MMM Day 5: #338 -- Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Rating: 3 / 5

I wanted to include Dracula in this week's monster madness, but I already reviewed the 1931 movie a while ago. I found this on demand, and I jumped on it. I've gone against everything I believe in. I have now seen two Dracula movies, and I haven't read the book. The shame!

I love Bela Lugosi as Dracula. To me, he is Dracula, and he always will be. This variation on the Count was interesting, to say the least. I thought Gary Oldman did a good job with the role, and the character was definitely creepy and different. But I just couldn't let myself believe that it was Dracula. He was a monster out of a child's nightmare. He could transform his looks at the blink of an eye -- from young to old, from human-like to werewolf to giant bat-creature. I'm familiar with vampires being able to transform into other beasts, but...the way I like it, they turn into regular bats and wolves. It seems more natural that way, if that makes any sense. The reason that I love Bela's Dracula is because he is natural. He was a monster disguised as a human; very sophisticated and romantic. This Dracula tried to be those things, but I just didn't feel it like I did with Bela. He lived in an enormous castle in Transylvania, he wore extravagant clothing, and he spoke with eloquence. But it just wasn't the same.

The love story at play here felt more like Romeo and Juliet than anything. In the beginning, we see Dracula with his lover, Elisabeta. Assuming (for reasons I didn't catch) that Dracula was dead, she took her own life. Dracula then stabbed a cross, from which gallons of blood spewed, and somehow turned himself into a vampire, swearing that he would avenge her death one day. How you can avenge someone's suicide is beyond me. Jump to the 1800s, and the story picks up in familiar territory. Jonathan Harker traveling to Transylvania to meet with the Count with real estate business. He ended up seduced and held captive by Dracula's three brides, while the Count went to London to seduce Jonathan's wife-to-be, Mina. Even though she barely knew him, and was apparently deeply in love with Jonathan not long before, she fell in love with Dracula. She married Jonathan anyway, even though she knew that she wanted someone else. Then she let Dracula transform her, and tried to protect him as Jonathan, Van Helsing, and some other people set out to kill him.

It sounds good, now that I write it out. And I guess the story is pretty good, it just wasn't executed in a way that I could get behind. The love story wasn't developed quite enough, and I couldn't feel the love that they supposedly felt for one another (neither Mina and Jonathan's, nor Mina and Dracula's). It didn't leave a mark. That love story is actually the only part of the movie that I was able to follow, since that was the main plot point going on here. The rest could have been cut out and I wouldn't feel any differently. I felt like I just couldn't follow the movie. Every couple of minutes, I felt like it had skipped and that I'd missed something. I just didn't get it. Though I did like Gary Oldman somewhat, the rest of the characters just didn't sit well with me. His was the only one that was actually developed; the rest were dull and forgettable.

Visually, the movie was great. I loved the atmosphere at work, and the cinematography looked good. The special effects were also striking, and it felt like a gothic fairy tale. A low budget movie with no effects or fancy camera work can still be a great movie if it has a great story to back it up. But a movie with all the technology to its disposal will still fail if the story is lacking that special something. That is the case with Bram Stoker's Dracula. Again, I haven't read the book; but those who have say that this is an awful adaptation. I'm not sure how the 1931 movie holds up for those people. But for me, sixty years, a lot of money and fancy equipment did not make a better movie.

MMM Day 3: #336 -- Leprechaun (1993)

Director: Mark Jones
Rating: 4 / 5

When we're children, we're taught that Leprechauns are cute little things who can bring great luck. Everyone knows the story, at least a little bit. Leprechauns were the protectors of treasure, and they took their jobs very seriously. There are two things that I've always heard about these little guys. One, that if you can catch a leprechaun, he'll grant you a wish. Like a little Irish genie. The second is that, if you catch him, you can convince him to show you where his treasure is hidden. You can imagine that losing the thing that they are sworn to protect must be very devastating. Sometimes, maybe, it might make them very angry. Angry enough to kill in order to get it back.

That's what happened here. A man named Dan O'Grady, after travelling to Ireland to bury his grandmother, returned home with a sack full of gold. He told his wife that he caught a leprechaun, and the leprechaun revealed his hidden treasure to him. O'Grady planned to move out of his house with his new-found fortune, but of course, his wife didn't believe a word he said. Until the little guy showed up and killed her, that is. He managed to imprison the Leprechaun, and O'Grady ended up in a retirement home, probably completely off his rocker after what happened, and a man and his daughter moved into his old house.

Once they move into the house, Tory and her father meet the Three Men Who Paint, brothers hired to fix the house up. They are Ozzy, Alex, and Nathan. Nathan is the cute, hunky one; Alex, the little boy with a potty mouth; and Ozzy, the man who isn't "all there" and acts like a child himself. Ozzy accidentally let the Leprechaun out of its prison, not long before he and Alex discovered the sack full of gold. They hid it in a well, and the Leprechaun went about trying to find it. This little guy was severely angry, and all he wanted was his gold back. But these two kids didn't dare give up there secret, until it was almost too late.

I was just three years old when this movie first came out. I'm not sure when I saw it for the first time, but I've loved this little guy for as long as I can remember. He's cute, in a monstrous sort of way; he's vicious, and just downright funny. Leprechauns are supposed to be these cute little men who like to cause harmless mischief; not this little devil who likes to kill anyone who gets in his way. It's just like a killer Santa: it's just not right. But at the same time, it's hard to be scared of this guy because he's so darn cute and funny. That's not to say that he doesn't do some horrible things, because he certainly does. In this one, he actually killed a man with a pogo stick. Just jumped up and down right on the guy's chest. It's comical, sure, but just imagine! That had to hurt. As far as I can remember, he's always had unique and entertaining kills, which is one of the reasons that I love him.

Give me back me gold!

So, once the Leprechaun gets his gold back, will he stop tormenting the ones who took it? Well, if they haven't spent it, or eaten it (like Ozzy did...), I suppose he would. But that rarely happens; people who come into that sort of money will usually spend it pretty quickly. A lot of the times, people will give him back a portion, thinking that he won't notice if they keep just a little bit -- which is far from true. He knows exactly how much he's supposed to have, and he's not going to let you off easy. Even if you do think it's just a little bit. So, it's usually just one attempt after another, until everyone is dead and he can get every little bit of his gold back.

Now, is the movie perfect? No, of course not. The effects aren't the best I've ever seen, but they're far from the worst. But that's really the only thing going against it, and I can live with that. Jennifer Aniston plays Tory, and she must be good since she's come so far since then. I loved Ozzy and Alex the most, though. They worked really well together, and I loved both of those characters. Ozzy, the big teddy bear; and Alex, the cute little potty mouth ("Fuck you, Lucky Charms!" ha!) The story is great, I think, even if it is a little silly. If you take a look at the mythology of Leprechauns, though, it really isn't all that farfetched. It does make sense; it's just not something we're used to seeing. Perfect? No. Entertaining? Hell yes! I mean...it's a killer Leprechaun for crying out loud. How could you not love it?

#328 -- Idle Hands (1999)

Director: Rodman Flender
Rating: 4 / 5

Oh, how I love reminders of my childhood. I was nine years old when this movie came out, and I watched it constantly as a kid. I even taped it from my TV, along with Cherry Falls and Shriek if You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th. It was one of my favorite movies back then, and it had been way too long since I'd seen it. Watching it now, I can see that it's not a perfect movie at all; but I still think it's absolutely wonderful.

Devon Sawa stars as Anton, a slacker/stoner with not much going for him. Okay, nothing going for him. There's been a string of murders going on in his town, but he doesn't know anything about that, of course. He's too busy watching cartoons and getting high. But one night, the murders come into his house, when he finds his parents dead bodies. He starts to think that, maybe, he had something to do with it. It becomes undeniable when he accidentally kills his two best friends, Mick and Pnub (played by Seth Green and some other guy). His hand has a mind of its own, he can't control anything he does, and the hand wants to kill everyone around him. He eventually decides that the only solution is to cut the hand off; but that doesn't kill it, it just gives it more mobility and it becomes more dangerous than ever.

As in every horror movie, there's a character that knows everything about what's going on. That character comes in the form of Vivica A. Fox. She travels the world in search of the possessed hand (which, I guess, jumps from body to body, though I'm not sure) hoping to stop it from taking an innocent soul to Hell with it. The innocent soul that it's after this time is Anton's girlfriend, Molly (Jessica Alba), and they've got to save her before the hand can get to her.

As a kid, all I saw when I watched this was a whole bunch of awesome. I still see that, of course, but I can recognize the flaws now. Like, back then, I never even questioned how Mick and Pnub came back from the dead. I thought, "Zombies! Awesome!" Now, though, I really do wonder how the fuck that happened. They said something about a bright light, but it was too far away, so they just turned back around. Typical stoners. There are definitely parts of the story that don't make sense, but that doesn't even matter. It's always been an awesome movie, and it always will be. It's got some creepy things going for it: the glow-in-the-dark writing on the ceiling that says "I'm under the bed," the zombies, and the murder stuff. All of that was really well done, I thought, and the effects were great. There was an awful lot of comedy in there too; it was very dark comedy, but great comedy too. IMDB says it's horror, but I'm sure a lot of people just call it comedy. There's just too much blood and guts for me to be able to say that, though.

The point is, even though it's flawed and far from perfect, it's a wonderfully dark and funny movie that will always have a special place in my heart.

#324 -- Wolf (1994)

Director: Mike Nichols
Rating: 2.5 / 5

Let me tell you, the idea of Jack Nicholson as a werewolf if fucking amazing. I've always found him to be one creepy motherfucker, and to turn him into this supernatural beast with a hunger for people meat? Please! I was pretty sure that Wolf would be wonderful, but...well, I was wrong.

I do think that 'ol Jack is a terrific actor, and it's definitely not his fault that this movie didn't work for me. He played a guy named Will Randall who, after getting into a car accident, was bitten by a wolf. Afterward, he returned to his job at a publishing company, where he was being put out of a job by his younger co-worker (who happened to be sleeping with his wife...and this guy was supposed to be his friend). He left his wife and started sleeping with Michelle Pfeiffer who, seriously, should have played his daughter instead. That whole relationship made me uncomfortable for some reason. He was working on a way to get revenge on that asshole I mentioned earlier, and hopefully get his job back in the process. Oh, and sometimes he'd wake up thinking that he might have killed someone in the middle of the night.

Really, this is more of a drama movie that focuses on Will's relationships and the betrayals that he has to face. All that's okay, I guess, but I really didn't give a shit. The werewolf seemed like more of an afterthought, rather than the main focus of the movie. As a drama, it would have been better had Will fallen deeply in love with Pfeiffer's character. He said he loved her, sure, but I wasn't really able to feel that. All I felt was that he was extremely angry about his friend betraying him, and that maybe that was why he couldn't control his transformations as well as he should have. As a horror movie....there are several ways that it could have been better. The pacing was extremely slow, and the whole thing was just boring. They spent more time in the bedroom than anything, and even that wasn't any good. It wasn't steamy or sexy at all, because the entire time I was thinking that he was way too old for her. If she'd called him Daddy, I would've lost it. Also, Jack Nicholson as a werewolf wasn't as awesome as I'd thought it would be. He just looked weird. Maybe it was their special effects; I'm not sure. But I think he's creepier the way he is, without putting on those contacts and fangs and dumping all that extra hair on him.

There was a fight scene at the end of the movie, so there is some action; but it takes far too long for it to show up, and when it does, it's not that great. It's lame. So, I'm sorry Jack, I love you. But as for Wolf...I didn't hate it, but I definitely didn't like it. I grew up in the '90s, and I still love all those goodies. It was a great decade for cartoons, that's for sure. But I'm starting to think that the '90s wasn't the decade for horror...at all.

#317 -- Ringu (1998)

Director: Hideo Nakata
Rating: 3 / 5

I have a confession to make. Sometimes, I like to pretend I'm cool because I watch foreign movies. But truthfully, sometimes I just don't get them. For the most part, I do really enjoy Asian horror movies, but I can hardly call myself an expert on the subject. Sometimes I just can't get behind them. So, if you catch me saying something like "That's a remake of [insert Asian movie title], you should watch the original," don't pay attention. I'm just talking shit. I actually have no idea what I'm talking about.

That being said, I only slightly enjoyed Ringu. While the story behind it is definitely intriguing and terrifying, the movie itself just failed to give me that special feeling. The story here follows Asakawa, a reporter who finds herself surrounded by the mysterious legend of a killer video tape. She was researching and talking to locals about this tape, when her niece died. She came to believe that her death had something to do with the tape, so she took her research to another level. She ended up in possession of the tape and found herself with only one week to live. Her ex husband helps her in her research, and the search to find a cure for this "curse."

At the basics of it, the remake is the same. It's got the same basic story and follows a woman, her husband (or ex, I can't remember if they went the same way there), and their son. But the remake had several things that this one didn't. For one thing, this one just wasn't scary. There were a few scenes that I assume were meant as jump scares, but they just didn't set in. Even the typical Asian-horror theme -- the creepy, long, black hair -- didn't work very well for me. I think the terror here lies in the "what-if". The idea of this kind of thing happening to you is absolutely terrifying. The idea that you know, without a doubt, that you're going to die in a week...and you're racing the clock to figure out how to prevent that is scary as hell. But watching it on screen just didn't do anything for me. The majority of the time was spent with the characters doing research and travelling back and forth between locations.

There was one interesting concept that I don't remember being present in the remake -- that Sadako and her mother had magical powers, and that is what led to their deaths. Her mother was a psychic, and Sadako was able to kill people simply by wishing it. But other than that, it was generally unremarkable. I've seen Ringu 0, which is a prequel to this one, and I enjoyed it more. It focuses on Sadako's life before she was killed. Even though I can hardly classify it as horror as it's not scary either, it's an extremely sad story that I could get behind simply because of the emotions.

So, here we have something very rare. I actually liked the American version better. I thought it was scarier, it explained the ghostly occurrences better, and it succeeded in getting under my skin. When I first saw it, I was worried that I'd be afraid to watch television anymore. That didn't happen, of course, but you get my point. It left a mark. This one didn't.

#307 -- Candyman (1992)

Director: Bernard Rose
Rating: 4 / 5

 I remember watching this as a kid with my little "boyfriend." The only parts of it I remembered were a bunch of bees coming out of Candyman's mouth, and some woman getting naked. I think the naked lady scared me more than anything, and I'm sure the boy was even more terrified by it than I was. These days, I understand that Candyman is something to be feared.

Helen was working on a thesis paper about the urban legend of a man called Candyman. He resides in the projects, and all the residents are terrified of him. The story says that, if you say his name five times in front of a mirror, that he'll show up behind you and kill you with a hook. At first, Helen was sure that this was just the peoples' way of putting an actual face to the problems (all the crime in their area) that they faced every day. As her research continued, she realized that there was much more to Candyman's story, and she started to believe that he might be more than mass delusion.

Candyman was the son of a former slave who fell in love with a slave owner's daughter. He impregnated the girl, and her father then swore vengeance on him. He ordered a mob to saw off his hand; they then covered his body with honey and unleashed a bee-hive on him. His hand was replaced by a hook, and he lived on throughout the years, killing anyone who dared to say his name. When Helen came into the picture, everything changed. He didn't want to just kill her; he wanted to take her for his bride. Every murder that Candyman committed was blamed on Helen. She ended up getting arrested and committed to a hospital. She had to figure out a way to defeat Candyman while proving her innocence (or at least staying away from the police long enough to fight him). I think that Candyman was trying to make her lose her mind. He planned on ruining her life to a point that she would actually wish for death and join him. His plan, for the most part, worked very well. But not without a price.

Candyman was actually adapted from a short story by Clive Barker called "The Forbidden." It's in a volume of short stories called "The Books of Blood." I actually never realized this. I knew that Barker had something to do with the movie, but I didn't know what. I haven't read the story or the book, but I can't wait to check it out. He has quickly become one of my favorite authors, and I know that the story must be genius, like everything else he does.

As far as the movie goes...Since I saw it at a young age, without having read the story (or knowing anything about it), I really like it. I feel like Candyman is an icon of horror, even though he doesn't get as much recognition as the other big name horror villains. I think the thing that makes Candyman so scary is Tony Todd. Todd is a great actor, and has definitely made a name for himself in the horror world. He's a big guy, and with that deep, rattling voice, he was the perfect choice for the role. And, of course, Clive Barker himself was involved in the production of the movie, and he wouldn't let them ruin something he created. It's an interested movie which tells a tale of not only supernatural horror, but also the horrors of everyday life in the slums. There is sadness, betrayal, and of course, lots of blood. Candyman has it all.

#290 -- Quicksilver Highway (1997)

Director: Mick Garris
Rating: 3 / 5

I know you're looking at that poster, and all the names that are plastered on it, and I know what you're thinking. But stop right now, because Quicksilver Highway isn't at all what you're thinking it is. I saw it years ago, without having known anything about it or the people behind it, and I thought it was just okay. Now that I do know, I'm a little bit shocked by it.

Christopher Lloyd plays Aaron Quicksilver, a travelling  man who collects odd stories and things. He likes to tell these stories to whoever he meets on his travels, whether they want to hear them or not. The first person he meets is a new bride having some car troubles. Her new husband has gone for help, leaving her all alone. Mr. Quicksilver shows up to keep her company, invites her into his luxurious camper, and tells her one very strange story, indeed. He then meets a pickpocket at a local carnival, when he dips into Quicksilver's oddities tent, and he tells him yet another weird story. The stories that he tells seem to have no point or moral, but he assures his audience that there's always a moral to be found if you're willing to look for it.

Quicksilver's first story was about a travelling salesman named Bill. Trying to make his way home through a terrible storm, Bill stopped at a little roadside store for gas and snacks. He picked up a pair of chattery teeth to give his son for his birthday, and he also picked up a hitchhiker named Bryan. Bryan seemed okay to begin with, even though you can be almost certain that his name wasn't Bryan at all. After a little while, though, Bryan pulled a knife on Bill and tried to steal his van. Instead of letting Bryan get away with it, Bill decided to crash the van. The teeth then killed Bryan and chewed Bill out of his seat-belt  so that he could get out of the overturned van. The teeth also disposed of Bryan's body.

The second story was about a plastic surgeon, Dr. Charles George. Being in a profession that relies greatly on his hands, it would be a horrible thing if anything were to happen to them. Well, one day, Charlie's hands developed a mind of their own. They began to make him do things that were out of his control - like causing him to drive into oncoming traffic. The hands would talk to each other while Charlie was asleep, planning their freedom, and also planning to raise an army and start a revolution. So, they picked a night, killed Charlie's wife, and one of them freed the other by chopping it off with a butcher knife. Charlie was admitted to the hospital, where his severed hand followed him and convinced all the other hands to join the revolution.

There are a lot of great people involved with this movie. First of all, it was directed by Mick Garris, who was a part of the Masters of Horror, and has also directed quite a few Stephen King adaptations. The two stories Quicksilver had to tell were based on short stories written by Stephen King and Clive Barker. These are three guys who are masters in the art of horror. Add to that the actors bringing life to the characters. Christopher Lloyd was great, as usual. Silas Mitchell played "Bryan" the killer hitchhiker. Raphael Sbarge was Bill the travelling salesman, and Matt Frewer played Dr. George, a performance that seriously reminded me of Jim Carrey. With all the people involved in this movie, mostly the first three I mentioned, I feel like it should have been a lot better than it was. It could have been everything horror is meant to be. But it just wasn't. Honestly, to me, it felt...weird. I am extremely familiar with the work of Mr. King, and slightly familiar with Clive Barker, and I know that they are able to bring life to stories where others would fail miserably. I haven't read the stories on which these shorts were based, but I feel certain that they are stories that can only be told by those who told them originally. Chattery Teeth looked silly, and Body Politic (the killer hands) was absolutely comical. I'm not sure if this was the point entirely. It wasn't altogether bad, but again, it just felt weird. These stories felt like things that this crazy guy, Quicksilver, made up to freak some people out, rather than things that actually happened. Chattery Teeth, the one written by Stephen King, was taken from his book Nightmares and Dreamscapes. I've got the book sitting next to me as I write this, ready to read and compare, but I'm certain that it will be nothing short of amazing.

Quicksilver Highway is a strange movie that was possibly meant to frighten, but it was most likely meant to simply entertain, as it comes across more comical than anything.

#282 -- Cannibal! The Musical (1993)

Director: Trey Parker
Rating: 5 / 5

I honestly cannot believe that I have not yet reviewed this movie, since it's actually one of my favorites. Some might argue that this can't possibly be considered a horror movie, but I really don't care. I, personally, classify it as horror-comedy, as it contains elements of both genres. And it was released by Troma, which is known for its horror-comedy. Sure, it might lean more toward the comedy side of things, but it still has that tiny little element of horror.

Cannibal! The Musical is actually based on a true story. Yeah, I know what you're thinking: yeah right! I thought the same thing the first time I watched it and I saw that in the opening credits. I thought there was no way something so silly was based on truth. But do some research, and you'll find that it's true. It's the story of Alferd Packer, a man who was convicted of cannibalism in Colorado back in the 1800s. So, yes, it is based on fact; though I highly doubt the real Packer and his men ran around singing and dancing. That's just what makes the movie so much fun!

In this version of the story, Alferd Packer was a miner. He and all the other miners were having trouble finding anything, and they had heard about a place where the gold was plentiful. So they set out to Breckenridge to mine for gold and become rich...or die trying. The group of men enlisted Packer as their guide, since he said that he had been there before. But, unfortunately, he didn't know quite as much as he led on, and the group got lost. They remained lost for a long time, forced to live out in the snow with no way out and nothing to eat. When one of the party was killed (shot in the head for singing a song about a snowman one too many times), they figured they could eat him to last at least a little bit longer. But before the end, one of the party went crazy and decided to try to eat everyone else. Since Packer was the only survivor of the group, he was prosecuted for the murders, and he was almost hanged. If not for a pretty young reporter who had a soft spot for Packer, he might have been dead meat.

Trey and Matt; or Alferd and Humphrey

So that's the basic run-down of the movie, but there's so much more to it than that. The group--which consists of Alfred Packer (Trey Parker), James Humphrey (Matt Stone), George Noon (Dian Bachar), Shannon Bell (Ian Hardin), Isreal Swan (Jon Hegel), and Frank Miller (Jason McHugh)--meets some very interesting characters on their way to Breckenridge. They met a cyclops, which was a big 'ol man with a missing eye that squirted some icky juice at them. They met a group of trappers who were real assholes. They met a tribe of Japanese Indians (complete with Teepees), and a weird prophet sort of guy like Crazy Ralph in Friday the 13th ("You're all doomed!") The miners themselves were a colorful bunch. Alferd was kind of weird, and you could tell he wasn't the brightest crayon in the box. Humphrey was even duller than Alferd, but he was hilarious. Whenever someone made him mad, his best comeback was, "Nice hat!" Swan was the annoyingly optimistic one of the bunch, which I guess is why he got his brains splattered all over the snow. Miller was the pessimist of the group and liked to sulk the entire time, and Bell was a preacher who seemed fairly normal most of the time.

The songs in Cannibal! The Musical are witty and catchy as hell. "Let's Build a Snowman" is the song that Swan sings, which encourages the others to look past the awful situation they're in and try to have some fun. "When I Was on Top of You" is a sad song about Packer's lost horse Liane. The song sounds awfully perverted, though you know it's about a horse...which just makes it even funnier. The Trappers' song is awful from a vegetarian's point of view, but even I have to admit that it's funny. "Shpadoinkle" is a song about how wonderful, beautiful, and "shpadoinkle" the day is...before they get lost and almost starve to death, that is.

The first time I saw it, I was kind of skeptical. I wasn't really sure what it was all about, or just how stupid it would be. Believe me, it's pretty silly, but it's so amazing you won't even believe it. And it's not even wonderful in that "so bad it's good" sort of way. Yeah, it's silly, but it's meant to be. These guys knew exactly what they were doing, and they know a thing or two about being funny. At the end of the day, you might think it's stupid. But really it's just a genuinely funny movie that succeeds on all levels. When I first saw it, I loved it. It instantly became one of my favorite movies, but there are some other reasons why I absolutely love this movie--not because of what kind of movie it is, or how good it is, but for what it did for me and the other things it introduced me to.

Alferd chowing down on Bell's throat in a scene that represents what everyone thought happened on those mountains.

1 - This is the first Troma movie I ever saw. I don't even remember how I came across it, but up until that point, I'd never even heard of Troma before. Once I saw this, I decided to check out what else the company had to offer, and it also introduced me to quite a few of my other favorite movies. I wouldn't know a thing about Toxie if not for Cannibal! And for that, I give it my sincerest thanks.

2 - It introduced me to South Park. If you're good with names, you'll realize that Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the biggest players in Cannibal!) are also the wonderfully weird and creative minds behind one of the greatest comedy shows ever made. I knew about South Park before I saw this movie, but I'd never watched it. Once I saw Cannibal! and realized who these guys were, I figured it deserved a chance. It became one of my favorite TV shows. You can even see glimpses of South Park throughout the movie, like Matt Stone doing Kyle's voice sometimes, and Trey sounding an awful lot like Cartman. There's even a scene where Humphrey takes his hat off, and there's this giant red afro underneath. It looks a lot like Kyle's picture day episode, where he too reveals his giant red jew-fro.

3 - It introduced me to the comedic genius of Trey and Matt. Again, I knew nothing of these guys up until this point. They made this movie while they were in college, so this was pretty much the beginning for them, and it only got better from there. Aside from South Park and the several Troma movies I grew to love after this, it also introduced me to some others, like BASEketball and Orgazmo, two of the greatest comedy movies ever, in my opinion.

4 - It's fucking awesome. That's the bottom line, and that's all you need to know. If you're a fan of seriously weird shit, you'll love it. It's kind of got the same basic feel of Poultrygeist (also from Troma, and also one of my favorite movies). It puts some comedy in something that's usually not funny at all, adds some fun songs and dance numbers, and creates one hell of a funny movie. Chickens, zombies, and musicals. That's what drew me to Poultrygeist. Cannibals and musicals...that's what drew me here. I was intrigued, though hesitant, and I'm so freaking glad that I gave it a chance. You should too. Even if you don't think it's extremely hilarious and awesome, you'll get something out of it. If you're a fan of Troma, you know where I'm coming from. Lloyd Kaufman, Trey Parker, and Matt Stone. That is a comedy team that could beat out all the rest.

#280 -- The People Under the Stairs (1991)

Director: Wes Craven
Rating: 4 / 5

I caught this movie on television years ago, but I only caught the tail end of it. I could tell instantly that it was something I definitely wanted to see. I caught it on TV again some time later, a bit earlier but still not at the beginning. Then, I got the jist of what was going on, but not completely. This time around is the first time I've actually watched the entire movie. So now I know the whole story, and I can tell you...I dig it. It seems like it's one of those movies that can go any way. Some people love it, some people don't, and some just don't care. I'm sort of in the middle. I really liked it, but I didn't quite love it. Still, it's a good movie.

It's about a young boy named Fool (I think his name was actually Poindexter; I think I'd prefer Fool too). He'd just turned thirteen, and he'd been through more than probably all of us have in our lives. He was poor, living in the ghetto with a cancer-ridden mother, a sister with some babies, and no money to pay for anything. On top of all that, their landlords were trying to evict them so that they could tear the building down and build something bigger and better. In order to get some money, a man offered Fool a job: to rob their landlords, who supposedly had a house full of gold. So along with two men, Fool set out to do just that. But little did they all know, their landlords were fucking crazy.

One of the men was killed pretty much as soon as he walked in the door. The other took some time, but it didn't take long for Fool to realize that he wasn't messing around with your average every day rich folks. They had a daughter who was terrified of them and suffered horrible abuse, and there was a guy living in the walls. The daughter, Alice, called him Roach (haha!) and he was a pretty cool dude, though he looked like he could be Steve Buscemi's son. There were some other people living in the cellar who kind of looked like zombies (probably because they were fed body parts of people that were killed). Roach had escaped into the walls, and remained there in hiding. Anyways, Fool became trapped in the house once his older accomplices were killed, and Roach and Alice helped him stay safe. He eventually escaped with a couple of gold coins and took them back home to help with his mother's operations and such. He then returned to the house to save Alice, because...well, someone had to do it.

It turned out that "Mommy" and "Daddy" were actually siblings, and Alice wasn't their daughter at all. They abducted children, trying to find the perfect child. Everyone knows, though, that there's no such thing. Once they found something wrong with one of them, they'd cut it out (Roach had his tongue cut out for trying to call for help) and throw them in the basement. Those were the people under the stairs. Daddy was really crazy, and he wore some kind of dominatrix costume while he was shooting at people in the walls. It was easy to tell, though, that Mommy was actually the brains and master of the operation. That was one evil bitch.

I think all the components of the movie were really well done. The actors were good, the story was well written and interesting, and it definitely succeeds in holding the viewer's attention. It goes at a steady pace that's neither rushed nor slow, and the effects (though there wasn't all that much gore) were good. Word around the internet is that there's a remake in the works, though I don't really see the point. It's a good movie, but it's hardly great enough to be considered a classic. It doesn't really have a cult following, and it's not old enough to need a revisit. It's just more evidence that people are completely unable to come up with their own ideas, and simply feed off the ideas of great minds like Wes Craven.

You should give The People Under the Stairs a go, though. It's an entertaining movie with an interesting and original story.

#274 -- Scream 2 (1997)

Director: Wes Craven
Rating: 4 / 5

Caution--will contain spoilers, because I just can't resist. And let's face it, everyone's seen these movies. And if you haven't, you deserve to have them spoiled. I'm joking, of course, but you should stop reading now and go watch them. Seriously. Get off the computer and go get these movies.

So, some people have a problem with this movie. A lot of people have a problem with sequels in general, but I am not one of those people. I'm all for sequels, as long as they're done well. Sometimes I even like them better than the originals. I guess Scream 2 could be bothersome to those who know a lot about film and really examine movies when they watch them. But I'm not (usually) that analytic. And I know jack shit about film-making. So I don't usually have that many issues with sequels. I view these movies simply as a horror lover. I'm not trying to pick them apart (unless they're so bad that it's the only thing I can do, of course). I'm just trying to have a good time. Sure, it's not quite as good as the first one, but who cares? I mean, look what it had to live up to. The bottom line is that it wasn't a bad movie at all. I think some people go into sequels hating them for the simple fact that they're sequels. When this happens, it's pretty much impossible to enjoy it. I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, but not with a movie that's so flipping amazing as Scream was. So, in conclusion to this ridiculously long and pointless introduction, I don't have a problem with Scream 2.

It's got pretty much the same premise: killer in a ghost costume stalks Sidney Prescott. The thing is, she's no longer in Woodsboro; she's in college now, I'm guessing millions of miles away from Woodsboro (that's what I'd do, at least), but this person still tracks her down. We know it's not Billy and Stu, so it's not like they were trying to finish the job. So just why in the hell would someone track Sidney down to kill her, wearing the exact same costume as the guys who already tried to kill her? Well, Sidney's got shit luck, that's why. In the beginning, there's a movie being released about the murders that happened two years before, based on Gale Weathers' book. I find it strange that they'd make a movie about some murders that happened such a short time ago. Seems kind of insensitive, if you ask me. But that's beside the point. The movie brings with it a string of new kills that are, of course, centered around Sidney.

I'm not going to go all, "the film-makers didn't know what they were doing," because come on...It's fucking Wes Craven we're talking about here. And writer Kevin Williamson wrote the first movie as well, so we know he's not all that bad either. But I will tell you why I didn't enjoy this one quite as much as the first one. First, the characters weren't as good. The first two characters we meet are Maureen and Phil, played by Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps. Maureen is annoying and seems like a bitch. Phil was okay, but I really couldn't understand why he put up with her. They weren't even a good couple; it seemed like they hated each other and stayed together for...I don't know, the sex, maybe? So they die; boo-hoo, no one cares. There are a lot of familiar faces here, but none of their characters were any good. There was Sarah Michelle Gellar as a sorority girl; her part was too small for anyone to give a shit. There's Jerry O'Connel as Sidney's boyfriend, but everyone halfway suspects him the whole time, so we're not really able to care about him either. Plus, why would Sidney EVER date again? Just doesn't make sense. The other big names were only stars in "Stab," the movie based on the murders in the first one (Tori Spelling, Luke Wilson, and Heather Graham). There are, of course, the characters we grew to love: Sidney, Dewey, Randy, and Gale. But with no other characters to give two shits about...the only point is to make sure that the characters we already know make it out alive. Which they don't, by the way. My favorite character in the first (and this one) was Randy, so I think his death is the main reason this one just didn't live up to the first for me. Kind of silly, right? Oh well.



The motive for the murders is kind of...weird. Sure, Billy and Stu's motives were stupid. But, don't all serial killers have bad motives? Isn't just because they're crazy? Here's where the spoilers start. One of the killers was Billy's mother, and she was pissed at Sidney for killing her son. Really? Of course she killed him, no shit; hate yourself for raising a crazy fuck of a son.  The other was one of Sidney's friends, and he just wanted to become (in)famous. That's cool, I guess. Oh, but here's where it gets great. Billy's mother was played by Laurie Metcalf. Yep, that's right. Aunt Jackie as a motherfucking serial killer. Who would'a thunk it? She's always been good at acting crazy; but that was always a seriously hilarious crazy. Here it was just weird. I think the fact that we all know her as Aunt Jackie kind of threw me off, and seeing her as a killer just made me laugh. Really, Aunt Jackie? Really? Go back to fighting with your sister for feeding your kid some Oreos. Damn Oreo eaters.

Anyways, even though I don't feel like it was quite as good as the first, that's not really saying much. Scream is one of the best horror movies ever made, in my opinion. So it would naturally be pretty difficult to live up to it. I still really liked this one, and I would hardly call it a shitty sequel.

Rating

Cinematography - 9 points. I don't think it had the spookiness and mystery that the first one had, but it was still great, of course. It looked good, and Wes Craven never disappoints.

Storyline - 9 points. The fact that "Stab" was made only two years after a series of grisly murders seemed really stupid to me. In all honesty, who would do that? It's just makes the entire movie less believable.

Characters - 9 points. While there were a jumble of characters I didn't care about, all my favorites were still there, which was good. But Randy died. BOO!

Gore - 8 points. I was only impressed by a couple of the kills. Most of them were only okay. And Ghostface used a gun. Guns suck, end of story.

Scariness - 9 points. Again, not quite up to par with the first movie. I saw this one years ago, but I only remembered one of the killers. This time around, I went through the whole movie trying to remember who the second killer was.  So the mystery was still there for me. That's what I love about these movies: how they make everyone into a suspect, so we never know who is a real suspect until the very end.

Overall score - 44 / 50

Where Scream received a five star rating from me, I'd give this one four.

#268 -- The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Rating: 4 / 5
Director: Jonathan Demme

There are quite a few famous horror movies that I have never seen. It's always made me feel like a bad horror fan, and I'm honestly not sure why I've never seen them. Silence of the Lambs was one of those movies. Years ago, my best friend let me borrow the DVD, because she thought that I absolutely needed to watch it. It sat on my shelf for a long time, until she finally gave up and wanted it back. I had a chance so long ago, but I missed it. I didn't want to watch it, though I'm not sure why. I know now that it's really not much of a horror movie. There are some disturbing scenes yes, but nothing genuinely terrifying (other than the fact that these things are very plausible and actually do happen). That being said, I still thought it was a wonderful movie.

Clarice Starling, a student at an FBI academy, got the chance to interview notorious serial killer, Hannibal Lecter. This was an attempt to gain his trust in order to get his help in catching a more recent serial killer they called Buffalo Bill. They promised him that he would be re-located to a facility with a view--which is all he wanted--so he agreed to cooperate. It was a lie, however, and he was transferred to a different facility, with no view. He escaped from that facility by killing a couple of officers and wearing a human mask to get past the guards. While Hannibal is certainly the most interesting character in the movie, he is hardly the main one.

It focuses a lot of Clarice and Hannibal's relationship at the beginning of the movie, but once he escaped there was no relationship to focus on. It turned its focus instead on Buffalo Bill. For the longest time, I thought that Hannibal was based on Ed Gein, but it was actually Buffalo Bill that was based on him. Certain aspects of his personality, and some of his methods, were based on Ted Bundy as well. Buffalo Bill liked to skin his victims, so that he could create a woman suit for himself. He had a terrible childhood, hated himself, and he wanted to change who he was. He had been rejected for sexual reassignment surgery, and so he decided to take matters into his own hands. All of these things were discovered by Lecter as he read the reports on Bill. He was a very intelligent and charming man, played absolutely brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins. That is what makes Lecter such a terrifying character. He seems so nice and charming, and he's definitely educated (he was a psychiatrist); but underneath all of that, you know, is a lunatic who will eat your face if he gets the chance. Bill was quite a terrifying character as well, since he is steeped in reality. People like him (and Hannibal) have actually existed, and probably still exist. It is the fact that these things are possible and highly likely that make them scary.

Hannibal's insights did eventually lead Clarice to Buffalo Bill. He was captured before he could murder the senator's daughter, who was trapped in a hole in Bill's basement. But at that point, Hannibal was on the loose, so it was obvious that things were not fine and dandy yet. The world was still in danger, Clarice possibly the most of all.

I think this movie could more accurately be classified as psychological thriller. Yes, people are being murdered in terrible ways, and these killers are frightening. But they're only frightening once you stop to think about it. There is nothing happening on screen to scare you; the scenes are not nightmare inducing. Once you stop and think, "Hey, this could actually happen," and realize that things like that have happened...that's when it starts to scare you. There are certain moments in the movie that are genuinely creepy (like Clarice's first meeting with Hannibal, when we realize just what type of person he is, and how damn creepy Anthony Hopkins is), but overall there's nothing extremely frightening about what you see. Another disturbing scene is when Clarice is in the house of Buffalo Bill. He turns out all the lights so she cannot see. He has night vision goggles, and he stays very close to her. Several times he reaches out to her, nearly an inch from her face, but he never touches her--and she doesn't know that he's that close. To think about a monster being so close to you without your knowledge...That truly is frightening.

It puts the lotion on its skin...

With only two somewhat scary scenes, this can hardly be called a horror movie. As I said, it's more of a psychological thriller because it fucks with your mind. But I don't think it's a bad movie at all. It was wonderful. Every aspect of it was intriguing. The investigations, the FBI, and the serial killers. And the actors and crew worked with real life investigators and FBI personnel while shooting, so it's about as accurate as you can get. Much more so than CSI. The characters work well together, and the actors were phenomenal. I haven't seen Anthony Hopkins in very much, but I can tell you honestly that he's a damn good actor. His scenes were my favorites because they were the most disturbing. Jodie Foster was also wonderful as Clarice. The character had been through some rough things in her life, and that is plain for the viewer to see. Throughout most of the movie, she seems kind of distant from everything; like she's numb. We get the feeling that something terrible happened even before she exposes it. There wasn't a whole lot of gore; but since the movie relied mostly on messing with my mind, I'm okay with that.

Thanks to wonderful actors, and film crew who really cared about their product, Silence of the Lambs is one great movie. It is the only horror movie to have won the Academy Award for best picture. Now usually I could give a rat's ass about what awards a movie has won. But, come on, that's got to mean something, right?

#248 -- 13 Days of Creepmas Day 2: Jack Frost (1996)

Rating: 3 / 5
Director: Michael Cooney

The second day of Creepmas brings us a Jolly horror movie that everyone's heard of; but this is the first time I've seen it. All this time I've thought it was this wonderful movie that everyone loved. I'm not sure if everyone loves it, but I don't. It's not that I hate it; but compared to yesterday's movie, it just isn't all that great.

It kind of follows the basic premise of Child's Play and The Gingerdead Man, which I reviewed a couple of days ago. It's about a serial killer named---you guessed it!--Jack Frost. He was captured by the sheriff of a town called Snowmonton (very original, right?) and sentenced to death. While he was being transported to wherever the execution would take place, the vehicle was in a terrible car crash. Okay, it really wasn't all that terrible. But when the car crashed, some kind of chemical was released that made Jack's body melt into the snow. It was a chemical that some crazy doctor was working on so that, during an apocalypse, humans could be resurrected as inanimate objects. So, not only did Jack melt into the snow, but he turned into a snowman. A killer snowman, that is! And to top it off, he was able to melt and re-freeze at will. As far as killer snowmen go, I've only seen one other, and that was in a movie that was so intentionally horrible that it really can't be compared to it. I guess Jack Frost is pretty good.

Once Jack is in full snowman form, he goes on a rampage, killing everyone in town on his way to find the sheriff and have his revenge. One of those townspeople killed is none other than a young Shannon Elizabeth. Her death, though, was the worst of the bunch. Jack melted into some bath water, and re-froze so that she was sort of stuck inside of him. He then bashed her head in on the bathroom wall. Other deaths--such as an axe shoved down a man's throat, a woman being strung up on her own Christmas tree with a star stuck in her skull, a kid getting his head cut off by a sled, and people getting stabbed with giant icicles--were much better.

Finally, the sheriff and townspeople remembered the story of Frosty the Snowman, and realized that snow can freaking melt, they figured that heat might be able to destroy him. Go fucking figure. So, armed with hair dryers and a furnace, they were kind of able to get the best of him. Except there is a sequel, so we know that he wasn't really killed. Of course, the best killers never are.

I'm fairly new to the Christmas themed horror movies, but I've already got a tiny list. The best, of course, is Nightmare Before Christmas (even though it's not a  horror movie, it still incorporates Halloween into Christmas, so it definitely counts here). Second on my list is yesterday's movie, Santa's Slay, and Jack Frost comes in at third so far. I'm looking forward to watching more and finding the best of the bunch.

Head on over to the Creepmas Blog if you haven't already, and check out some more Creepmas goodies.

#244 -- Return of the Living Dead 3 (1993)

Rating: 5 / 5
Director: Brian Yuzna

Back in 1985, a revolutionary film in the zombie subgenre was created. That film was Return of the Living Dead. In it, we saw zombies as we'd never seen them before, and we absolutely loved it. It was an absolutely fantastic movie that spawned four sequels and gained a healthy cult following. Three years later, the first sequel was released, and it was several degrees lower than the first in terms of greatness. It just didn't live up to its predecessor's name. But in 1993, director Brian Yuzna stepped it back up, and brought us this delightfully horrifying entry to the series.

It is the story of Curt and Julie, a lovely young punk rock couple that follows no one's rules but their own. Curt's father is employed by a government facility working on creating some new military weapons. I probably don't have to tell you what those weapons are. But just in case you don't know...With the help of some handy Trioxin, they're creating superhuman weapons out of corpses. We've heard this idea many times over, but this time we actually get to see it in detail. In the beginning, they zombies are actually fairly well contained, as Curt and Julie witness them when they break into the lab. But everything goes sour eventually, as is always the case. When Curt's father tells him they will have to move, for his job, Curt and Julie will have none of it. They decide to run away together, so they won't have to be separated. They're planning on moving to Seattle, so Curt can join a band (though obviously he doesn't know the first thing about being a musician), and Julie can settle into a life of nothing but partying. On the way, though, Curt's motorcycle crashes, leaving Julie dead, dead, dead. Fortunately, Curt remembers what he saw in Daddy's lab, and takes Julie back over there to expose her to some Trioxin. All seems well and good for a minute; Julie's back, they're happy, they 're running away together. But zombies will be zombies, and Julie is no exception. Once the craving for brains sets in, she starts freaking out. She doesn't understand what's happening, or why Curt would do such a thing. Since she and Curt have such a strong bond, she will not attack him. He is safe, for the time being. Everyone else, though, had better move the fuck out of her way. So now Curt and Julie have to run away for real; they're trying to evade his father, the police, and a group of Mexican thugs they got into a tussle with at a gas station. They wander through the mean streets and sewers of...well, wherever it is they are, meet a homeless sewer dweller they call River Man, and Julie seriously fucks some shit up.

Part three of the series differed from the first in terms of zombie motivation. You could call it failed continuity, and you might be right, but you can't really be mad about it. In the first, the motivation for eating brains was to assuage the pain of being dead. If you dig down deep, you can actually see where this movie just expanded on that idea and gave it new meaning. In the original, the only thing that can stop the pain is the hunger. In this one, the only thing to stop hunger is pain. Julie realizes that, when she's hurt, she's not hungry. So, to keep from eating everyone in sight, she causes herself some serious pain. She impales herself with rusty springs, needles, shards of glass, chains threaded through her neck meat, and all sorts of other goodies. She becomes 100% bad-ass, and she's definitely one of my favorite horror characters EVER. Not only that, but she's one of my favorite zombies too. Actually, I think all of my favorite zombies come from ROTLD movies...Not only is she one bad-ass lady, but (maybe I'm a freak...) she's sexy as hell. She was beautiful in the first place, but once she got all tricked out with her piercings and mutilations...she was one hot tamale.

I've also got to mention the ending of the movie. I'm not going to give it away, in case some of you out there haven't seen it. But it's kind of a "Bride of Frankenstein" ordeal. It's very sad, and it still brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it. But it works.

I've got to give a shout out to the effects team for the movie. There were actually quite a bit of people working on it, so it's no surprise that the effects were pretty great. No, they weren't perfect. But they were the wonderful corny effects that I, personally, have come to love. I thought they were magnificent. The zombies look wicked as hell. There was one that was basically just a head and a spinal chord, some with their bodies melted together (or some weird shit I can't explain), some that were missing pretty much every body part you can think of, and others that were normal but still bad-ass. Brian Yuzna (director), John Penney (writer), and the very extensive effects team--I thank you for bringing us one of the greatest zombie movies of all time.

So, Return of the Living Dead revolutionized the zombie characters. But part three expanded on those ideas and created a zombie unlike any other, even within the series. It is one of the great zombie masterpieces of our generation, and it will remain in my hall of fame until the end of time. Or until the zombies destroy the world.

#242 -- Army of Darkness (1992)

Rating: 5 / 5
Director: Sam Raimi

Evil Dead is one of the greatest horror trilogies of all time, if you ask me. I absolutely love it. The first one was more of a genuine horror movie, and was terrific. I don't really understand the point of the second one, and I've never been a huge fan of it. But in Army of Darkness, they get back to the good stuff. I'm not really sure, because I just feel like everyone and their brother should love this movie, but it seems like it might be one of those "love it or hate it" type of things. All the fans love it, but I feel like it would be impossible to explain its sheer awesomeness to someone who isn't a fan. I shun all you naysayers, though, because Army of Darkness is the shit.

At the end of the second one, we saw Ash go through a portal of some kind. Well, it turns out that was a time-travelling portal--the best kind! He was transported to the medieval times, where he was totally out of place and 100% badass. When he first arrived, they thought he was affiliated with someone they didn't like, so they planned to kill him. They threw him into a big hole, where deadites waited to destroy him. They didn't realize they were dealing with Ash, deadite slayer, though. He destroyed the deadites in the hole, climbed out, and showed everyone who was boss. He presented his Boomstick, leaving everyone cowering in fear, and they gave him the respect that he deserved.

"This is my Boomstick!"

Ash could have stayed, enjoyed the change of pace and scenery, but all he wanted to do was get back to his own time. However, the wise man told him that the only way that would be possible was with the Necronomicon. And, of course, Ash was the only one who could retrieve it. So, it was quest time! He had to find the book in an old cemetery, and some funky shit happened to him on the way. We got to see an army of tiny little versions of Ash who liked to torment him. We saw Ash get a magical evil siamese twin, only to separate from him and fight to the death. When he got to the cemetery, there were three books, but only one was the right one.

We got to see him sucked into one of them, only to emerge with a severely elongated face--which was absolutely funny as shit. Oh, the wise man gave Ash an incantation that he would have to speak once he got the book, otherwise deadites would rise to take it back. Ash, of course, fucked it up, and the Army of Darkness rose to take over the castle. And who should be the leader of the deadites but Evil Ash? Of course.

He got a nice robotic hand to replace his chainsaw, turned his car into some weird killing machine, created some explosives; and of course, he still had his trusty Boomstick. So, together with his new found friends, and some enemies made friends, they prepared to ward off the dead army and protect their castle.

This movie seriously has so much awesome packed into it, I don't even know where to begin. First, there's Bruce Campbell. He, of course, is fantastic. There would be no Ash if not for him. I honestly cannot imagine anyone else in the world playing the character, and I hope it never happens--because it wouldn't work. His one-liners and odd sense of humor are what makes the character and the movie work so well. The fact that he was so out of place in the medieval times also made it funnier. The effects in this one were great, though some of them were reminiscent of old movies (you know, bats on strings and stuff, though here it was skeletons). Some of the humor obviously was inspired by the Three Stooges, and the action scenes bordered on slapstick comedy. The deadites looked wonderful. Everything was wonderful, even though it was silly. Actually, I think it's wonderful because it's silly. There's nothing scary about this movie, don't be mistaken. The first one was a horror movie, and I loved that one so very much. This one is a horror-comedy that leans more on the comedy side of things. But it's so wonderful that I don't even care that it doesn't scare me. It makes me laugh my ass off, and I love that.

So, to anyone who hasn't seen this movie: Where the hell have you been? And to anyone who has seen it but doesn't like it: What the hell is wrong with you? All kidding aside, to me, this is one of the greatest movies ever made. End of story.

#237 -- Wishmaster (1997)

Rating: 4 / 5
Director: Robert Kurtzman

I'm not really sure how I've overlooked this movie for so long. If I had known about a handful of the cast members, I would have watched it a lot sooner than I did. It's pretty much a horror movie fan's wet dream. It's got a lot of good things going on with it, and I think everyone will agree with me on that one.

It's about a race of genies called the Djinn. This Genie is no Robin Williams, though, because he's pretty mean. The deal is this--as is typical for genies, once they are awakened, they must grant three wishes to whoever released them. But the thing is, once that third wish is granted, that opens up the portal between their world and ours, allowing all of the Djinn to take over and wreak havoc however they may please.

The movie starts out in ancient Persia, where the Djinn were killing everyone in sight. This opening scene was incredible. It didn't take me very long to realize that I was going to enjoy it. There was so much going on, and all of it was awesome. There was a man who was turned into a snake; one had some kind of worm growing out of his chest that was trying to eat a woman's arm; and another man's skeleton literally jumped out of his skin. It was great. However, the Djinn couldn't get their man to make his third and final wish, and the Sultan ended up trapping him inside of a ruby-like stone.

In the present time, a girl named Alex comes across the ruby. While inspecting it, she releases the Djinn. How does she release him? Well, she rubs the ruby, of course. So, as the Djinn comes to Earth, he starts granting wishes to random people, which never really ends well. All of this is just for shits and giggles, though (not really, because he actually steals their souls in order to become stronger), because what he really wants is Alex. He has to grant her wishes so that he and his other Djinn friends can take over the world.

Once he finally finds Alex, that's where the the movie lost its charm for me. I really liked him walking around, granting wishes to people, and fucking shit up. Alex's wishes really weren't all that interesting, which was disappointing for me. She was the heroin, so I expected her to pull some really awesome stuff. That didn't really happen, though.

Okay, let's talk about the cast. I mentioned before that the movie is a horror fan's wet dream, and the cast is exactly why. Robert Englund is a rich collector. He's the on that bought the statue where the ruby was hidden. Tony Todd played a bouncer at Robert Englund's party. Ted Raimi had a very short part as a guy who got squished by the ruby-statue. Kane Hodder played a security guard at Alex's office. Harry Manfredini (who composed the music for most of the Friday the 13th movies) did the music. And of course, Wes Craven was a producer.  So, like I said--horror fan's wet dream. I freaked as I was reading the opening credits, and I couldn't believe this movie slipped under my radar for so long.

But what I liked most about the movie were the special effects. They were amazing, all except for a walking skelton, but that never looks good in my opinion, so I can't really blame it for that. Everything else was amazing, gory, unique and inventive. The Wishmaster himself looked fucking incredibleThe acting was good and the story was wonderful; I loved the mythology behind the Djinn.

Wishmaster is definitely a must see for fan's of the genre. You'll love the cast, the effects, the gore, and the story behind it all.

#212 -- Daddy's Girl (1996)

Rating: 3 / 5
Director: Martin Kitrosser

There's something about killer children that's terrifying; everyone knows that. But there's something about this child that was annoying. I thought it was going to be better than it was; from the synopsis Netflix gave me, I thought it was going to be about a scary little killer child killing everyone in sight. But I was wrong.

It was about Jody, a sweet little 11 year-old girl with some dark secrets. When she was four years old, she watched her mother shoot her father. After that, she was between foster parents. Her first foster mother was killed when she fell down the stairs. She was taken away from her family and sent to a new one. Her new family loved her very much, especially her new father (William Katt, Greatest American Hero). She really loved her Daddy too, and she would do anything to make sure that she didn't lose him like she lost her last daddy. Jody got in trouble a lot at school for fighting with other kids and  misbehaving. Her principal was going to try to send her to boarding school so they could help her. But that meant that she wouldn't be able to live with her Daddy anymore, and she didn't like that idea. So she snuck into school and pushed a bookshelf over on her principal.

Her grandmother didn't like her father, because he was a toymaker trying desperately to make his first sale. He wasn't bringing any money into the house, and Grandma wasn't happy about it. It took her a few tries to kill Granny, but she finally got it right after a while. Her mother wasn't happy with her dad either, because she was tired to being the only person bringing in money. She was talking to her friend, who was a divorce lawyer, because she wasn't sure she could handle the marriage any longer. Jody knew the lawyer friend had to go as well. But Mommy still wasn't sure if she still wanted to be with Daddy, and she was thinking about leaving and taking Jody with her, so Mommy had to go too. And the social worker who was probably going to take Jody away again? Well, he had to go too, of course.

The only person who really thought Jody was up to no good was her father's niece, Karen. Karen did some digging on Jody to figure out if anything in her past could help figure out what was wrong with her. Jody didn't like that Karen was causing trouble. Instead of killing Karen, she told lies about her to make it look like Karen was the crazy one. She said that Karen wanted to be her mommy, and that Karen was killing all these people so that she could have Jody all to herself.

This movie was okay; it definitely wasn't great by any means, but it wasn't horrible either. Jody wasn't really terrifying, as I'd hoped. She was just a badly behaved little girl, and her fear solutions were irrational. The only reason she might have been taken away from her family was because she misbehaved; so everything would have been fine and she just started being a good little girl. But instead of behaving herself, she decided she'd just kill everyone. That's why I thought she was a bit annoying. She was just a little brat who didn't want to behave. Of course, she was troubled by watching her mother kill her father, but she was given more than enough love by her new family. With some help, she would have been able to learn to deal with that.

The end was disappointing, because nothing really happened. I don't know if Jody got to stay with her family, or if she was maybe sent to an institution. I don't know what happened to her, or what happened to her mother (because, like Granny, the first murder attempt was not successful). It was abrupt and gave no resolution to the problem. Overall, it was an all right movie that could have been a lot better.