characters aren't interesting, the plot is stupid and sometimes confusing, and there's a reason you've probably never heard of any of the actors (although the acting is much improved from "Blood Feast").

But, the gore is pretty good. Sure, it's not as professional as gore flicks these days, but what can you expect from 1964? They did the best they could and overall, the gore's pretty good. It also helps that the kills are pretty inventive. The barrel roll is just pretty freaking awesome, in my opinion. Best kill by far. You also get limbs dismembered in various ways and an especially fun but over drawn-out "lady being crushed by giant rock" scene. But, don't expect to actually see the acts happening. For the boulder scene, you basically just see the girl after she gets crushed. I was hoping for you to actually see the girl get demolished, a la "Final Destination 2" with the pigeon scene. But, nay. You just see the after-effects. But, again, it's 1964. They didn't have experience with gore gags just yet.

I'm not quite sure I understand the plot though. Apparently, every 100 years, a town just reforms itself for a couple of days so it can exact revenge on some Yankees, and then just disappears again for the next 100 years. What? Why? I'm confused. But, honestly, I just don't think plot was a huge concern to Lewis and friends.

Plus, there's this damn little kid that's pretty much the most annoying little piece of shit ever. "Darn I want candy", "I want my candy", "75 miles an hour?". I was hoping someone would crush him with a boulder so he'd shut the fuck up. The actor that played this little kid never again had an acting role, which doesn't surprise me, as he's awful.

"YEE-HAW! The south's gonna rise again!"
Man, I never again want to hear that song in my life. Even the banjo can't save that annoying-as-hell tune that they feel the need to play for about 10 minutes in the movie. Soooo fucking annoying.

Okay, I've said all I have to say about "2000 Maniacs!". If you're looking to see how the splatter genre started, by all means, go back and revisit "2000 Maniacs" and "Blood Feast", especially "Blood Feast" as that's technically the more culturally significant film. Yeah, it's awful and inept in almost every way, but it's culturally significant. If you're looking for Oscar-worthy performances and plot twists that will blow your mind, get away from "Two Thousand Maniacs!". Get as far away as you possibly can. However, if you're looking for a fun time and some early gore, than rent it or whatever. I give "2000 Maniacs":

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

The Tingler (1959)

The Tingler (1959)
Watched May 31, 2009


SYNOPSIS
Vincent Price is a pathologist that discovers that, when we are extremely scared, the tingling of our spine is due to "the tingler", and can only be put to rest by screaming. Soon enough, he takes a tingler out of a woman's dead body who died of fear, and the creature gets loose. Uh-oh!

SHORT REVIEW
"The Tingler" isn't anything especially memorable or anything, but it's good enough to recommend.

REVIEW
Man, I wish I was alive to see this movie in theaters. To experience all of William Castle's stupid little gimmicks to try to attract audiences. As some of you probably know, for "The Tingler", Castle's gimmick was PERCEPTO. He attached surplus vibrators left over from WW2 to certain audience members' seats, and during a special scene in the movie, turned off all the lights in the theater, turned the vibrators on and pretended the Tingler was loose in the very theater. He also put plants in the audience to faint during the movie, only to be carried out by fake nurses. How great. Nowadays, all we get gimmick-wise is 3D, and that's been around for a looooong time and was never that amazing to begin with.

Honestly, I don't really even think there's anything special about the movie itself, I just think Castle's gimmicks are awesome. So, without the gimmick, the movie kind of loses something. It's still not a bad movie, though. We've still got Vincent Price, who's always fun to watch. We've still got that Tingler thing, which is some sort of caterpillar about 100 times too big. And we also have the highly entertaining scene where a deaf mute is literally scared to death. Awesome.

At the very least, the story's pretty damn original. I mean, there really aren't that many (if any) other movies about killer spine caterpillars with death grips attracted to your fear. I'm actually gonna go ahead and say this is the only film with that certain plot element. I'm a sucker for originality.

But, overall, there's not really anything great about "The Tingler". Yeah, it's a good film, and it's certainly entertaining, but there's nothing that makes you think "wow I am so enthralled in what's happening" or "wow this movie is amazing and I will always remember it". Nope, just a pretty average 50s movie with Vincent Price. Did I mention you get to see Price on LSD in the film? I bet that sold some people.

Alright, this one's gonna be a pretty short review, as I really have nothing else to say. I think "The Tingler" had a great plot, but I think it didn't take complete advantage of it, as the Tingler never really does anything. It tries to kill a couple people, but it's a pretty useless monster, as you or anyone around you can stop it simply by making noise. It just kind of latches on to your leg and hopes you don't notice so it can do whatever the hell a giant spine caterpillar would do to you. Sounds pretty unintimidating to me. Overall, I recommend the movie, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it. I give "The Tingler":


3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
Watched May 30, 2009

SYNOPSIS
Well, there's tomatoes that are killing people. It's one of those titles that basically explains the movie without me having to explain it. Alright, synopsis over.

SHORT REVIEW
What should have been pretty much the greatest movie ever created is alright, but tries too hard and often fails.

REVIEW
If you're not intrigued by a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", then you're either not human or are one of those snooty film losers that look down upon anyone who watches anything but Oscar winners and obscure Russian movies. If you are human and can appreciate bad cinema, then I'm pretty sure you're wondering if "Killer Tomatoes" is good enough to spend ninety minutes of your life on.

Short answer, it had so much potential, but it didn't really use it. It's not a complete loser though, the film is actually pretty funny at times. The tomato attacks are great (a stand out is the first kill in the movie, where a tomato kills a housewife but I have no freaking idea how), and there's some really humorous moments, like the man disguising himself as a tomato to infiltrate their system or the guy who always wears his military uniform and a huge parachute that hurts much more often than it helps.

However, the film seems like it tries way too hard at points. I'm pretty damn sure that the filmmakers tried to make this as bad as they possibly can, but then they try adding twists and turns to the plot that seriously muddle the film up. Plus, I have no idea who any of the characters were or what their purpose to the plot was. I don't know what Mason Dixon and his squad were trying to do. I don't know why that one girl was spying on them. And I don't know who the hell the guy is who believes he can control the tomatoes. I was pretty lost when it came to characters and plot. Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention because I was too busy eagerly awaiting the next tomato attack.

And, unfortunately, for every good joke, there's a few really bad jokes, and not "so-bad-they're-funny" jokes like they should be. Just stupid jokes that try too hard to be stupid.

But, man, is the music good. I love the "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" theme song that they play during the opening credits. I also love "Puberty Love", as it's quite possibly the worst song ever created. I need to have that song. I need to. Now.

Overall, I enjoyed "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", except sometimes it just was dull. A lot of the jokes failed miserably, and the filmmakers' attempts to actually add a real plot to the movie actually made the film worse. I think I should probably give the film 2 chainsaws, but I can't deny that the film made me laugh out loud at some parts, which is more than I can say for a lot of films I watch. So, I give "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" a disapponting, but still okay:

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

P.S. I felt that the film tried way too hard to emulate "Airplane!", but then I looked both films up, and it turns out this came out before "Airplane!". Maybe this was an influence on that spoof classic we all love. Whether or not this is true, "Airplane!" is still the much funnier movie.

Die, Monster, Die! (1965)

Die, Monster, Die! (1965)
Watched April 4, 2009

SYNOPSIS
A man goes to an old mansion to see his love, but his visit is interrupted by his love's parents turning into mutants because of a glowing green meteor they keep in their basement.

SHORT REVIEW
You've seen better. You've seen worse. Overall, it's not a huge waste of your time, but it's not that great, either.

REVIEW
"Die, Monster, Die!" is a misleading title. If you sat down to watch a movie called "Die, Monster, Die" with no idea what the movie was about, you'd think there would be a monster and a courageous monster hunter that really wants said monster to die. But, no. There isn't anything close to a monster until the last 15-20 minutes or so, and even then there's no one yelling "Die!" It's all quite disappointing.

The vast majority of the movie is actually spent following some dude around who demands that someone tell him what is going on. I swear, this guy must tell everyone in the goddamn movie to tell him what's going on. It's actually quite annoying. And when he's not demanding answers, he's snooping around a mansion looking for answers. What is it with 60s horror movies and giant, creepy mansions? It's like every 60s horror had a checklist of things to have to make it good.
- A creepy mansion.
- A creepy dude that owns the creepy mansion.
- The creepy mansion burning down in the end.

And "Die, Monster, Die!" delivers all three of those in spades. But, I still don't understand where all the monsters were. There were only two "monsters" in the film (not counting the deformed rubber animals in a pretty laughable scene) and neither of them are that imposing. One is just a glowing dude who slowly walks towards his victims but never really does anything. The other is a old lady whose face melts as soon as it tries to attack anyone. Again, not exactly the most imposing creatures in cinema history. I have to say, the pretty poorly done face melting is pretty fun to watch though.

The movie is based on an H.P. Lovecraft short story, which I can't say I've ever read. I need to catch up on my Lovecraft. Interestingly, this film is made by the same company who distributed all of the Poe adaptations in the 60s. They must have felt that they were running out of good Poe stories to make films out of, so they decided to move on to Lovecraft. But, back to the subject, I can't vouch for how good of an adaptation of the story the movie is, so I'll move on.

"Die, Monster, Die!" is a little too slow-moving for its own good and takes too long to get to the not-even-that-amazing climax. But, I have to admit, the film kept me somewhat entertained its entire running time, so that's a good thing. It's one of those movies that I guess I went in some sort of "movie trance" while watching it, so I can't even remember that much about it. That's usually a sign that the film isn't that memorable and not that special, which is exactly how I feel about "Die!" I don't really have anything else to even say about it. I give "Die, Monster, Die!" an average score of:

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

From Within (2009)

From Within (2009)
Watched March 31, 2009 (April Fool's! I watched it on April Fool's Day. Man. That may be a candidate for worst April Fool's Day joke of all time. I'm sorry.)

SYNOPSIS
Suicide after suicide is happening in a small Christian town, and who's to blame? Well, maybe the witches!

SHORT REVIEW
This Horrorfest entry isn't that great, but the delightfully grim ending and the crazy Christians who love burning people alive made me enjoy it somewhat.

REVIEW
And so it begins... After Dark Horrorfest 3! I've seen 8 of the past 16 Horrorfest films, and they're basically a mixed bag. We've had the good ("Borderland", "The Gravedancers"), the average ("Reincarnation", "Mulberry St.") and the god-awful (how I despise thee, "Unearthed"). Well, the first one I've watched from 2009 fits in with the other average entries.

"From Within" is actually pretty entertaining, due to the consistent number of suicide scenes, which range from people drinking drain cleaner to people shooting themselves. It's not like the kills were that memorable or anything, but there's so many of them that there's barely a 15-minute period without you getting to see someone else bite the dust. The kills lose some of their effect due to annoying direction and sound effects, however. I just don't understand why directors feel the need to change camera angles every half a second, because it's annoying as hell. Kills are more gruesome and interesting when you actually get to SEE the kill instead of some random flashing and camera movement.

But the film doesn't just depend on the kills to deliver a good horror, no, they focus on story. But, the story is pretty predictable and stupid, which is unfortunate, as the plot line is pretty interesting. The characters are compete caricatures. We've got the good girl, we've got the misunderstood emo kid, we've even got the good girl's boyfriend who turns out to be a big douche. Not only that, they felt the need to make the "good girl" have the obligatory "bad home life", which includes the constantly drunk mother and the nonexistent father. It's just ridiculous how many cliche characters there are in this one movie. Ridiculous.

The only interesting characters are all the Christians. I think it's pretty funny how badly Christians are portrayed in this. They are all crazy nutcases who talk like they came right out of the Bible ("Thy pain is thy salvation" who the hell says that?) and basically cause all of the conflict in the entire movie.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
They are also responsible for every death in the freaking movie. The suicides are all explained to be a curse started by one of the brothers that are supposedly witches (they are actually witches). The reason the curse was started was because all the Christians killed the guy's mother. And then, when the other brother tries to stop the curse, the Christians just kill him and so the curse lives on to kill everyone in the town. It's just awesome. SIDE NOTE: I find it interesting that the entire movie, the one person blamed for all the suicides is actually the person that is responsible for all of them. Usually, when it's a mystery of who is causing all the deaths, the filmmakers choose someone that ISN'T the main suspect. Strange.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS

The ending to the movie is also deliciously downbeat and grim. I won't give it away (well I guess I kind of did in that spoiler paragraph above), but it definitely made me like the film just a little bit more.

In the end, "From Within" really isn't anything that special, but then again, it's not bad either. At the very least, it's better than "Unearthed". God damn, I hated "Unearthed". Overall, this one is a good start to the 3rd Horrorfest, and I hope the rest of this year's entries are at least as good as this one. They probably won't be, but at least this one's pretty good. I give "From Within":


3 out of 5 chainsaws (ALRIGHT)

The Last House on the Left (1972)

The Last House on the Left (1972)
Watched March 31, 2009


SYNOPSIS
While trying to score some drugs, two teens get kidnapped, raped and murdered. After all the raping, the kidnappers need some place to stay, and unknowingly stay in the house of the girl they just killed. Needless to say, her parents aren't happy.

SHORT REVIEW
While "Last House" is somewhat disturbing and ahead of its time, it suffers from a over-abundance of unneeded comic relief and the fact that it really isn't that good of a film.

REVIEW
I had planned to watch the original "Last House on the Left" before seeing the remake. It was even on my Netflix queue. Fortunately, the good people at MGM-HD decided to play the film, so I recorded it and planned to watch it. I also planned to watch the remake when it came out on DVD, so I figured I had plenty of time to watch the original. But, things happen and I found myself going to see the remake in theaters, while the rest of my family went and saw "Knowing". I figured I'd save myself over two hours of Nicolas Cage acting, and choose the "LHOTL" remake instead. So, I saw the remake before the original, which I don't like to do, because it may make me enjoy the original less because I'll know what happens. Well, I never thought I'd actually be saying this, but it didn't really matter that I knew what happens, because the remake is a better film. Gah, I still can't believe I prefer a remake. I'm supposed to despise remakes! But, so far, 2009 is making me rethink my stand on remakes.

Enough remake talk! We're talking about the original "Last House" (not really original as it is a remake of "The Virgin Spring"); the one that started Wes Craven's career, the one that is supposed to be one of the most shocking, disturbing and hard-to-watch horror movies in history. To make a long story short, I think it's lost a lot of its shock value. I mean, it's not hard to see how this was shocking in the 1970s. People in the 70s weren't desensitized to extreme violence. But, in this day and age, we have more films that out-shock this one by far.

And since really the only thing going for this movie was its controversy, it makes it even more evident that this really isn't a very good movie.

The main thing wrong with it is that there is a distinct lack of consistent tone. The entire movie is basically teenagers getting humiliated and raped, but for some reason, there's some pretty happy, upbeat music playing during all of it. And in between all of the raping, there's some cops who drive right past the killers' car, drive back to arrest the killers only to find they didn't fill up their car with gas and then try to hitch a ride with some creepy black lady who loves chickens. At the very least, it's just distracting; but sometimes it's just incredibly annoying. Craven probably felt that the film was too grim (that's the only explanation for this crap I can think of), but c'mon. He couldn't think of another way to lighten up the tone without having fat cops falling off of cars? Really? C'mon.

Also, after the young girls are disposed of, we are "treated" to the parents getting their revenge on the rapists. This "revenge" basically amounts to smearing shaving cream on the floor and an awkwardly long and badly done chainsaw kill. Oh, and who can forget the mother giving one of the rapists a BJ, only to conclude by biting his penis off? This part of the movie isn't really even that gory, and is mostly just stupid. The best part of this half of the movie is actually a dream sequence, that unfortunately doesn't amount to anything. Damn. The remake does this a lot better, as it at least has exploding heads. I am a sucker for exploding heads.

And the acting is bad. Just a quick note.

Hmm... there's really no reason to watch this film unless you want to see how Craven got his start and/or you want to see the film that spawned the (superior) remake. I still can't believe I'm saying the remake is superior, but unfortunately the original "Last House" hasn't aged that well, and it's not as shocking as it was back in the day. If you're uninitiated with disturbing horror movies, this one's a pretty good starting point, though. But for the rest of you, eh. You can skip it, unless the curiosity gets the best of you or you really want to hear about how Mari's breasts developed over the summer. I think I give the film 2 chainsaws, but I'll give it the "Honorary Important Film" chainsaw, as it is actually a pretty important and ahead-of-its-time film. So, "Last House" gets a:

3 out of 5 chainsaws (AVERAGE)

Sometimes They Come Back (1991)

Sometimes They Come Back (1991)
Watched March 29, 2009



SYNOPSIS

Evil teens from Hell return to finish unfinished business with a teacher who has just moved back to his old town many years after his brother’s tragic death.

SHORT REVIEW

I enjoyed “Sometimes They Come Back”, but I’m not completely sure I understand what happened, and it was pretty stupid at times.

REVIEW

I think just about every Stephen King novel or short story has a film adaptation. It's ridiculous how many of them there are. On his IMDb page, King is credited as "Writer" for 108 films, and I'm guessing he was credited on the majority of those because he wrote whatever the film was based on. 108. That's amazing.

"Sometimes They Come Back" definitely isn't one of the most well-known adaptations of King's work, and it's definitely not the best, either. "The Shining", "Carrie", "It", "The Mist" and many more are all far superior to this film. But "Sometimes They Come Back" is still pretty good, just not to the level of those previously mentioned movies.

First off, the movie's actually kind of scary, especially for a movie that was made for TV. It's got its moments of scares. It's also pretty lame at times, but like I said, it has its moments. The movie's pretty dark, also, with the victims all being kids that didn't do anything wrong. All they really did was get along with their teacher. That'll teach them to get along with people. But, sometimes, it's pretty funny when I don't think it was supposed to be.

King seems to do a very good job of developing his characters, and making you care about them throughout the story, and "Sometimes They Come Back" is no exception. All the characters are pretty good and you care about their fate, which is rare in horror movies, to be honest. Mostly you're just cheering for them to die. Or maybe that's just me. Oh well.

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

But, honestly, I really have no idea why the teens from Hell actually came back. I know "sometimes they come back", but why? I don't really know what kind of unfinished business they had, because it's their own fault that they were hit by a speeding train. It's not like the protagonist pushed them in front of said train and then covered it up as an accident. It was basically their own stupidity. So apparently, the moral of the story is that if you stupidly decide to head back to your car and get hit by a train when you easily could have just ran away and lived, you get to come back from the dead and blame your death on some school teacher that never really said or did anything. Interesting.

END SPOILERS

END SPOILERS

END SPOILERS

Overall, it was kind of just an average movie that I actually recommend seeing, but I wouldn't go out of your way to see it or anything. It's not on Netflix for some reason, so you'd have to either rent it some other way, buy it or wait for it to be on TV (I saw it on MGM-HD), and unless you're in love with the short story or Stephen King in general, there's better movies for you to see. But, hey, it was well-acted, kind of scary and even kind of sad. So, I give "Sometimes They Come Back":

3 out of 5 chainsaws (IT'S ALRIGHT)

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)