Popcorn (1991)

Originally helmed by Alan Ormsby, his directorial role soon taken over by Mark Herrier, Popcorn is a substandard slasher movie boosted by a fun central gimmick that will appeal to fans of the antics of William Castle.

In a bid to raise funds for their film department, a group of university students decided to put on a horror movie marathon in a run-down cinema. The films being shown are wonderfully cheesy, and each one will be accompanied by an interactive feature (a giant mosquito that “flies” over the audience, electric shocks, the always dangerous odor-ama). They will also be accompanied by a number of murders, but those were never part of the plan. The killer seems most intent on targeting and terrorising a young woman named Maggie (Jill Schoelen), but what is the motivation for this night of terror?

When I call Popcorn a substandard slasher, I am not meaning to write it off completely. It is an enjoyable horror film, if a bit daft throughout, but just doesn’t sit alongside the many better slasher movies. If you want some decent gore and a high bodycount then you should look elsewhere, although there are some excellent special effects where they are needed, but if you want something that has a palpable sense of affection for the kind of film experience that forms the core of the plot then you should give this a go. It IS a popcorn horror, and it wants you to remember that throughout.

Schoelen is a decent potential final girl, whether she is wandering through a nightmare sequence in the opening sequence or being astounded when the killer is revealed. Other characters are played by Derek Rydall (playing someone amusingly “mistreated” at every opportunity by a script ensuring he is repaid for bad behaviour),  Dee Wallace (the mother of Schoelen’s character), Kelly Jo Minter, Tom Villard, Malcolm Danare, and Tony Roberts, as well as a number of others all doing absolutely fine for the kind of film that they’re a part of.

As messy as it could have been, considering the departure of Ormsby and the arrival of Herrier, Popcorn is a surprisingly coherent, and enjoyably inventive, horror film that relies on viewers sharing the obvious love for the genre that it has running through it. The technical side of things may seem a bit less inventive than the main “gags”, but it all comes together to create something more than the sum of its parts. And ends up being one I recommend.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Critters Attack! (2019)

It's another day when I cannot really be bothered to come up with a full review, because it's another movie that doesn't deserve more of my time and energy. But I am still compelled to write this, if only to warn others.

A disappointing reboot of the fun creature feature series, Critters Attack! is all the more infuriating because it comes after four movies that managed to consistently entertain genre fans over the span of a few years. 

Dee Wallace is the only returning cast member from the first movie, as far as I can tell, although her character is simply named Dee, apparently for legal reasons. She's not the main character here though. That would be Drea (Tashiana Washington), a young woman who spends most of the movie looking after her younger brother, Phillip (Jaeden Noel), as well as Trissy (Ava Preston) and Jake (Jack Fulton), the children of a professor she hopes to make a good impression on. Something crashes down from the night sky, which means it isn't long until critters are running amock.

Although Dee Wallace is happy to return, Critters Attack! is best appraised by the people who don't return to contribute to another slice of krite carnage. Don Opper and Terrence Mann are both missing, their first absence from the movie series, and there's no credit given to the Chiodo brothers, the men behind the top-notch creature designs from the earlier movies. You would think that the puppets are quite easy to get right, but there's a feeling throughout that things are a bit off this time around, and that costs have been cut wherever possible.

Writer Scott Lobdell doesn't do a good job here, seeming to be too restricted by what is deemed necessary for the series. The characters are underdeveloped and uninteresting, and the critter moments are mostly things we've already seen in the first four movies. Where they were done better.

Director Bobby Miller has one other feature, and numerous shorts, to his name. This is no calling card for him. It's hard to think of this as anything other than a cynical move, and I'm not sure what attracted Miller to the project, unless he has a love for the property and thought he could do something worthwhile with it.

Washington is a good lead, wasted in a film undeserving of her talent, and the youngsters alongside her all do very good work. It's Wallace who stands out for the wrong reasons, mainly because she feels so obviously placed within the movie as ill-conceived fan-service. I won't mention anyone else, but most are decidedly okay.

Being realistic about it, this is far from the worst movie I have ever seen (as many will know, having read some of my reviews of worse movies I have seen). It just feels like it when it gets so much wrong that every other Critters movie got right. Stick with the first four films, just forget this one exists. 

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Critters (1986)

Although I have no idea how well Critters did at the box office when it was released, I suspect it was a film that truly found a fanbase in the home video market. I know that is where I found it. And so did many other kids I knew. 

It’s quite a simple story, really, but has plenty of unique little touches to fill the runtime to feature-length without ever seeming to sag. A few aliens, known as Krites (aka the critters), escape from a prison and steal a spaceship, eventually crashing down in a small town here on Earth. This causes a lot of trouble for the Brown family, and things get more chaotic when two shape-shifting bounty hunters arrive in pursuit of the hungry wee alien beasties. 

Dee Wallace is Helen Brown, Billy Green Bush is her husband, Jay, Nadine Van der Velde is older teen daughter, Nadine, and Scott Grimes is young Brad. They are the main cast members. Billy Zane is also here, playing Steve, the boyfriend of Nadine, and Don Opper is Charlie, a child-like adult who is friends with Brad. The other person of note is Terrence Mann, who plays one of the bounty hunters, having taken on the appearance of a rock star named Johnny Steele. 

Directed by first-timer Stephen Herek, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Domonic Muir, Critters is the kind of fun creature feature that serves as a great gateway film for younger viewers, and proves equally entertaining to those who know the tone it is aiming for (a tone it nails consistently throughout). The titular creatures, designed by the talented Chiodo brothers, are deadly, but also portrayed as often being mischievous and unfocused, crazy animals that turn dangerous when they are threatened by others.

The cast all do a good job of reacting quite realistically to the madness around them. Although Grimes is the plucky kid at the heart of the film, Wallace and Bush are a good pair of cinematic parents, and Mann has fun keeping his demeanour calm throughout. Opper is okay, and gets to play two versions of his character, but he also feels undeserving of the importance he ends up having. There are also small roles for the wonderful M. Emmet Walsh and Lin Shaye. 

One of the better little creature features that came along in the mid-1980s, Critters not only holds up well today, it is also the first of a quartet of movies (in the original series) without any massive downturn in quality. And I am already looking forward to revisiting them all. And reviewing them here.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

3 From Hell (2019)

Here's the one thing that I know about the feature film career of Rob Zombie. I am one of the many voices making up part of the problem. I LOVE his first film, he still hasn't topped it for me. It's a carnival sideshow experience in which you are taken by a variety of eye-catching grotesqueries by someone you don't entirely trust. Unfortunately, every movie he has given us after that one has been more of the same, with the exception of two movies that many fans didn't care for. I love The Haunted World Of El Superbeasto. I didn't love The Lords Of Salem. Sadly, the more that Zombie retreats back into his comfort zone, the more I appreciate him trying to channel Ken Russell in The Lords Of Salem, and the less likely it is that we will ever see him try that again.

Which brings us to 3 From Hell, a film that continues the saga of "the Firefly family", the notorious and nasty criminals we last saw being abruptly halted by a hail of bullets as they headed towards a police roadblock. The basic plot is similar to The Devil's Rejects, it's three bad people doing bad things until a final encounter leads them towards either another victory or potential death.

Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, and Sid Haig in place? Check (although the role for Haig was greatly reduced, he has only one main scene, when news of his illness came along just before his death this year). A decent soundtrack? Check (note - it's still a bold move for ANY film to use In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida even all these years after Manhunter). Maniacs who like to deliver verbose dialogue before they commit their atrocities? Check. A '70s aesthetic throughout, no matter what time the film is supposed to be set in? Check. The baddies being a lot smarter/luckier than anyone with their M.O. would be? Check.

On paper, this should be another easy win for Zombie. It's not though. Although it fails in different ways to 31 (which remains arguably his worst film), it still fails. Some fans may disagree with that, and I'm happy that Zombie is at least keeping his core fanbase happy. He seems to have a good relationship with them, and often delivers just what they want. It's just a shame that he doesn't take a chance nowadays on exploring other genre styles that will allow him to grow more, and potentially surprise audiences.

Most, but not all, of the problems here like with Zombie himself. The script is more of the nonsense that he likes to hear being delivered by his favourite actors, always a mix of gleeful nihilism and purported wisdom from those who are savvy enough not to be constrained by the laws imposed upon society by men who just weren't brave enough to give in to their base desires at all times. It also all starts off on the wrong foot, a double whammy of viewers being told a time period that never feels right and an air of sympathy for the main characters that you just can't see ever happening. EVER. Nobody onscreen is worth supporting.

The second main problem, aside from anything done directly by Zombie, comes from the main performances. Few people onscreen are actually bad, but they're rarely actually good either. Moseley is pretty much in self-parody territory now, pushed into that area by Zombie, and every moment he's onscreen feels a bit silly. Richard Brake, stepping in to the void left by Haig, has the potential to make a better impression in the role of Winslow AKA "Foxy", but he ends up looking and sounding far too much like Moseley. That leaves us with Mrs Zombie, who is the worst of the three, and suffers the most from the script. There's just no way anyone would consider her for a parole hearing, for example, given her history of constant unpredictable madness, and she's getting a bit too old to play the role in the same giggling and coquettish way she did back in House Of 1000 Corpses. You get supporting roles for people such as Daniel Roebuch, Jeff Daniel Phillips, Dee Wallace, Bill Oberst Jr, Danny Trejo, Pancho Moler, Emilio Rivera, and many others, although some are little more than the most fleeting of cameos it is some light relief to spot some of the familiar faces dotted around.

With House Of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, Zombie delivered one hell of a double-bill. That hasn't changed. It's just that some people will have an inferior third instalment they can choose to watch at the end. Or, and bear with me, we can all forget it exists and just stay a lot happier. This film says nothing worthwhile, does nothing new, and deserves, well, I am sure you can guess.

3/10

Here's the movie available from Rob Zombie's site (because he needs the clicks more than I do . . . the blogger typed sarcastically).

Red Christmas (2016)

As another in a long line of Christmas horror movies, Red Christmas works quite well. I'm not going to hesitate to recommend it to horror fans after something a bit different, yet with many familiar genre tropes. Thematically, however, this is a much more interesting film to examine and dissect. I don't usually go into that much depth in my reviews (why suddenly spring that on people who have become used to my comforting shallowness?) and I won't break that habit here. Suffice to say, this is a film for people looking to stimulate a debate on the pros and cons of abortion. Yes, you read that right.

The film starts off with scenes set in an abortion clinic, and then we move forward twenty years in the blink of a transition panel. Dee Wallace is Diane, a proud mother setting things up for a family Christmas. With her partner and children around her, we get the usual mix of love and tensions. And then a stranger arrives at their door. A stranger with a deadly agenda.

It's often the case that we (aka me, myself & I) can get a bit carried away with complimenting independent movies if they simply manage to look as if some care was taken with the technical side of things AND the performances being coaxed out of the cast members. Which is why I gave myself a few days in between viewing this movie and writing up my review.

Yes, it's still a really good film.

Acting-wise, Wallace is fine in the lead, and she's ably supported by a cast of names I was unfamiliar with; Geoff Morrell, David Collins, Sarah Bishop, Janis McGavin, Gerard Odwyer, Deelia Meriel, and a few others.

Writer-director Craig Anderson has a lot of shorts on his CV, which has obviously helped him hone his craft over the years. Despite the premise of this film being developed around a strangely hardcore pro-life agenda (or so it would seem), plenty is done to distract viewers from the more ridiculous aspects of the plot. There are enough characters who feel impressively realised in a super-shorthand style, although not all of them, and the gory death scenes are very well done. It also has one of my favourite Die Hard references, a sly gag that is worth keeping your eyes peeled for.

A fine horror film with an enjoyable twist or two, Red Christmas also has a bit more going on below the surface than most. It may not be done as cleverly as it could be, and it is anything but subtle, but it's worth praising a film that delivers both the genre goods and also some more food for thought than your typical slasher.

7/10

UK horror fans can pick the film up here.
American readers can spend about an extra $0.30 on the bluray here.

Dead By Dawn 2016: The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

Like it or not, The Hills Have Eyes is arguably almost single-handedly responsible for the "hillbilly cannibal" subgenre that has given us the Wrong Turn series, Hillside Cannibals, Jug Face and the comedic stylings of Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil. It's also the film that saw writer-director transition from the down 'n' dirty roughness of The Last House On The Left to a more polished approach that we see him stretching his legs in some strange and unique genre fare before becoming the franchise-spawner that he was by the late 20th century (a status I would have to acknowledge here, after his passing).

A family are travelling through a remote area of America when they find themselves targetted by a bunch of savage hill-dwellers. And that's really all you need to know about the film. It's a very pure set-up, allowing Craven to continue his look at the thin boundary between civility and savagery while also providing more than a fair share of shocks and tense moments. The film has dated, that's true, but it retains a rawness and off-kilter aura that makes it easy to hold up as a bit of a classic, albeit one with a few forgivable flaws.

Dee Wallace is one of the familiar faces among the group of potential victims, and she's always good to see onscreen for genre fans. But she's joined here by John Steadman, Russ Grieve, Virginia Vincent, and a few others. It's the villains of the piece, however, who are the real headliners, as evidenced by much of the marketing material. James Whitworth is Jupiter, the head of the violent and deadly family living in the hills. He's memorable, and suitably scary, but it's Michael Berryman who is rightly remembered for his portrayal of Pluto. Berryman mixes his unique appearance with animalistic behaviour that makes him fascinating to watch, even as things start to get worse and worse for the poor family being besieged by savages.

If you consider yourself a horror fan then I consider this essential viewing. Not just because of the influence upon the subgenre already mentioned, but also because of seeing a stepping stone in the career of Craven. It's fascinating to see someone manage to tone down a cinematic primal scream into something more acceptable to mass audiences while somehow not diluting the power of his work. If only more knew how to do it. But, then again, that's why Wes Craven was as revered as he was. And rightfully so.

If you enjoyed this review, and live in the UK, feel free to browse and buy some shit here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/

If you enjoyed this review and live in the USofA then feel free to browse and buy some shit here - http://www.amazon.com/

9/10

Hansel & Gretel (2013)

Fairytales have been bringing in some big bucks over the past few years. Or they've been trying to, at least. TV shows and movies based, sometimes very loosely, on the classic stories that entertained many of us as children have been doing pretty well with teens and older viewers. Stuff like Grimm, Once Upon A Time, Snow White & The Huntsman, and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. So it was only a matter of time until the Asylum got involved. And here is their contribution.

Be warned, some minor spoilers may follow, for those who like to view a movie without knowing ANY of the details beforehand.

Brent Lydic and Stephanie Greco play the brother and sister, with the both of them in great danger from a witch (Lilith, played by Dee Wallace) who already has a number of potential victims in her basement, ready to make into meals. Will Hansel & Gretel be able to escape?

Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante, this is pretty solid stuff. The reasons I warned of minor spoilers above is because I wasn't sure whether or not to mention that the witch was played by Dee Wallace, but it would be hard to review the movie without mentioning it, especially as she's the most recognisable name in the cast list. But I'll get back to the acting later. Anyway, Ferrante does a decent, if unspectacular, job in the director's chair. Some more spit and polish could have really made this into a little gem, but the final product is passable anyway, not exactly great but not bad either.

The script by Jose Prendes has a few good ideas sprinkled throughout, including the different effects of the magic treats created by the witch. Unfortunately, there are also many moments, especially in the first half, that just reek of cliche, and then there's a second half that suffers a bit of an identity crisis, trying to spin the fairytale plates while it also attempts to make everything feel a bit like a Wrong Turn movie.

Lydic and Greco do okay, and Sara Fletcher and Clark Perry stand out from the small selection of other people trying to avoid being put into the oven. Steve Hanks, Trish Coren and M. Steven Felty are a few of the adults who may be able to help the witch's victims, or may now. And then there's Wallace, who has some fun as Lilith. It's actually not the wild and over the top performance that viewers might expect, but that just makes the occasional outbursts all the more enjoyable.

I'd advise any fans of this kind of movie to go for any of the other recent versions of the tale ahead of this one. Although, having said that, this isn't as bad as it could have been.

5/10

http://www.amazon.com/Hansel-Gretel-Dee-Wallace/dp/B009X484OS/ref=sr_1_11?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1399926186&sr=1-11&keywords=hansel+and+gretel

Alligator II: The Mutation (1991)

Remember Alligator? That was a fun movie, wasn't it? A fantastic creature feature that holds up as a great piece of entertainment today. I may not love it quite as much as I used to, but I'll always have a soft spot for it. Well, this loose sequel doesn't reach the standard of that first movie, but it gives it a good try.

Joseph Bologna stars as David Hodges, one of those rare movie cops who doesn't always play by the rules but, goddammit, gets the job done. When he's not being shouted at by his boss (Brock Peters), or making his wife (Dee Wallace) roll her eyes, he's trying to investigate deaths and find evidence with which to nail slimy businessman Vincent Brown (Steve Railsback). When it looks like a giant alligator is munching on people, nobody can quite believe it. Despite his own reservations, Hodges heads out, with a police officer named Rich Harmon (Woody Brown), and is determined to stop whatever he comes up against.

It may never be as funny as the first movie, but Alligator II: The Mutation certainly maintains a healthy dose of humour throughout, thanks to the script by Curt Allen. Bologna gets to rattle off plenty of sarcastic one-liners and the film revels in the more cliched moments instead of trying to swerve around them. It's an approach that works, for me anyway. The movie may not win any awards for originality or believability, but it's consistently FUN from start to finish.

Director Jon Hess does okay with the material, running through the standard "creature feature" bag of tricks and also reusing some stock footage from Alligator. It helps that he has a decent cast to work with, almost every one of them improving their character.

Bologna is great in the lead, all attitude and no regrets. Wallace is good, though underused, as his wife, and also the woman who helps uncover the truth. Brown is amusingly "wet behind the ears" during the first half of the movie, and he also gets the best, and most bizarre, line in the movie when chatting to the lovely Holly Gagnier (playing the Mayor's daughter). Peters is great fun as the angry Chief Speed, Railsback is a decent villain and Richard Lynch steals almost every scene that he's in as Hawk Hawkins, a good ol' boy who thinks that he knows what he's up against when called in to deal with the alligator.

If you enjoyed Alligator then you should enjoy this sequel. It's the same, but different.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alligator-The-Mutation-DVD/dp/B000089AT6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378401735&sr=8-1&keywords=alligator+2

The Lords Of Salem (2012)

Damn you, Rob Zombie, damn you. It's okay to make mistakes, it's okay to fall while stretching beyond your normal reach, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating when the end result is such a mess. I always think that a discussion of any Rob Zombie movie somehow requires an opening statement making clear exactly where I stand on the filmography of the man. I loved House Of 1000 Corpses and I loved The Devil's Rejects, and then it started to slip and slide downhill. I actually enjoyed the Halloween remake and I thought The Haunted World Of El Superbeasto was as hilarious as it was juvenile. It all started to go wrong with Halloween II (which I still gave a respectable 6/10). The Lords Of Salem is, without a doubt, his worst movie. The fact that it's so unoriginal isn't a problem. The other movies that he's done have all allowed Zombie to wear his influences on his sleeve. It's the fact that is so unoriginal without his own twist on the material, the fact that it's so visually inept and ugly and the fact that it's just inexcusably dull from start to finish. Zombie shows no progression whatsoever as an artist, and has actually gone backwards since his fantastic debut feature.

The story is all about a radio DJ named Heidi (Sheri Moon Zombie) who receives a record from a mystery band, simply calling themselves "the lords". When she plays the record she starts to feel funny, eventually experiencing strange visions that may be flashbacks to more violent time in Salem's dark history. Her colleagues (played by Jeff Daniel Phillips and Ken Foree) don't really notice anything unusual initially, but as things get worse they start to worry that Heidi has gone back to a drug habit after a long period of being clean. The one person who starts to piece things together is Francis Matthias (Bruce Davison), a bit of an expert in the local history. Unfortunately, Heidi is soon being "looked after" by three women (Judy Geeson, Dee Wallace and Patricia Quinn) and she seems to be heading towards some big trouble.

There are some individual, good moments in The Lords Of Salem. It's not an irredeemable disaster, and it's not something that I'll refuse to ever rewatch, but those overlooking the many major flaws to praise it as Rob Zombie's homage to Euro-horrors are setting a lot of future newcomers up for a big fall. Zombie himself described it (in this clip) "as if Ken Russell directed The Shining" and mentions Polanski as another influence. He's not actually far off the mark, but none of those filmmakers would have a transition quite as clumsy as the sequence that introduces Heidi's place of work and colleagues and treats the audience like hyperactive children. Frustratingly, he shows in some other shots that he can do much better. Some moments do have a nice, controlled approach to both the shot composition and camera movement, but it's usually not long until he slips back into his old habits.

A lot of detractors of the film, or Zombie in general, have been quick to criticise Sheri Moon Zombie in the lead role. She's not that bad. Indeed, none of the actors (many of whom are firm favourites among horror fans, surprise surprise) do a bad job. Geeson, Wallace and Quinn, in particular, provide the most fun and seem to attack their roles with relish. Meg Foster also appears in a small, but vital, role and Sid Haig and Michael Berryman put in cameo appearances.

The soundtrack is pretty good, with one or two standout tracks, and the quality of the sound design serves as a reminder that this is a film from a man who knows what he's doing by now (in terms of the basic technical aspects, at least).

I enjoyed a few scenes, I was impressed by one or two creepy moments and in the first half hour of the film I was hoping that it would improve and build to something truly memorable. That didn't happen. The fact that it all came so completely undone didn't make me angry, it just left me disappointed. Other people already gave up on Rob Zombie a few years ago, but I keep giving him one more chance. I know that he's capable of some great stuff. The Lords Of Salem sees him trying hard to refute that.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lords-Salem-Sheri-Moon-Zombie/dp/B00BIODT0A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370338335&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lords+of+salem