Santa Claws (1996)

Written and directed by John Russo, and I use both of those terms very loosely, Santa Claws is a cheap, and fairly shoddy, horror that delivers some terrible acting, some poor kills, and plenty of gratuitous nudity. So I can't say that I completely hated it.

The lovely Debbie Rochon plays Raven, an actress who has made her name in a variety of roles that made the most of her physical appeal. She's having some marriage troubles with Eric (John Mowod) and is spending a fair amount of time in the company of a dedicated fan, Wayne (Grant Cramer). Wayne offers to babysit Raven's children, but just intends to drug them and give himself an alibi for a number of killings. And it's all connected to an incident in his youth, when he caught his mother in bed with someone dressed as Santa Claus and shot them both dead.

That previous paragraph may have inadvertently made Santa Claws sound more substantial than it actually is. There's a plot, yes, but it's just an excuse for various moments in which women get nude and/or gyrate while someone films them. Which works just fine for me, especially when it is Rochon as the focus of any such scenes.

Russo is savvy enough to have made both this and Scream Queen's Naked Christmas at the same time, with the latter a "documentary" featuring a number of shared cast members. Although this is not a very satisfying approach (mind you, I am sure it got them double the income from one main expense), anything that keeps Russo away from further cashing in on Night Of The Living Dead, the screenplay that remains the highlight of his entire filmography.

If it wasn't clear enough already, Rochon is the highlight of the movie, in a role that doesn't seem entirely dissimilar to her real life. She actually seems to be having fun here, delivering dialogue that illustrates the good and the bad about making a career as a Scream Queen. Nobody else comes close to having her presence, although Kramer is more fun in the moments that have him acting even more insane. Sue Ellen White and Amanda Madison (billed here as Christine Cavalier) are the other memorable characters. And when I say memorable I mean "naked".

Look, it's obvious from the earliest moments that this is not good. It's also obvious that it is made for a very specific audience. I am a member of that very specific audience, a fan of Scream Queens who worked damn hard to earn that position (don't get me started on a rant about the people claiming this title nowadays without deserving it). I love the horror workout featuring Linnea Quigley. Despite me being receptive to material like this, THIS particular gem didn't work for me. At all. But it still gets points for having Rochon in the lead.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Last House On The Left (1972)

Some films feel like you MUST see them. That's doubly true when you're a horror fan. In fact, it's triple (triply??) true when you're a British horror fan who spent a number of years hearing about infamous titles that were removed from public consumption by an over-zealous BBFC. Yes, I'm on about those video nasties again, but I'm not just on about the situation here in the UK. I'm on about those moments that lead to conversations, that lead to you becoming friends with more and more horror fans, discovering the huge global community of people who have all been given the same funny looks and had the same judgements made about them as they enthusiastically rented some piece of nastiness from their local video store. Those moments lead to you hearing about, or discussing, key films. You get the undisputed classics, you get the enduring favourites, and you get films that wallow in their infamy for a short period of time, often just before their power starts to fade away.

The Last House On The Left is a film in that latter category. It is the kind of film you will most likely have a vivid memory of seeing for the first time, perhaps even something that you can deliver as an anecdote (but a different kind of anecdote from one like being taken as a child to see E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial and remembering how many other children were as wet-eyed and snot-nosed as you were while the parents wondered what they had done to upset Steven Spielberg so).

Having said that, I don't have any anecdote to put here. I saw this film as I was making my way through a lot of the horror movies I had never been able to find in my pre-internet days. This was one of the better video nasties, I knew that much as soon as I'd watched it, but it wasn't up there with the very best. Yet it stays with you. It's a film that feels dangerous in a way a lot of the others don't. It sticks to you. If some movies feel like a cosy blanket, The Last House On The Left is a layer of dust and debris that cakes your skin after a day spent in a harsh environment, the kind of thing that won't wash off without applying the kind of force to your scrubbing that will hurt.

Written and directed by Wes Craven, his feature debut, this is a savage reworking of The Virgin Spring. A young woman (Sandra Peabody) and her friend (Lucy Grantham) head to the city. They meet some bad people. Terrible things happen to them. The bad people end up at the home of the parents of the young woman (ma and pa played by Cynthia Carr and Richard Towers). Those are the plot points that you'll probably already know. I'm not going to say any more.

Craven was an angry young man when he made this film. He wanted to create something brutal and shocking, but also wanted to make it bearable (which he attempts to do with the biggest mis-step of the film, scenes involving a pair of bumbling police officers, one of whom is played by a young Martin Kove). It's a film that he would look over many years later with a critical eye, acknowledging the negative aspects while still admiring what he achieved.

And he's right to feel that way. While not quite as powerful or intense as it may have been when first released, this is a brutal piece of work, open to multiple interpretations by different viewers, from a warning about the dangers of drugs to an exploration of common nightmares to a commentary on the Vietnam War. It's also one hell of a calling card for Craven, putting out there the mastery of horror elements and obsession with the thin line between civility and barbarism that he would display repeatedly over the next few decades.

There have been major essays written about this movie. Much more than I could ever say, and in a clearer and more intelligent way. I'll just say that it's a film that you can never unsee. David Hess gives the most memorable performance of his career, playing the loathsome Krug (a role that would see him typecast that way in a few other movies), he's ably supported by Jeramie Rain, Marc Sheffler, and Fred J. Lincoln, all of them effectively nasty in a way that makes any viewer want to see them get their just desserts by the time the end credits roll.

Craven may now view this as something he would have approached differently, but horror fans can be glad that he rushed headlong into a boundary-pushing slice of exploitation nastiness that easily holds up alongside anything else we've had under that umbrella. You may not enjoy it, you may not rush to rewatch it, but it's an essential horror film, and one of a number of touchstones in the career of someone who gave us such a wide variety of scares.

8/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy the movie here.

Silent Night, Dead Night: A New Christmas Carol (2016)

Two things have to be mentioned at the start of this review. First of all, a question. Considering the exact same cast lists and other similarities, is Silent Night, Dead Night: A New Christmas Carol simply a retitled release of Scrooge In The Hood? I suspect it is, but I don't want to do writer-director Richard Chandler a disservice if there are enough differences between the two. Second, stop reading this review right now and head along to read the Amazon reviews for this. See all of the praise heaped upon it by horror fans, and then realise that most, if not all, of them are actually writing about the superior Silent Night, Deadly Night. And laugh heartily. Because that is generally more fun than this film.

The plot here, if it wasn't clear from the title, is a sleazy, profanity, riddled, reworking of that familiar Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. Scrooge (George Raynor) is a tight-fisted, unpleasant pimp/gangster who is about to become the victim of an attempted takeover by a rival gang. But that isn't of any conern to him while he spends a night in the company of the Ghost Of Christmas Past (Seregon O'Dassey), the Ghost Of Christmas Present (Todd Therrien), and the Ghost Of Christmas Future (Chandler also giving himself some time in front of the camera).

Here's my usual reminder before I come across as overly critical of any movie. I am always impressed by people who get any film made (well, unless it is all one shot on a phone with nothing done to improve sound or framing or anything that might help make it feel more like an actual movie). I know it can take a LOT of blood, sweat and tears to get something done, especially when you don't have any actual budget. With that being said, it's not enough for a film to be made with JUST good intentions. There has to be some spark there that individual viewers can choose to focus on or dismiss as they wish. That spark is there in, for example, the films of Brian Williams (director of the enjoyable Time To Kill and Space Babes From Outer Space - both available here, alongside the very enjoyable Harvest Lake). It's also in the films made by Dustin Wayde Mills (check out his Patreon page here, although I am sure he also had a standard store online somewhere). It's not here, I'm afraid.

From the opening "trailer" sequence to the deliberate lo-fi look of the main feature, to the intermission, to the loose structuring that makes everything feel both undeveloped and yet also overlong, this is an independent feature that makes almost all of the most common mistakes we have seen far too many times before.

The script is pretty dire, although saved by working from Dickens. None of the nastiness is nasty enough and none of the humour really works. The performances are as varied as you might expect - Raynor makes up for a lack of major talent with the fun of his performance, Therrien is okay as a slobby ghost, O'Dassey had me bemused with whatever accent she was using (seemed to be a different one for each line), and nobody really stands out from the rest of the cast.

I am sure there will be some people out there who will enjoy this. Hell, some people don't like watching any film with a budget over $500 (so this should make them very happy). It just didn't work for me, and it's hard to tell what was affected by the money and what was affected by a careless and lazy attitude. Humbug, mothafucka!

3/10

Here is a large selection of Christmas movies to enjoy.
And American elves can pick the same set up here.

Chained Heat (1983)

The Women In Prison movie. It's not for everyone, but certain viewers with a taste for the trashy will know that these movies often practically overflow with gratuitous nudity, sadism and sleaze. Which makes them very entertaining.

In this movie, Linda Blair plays Carol, the new girl in the prison. It doesn't take her long to get the attention of Ericka (Sybil Danning), one of the more powerful inmates. Ericka is involved in a bit of a feud with Duchess (Tamara Dobson), but the two women have mutual enemies, of course, in the shape of the warden (John Vernon) and his staff (mainly Stella Stevens). At least there's the suave Lester (Henry Silva) to help the ladies take part in a lovely care in the community scheme. Well, actually, to be completely truthful, he gives some of them nice dresses to wear and then makes them work as prostitutes.

With its great cast, hilarious lack of anything that makes sense (for example, the hot tub in the warden's office), and pleasing mix of, yes indeed, nudity, sadism and sleaze, this is a particularly fan-pleasing film that takes the recognised components of the niche sub-genre and ramps them all up for maximum entertainment value.

Blair does fine in her role, despite the fact that I don't think she's ever been that great an actress. Her fresh face, and willingness to remove clothing, stand her in good stead to play the innocent girl who may struggle to survive her spell behind bars. Danning is as mesmerising as she usually is, perfect for the queen bee role that she's cast in. It's a sin that she was never cast in a movie role opposite, or alongside, Dyanne Thorne (or am I on my own with that thought?). Dobson holds her own, admirably, whenever facing off against Danning, and makes for a worthy opponent. Robert Miano is a rapey guard, Kendal Kaldwell is a nasty guard who isn't averse to helping the rapey guard get his victims, Stevens is a decent villain, and both Vernon and Silva are enjoyably cringe-inducing in almost every scene they feature in.

Paul Nicholas cobbles everything together well enough. It's all a bit careless and loose, rough around all of the edges in a way that just makes it more endearing, and the script (co-written by Nicholas and Aaron Butler) is as crude, at times, as it is juvenile.

I had a lot of fun watching Chained Heat (hey, I didn't mean THAT . . . . . behave), and I think that anyone else with previous experience of this kind of film, as long as they know exactly what they're letting themselves in for, will find it equally enjoyable.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Prison-Triple-Chained-Jungle-Warriors/dp/B004XIWRW4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406070962&sr=8-1&keywords=chained+heat

Deadbeat At Dawn (1988)

Goose (Jim Van Bebber) lives a violent life. He's the leader of a street gang, and always at war with a rival gang, and their leader (Danny, played by Paul Harper). His girlfriend (Christie, played by Megan Murphy) wants him to break free, wants them to start a fresh life together, and Goose eventually agrees. But that's easier said than done. Their happiness is rudely interrupted by thugs determined to teach Goose a lesson, which leads to things going too far. If/when Goose finds out who is responsible for his heartache then he'll be determined to exact his revenge.

Van Bebber is a fairly well-known name to fans of low-budget, exploitation fare. Watching Deadbeat At Dawn, it's easy to see why. Despite the crude way in which it's all cobbled together, it's often just impressive that it IS cobbled together. It suffers from some common flaws that low-budget exploitation movies have, such as scenes in which characters tend to ramble on about nothing of importance, but when things move up a gear this is a film on a par with many that have more money and resources available.

I don't think anyone expects the acting here to be awards-worthy, and it's not. It's not the worst that I've seen, far from it, but viewers may find themselves rolling their eyes every so often at the delivery of the dialogue. Murphy is one of the better performers, but Harper is never less than fun with his slightly unbalanced turn.

Van Bebber is, seemingly, a force to be reckoned with. Not only did he write, direct and star in the film, but he also did the editing, stuntwork and special makeup effects. And, as shown throughout the movie, he's a dab hand with a pair of nunchakus.

This isn't a film for people reared on a diet of nothing more than polished,  mainstream blockbusters. It's a film that may require viewers to have a little patience. The opening is enjoyable, but clumsy, while a middle section is home to some of the worst moments, but all of the rough patches are easy to view with fondness as things wind towards an action-packed, impressive finale.

Whether you like or dislike it, I think Deadbeat At Dawn is worth your time. It is, in a number of ways, a great achievement, even if it doesn't look like one.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

I Spit On Your Grave 2 (2013)

As soon as it was announced that a movie entitled I Spit On Your Grave 2 was being released fans of exploitation fare started to get a bad taste in their mouths. The original movie was an astonishing, powerful piece of nastiness, praised and pilloried in almost equal measure. The 2010 remake, on the other hand, was better than expected, mainly because it walked a fine line between the unpleasant aspects of the material and the fun to be had watching the leading lady get her revenge. I Spit On Your Grave 2 has nothing to appeal to fans of the previous movies, other than a title that instantly lets people know there will be rape and revenge.

Jemma Dallender plays Katie, a young woman who wants to try her hand at modelling. Her portfolio needs updating, but she can't really afford it. Well, that is until she finds an ad that offers a free photoshoot. Unfortunately, when she's at the photoshoot, Katie is asked if she wants to do some topless shots. She doesn't. And THAT starts off a chain of events that lead to her being kidnapped, raped and abused, which then leads to a vengeance-filled third act.

There's a degree of technical competence on display here, and that's the only reason that I rate this movie as highly as I do. Director Steven R. Monroe tends to keep the camera pointing in the right direction. Oh, and Jemma Dalllender does fine in the lead role, and there's one pleasingly nasty moment during the final few minutes. That's it. Three reasons to save this from the lowest score possible.

Everything else in this movie is dross. The script, by Thomas Fenton and Neil Elman, is lazy, none of the supporting cast members make a decent impression (and Joe Absolom is the worst of them all with his horrible, fake accent), and both the first and second half fail at whatever they're supposed to achieve.

It's obvious that those involved just didn't have the guts to go through with something genuinely shocking, but they should have realised that you can't make a rape revenge flick for a wide demographic. When the main abuse is either too polished, or edited in a way to make it easier to stomach, it loses a lot of its power. Watching any such abuse should make viewers uncomfortable. It's the least that any such cinematic victim deserves, because this kind of thing can't just be a plot device for a lacklustre thriller. It's not something to be used lightly, otherwise we'd end up with a situation that puts Liam Neeson in a film entitled Taken III: I Spit On Your Shamrock. Or something.

Likewise, revenge being doled out should be visceral and harsh, but also believably delivered. As sorta-decent as Dallender is, she never convinces in the second half of the movie, which leaves the revenge feeling quite flat and unentertaining (strange choice of word, but you know what I mean - it's always satisfying to see scumbags get their just desserts onscreen).

So, I think that just about sums up all of my feelings on this piece of rubbish. I know that some people will enjoy it more than I did, but I seriously doubt that this is a movie that any of us will even remember by next year.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Spit-Your-Grave-Blu-ray/dp/B00DMUFYZQ/ref=sr_1_2_bnp_1_blu?ie=UTF8&qid=1401480117&sr=8-2&keywords=i+spit+on+your+grave+2

Emanuelle And The Last Cannibals (1977)

Well, this is a strange one to review. It's not really my cup of tea, but I can't deny that there was plenty here to keep me entertained throughout. It may have been lowest common denominator stuff, but I have never claimed to be above any of that. In fact, sometimes it's just what's needed.

Having said that, I don't really appreciate the blend here. I'm not a big fan of mixing gratuitous nudity and horribly unsexy fingerbanging with nasty gore moments showing cannibals chowing down on body parts that were never meant to be chowed down upon. I like erotica to be erotic and gory entertainment to be gory and rarely want the two elements mixed together. It can work sometimes, and there are people who enjoy this movie much more than I do, but I just like to keep them both away from one another, when it comes to my personal viewing choices.

Before I forget, let me mention the plot. There is one. Emanuelle (Laura Gemser) is a journalist who believes that she can track down an Amazonian tribe believed to no longer exist. She takes her information to Professor Mark Lester (Gabriele Tinti) and he decides to help, and accompany, her on her expedition. They also have sex. When they get overseas they meet some other people, some people have sex with people, and then there are cannibals. That's about it.

Directed, and co-written, by Joe D'Amato, this is an impressive piece of sleaze. Laura Gemser has many fans. I happen to think she's quite pretty, that's all, so her presence is a big bonus for many, and the gory moments include breasts being bitten, a nasty moment showing what we now commonly refer to as a "Bobbitt" and some guts being devoured.

Romano Scandariato is the other name credited with writing the script, though it's hard to imagine just how much effort was required to string together a number of sex scenes until things turn a lot bloodier for the grand finale.

The cast also includes Nieves Navarro (billed as Susan Scott), Monica Zanchi, Annamaria Clementi (as a nun, no less, just to keep ticking off those taboos), Donald O'Brien and Percy Hogan.

I'm glad that I finally saw this one, and I have a whole world of exploitation fare ahead of me that I have yet barely dipped into, but I won't be rushing to rewatch it and I don't know who I'd really recommend it to.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/EMANUELLE-LAST-CANNIBALS-Laura-Gemser-Damato-Uncut/dp/B002MAAH18/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378204734&sr=8-1&keywords=emanuelle+and+the+last+cannibals

Hanger (2009)

Before I get to the main review here is the link to the Plotdigger Films website, a place deserving of your time and attention and even some of your pocket money. And now to our main feature . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Hanger is another balls to the wall bundle of nastiness from Ryan Nicholson and whatever you think about each of his movies, you have to admire the guy for a) making HIS movies the way that HE wants them to be and b) lovingly rolling around in the cesspit of sheer exploitation fare. The fact that he seems to keep doing this with a budget that probably wouldn't pay for a wrap party thrown by Brett Ratner is also worthy of note.

So what's the plot then? Well, a pregnant prostitute named Rose (Debbie Rochon) is mistreated by her pimp, Leroy (Ronald Patrick Thompson), and the situation climaxes with Leroy using the titular hanger to fix things. And so Hanger (Nathan Dashwood) is born, deeply scarred and due to have numerous . . . . . . issues. Thankfully, a kindly john (Dan Ellis) tries to look out for Hanger and waits patiently for eighteen years until the day when the two of them together can get their revenge on Leroy. There's also a perverted Asian named Russell (Wade Gibb), an even more perverted scumbag named Phil (Alastair Gamble) and another chance to see the gorgeous Candice Lewald in all her glory (a gorgeous woman who had to endure much worse in the brutal Gutterballs).

Once again, there are plenty of negatives here but the good still outweighs the bad if you can stomach it. Hanger is a NASTY movie. It's the first time in a long while that I almost threw up while watching something onscreen (and I've recently "enjoyed" Slaughtered Vomit Dolls so I hope Mr. Nicholson takes that in the complimentary way it is meant). The gore effects are, generally, pretty good but there's one sex scene that is so gross I defy you to watch it without thinking about how far you need to run to throw up.

Direction by Nicholson (who co-wrote the movie with Patrick Coble) is also pretty good. Yes, there are mistakes here and there and the whole thing doesn't hang together quite as well as it could, no pun intended (well . . . . . maybe a little bit), but Ryan Nicholson knows how to make his movies look as grimy and nasty as possible while also getting the camera in the best spot to show most of that nastiness in as unflinching a way as possible.

It's a shame that the script is a step down even from the crudity of Gutterballs and that the acting/characters are far worse. I do understand the overall idea of populating the movie with unsavoury types and having them do unsavoury things to each other but that's still no excuse for the strange overacting from Wade Gibb (doing, arguably, the biggest disservice to Asian people on film since Mickey Rooney in Breakfast At Tiffany's) or the grumbling and ranting of Alastair Gamble that shows up either bad improvisation or very weak dialogue. Thankfully, Dan Ellis is a saving grace yet again and does well with his material, even the weaker stuff.

I highly recommend this slice of depravity to anyone who fancies something that can mix in cannibalism, murder, rape, sodomy, cruelty to fake animals, poor feminine hygiene used as a way to torture someone and very special teabags (just wait and see, you'll know it when it happens).

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hanger-Unrated--/dp/B006NZBTT2/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1337075014&sr=1-2