The Driller Killer (1979)

Some film lovers believe that the 1970's was the best decade for movies.  They felt real, gritty, and dirty.  An upsurge of movies came out by directors who were making them cheaper.  It was also the decade where top echelon filmmakers would be putting their art out there for the world to see.  Scorsese, Coppola, Speilberg, Lucas and DePalma were all young aspiring filmmakers traveling on a new course, with a new destination.  Whether out on the sea, or wars in deep space, the films were more ambitious, bigger and exciting than ever before.

Talk about real.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is one of the best films ever made and the raw imagery makes it feel like a documentary.  The Exorcist is still scaring people to this day.  And every kid with a few bucks and a computer is trying to replicate what Carpenter did with Halloween.  Horror films in the seventies was a truly defining decade.  The monsters of the seventies were pulled from the headlines; likely somebody you'd run into on the street.  Vampires, werewolves, and creatures from the deepest depths weren't nearly as scary or vivid any longer.

Abel Ferrara's The Driller Killer is one of those films you have to experience a few times to get a full grasp on it.  That's not a bad thing either.  Great films command that from the viewer.  Returning a few times may shed some light on something missed the first time around.  To understand what exactly is supposed to be happening and why we may descend into madness is to also understand the character and his development, or lack thereof.

From the start of The Driller Killer we know that the character, Reno (billed as Jimmy Laine, but actually played by director Ferrara), just isn't right up in the head.  There seems to be a few screws loose.  In the very first scene he walks into a church and is mesmerized by a crucifix.  An old man with shaggy hair and a beard stares at him and then grabs him.  Reno runs for his life, out of the church and into the awaiting squalid streets of New York City.  Religious overtones run rampant in Ferrara's films.  I'm not sure what this first scene is supposed to tell us.  My first guess would be that Reno fears Jesus, and that the old man would be Jesus.  Perhaps calling him home; death is knocking and Reno just isn't ready or fears he'll be sentenced to burn.  I believe that those thoughts would be swirling in Reno's deranged mind.

He's a struggling artist, testy with the people in his life, especially his girlfriend.  His apartment is filthy.  He's got no money.  And now he's being driven even more insane by a punk band that lives in his apartment.  The Roosters, headed by singer, Tony Coca-Cola, play the same tune over and over again, with the same groupies hanging on and the same drugs being passed around.  I like these scenes.  Ferrara is giving us a glimpse as to what the early punk rock scene looked like in New York City.

The streets of New York City offers no escape for Reno.  He watches as a man is stabbed in the back and robbed.  The stabbed man is bloody and writhing on the littered streets as on-lookers just... look.  Reno is fixated by this abrupt act of violence.

Derelicts line the streets.  Reno sees them as nothing more than skittering cockroaches.

His slow descend into madness is amped up by the fact that he lives in the city.  The city is the real bad guy.  Reno is just a rain drop in the storm.  From one scene to the next, Reno descends deeper and deeper into madness.  Meanwhile, the Roosters continue to play loud and sloppy tunes at all hours.  Reno just can't finish his god awful buffalo painting.  His art begins to struggle, as if it hadn't already.

All throughout the movie Reno verbally assaults his girlfriend as she stares at him with little to no expression.  I had to chuckle when her first outburst came from him devouring the greasiest pizza I've ever seen.  This pushed her buttons, obviously because he hadn't saved her a piece with green peppers. 

Reno is forever prisoner in his mind.  There's no escaping his abyss.  He snaps.  What triggers it?  I'm not sure.  Like I said, from the very first frame of film you can tell he's operating on less than what is needed to function like a normal human being.  Reno is Travis Bickle.  They're from the same mold.  They smolder in the chaos of New York City.  Fueled by some inner rage that flickers, only for the moment, then explodes instantaneously.

His course of violence is long and brutal.  He goes straight for the weak; those derelicts lining the filthy, disease-ridden streets.  With his handy drill he mutilates victim after victim.  In one particularly gruesome scene we see the drill enter a man's forehead, with no cutaway shot, and continue to burrow into his brain, lobotomizing him.  That scene is impressive for the special effect.  Reno hunts mercilessly.

Unsurprisingly, the film made its way onto the Video Nasties list and was banned in the UK.  It's an originator in the slasher sub genre of film, with a high body count and some pretty good violence.  The difference between this and other slashers is it takes a while for the killing to begin.

It's slow-moving but eventually gets to the goods and holds nothing back.  It's real, raw and uncompromising.

Starring:  Abel Ferrara, Carolyn Marz, Baybi Day
Written by:  Nicholas St. John
Directed by:  Abel Ferrara
1979
96 min
   



    

Lords of Salem (2013)

**** (out of 4 stars)

Rob Zombie's latest film, Lords of Salem, is quite frankly, superb.

Setting aside the incessant negative criticism that Rob Zombie has received, Lords of Salem is a masterpiece.

I'm talking every single frame of film.  From the dreary setting of Salem, Mass., to the unsettling score by Zombie guitarist, John 5, to the exceptional cinematography by Brandon Trost. Even the acting, especially by the lead, Sherri Moon Zombie.  She plays Heidi, a nightly radio DJ.  After receiving a record by a band named The Lords, she starts to experience ghastly visions that she cannot fathom.  Visions of a hairy behemoth bathed in red light, or Satan himself - a little disfigured monstrosity, naked witches with sagging flesh and rotten teeth, or tentacled creatures that don't resemble anything earthly.

We're on this odd journey with Heidi.  We sympathize with her.  We jump on and go for the ride because that's what good acting allows.  We're put in the situations; we feel alone and vulnerable.  We're left in the dark because the oddities and horrors that take place are unknown.

Zombie starts to pull back the curtain after a little bit.  We start to get little morsels of information about what the hell is really going on.  It seems as though there's a three hundred year old grudge.

The real witches of Salem were condemned and killed; approximately 20 people.  There was no evidence that anything supernatural was going on.  They were killed because of anger, fear, jealousy and ignorance.  Nothing more.  But the witches in Lords of Salem are brewing some nasty stuff.  They're evil, make no mistake about it.  The equally reprehensible Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne kills Margaret Morgan and her coven of witches.  As they're cooked and charred on the stake, they vow to avenge themselves by placing a curse on the generations of women to come in Salem.

The camera moves in and out.  A lot.  It's taking us on a tour with the characters and their surroundings.  The apartment that Heidi lives in, especially the dreaded room 5, is a character itself.  Those slow moves with the camera give the hallway a creepy vibe, much like what Kubrick did in The Shining.  It's like slowly walking to death's door.  Embracing the unknown.

Zombie's direction, the pace of the editing, the uncompromising score, makes this one hell of a compelling film to follow.  Every scene is building a new layer, yet revealing something more.

There really is no defending Halloween II but I'd say that Zombie has built a strong filmography since his debut, House of 1,000 Corpses.

Understand that whenever we see a new movie it's always paying homage to something that came before it.  That's how it's always been with film.  Nothing will be completely new or original.  Yes, some come closer than others but in most cases cinema will rely on what it has given us.  And even though you shed some old ideas and pick them back up, you must mold them into your own.

I see tons of Kubrick, Polanski and Russell in Lords of Salem.  I see the similarities that I'm sure were put there purposely.  That doesn't mean the movie is any less good.  It stands on its own two feet, and I do believe that one day it will be considered a modern classic.  How many good films are out there about the Salem witch trials?  This is the best.  Fictional or otherwise.

The horror genre, much like Heidi, isn't doing too well these days.

Lords of Salem is that rare gem that pretty much went unnoticed when it came out.  I'd take that over some of the garbage being put out regularly.

It's like a shiny gold nugget on top of a pile of steamy excrement.

Starring:  Sherri Moon Zombie, Meg Foster and Bruce Davison

Written and directed by:  Rob Zombie

2013

101 min



    

Speaking to the Subconcious: A Look at David Stagnari's Catharsis

Speaking to the Subconscious:  A Look at David Stagnari's "Catharsis"

By:  R.K. Hook

(contains spoilers)

You can't describe David Stagnari's Catharsis in one word.  The film is dreamy, hypnotic, gloomy, stark, surreal, lonely, and in many ways, therapeutic.  It's a film that I return to at least twice a year.  For whatever reason, and there are many reasons, the film continues to resonate with me, and brings me new pleasure each and every time I view it.

Catharsis is a film, but even more so, an experience.  It took four years to make, with the same financial issues that most indie filmmakers run into.  Still, with a small budget this film does look incredibly polished and leagues ahead of what I've seen from other indie filmmakers.  Everyone involved seemed to have the same objective in mind: make a great film that will stand the test of time.  And although Stagnari has said that he didn't intend for this film to be seen by a particular audience, I can't imagine how this film could ever go unnoticed.

The story is simple, yet complicated at the same time.  We follow the character, written in the script as The Wanderer or God's Only Man, played by Dylan Murphy.  His only true friend is his notebook and the words he writes in that notebook.  His enemy is his conscious; that nagging voice of negativity.  The man we follow throughout this film is us.  I say us, because I feel that most people could easily relate to this character.  He walks through churchyards, along desolate train stations, among the dead in a cemetery.  He wanders for miles without ever seeing another human being.  And while he's on his journey, the voice in his head booms.  He has doubts about his future, the world around him, and his existence.  He fears death, yet finds comfort in the cemetery, most likely because he ponders a time when the dinner table was full of family and life.  Full of laughter and love.  Now, he's totally alone on his journey.  But on a basic level of thinking that is life.  We're born alone, wander alone, and die alone.  We're alone and struggle with that in our minds.

With very little dialogue and only one character that element of loneliness sweeps over me. I can feel it in my bones when watching the film.  The trees are all bare.  And the only other character we see is a mysterious man (played by David Stagnari) that follows our main character around.  This mysterious figure has a watch that he winds throughout the film.  Time is moving ever so quickly as our main character stays in limbo.  This man is not so much another character as he is just a figment of imagination, or a figure from a deeper subconscious.  The portrayal of loneliness makes me think of other characters like:  Henry from Eraserhead, the astronauts in 2001: A Space Oddessy, Sam Well in Moon, and even Marlon Brando as the grief-stricken widower in Last Tango in Paris.

The pacing is deliberately slow (the film is under an hour long).  It's like exiting one dream, and entering another. The visuals are stunning and inspiring and surreal.  There's a scene where the character walks across a bridge.  Once he's near the end he dissolves.  I've often asked myself why the director choose to do this.  A neat editing trick?  No.  The character dissolves because he's completely dead inside.  The flesh is only a shell while the soul is empty. 

Dylan Murphy carries this film on his shoulders.  The film relies on him.  It lives and dies with his abilities as an actor.  Murphy adds little touches that makes his performance unique.  Like the way he tucks his chin into his coat to fend from the cold, or the way he's constantly looking for something that truly isn't there.  The way the melancholy oozes from his pores.  The way he ponders life and death, and the way he roams freely searching and wanting. Wanting and searching.   Surprisingly, Murphy wasn't Stagnari's first choice.  I can't imagine this film without Dylan Murphy's presence.

In life we live, travel and come to a definitive end.  Death.

The final scene is one that continues to perplex me.  It's such a visceral ending, such a well-crafted ending that I'm constantly questioning what I've witnessed on the screen.  I'm still not sure if I've seen anything more bizarre in films as I've seen in the final concluding minutes of Catharsis.  The Wanderer ends up in a diner.  The mysterious man finally catches up with him.  They have a lengthy conversation.  During this conversation we start to understand the purpose of this mysterious man's existence.  He and The Wanderer are one and the same.  He dwells in the mind of The Wanderer.  After the conversation The Wanderer gets up and heads to the bathroom.  This is where The Wanderer's transformation and healing starts.  From here it gets messy. Literally.

A black, sludgy substance seems to be coming from an orifice of The Wanderer as he sits on the toilet.  He writhes and convulses as this slime keeps pouring from his body.  As this slime spreads throughout the bathroom a sac emerges from under the bathroom stall.  Inside this translucent sac is the body of a naked man, fully grown and developed. He frees himself from the sac and bites through an umbilical cord.

He's cleansed.  He's free.  He's reborn.

The film is shot in stark black and white up until the final moments.  After he's reborn, he exits the bathroom through a door that reveals a different landscape.  Everything around him is vibrant; the colors, the sound. The trees are full of life and the birds chirp their serene songs.  Instead of an empty land, with no hope, there is the sun beaming down with a promise for the future.  The reason why it's such a challenging ending is because you can look at it entirely different each time.  What if the character has died and gone on to some sort of paradise?  Maybe he wasn't reborn in this life. Maybe all of his problems, anxieties and doubts destroyed him.  After this life he continues a journey in a different plain of existence.  I tend to think he was reborn and not dead.  There is an argument for two different endings, though.

The paradise theory comes from a shot in the film where a telephone pole dissolves into a cross.  Is this the character trying to find peace with God or a higher power?  Earlier in the movie that mysterious man asks the main character if he's "going to the end?"  What does that mean?  Is it death?  Does it imply that he's looking for salvation?  It's both.  The Wanderer will decide his own fate when he's good and ready.  When he's exhausted all avenues.  When he finally defeats his biggest challenger:  His mind.  When he fully realizes his cognizance he will have the answers.

I found this film by watching another film, a documentary on low-budget horror filmmakers called, Horror Business.  The documentary is fascinating and follows a group of filmmakers who live by their work.  They strive to be better, and some even struggle just to finish their projects.  The passion from all of these filmmakers bleeds through the screen.  Although I'm a fan of most of the filmmakers featured in that film, Catharsis stands out because it continues to challenge me.  It's also very therapeutic for me.  It's a film that speaks on so many levels.  You can't watch it just once.  It commands to be seen over and over again.

That's truly the criteria for what makes a film immortal.










  

     

Carnival of Souls (1962)

*** (out of four stars)

 

Reviewed by Rose Welch

Carnival of Souls is a B horror movie directed by Herk Harvey.  It was Harvey’s first and only feature length film.  The inspiration for this film came to him while he was driving past the abandoned Saltair pavilion in Salt Lake City, Utah.  He enlisted coworker and friend John Clifford to write the screenplay and he casted all local actors.  It was filmed over a three week period in Lawrence, KY and Salt Lake City, UT for around $33,000. 

Although this film wasn’t very popular when it was originally released in 1962, it has since become a cult classic.  Candace Hilligoss plays Mary Henry.  The movie opens with Mary and her friends drag racing with another car.  The car goes off a bridge and Mary emerges from the water three hours later with no recollection of how she escaped from the car and no real concern for her friends.  She seems to be very unemotional and completely detached from the whole incident.  She soon leaves her home in Kentucky to take a job as a church organist in Utah.  She’s plagued by bizarre occurrences along her journey.  She finds nothing but church music on the radio, a strange abandoned pavilion that seems to beckon to her, and visions of a ghoulish man, played by Herk Harvey.  She arrives at her destination and rents a room from an elderly woman named Mrs. Thomas, played by Frances Feist.  Things only continue to get worse for Mary in Utah.  She continues the see the man although no one else can.  She also experiences periods where she’s invisible to everyone else.  She loses her job at the church, and after speaking with a Dr., she feels the answers to her problems can be found at the abandoned pavilion.  She goes and finds other “ghouls” along with the man.  When she sees herself dancing with him, she runs into the water and disappears.  The next time we see her is when the police are pulling the car out of the river with her and her two friends dead inside.

Though it has spawned two unsuccessful remakes, the original has stood the test of time, and continues to scare fans 52 years after its initial release.  The whole movie plays out like an episode of the Twilight Zone. There is no blood and gore, and very few special effects.  The film relies solely on atmosphere and acting ability.  The ominous score helps to increase the suspense.  As far as classic horror goes, this is a great film that will have you turning the lights on before you enter a room. 

Starring:  Candace Hilligoss, Frances Feist, and Sidney Berger

Written by John Clifford

Directed by Herk Harvey

78 mins

1962

The Prowler (1981)

 

***(out of 4 stars)

The Prowler is a movie that works strictly with mood and suspense.  Many of the slasher films from the 80's relied heavily on gore and high body counts alone.  Although The Prowler doesn't lack in it's fair share of blood and guts, this film is deeper than most of the slasher films to come out of the eighties. It is also a film that many horror fans - particularly slasher fans - adore.  Of course I don't have stats to prove this, just recollections of the many podcasts, blogs and websites I've read and listened to through the years.

The script is co-written by Glenn Leopold and Neal F. Barbera.  The duo take the time to actually develop the characters, something not common in slasher films.  We get to know the central characters, because we linger with them for most of the film, while they're trying to figure out the mystery of just who is killing the teenagers around them.  A World War 1 veteran receives a Dear John Letter from his love, Rosemary.  It seems that she's move along swiftly, while our killer is still fighting the battle.  Very early on in the film we get to see exactly what we're in for.  After some stock footage of soldiers returning from the war, we cut to a graduation party where Rosemary (Joy Glaccum) and her lover end up out on the Gazebo.  A killer stalks in the shadows as he watches the two lovers make out under the stars.  He disposes of them rather quickly with a pitch fork - an instrument of death used constantly in this movie.

Fast forward thirty-five years later.  Another annual graduation dance is in the works.  Naturally, some have reservations since that fateful night back in 1945 when Rosemary and her lover were killed.  The killer has never been apprehended.  Vicky Dawson plays Pam MacDonald, the survivor girl.  Although Pam isn't as tough, this character reminds me of Ginny from Friday Part 2.  There is just something about they way they handled themselves in these films.  Both very strong personalities and ready for a fight when confronted with one.  For most of the film she pals around with Mark London (Christopher Goutman).  The two are working together, while simultaneously being stalked by the killer.

And that brings me to the main character of the film:  The Killer.  He's pretty basic.  Dressed in World War 11 fatigues, his face is covered and most of the time he's obscured by the shadows.  His weapons of choice are mainly the pitchfork and Bayonet.  For the majority of the film this character was played by the assistant director, Peter Guiliano.

Tom Savini handled the special FX work on the film.  Slasher fans, myself included, love gore and great, inventive kills when it comes to our horror films.  Savini delivers and delivers some more in this one.  One of the victims gets a bayonet through the top of his head, which protrudes out of the bottom of his chin.  While convulsing, the victims eyes turn upward into his skull and bulged out.  This kill is so effective and one that gets me every time.  Another effective sequence is when Lisa (Cindy Weintraub) decides to take a swim because she's angry that her boyfriend is drunk back at the party.  After she finishes her nightly swim she tries to exit the pool but is kicked in the face by the killer.  It is said that this take alone took 18 times to master.  Lisa is in a state of confusion and is grabbed from behind as the killer slices her throat.  Much like an earlier kill in the very first Friday film, this throat slice doesn't look as sloppy and really makes you cringe as the bayonet slices back and forth like a violin bow.  Is this Savini's best work?  I'd say it ranks up there with his other films, Friday the 13th Part 4: The Final Chapter, The Burning and Maniac.

Director, Joseph Zito, does a great job with the pacing.  As I've said before the suspense and tension build to a boil.  There are long, quiet, brooding moments.  And in these moments there are little snippets of the killer, a frame or two, while other action is taking place.  In another scene Pam tries to escape through a door but the latch won't open.  The camera holds as we see the killer stalk in the background.  This is very effective.  Zito holds the shot at just the right length - not too long or short - that builds that tension until Pam can finally escape into the night.

Richard Einhorn's score does exactly what it's supposed to do.  It isn't jarring and obnoxious; taking away from the scene, but creates the mood that helps build the suspense.  Key moments in the music happen when you least expect them.  Those sharp chords ring out; causing the viewer's emotion to be dictated momentarily.  During the chase scenes the score really comes to life; that underlying sound scape of mood and atmosphere.

The Prowler resonates to this day because of the talent behind the film.  Filmmaking with a small budget sometimes forces artist to go beyond their normal capacity.  I'm sure Zito and company had no idea in 1981 that his little film would be so adored years later.  But that is why film is so powerful.  Some are forgettable while others last the test of time. 

Starring:  Vicky Dawson, Christopher Goutman, Lawrence Tierney

Directed by:  Joseph Zito

Written by:  Glen Leopold and Neal F. Barbera

89 mins

1981   

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

****(out of 4 stars)

It's that time of year again when I pull out my Christmas horror films, dust them off, and throw them in the player.  It was Christmas Eve last year when my wife let me open this movie as an early gift.  I was like a kid in a candy store, eyes wide, with a slight gasp and totally excited.  The cover reminded me of the days from my childhood when I would rent from video stores.  I was just crazy about the cover:  Santa coming down the chimney with and ax in hand.  That haunting imagery would forever be etched in my mind.

Enough of my gushing. 

Young Billy (Jonathan Best) witnesses his parents brutally murdered by an impersonating Santa Claus.  A few years later he lands himself into an orphanage where he's constantly mistreated by Mother Superior (Lilyan Chauvin).  Fast forward a couple of years.  Billy is a grown man of 18 now (Robert Brian Wilson).  He lands himself a job at a grocery store around the holidays.  Christmas to be exact.  Every year around Christmas, Billy just isn't himself.  He's continuously reminded through vivid flashbacks of his parents' brutal murder.  But his boss, Mr. Sims, (Britt Leach) gives him the honorary job of playing the Santa Claus for all the little kids.  Once he puts the suit on, the shit hits the fan, and Billy loses it.  And the bodies start to pile up from there.

One of my favorite scenes, and one that stood out prominently when I was younger is when Billy visits his comatose Grandpa, played by Will Hare.  In this scene, Will Hare turns his creepy on and addresses the fact that Christmas is the scariest night of the year.  If Billy should see Santa on this night he'd better run!  As a child watching this scene I just remember how much it literally made my hair stand on end.  When your imagination runs wild is when you've really taken in the experience of the film.  Santa is, after all, a man who only enters the house when everyone is sleeping.  If you really sit back and think about that for a minute or two you'd make sure to lock your doors before bedtime.  As a grown man the scene obviously no longer holds that tension for me although I'd say it's still well done.

For a slasher film in the 80's the formula is pretty standard.  Equipped with the blood, gore and sex - this makes for your typical slasher film.  The body count starts to rise half way through the plot and includes a man being choked by Christmas lights, a boy beheaded as he's sleigh riding in the woods and my personal favorite, Linnea Quigley being impaled onto moose antlers.  Although this slasher didn't trend any new ground, the overall look and feel of the film are satisfying. 

Silent Night, Deadly Night opened the same weekend as, A Nightmare on Elm Street.  But after commercial ads depicting a killer Santa wreaking havoc were aired, parents were up in arms and there began a nationwide outcry for the film to be pulled out of theatres.  And eventually it was.  Film critics Siskel and Ebert hated it, and Mickey Rooney condemned the film and its makers.  The irony of that tidbit is Rooney would later go on to play in Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 5: The Toy Maker.  Way to stand your ground, Mick.

With a vast array of biblical films, and The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams, Silent Night, Deadly Night seems an unlikely project for director, Charles E. Sellier Jr..  Silent Night, Deadly Night was a huge success and beat out A Nightmare on Elm Street upon its initial release.  The film grossed 2,491,460, before being pulled, making back the 750,000 it was made for.  I assume that Mr. Sellier did something right.

Silent Night, Deadly Night is a special movie.  A movie that gained much notoriety and hatred from those who ultimately helped make this movie a success.  That same notoriety and hatred for the film is the reason why I'm even able to talk about it now.  It would've been swept under the rug; forgotten and barely seen except for the few die hard fans that would go searching high and low for it.  The film for many years was actually hard to find and out of print.  Fortunately it was released last December by Anchor Bay.  The dvd includes part 2 with it.  This film is father to a few sequels; none of which are better than the original.

So you better watch out and you'd better not cry.  Santa is out to "punish" you!

Starring:  Lilyan Chauvin, Gilmer McCormick, Linnea Quigley

Written by:  Michael Hickey (Story by:  Paul Caimi)

Directed by:  Charles E Sellier Jr.

85 min (Unrated Version)

1984



 

The First Power (1990)

**1/2 (out of four stars)

I don't recall the first time I saw this film.  I can guess it was probably when it was first released, back when I was a very young kid, rummaging through the horror section at our local video store.  As a child, I remember being genuinely creeped out by this film.  I remember watching Geraldo Rivera and other shows featuring Satanic cults and things like that.  Back then our society was paranoid by
underground satanic groups. It seemed to be every where you looked while channel surfing. 

The streets of LA are being terrorized by a serial killer.  The killer is dubbed "The Pentagram Killer" because he murders his victims ritualistically, carving pentagrams in the skin of his victims.  Lou Diamond Phillips plays Detective Russ Logan.  He's on the case and hunts down the serial killer.  Once apprehended the killer is quickly tried and convicted - his sentence is the gas chamber.  Which is exactly what Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) wants.

We're also introduced to a professional psychic, Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith).  After Channing's death he has the power to jump from body to body.  That would be called, the second power.  Channing wishes to possess the first power - the power of immortality.  Tess helps Detective Logan along the way, as they try to defeat an unknown force that was once Patrick Channing.

Writer/Director Robert Resnikoff doesn't have much of a resume.  He's credited with another film called The Jogger which I've never seen nor have I heard of.  For only two films under his belt, I'd like to think that The First Power is his claim to fame.  He does a good job with the look of the film - a look that you can only relate to early 90's horror.  There are some pretty intense action sequences involving some car chases and a character jumping from a high rise only to land on his feet and run away.  Today filmmakers would take the easy approach and use the green screen, but back in the day, this must've been a great credit to the stunt team and an equally talented film crew.

The acting isn't something to write home about but Lou Diamond Phillips does a fine job as a cop struggling to battle with the forces of evil.  Jeff Kober chews up the scenery though.  The scenes where he's involved are some of the best throughout the film.  I've always found him quite effective in this film.  He resonates a creepiness that helps move the story along. When ever he's on screen, he commands my full attention. His face is distinct, and I'm quite sure that he was born for roles like this.

Richard Ramirez pops into my mind as I watch this film.  He was the Night Stalker of LA in the mid eighties.  His reign of terror had the entire state of California at bay for many years.  Families locked their windows and doors at night, because if you didn't, it could be a fatal mistake.  He was also heavily into Satanism and the occult.  Ramirez awaits execution by the state of California.  His wife, Doreen Lioy says she'll commit suicide when he dies.

The First Power has garnished much negative criticism since it's initial release.  Even today it stands at a meager 13% on Rotten Tomatoes.  I'm not sure all of the negative feedback is fair, because this film does a good job at setting you up, mowing through story, and giving you a suitable finish all while being enjoyable.

Starring:  Lou Diamond Phillips, Tracy Griffith, Jeff Kober

Written and directed by:  Robert Resnikoff

98 min

1990

Midnight (1981)

**1/2(out of four stars)

John Russo needs no introduction. He's only the co-writer for one of the greatest horror films of our times, Night of the Living Dead. Aside from that he's an author and has made a few horror flicks after Night. 1981's Midnight is a film written and directed by Russo.

Nancy played by Melanie Verlin, runs away from her home after her step-father (Lawrence Tierney) tries (and fails) to seduce her.  After fleeing from the house, and bound for California to be with her sister, she's picked up by two thieves, Tom and Hank.  The trio are on their marry little way, until they come across a sadistic, murdering family of the satanic type.  Along the way, others are murdered in the typical slasher format. 

All slashers really need (besides a story of course) is great kills, some nudity and decent FX.  Midnight does offer up the goods.  The nudity aspect does lack.  Now, in all fairness, this film seems to borrow heavily from other films, namely The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  The approach Russo takes with his formula is standard, but does a good job of entertaining the audience.  I'm not saying that this film is the next greatest thing since sliced bread, but I am saying that the film doesn't deserve all the negative feedback that it usually gets. 

The acting isn't great.  After doing a little research, most of the cast is only credited with this film.  Most of the cast has only done this film.  Film buffs will recognize two face though.  Two that come to mind are Lawrence Tierney, who plays the despicable, molesting, step-father and John Amplas of Day of the Dead fame.  John Amplas plays Abraham, one of the members of the homicidal family.  There's one scene (probably my favorite) where he and his brother, Luke (Greg Besnak) are impersonating cops.  They corner the trio and it ends in some bloodshed.  However, this scene displays the best acting in the film. 

The film comes from the novel with the same name.  I have not read the novel, but would be interested in reading it since I do think John Russo is a better writer than he is a director.  I've read the novel version of Night of the Living Dead and thought it was a well written version of the great film. 

You won't find anything incredibly fresh with this film, however, if you like the slasher genre, you should really give this film a go.  Midnight is a low budget independent film from the 80's, a long time before just anyone could walk into best buy, buy a camera and go shoot something.  I feel that the cast and filmmakers involved really had their hearts in the right place.

Starring:  Melanie Verlin, Lawrence Tierney, John Amplas

Written and directed by:  John A. Russo

91 mins

1981    

Zombie Honeymoon (2005)

***1/2 (out of four stars)

There's a brilliant little documentary out there called Horror Business. The documentary follows a bunch of low budget, indie filmmakers as they cope to try and deal with life in the filmmaking world. Christopher P. Garetano is the director Horror Business and I've got to say that it's one of the best films I've seen last decade. It really gives insight into the grueling world of being a filmmaker. Upon watching this intriguing documentary, I became really fond of some of the filmmakers who Garetano followed throughout the film. One such filmmaker is Dave Gebroe. Dave is responsible for 2005's genius little zombie flick called, Zombie Honeymoon.

I've got to say that I'm very disenchanted by Zombie films as of late. I mean, maybe disenchanted is the wrong word. More like burned out. Yeah, that's a better term. But every once in a while, a zombie film turns up that makes me not want to give up on the genre. Zombie Honeymoon is one such film.

Danny (Graham Sibley) and Denise (Tracy Coogan) are newlyweds. They're young, in love and looking forward to a fine future together. After getting hitched, they resort to a house lent to them by an Uncle. While on the beach one afternoon, after Danny goes surfing, a zombie emerges from the ocean and attacks him. He's pronounced dead at the hospital but miraculously lives. Soon he starts to deteriorate and gradually turns into a flesh eating zombie himself.

OK, so the plot does sound paper thin, but once you get into the meat (no pun intended) of the story, it's realized that this is a very dramatic piece of cinema. At its very core, it's a love story and one told right. After Danny begins eating people, Denise has to show her true love and stand by her husband. Just like his life, Danny's marriage is slowly disintegrating as well.

Even though we're watching a zombie film, the similarities with others are much different. There's no gun fights, no hoards maiming innocent people, no end of the world scenario. It's just a fucked up love story told with a creative spark that makes this film stand out from the rest. We're not talking about the greatest zombie film ever put on film. But we are talking about one good looking film, with a well written script, a decent crew of actors and some great music. If you're a gore hound, you'll be pleased with the FX in this film. There's enough gore to satisfy your disgusting needs!

According to Dave Gebroe he went through his own hardships to make this film. Like many filmmakers Dave understands that you have to run on pure passion to get you through a day's work. Filmmaking can be a living hell and with bitchy actors, 18 hour days, people backing out last minute, and the overall relentless nature of the business, most tend to want to give up. Passion keeps filmmakers like Dave going. It's for the sake of the art. That and paying homage to something even bigger than Dave, his crew and the film.

Another reason for Dave's loyalty to this project may stem from the origin of this story. There was a real life Danny, who had a freak surfing accident and died. Dave's sister was married to Danny. This is a homage to his sister and a way to cope with the loss. Remember, film can also be therapeutic.

Starring: Tracy Coogan, Graham Sibley, Tonya Cornelisse and David M. Wallace

Written and Directed by: Dave Gebroe

83 mins

2005

Bloody Murder (2000)

*(out of four stars)

I remember renting this flick back in the day. I don't know, something about the cover just intrigued me. Maybe it was the dude in the hockey mask, holding a chain saw that made me pick it up. My first reaction was probably "rip off", and let me tell you. That's exactly what this film is. Nevertheless, Blockbuster video got my money that night... bastards!!! I'm watching this movie for the second time, via Netflix. Shoot me!

I know that the saying "rip off" is universal and thrown around quite often, but holy cow, this movie takes the cake. Bloody Murder is derivative of Friday the 13th and it has a whodunit plot like Scream. The film was made in the late 90's when the whodunit angle was being used over and over and over again. Very, very redundant.

A few teenagers go out to a camp to help set up for the summer. Hmmm. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, a creepy old dude warns them time and time again about Trevor Moorehouse - the local serial killer/legend. Hmmm. Very, very original. I haven't seen that before. At the end of the film, there's a very unclimatic ending where it's finally revealed as to who is walking around in the hockey mask killing the pot smoking, love making, moronic teen.

Not only does this movie steal from the original Friday the 13th and Scream, but it practically rips off the entire Friday the 13 franchise. A girl is pushed off a boat (like in Jason Takes Manhattan) because she can't swim. And in a bit to try and be funny they name the one character Jason. Throughout the whole film you hear the same line, "where's Jason"? I guess it's supposed to be a homage, but it just makes the writing look worse than it already is.

This review is probably the laziest I've done so far. That's because this film's script, acting and overall effect is just unoriginal, uninspiring and lazy. According to IMDB, actress Jessica Morris stated that she hated the film. Too bad she brought nothing to the table either. I'm actually surprised that directer Ralph E. Portillo hasn't been sued.

I would say more but I got nothing...

Starring: Jessica Morris, Peter Guillemette and Patrick Cavanaugh

Directed by: Ralph E. Portillo

Written by: John R. Stevenson

88 min

2000

SLEEPAWAY CAMP (1983)

***(out of four stars)

Sleepaway Camp came out in 1983 - a time, very long ago when slasher movies were being made a dime a dozen. Well, actually, they're still being made, but the feeling and atmosphere are all but lost with most modern takes on the genre. There was just something about the 80's - the look, the acting, the cheesiness. It was all part of a great time for young, independent filmmaker's who had visions of young, sexy, and most often stupid teenagers being picked off one by one.

The film commences panning through Camp Arawak. The foliage in the back ground is beautiful and I commend the cinematographer already. The camp is run down and boarded up. With a flashback we see a man boating with two young children. Meanwhile, two teens are water skiing. There's a horrible accident and the man is killed, leaving the kids orphaned.

Eight years later, we're introduced to Angela(Felissa Rose) and her cousin, Ricky (Jonathon Tierston). They now live with an eccentric, spaced out Aunt who sends them off to summer camp. Angela is also a bit of a space cadet and Aunt Martha (Desiree Gould) hopes that Ricky and his friends will help her open up a bit.

From the get go, Angela doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the camp goers. We follow her through the awkward circumstances that she faces as a young 13 year old. She's constantly teased and almost molested by Artie, (Owen Hughes) the sloppy, overweight cook. For most of the film's duration, it's all about Angela and her struggles at trying to fit in. Yes, Sleepaway Camp is technically a slasher, but it takes a bit of time before the bodies start piling up. There are slow moments that may be trying to build on character development. You could argue that. I don't look at this as a bad thing though. I like the softball game scene, I like the pranks and I like the overall feel of the camp environment.

This film has so many characters that for the most part it's hard to follow most of them. The main players are: an overbearing counselor named, Meg (Katherine Kamhi), her equally bitchy friend, Judy (Karen Fields) and a paranoid camp owner named, Mel (Mike Kellin). Mike Kellin seems to be the veteran actor and does have the chops to pull of some adequate acting.

Like most slasher films, the death scenes are what counts. In Sleepaway Camp, most of them are pretty tame. Writer/directer Robert Hiltzik said that the budget was low; it's not to difficult to tell when watching the film. But still, it does look like he invested every penny of the minimal budget wisely. For example, in one death scene, Judy is killed with a hot curling iron. From the wall we see the shadow of a pair of hands doing this. Again, it's not shown to us, but it's equally effective because we can at least hear the sizzle of flesh being burnt. And can I add that Judy deserves it! In another scene (not sure if it's a death because it's never touched upon) is when the cook, Artie is burned by scolding hot water. You can actually see the boils pumping out of his cheeks as he writhes in pain. The effects for that scene are really memorable and still makes my skin crawl to this day. Some of the other kills are forgettable. There's a scene where one of the young punks is taking a shit in a stall and the killer drops a bee hive into it. The bees literally eat away at the victim. It sounds cool, but doesn't work on screen. I feel they could've done better. A minimal complaint, but still, a complaint.

In the 1980's, slasher films for the most part, were without a doubt predictable. For me, slasher films are just fun. I'm not looking for some brilliant story as much as I'm looking for a great, fun classic to sit and watch with like minded individuals. However, with Sleepaway Camp, the ending is what really makes this film memorable. In fact, I could confidently say that it has one of the most bizarre endings in (possibly) horror cinema history. I can't recall the very first time I saw the ending, it was probably at a young age, but I have to imagine that it floored me.

Again, I feel that Robert Hiltzik really does a fine job with his direction. The acting is so-so, but you have to over look that. I'm not saying the acting is bad, but I'm not saying it's great either. For a film with a relatively young cast, he does a fine job. The story is effective and does shadow any other negative elements that present themselves. It does feel slow at times, but with this film, it works on different levels. I commend any director who makes something little into something big. That takes some talent. After listening to the audio commentary track, it feels like Robert had a great relationship with his cast. And many of them are still friends. How can you fail when you're doing something with so much passion?

I dare anyone to deny the complete originality that Sleepaway Camp harbors. It's just a one of a kind type of film. Even M. Night would be envious of this AWESOME twist ending. Maybe he should take notes.

Starring: Felissa Rose, Mike Kellin and Jonathon Tierston

Written and directed by: Robert Hiltzik

84 mins

1983

Psycho II (1983)

***(out of four stars)
It's no surprise that the original Psycho had such an immense effect on American audiences back in 1960. That film changed the way we looked at horror films. With one of the greatest scenes in history (the infamous shower scene) how could you not consider that film to be the scariest that audiences seen up till that point? And yet it was heavily based on the real life Wisconsin cannibal killer, Ed Gein. With Robert Bloch penning the script, Hitch took the ball and ran with it. He made that film cheaply and totally stunned movie goers of that era. So, when you hear about a sequel what would your reaction be? Today, sequels are a dime a dozen, especially those uninspired "remakes" that litter theatres everywhere. How can you possibly match an original classic with a sequel that would come 22 years later?

The answer is simple: YOU DON'T!

However, with that being said, that does not mean that Psycho 2 is a bad film. In fact, I think it's a great sequel. The only thing that Psycho 2 may lack is actually not being as great as it's predecessor. But if you sit back and take in this film with an open mind, you'll see its genius.

After being institutionalized for the past 22 years, Norman Bates is released and deemed sane by the courts. But the sister of Marion Crane, (Norman's victim in the original) Lila Loomis, isn't ready for Norman to be released. She's out to make sure that he stays confined behind the walls of the mental institution. Lila is also the husband of Sam Loomis, who was also a character of the original.

Lila's protests fall on deaf ears. Norman is released and ready to try and lead a normal life. Upon his release he finds a job at the local diner as the chief's assistant and re-opens his infamous motel after firing Warren Toomey (Dennis Franz), who is the current, drug dealing manager. He befriends a waitress who also works at the diner named, Mary Samuels (Meg Tilly). She seems to be having trouble with her boyfriend and stays with Norman at his house.

Mary Samuels isn't what she appears to be and we later find out that she's the daughter of Lila Loomis. The two torment Norman, often calling him and disguising their voices as his beloved, deceased Mother. This is a sadistic attempt to drive Norman batty once again, securing him a permanent home at the loony bin. After a while, Mary starts to feel sympathy towards Norman and argues with her mother against her dastardly plans.

Both Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles return in this sequel. Perkins is spot on and this is probably the reason why his career never headed in a different direction. Perkins will always be remembered for his unforgettable portrayal of Norman Bates. We feel sorry for Norman, who at times, seems to be leading a normal life. He has paid his debt to society but never rises above his tortured past because society won't let him. And isn't that what Norman Bates really is: tortured? How could we not feel for a man, who knew no other love than that of his dead mother? A man that dressed in her clothing, talked to her as if she were still alive and nurtured her in declining health. The death of Mrs. Bates has always affected Norman. It festers in his mind and she lives vicariously through him.

It was said that Meg Tilly wasn't allowed to watch television as a child and was totally oblivious as to why Anthony Perkins had so much attention during the making of the Psycho 2. She had never seen Psycho. She made an innocent comment questioning why Perkins had had so much attention. Rumor has it that Perkins was deeply offended by her comment and didn't talk to her during the making of the film. He even wanted her replaced, even though filming was well under way with her in many of the scenes. Still, her character is pretty good for this film. And I think she does a fine job as Mary Samuels. Mary is a character of which that is surrounded by the evil doings of Norman. Her Aunt had been murdered in the shower and although this weighs heavily upon her, she shows mercy and sympathy for Norman.

Other recognizable faces are Dennis Franz, who plays the motel manager. He's offed by Mother rather quickly because of his sinful ways. Robert Loggia plays Dr. Bill Raymond, Norman's psychiatrist. It's a small role, but effective. Dr. Bill Raymond is responsible for Norman's release, yet still has an uneasy feeling about his patient.

Richard Franklin's direction is great. I love how he composes his shots. Especially those of Norman. Quite often, when Perkins is in a scene the camera is above him and tilted slightly, giving that feel of unease with the character. It's paced very well and builds on tension. Franklin tells a great story with his shots, just as Tom Holland tells a well paced story with his script.

And that does bring up another good point with the writing. We're really never sure what is going on. Norman seems fine. Is he doing the killing? Are Lila and Mary behind the visceral attacks? Has Mother cemented a place back in Norman's soul and thus making him a murderous lunatic? These questions keep you guessing. And in the final scene, yet another plot twist evolves.

In the final scene, Emma Spool (Claudia Bryar) knocks on the door while Norman is sitting at the dinner table. She tells Norman that she's actually his biological mother and that her sister, Mrs. Bates, actually adopted Norman while she was institutionalized. She claims that she was the one doing all the killing in an act to protect her son. Norman then hits her in the back of the head, killing her instantly. But why? If she is really Norman's mother, shouldn't he be content with having her in the flesh? It really doesn't matter because by the end we see that Norman has once again completely gone insane.

And I have to add that the final kill is brutal. That scene where he smacks Emma Spool over the head with the shovel still makes me cringe. In fact, most of the kill scenes are really great. My favorite is probable seeing Lila get a knife jammed down her throat. We get to see the blade enter and then protrude out of her neck. That reminds me of Lucio Fulci's House by the Cemetery where another victim meets that same demise.

When you watch this movie ask yourself if it lives up to the original. My opinion is that it does not. But that doesn't matter, because no film can out shine a classic like the original Psycho. (And I really don't think that is what the filmmakers were going for anyway.) It doesn't need to be better. That isn't the point. The film is effective as a sequel and continues with the Bates character. This film is really about Norman and what he's gone through. It's a story about a man who really tries to be civil, and to keep his heinous past behind him. But it is his past that continues to haunt him. He'll never be able to escape it. No matter how hard he tries.

Yes, Mrs. Bates' presence is still felt, but she is hardly the villain.

When Psycho 2 was released it garnished some financial success. It was received well by some critics. However, there were too many people who expected this film to be as magical as the original. When you have that mindset, you might as well not see the film and call it shit to begin with. If you take it in, and set aside that original, (I know it may be hard to do) then you'll find that this film stands just fine on its own merits. This is one of the best sequels to any classic that was ever made. My opinion may not matter to most, but that is what it is: an opinion. I say check it out.

Starring: Anthony Perkins, Meg Tilly and Vera Miles

Directed by: Richard Franklin

Written by: Tom Holland

113 mins

1983

Dark Asylum (2001)

***(out of four stars)

Even though you may not have seen Dark Asylum, you've definitely seen this type of film before. There's really nothing new here. Your basic slasher formula plays out like this:

A serial killer known as "The Trasher" is terrorizing a city and disposing the bodies of his victims in dumpsters and back alleys - hence the name "The Trasher". Eventually he's apprehended and held at an asylum for the criminally insane. Maggie, (Pauline Porizkova) is a Psychiatrist and is now in charge of running a psychological evaluation to see if "The Trasher" is to be kept in an asylum or if he should receive the death penalty. The serial killer eventually escapes and causes havoc throughout the hospital, killing anyone in his path.

There are a few names and faces you'll notice in this little flick. First, Larry Drake, who effortlessly portrays "The Trasher". Man, this dude is very intimidating in this role. His facial expressions, his silent demeanor and his massive body type are good enough to let me know that this dude is a bad ass. Once this killer is free to roam, you'd better be on your best game - which most of the hospital staff are obviously NOT. This guy will stop at nothing to be freed from the asylum. Can I say again, that Larry Drake is one scary dude. I wish he'd get more roles like this one. He's really effective and a highly underrated actor.

The second most noticeable face is that of Judd Nelson. Judd plays Quitz, another inmate in the hospital, but not at all dangerous. In fact, when the shit hits the proverbial fan, he's the one who helps Maggie through the entire ordeal. I don't know if he means it or not, but Judd naturally brings a comedic element to any role he plays. He's quite the charming actor. He's very good in this little unknown slasher flick.

Pauline Porizkova holds her own with the two men above. I'm not really that familiar with her, but I remember always thinking that she fit the role right in this film. Her character is constantly menaced by "The Trasher", but later also has to protect her daughter from the serial killer when he escapes the hospital. Although most of these characters are pretty much one dimensional, they're quite effective in all their efforts. Remember it is a slasher film and we should never expect to much. They're supposed to be fun, cheesy and bloody...

But wait! The blood! The gore! If you're a gore hound then you'll be sadly disappointed in this film. Most of the kills are off screen and very little blood is shed. However, if you can look beyond that, you might find this film as enjoyable as I have. Larry Drake is still menacing whether or not the blood factor is involved.

Which brings me to my next point. I'm not really sure why I like this film so much. It is a pretty standard film. Besides Judd, Pauline and Larry, the acting could be a little better. However, I over looked that aspect of the film and just went with it. I think the predominate reason why this film works for me is because it came out at a time when horror was on life support. Very few films that came out at the end of the 90's and the beginning of the 2000's are worth mentioning. When I first saw this film, it just entertained me. I've always liked it. That's all there is too it. I remember seeing it on HBO when it first came out. It's just a great time and I find myself revisiting it more often than not. And hey, if you can rewatch a film, how bad can it possibly be?

Like I said, there is nothing new here to mention. The film is what it's supposed to be: a slasher film. And in my opinion, a good one. Check it out!

Starring: Pauline Porizkova, Judd Nelson and Larry Drake

Written by: Gregory Gieras and D.B. Smith

Directed by: Gregory Gieras

83 mins

2001

Three on a Meathook (1973)

*1/2 (out of four stars)

Three on a Meathook is a film that I used to pass on the video store shelves as a kid. The cover art always intrigued me and pulled me in right away. There's nothing like those 70's and 80's box art covers. Just the thought brings me back to the glory days of the Mom and Pop video stores of old.

Believe it or not, I never did pick up Three on a Meathook back in the old days. Instead I always rented some other forgotten classic. But recently, (two days ago) I received this little Ed Gein inspired film in the mail. With high expectations, I sat back and pushed play on my DVD player.

I'll start off by saying that those expectations weren't meant. At first glance you can tell that the DVD I got was a real bad transfer from the original VHS. But that's the least of my troubles.

The film is about Billy (James Pickett) and his Pa (Charles Kissinger), a family who lives in a secluded farmhouse. Billy's Ma died years ago, and Pa is a bit over protective and not privy to the young whores that Billy brings home one night after their vehicle takes a dump. After Billy brings them home, the girls call it a night and hit the sack. One by one they are picked off while they sleep, via a few shotgun blasts. One girl is hacked up in the bathroom while she bathes. So far, so good. Typical of these type of films.

In the morning, Billy is stunned to find out that all the girls are dead. And when Pa blames the massacre on Billy, he's reluctant to hang around. He drives off in his pickup and heads to the city, where he finds himself in a bar, listening to some horrible 1960's band called, Xpress. There's a long scene with this band as they play live in the bar... really annoying and nothing you'd catch me listening too. While Billy's drowning his sorrows in alcohol, a beautiful young waitress named Sherry (Sherry Steiner) befriends him. The two eventually end up in the same bed together; the same night they meet. Kudos to young Billy! Then, you find out that Billy didn't even score, they just stayed in the same bed together. Take back those kudos.

Who cares? Eventually Billy starts to take a fondness to Sherry and he invites her up to the farmhouse. Not the best idea in the world. Sherry insists on bringing her friend Becky (Madelyn Buzzard).

What follows is more slaughter, more hillbilly banter, some bad acting and women hanging from meathooks. Oh yeah, and a twist ending that is obviously taken from Psycho.

The film had an estimated budget of 20,000 dollars, but looks more like a budget of about 10,000 dollars. Writer/directer William Girdler was a prolific directer as far as his work was concerned. From 1972 to 1978 he stayed busy directing horror and action films. Before his untimely death in 1978, Girdler had completed nine features. His life came to an end in a helicopter crash while scouting locations for his tenth feature. His biggest financial success came with the Jaws replica, Grizzly.

Just like the films The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Psycho, Deranged and Silence of the Lambs, Three on a Meathook was inspired by the real life, Wisconsin killer, Ed Gein.

I'm not really sure why this film just didn't work for me. It definitely has the feel of a bad, B-type 70's film, but it lacks the raw, gritty power that TCM garnished. And while it tries to remain faithful to the real life material, it lacks the brilliance that Psycho had.

Don't worry though. Some of you may find something in this film that I didn't. My position isn't to stray you away from it, but rather let you know that there are tons of films, based on the same idea, that do it better.

I guess my expectations from my childhood were set too high.

Starring: James Pickett, Charles Kissinger and Sherry Steiner

Written and directed by: William Girdler

80 mins

1973

Cat on the Brain (1990)

**1/2 (out of four stars)

Cat on the Brain is one of those flicks that took me three times to view. It was just a hard film to get into. Naturally, when the human mind can't grasp onto something that it deems "confusing", or "bizarre", we arrogantly throw it to the side - letting the film bury itself with dust. However, respecting Lucio Fulci - the director and the man - I had to give this film a fair shot.

Many fans of Fulci will name his most notable works first. Films like: Zombie, City of the Living Dead, The Beyond and House by the Cemetery have given him (like H. G. Lewis) the nickname, The Godfather of Gore. These films have also given him the notoriety that he deserves. And although Cat on the Brain is a very different film from the above mentioned, it's still one every Fulci fan should seek out.

Cat on the Brain is said to be Fulci's 8 1/2 or Eraserhead. The film is a self referential piece that depicts Lucio Fulci as himself - a director that is gradually failing to differentiate his films from reality. As his psychosis spins rapidly out of control, Fulci seeks the help from a psychiatrist. However, the psychiatrist has problems of his own. His marriage is failing, so killing is his way to vent, I guess. The Psychiatrist goes on a killing rampage (that resembles the violence in Fulci's films), and is sure that everyone will target Fulci because he makes disgusting movies. See the reference there?

I mentioned above that this movie was different from most of Fulci's other horror films. However, there is still tons of gore for all you gore hounds to feast your eyes on. The movie within the movie, depicts some of the more grotesque gore, with a chain saw as the weapon of choice. A piece of meat is cut out of a thigh from a cadaver and then fried up and eaten just like that of a succulent stake. Yummy! The psychiatrist who does most of the killing in the film has some pretty great scenes too. The gore is excellent in some of the more prominent "reality" parts of the film.

This film has somewhat of a commentary to it as well. In this movie the psychiatrist is the killer and tries to get Fulci blamed for his crimes, because of the films he makes. In interviews (that are actually on the disc from Grindhouse Releasing) Fulci clearly states his disdain for psychiatrists. It also says something about the way ordinary audience members perceive filmmakers of the horror genre. They're often looked down upon by mundane movie goers. They couldn't have emotions, could they? No, they're evil and they make trashy, sadomasochist films. I say keep making the trash and I'll keep watching.

Thanks to Grindhouse Releasing, this film is brought to you with a bunch of extra goodies. There is a "Heroic" appearance by Lucio Fulci at Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors back in '96, just shortly before his passing. There is also another great interview with the Maestro about his opinions on thrillers and horror films. It's a very candid and very straight forward interview. Any Fulci fan will love it. There's also another interview with actor, Brett Halsey. And much, much more. Let's just say Grindhouse did it right! My money was well spent.

Starring: Lucio Fulci, David L. Thompson and Malisa Longo

Directed by: Lucio Fulci

Screenplay by: Lucio Fulci, Giovanni Simonelli and Antonio Tentori

87 mins

1990

Blood Feast (1963)

**(out of four stars)

Instead of watching fireworks on America's birthday, I sat down and revisited what most call the original "splatter film". I'm talking about non other than Blood Feast. H. G. Lewis is often credited as being the "godfather of gore". His gore epics came long before other such films as: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and glorified franchises like, Halloween and Friday the 13th. Lewis was making gore pictures before they existed. He is considered a pioneer to some and a failure to others.

In 1963, Blood Feast opened in theaters and garnished a cult following very quickly. For being a film, not like any other, it also quickly became the target of criticism. Many critics called it garbage, and they might be right. It all depends on how you look at the film itself. To me, this is why film (or any other art form) is great. It's subjective.

Lewis and partner/producer, David F. Friedman, made up most of the crew of this film. While Lewis concentrated on photography and direction, Friedman would do sound and would often play small, uncredited roles, just to stay within the film's budget. The two collaborated on a number of projects throughout their careers. Blood Feast is one of their best known efforts to date.

The film centers around Fuad Ramses, a deranged caterer, who kills his victims and uses their assorted body parts as a sacrifice to the Egyptian goddess, Ishtar. Mal Arnold plays Ramses, the wide-eyed, crazed caterer. He's often considered the first machete wielding psychopath of cinema. I'm not sure if Lewis or Friedman ever called for great performances, but Mal Arnold is over the top, as he should be. He's effective for this b-schlock, type of film. Fills the bill just right.

The better performance comes from Thomas Wood. He plays Detective Pete Thornton. Detective Thornton is on the hunt for Fuad Ramses, although he doesn't connect the dots until his Egyptian class professor fills him in on Egyptian myths. Not to sure if I'd want this detective running around trying to find a killer in my town! He's often a bit too busy trying to get it on with his love interest.

Aside from the above mentioned duties, Lewis also did the score of the film. The score has this organ, that kind of accentuates the cheesiness of this film. By all means, it shouldn't fit, but it does. It's just another oddity to the film that makes it charming, if that's even the right word!

The gore effects were good for the day. I find them quite entertaining. Limbs are hacked, tongues are ripped out and gallons of blood is spilled. The blood is like a thick red paint (not really), but that's what it reminds me of. In one scene a woman's heart is ripped out. Again, for the time, it's very effective. Lewis said that the actress couldn't hold her breath long enough for the take, so he had to use a still frame. The scene is still effective to this day, but if they had the talent that was needed, it could have been more grotesque.

Another bit of trivia comes in the editing department. Robert Sinise, father of actor, Gary Sinise, cut this film. As he was cutting the film, he asked Friedman, where such a film would be played. It was far too graphic for the generation of film goers of that time. I guess Sinise knew the film would be a bit shocking to audiences. He would be another returning member in the H.G. Lewis camp.

Going back and listening to some of the commentary by the filmmakers you can tell that they weren't taking themselves seriously. They're quick to point out the the film isn't gold, but they also knew that they were doing something that no other filmmaker was doing at that time. It's very hard to be critical of a film like this when you know the filmmaker's initial intentions. They were obviously making films for profit and didn't take the profession too seriously. Again, depending how you view that is your opinion. I'd say that what they set out to do was shock and entertain people of that time. I'd also say that they were quite successful in their endeavors. For me, anytime you watch an H.G. Lewis film, you're going to be entertained. That's just my view on it. If you watch one of his films with a serious, analytical eye, then you're going to be disappointed.

I'd say watch it. Watch it on a weekend with some friends (maybe with some booze), but if you don't take it seriously, you'll have a great time with this film. If you do take it seriously, you're missing the point and wasting your time. Whether you like it or not, there is no denying that this film paved the way for most horror films that we see today. It truly is a staple in horror cinema.

Starring: Thomas Wood, Mal Arnold and Connie Mason

Directed by: Herschell Gordon Lewis

Screenplay by: A. Louise Downe

67 mins

1963

Devil (2010)

**** (out of four stars)
When talk of Devil first emerged I completely wrote it off. With M. Night's name attached I wanted nothing to do with it. The guy is like a disease. There was one problem though. The trailer looked so damn good. After some research I noticed John Erick Dowdle had directed it. I liked Quarantine and I can't wait to see The Poughkeepsie Tapes. So on a Friday night, with little to do I said, "What the hell". Besides, it won't be the first or last time I waste a good $11 on a movie ticket.

The film is about five strangers who become stuck in an elevator. We soon find out that all of the strangers have sketchy pasts. A thief, a liar, a thug, a crooked salesman, and an ex-military person (who we later find out also has a violent past) are among the group. Not a good mix when trapped together. Once the story begins to unfold, the passengers die one by one after a series of power outages. The lights go out and when they come back on somebody is dead. Now it's a guessing game as to who (or what) is causing all the carnage.

Chris Messina plays Detective Bowden who we find out lost his family in an automobile accident. The other drive was drunk but was never apprehended. After a series of unfortunate events, Bowden is the man who is now in charge of the faulty elevator and our strange persons aboard it. I loved this character. Chris Messina does a great job as a detective. In one scene he's told a story by one of the security guards (Jacob Vargas) about the devil coming to earth and wreaking havoc - turning people against one another and making them do things they normally wouldn't. At first he's apprehensive about it, but later starts to indulge in the theory that there could be something far more dangerous in the elevator than the humans. To me this made his character a little more human. When unexplained happenings take place, you might have to put aside your skepticism and see things through a different perspective.

Logan Marshall-Green, Jenny O'Hara, Bojana Novakovic, Bokeem Woodbine and Geoffrey Arend make up the cast of characters in the elevator. Each character has a level of mystery behind them. As the film continues so does the paranoia. Each character is taking it upon themselves to point the finger at each other. I love how you have this simple story of five strangers trapped when any one of them could be doing the killing. It's like one giant head game. All the characters in this film are flushed out so well. Everyone has a place and not one page of the script is wasted with convoluted, unwanted story lines. A masterfully written story by screenwriter, Brian Nelson.

Keep your eye out for director John Erick Dowdle. This guy is making quality films. His direction in Devil is as tight as you can get it. He does a fine job of conveying atmosphere in a small elevator. As a viewer we're left in isolation, which sparks those great elements of atmosphere and suspense. It is what's going on in the elevator that keeps the story moving with ease and brilliance. It's only when we venture out of the elevator to the other characters that we can take a moment to breath. With a less competent director this film may not have been so effective to me.

Devil is a well directed, and well written suspense story. I'd like to think of it as a homage to Hitchcock. It works well for a lazy Saturday afternoon. Again, don't be worried or swayed from watching this film because M. Night's name is attached. He's only responsible for the story. But it is one hell of a tale if I have to say so myself. This is the first of three films in the "Night Chronicles". I'm looking forward to the other two.

Starring: Chris Messina, Logan Marshall-Green, Jenny O'Hara

Directed by: John Erick Dowdle

Written by: Brian Nelson

Story by: M. Night Shyamalan

1hr 21 mins

2010

Funhouse (1981)

***(out of four stars)

A traveling carnival comes to town. Four teens get the bright idea of riding the funhouse and staying for the night. After the carnival closes, the teens witness the murder of the carnival fortune teller, by a man wearing a Frankenstein mask. The teens must stay alive long enough to escape... The Funhouse!

The acting in this film is quite good. Amy is played by Elizabeth Berridge. She's quiet and shy, but underneath that exterior, she's looking to get into some trouble. Cooper Huckabee plays Buzz, the tough, jock boyfriend. With them is Richie (Miles Chapin) and his girlfriend, Liz (Largo Woodruff). All of our teens play their roles respectively. But my favorite comes with the role of Conrad Strake played by the irreplaceable, Kevin Conway. This dude really brings out the "creepiness" in all those carnival workers you see. He plays three different roles - all of them equally effective and equally creepy.

The Monster is another great character in this film. The monster is a carnival worker but underneath his "Frankenstein" mask, he is a deformed creature. This is Conway's son in the film. In one scene the Monster kills Madame Zena (Slyvia Miles) after he pays her for sex. The monster prematurely ejaculates and wants his money back. When Zena doesn't comply with his wishes, well, he kills her. There's more than one way to get your rocks off, eh? When Conrad finds out that Zena is dead he's enraged. There's some banter back and forth where we find out that Conrad is obviously pro abortion. During this time the teens are listening and witnessing all of this from above. Richie drops his lighter and is spotted. Now Conrad and the Monster have some business to attend too.

What ensues is the teens being picked off one by one. Of course, our heroin Amy, is the last one left standing. There's a show down with her and the Monster, but you know he isn't going to win, right? I won't spoil anything here. Watch the film.

The kills for the most part are very tame. It's not a bad thing, but if you're looking for blood and gore, it's just not in this film. Sorry. What you will get is that authentic carnival atmosphere. That general creepiness that follows those things. Hooper did an amazing job capturing that atmosphere that a carnival brings. I commend him on that.

This film is fun. It has that wonderful 1980's look and feel. The characters are great, the carnival workers are great - again, an authentic feel to it. This film was shot in Hooper's Heyday. When he really had talent that resonated on the screen. It's a must see for sure.

Starring: Elizabeth Berridge, Kevin Conway, Cooper Huckabee

Directed by: Tobe Hooper

Screenplay by: Larry Block

96 mins

1981

The Lodge (2008)

**(out of Four stars)

The film starts off with a women tied to a bed. She's struggling to free herself as an unseen person climbs on top of her. The camera floats away; out the door, down a hall and descending a few stairs. The person follows the camera and we are led to a basement, where a woman is seated in a chair; tied and gagged. Her throat is slit. So begins THE LODGE.

Michael (Owen Szabo) and Julia (Elizabeth Kell) have been together for three years. They're young, happy and very into each other. Michael rents out a lodge in the Colorado mountains for an entire weekend. His hope is to relax, smoke and have hardcore sex with Julia in ALL ten rooms of the lodge.

Once inside, the young couple finds the lodge may have been occupied recently. The kitchen is left dirty. Like somebody had to leave quickly.

Enter Henry (Kevin McClatchy) the caretaker of the lodge. From the get go, this dude is just not right. As he stands in the kitchen he's caked with blood, supposedly cutting up a deer in the garage. There's no denying or actually hiding the fact that he's gonna turn out to be a lunatic.

Brad Helmink and John Rauschelbach direct this low budget film. They do have a few things going for them on this first feature. The cast is good. Owen Szabo and Elizabeth Kell are great characters and actually good, competent actors. The chemistry is there. Later on, when things get ugly, Owen and Elizabeth's performances shine even brighter. Another thing that this film has going for it is the beautiful cinematography by Aaron Platt. The lush mountains are beautifully shot and captured. He took advantage of the landscape and location. In the opening the film is bright and colorful, but later, (again when things turn ugly) the lights get darker - with blues, reds, and blacks. The camera compensates the different moods of the film. A job well done.

Unfortunately, this film falls flat for me. I really felt that although the acting was great, there was just no where for the performances to go. There's a long bit where it's just cat and mouse, long after the suspense had faded, the scenes kept going on and on - running and hiding and running and hiding some more. It just lost it's suspense factor after a while.

Another issue was the give away early in the film. Henry obviously is the killer. There's no guessing game, no who dun it, nothing to keep you guessing. From the first scenes you know he's just not right. I really wish they would have flushed out a little mystery with this film. Somewhere in the middle, a little blond haired girl is seen stalking around the house. What is she? A ghost? A victim of Henry's? When it's revealed, I'd say that could be your twist - but I'm still not biting.

Overall, this film was good. I've realized a few things when trying to make out a good film from a bad one. If the acting is good, and there's a decent story, then you don't have a lot to complain about. Like I said, it did fall flat for me, but I'm in no way being negative about this flick. There were moments when it grabbed you. There were moments when I was stunned by the vibrant quality of the cinematography. There were some moments that keep you at bay, waiting for that moment of horror. But it all comes down to a bunch of good scenes or parts. As a whole, well, it does suffer a little. I'd work out the script a little better next time.

By all means give it a look.

Starring: Kevin McClatchy, Owen Szabo, Elizabeth Kell

Directed by: Brad Helmink and John Rauschelbach

Screenplay by: Deb Havener

83 mins

2008