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)

The Mangler (1995)

The Mangler (1995)
Watched June 4, 2009

SYNOPSIS
There's a laundry folding machine possessed by a demon from Hell.

SHORT REVIEW
Other than a few pretty cool death scenes, there's really not much to recommend about "The Mangler".

REVIEW
I stated way back in my "Critters IV" review that some day I would watch "The Mangler". It's been on my DVR since August of 2005, almost four years! Well, yesterday, I finally watched "The Mangler". I probably should have deleted it 2 or 3 years ago, and saved future me some of his time.

Y'know, with a plot line as stupid as a possessed laundry machine, you think the film would basically just be a comedy. But it's not... other than a delightfully over-the-top performance by Robert Englund, the subject matter is kept pretty deadly serious, and that's just dumb as hell. It's almost as if everyone involved actually thought a possessed laundry machine could be scary. Damn it, Tobe Hooper. I like you for making the first two "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" movies and "Poltergeist", but if this is the best you can churn out anymore, please just retire.

The film follows around a cop, played by Ted Levine from "Monk", who is trying to find out what's going on. I think Levine is about as good as he could be in his part, but his dialogue is pretty awful most of the time and the fact that he has to keep completely serious about a possessed washing machine is ridiculous. And every other word out of his mouth is "fuck" or some other 4-letter word which is pretty unnecessary. I'm fine with bad language, but here it's just distracting and annoying.

So, basically, the only pro we're left with is you get to see an old lady devoured by a washing machine. That scene is just great. I know it's kind of in bad taste, but that was just hilarious. Oh man, I'm a bad person. Anyways, you get a couple more folding-machine-involved death scenes, but for the most part, they're just the same thing as the one with the old lady, which is disappointing. None of them hold a candle to the one with the old lady, though. Again, I'm a bad person.

Robert Englund also gives an alright performance as the owner of the laundry machine factory, and is the only one that seems to be having the least bit of fun with the premise. However, his character is more annoying than funny, so that kind of ruins it.

And that's just about all I have to say about "The Mangler". The film might have been a cult classic if Hooper realized that a possessed laundry machine wasn't scary in the least and tried to make it a campy comedy. But noooo. He has to be all serious the entire time. And what's with the film being 105 minutes long? It could have easily been ninety minutes or less. Grr. Overall, the film definitely shouldn't have spent four years on my DVR, in fact, it shouldn't have ever even been recorded. But now I know, and I'm passing on my knowledge to all you readers that don't exist. Solely because of the old lady being devoured by a laundry machine scene, the film doesn't get an abysmal 1-chainsaw rating, instead I'll give it a still pretty bad:

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

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)

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)