'Cut' doesn't make the grade

Cut (2000)
Starring: Molly Ringwald, Frank Roberts, and Kylie Minogue
Director: Kimble Rendall
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Scream Queen and TV actress Venassa Turnbull (Ringwald) returns to finish a slasher flick that saw production stop after one of the actors went nuts and murdered the director and tried to kill her. As the new crew of film-students (including one played by pop star Kylie Minogue) looking to make a name for themselves start production in an isolated area on the outskirts of one of Australia's big cities, someone dressed in the costume of the film's burn-scarred mad killer starts butchering them, one by one.

If most of that summary sounds familiar to you, then that's because there's nothing new that this film brings to the table--other than having Ringwald in a rather amusing role as an actress whose demands and ego outstrips her starpower. What's worse, the film, probably in an effort to offer what the script writer felt was deep and insightful commentary, presents us with the rather foolish notion that the film and all its prints are cursed--whenever they're screened, the shears-wielding killer manifests himself in the real world, brought forth by all the "creative energy" put into making the film. Why are the prints cursed? Who knows? The film doesn't bother to provide an explanation that seems credible. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to be satirical--Ringwald's character and some of what the film crew do get up to some funny stuff--but whatever their intent, it's obscured by a script that's bad in just about every way.

While refreshingly light on "stupid character syndrome," and filled with a cast of attractive and talented Australian actors and actresses, not to mention plenty of gore and the always enjoyable Ringwald, the script is both so tired AND ludicrous that "Cut" is a must-miss unless you're a hardest of hardcore slasher flick fans.





(I saw a reference somewhere that this film was planned as the first of a trilogy ala "Scream." Since it's been ten years since "Cut" was released, it's safe to assume that it didn't make a enough money to warrant a follow-up. That's a shame, because there are far worse movies that have spawned sequels.)

Stay off the floor during 'Dance Macabre'

Dance Macabre (1991)
Starring: Robert Englund, Michelle Zeitlin, and a bunch of teen girls in leotards
Director: Greydon Clark

Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A celebrated St. Petersburg ballet academy has just opened its doors to dancers from the West and girls have flocked to it in the hopes of studying under a legendary Russian dancer. But then the girls start to vanish, and then they start to turn up dead. Who's the killer? Why is he (or she!) butchering the beautiful and talented young women?

"Dance Macabre" is a completely pedestrian 'psycho on the loose' film starring Robert Englund and a bunch of young dancers. Aside from its predictability, it is marred by having an actor with such distinctive facial features that he is recognizable even through heavy make-up. As such, one of the film's 'revelations' is instead an irritant. Worse, the lead actress isn't really much of an actress (she is quite the dancer, though, as that is her profession).

Unless you're 12 years old and this is the first movie of this type you've ever seen, the 'who' is obvious from the outset. As is the 'why.' And with those out of the way, there's not really any other reason to watch this film. (There are some creepy and/or gross death scenes for which I am giving an extra Star, but that still doesn't mean this one shouldn't be at the bottom of your "to see" list.)

When Movie Buffs Attack!

Fanatic (aka "The Last Horror Film") (1982)
Starring: Joe Spinell and Caroline Munro
Director: David Winters
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A delusional would-be filmmaker, Vinnie, (Spinell) follows his favorite horror movie star, Jana Bates (Munro), to the Cannes Film Festival where he proceeds to stalk her and her collegues while making the ultimate, true-to-life slasher-movie.

There was great potential in this movie, but it fails to reach it because of excessive padding and bad scripting. The story only functions because its characters behave stupidly--Jana is being stalked by a crazed killer who has gone after her twice, and yet she doesn't even hire any bodyguards, and gets no police protection?--and because the killer manages to pull off the impossible--such as making a corpse and all the blood vanish in a matter of moments, gets his hands on a police uniform in a city he doesn't know, and gets in and out of a backstage area during an ongoing production without being seen by anyone. The twist ending helps explain some of these plot problems (and twist-on-the-twist helps further), but these also feel like cop-outs on the part of the filmmakerrs who must have known their script had problems and were trying to do an easy fix.

"Fanatic" was a movie I really wanted to like, but it was just too flawed to be good. Maybe with about ten minutes shaved from the running time, and a little more care taken with the plotting and the twist-endings, this would have been an excellent little flick. It's one that could do with a remake. (In the 2010 version, Vinnie would be updating his Rotten Tomatoes blog on a thrice-daily basis and would have been ejected from the Horror Bloggers Alliance for trolling.)

(Amusing trivia: The movie that Jana Bates is in Cannes to promote is "Scream", which eventually became a real-life self-referential horror movie directed by Wes Craven.)

'Pieces' is lots of gory fun

Pieces (1981)
Starring: Christopher George, Frank Brana, Lynda Day George, Edmund Purdom, Paul Smith, Jack Taylor, and Ian Sera
Director: Juan Piquer Simon
Rating: SPLIT--4/10 if viewed as a straight slasher film; 7/10 if viewed as a comedy)

Someone is cutting up beautiful college girls with a chainsaw and carrying off pieces of their bodies to create the world's first full-sized, flesh-and-blood person puzzle. The police (George and Brana) are stumped, so rather than conduct a full investigation, they recruit random faculty members to help with investigation and ask a random student to keep an eye on an officer who is sent in under cover as the school's new tennis instructor (Day). Who is the killer? The effeminate anatomy professor (Taylor)? The brutish groundskeeper (Smith)? The randy Big Man On Campus (Sera)? Or the quirky University Dean (Purdom)? Who's got bodyparts and a chainsaw hidden in their closet?


Some films are so bad they become unintentionally funny, and they end up being more funny than supposed comedies. "Pieces" may be an awful horror movie--hence the Four Tomato rating--but if it had been a slasher movie spoof, it would rate Seven Tomatoes. From the most incompetent cops ever put on film (not only do they recruite a possible suspect to watch their undercover officer, but they give him access to police files), to the least subtle serial killer to ever roam a heavily populated area (it's a residential campus, and he uses a chainsaw to kill people), to the Kung Fu fighter who shows up out of no where to attack the undercover cop for no reason what so ever, to the date-rape drug-fueled climax, "Pieces" gets funnier and funnier as it progresses. The lame, wanna-be "Goblin"-style electronica score only heightens the fun. (I'll grant the filmmakers one good scare, though. There's a bit near the end that I didn't see coming at all, and it made me jump.)

As bad as this is, it should have been the end

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)
Starring: John D. LeMay, Kari Keegan, Steven Kulp, Steven Williams, and Erin Gray
Director: Adam Marcus
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Infamous serial killer Jason Vorhees is revealed to be a creature of supernatural origins and only bounty hunter Creighton Duke (Williams) knows how to kill him once and for all. But will anyone be able to meet the price he demands before Jason kills the few remaining citizens of Crystal Lake?


While the "Friday the Thirteenth" movies have never been big on logic or continutity, this one doesn't try to be even internally consistent. It's so sloppily written that key characters change persoonalities and natures from one scene to the next and not even the slightest attempt is made to explain the hows or whys of the connections between characters--like the bountyhunter Chreighton Duke played by Steven Williams who goes from purely obnoxious and psychotic for most of the film to suddenly helpful and self-sacrificing in the film's climax... and who has a history with Jason that remains unrevealed along with the source of his supernatural knowledge. The character of Duke is only the worst example of this in the movie. Time and again, viewers feel like they are not only watching part two or three of a series but that they also must be having blackouts becuase there seems to be chunks of the story missing. Neither is true... this movie introduces a whole new set of characters and circumstances that have never before appeared in ANY of the "Friday the 13th" series, and their relationships to one another and why they behave the way they do is likewise never made clear.

It's a shame that the script for this movie is awful, because there are some nice moments in it, mostly at the beginning--I love the scene with the coroner--and the end, starting with the slaughter at the diner. But everything in between is badly paced, badly written, and nonsensical. There are some nice some nice gore efffects and kills, but even they can't make up for the messy storyline.

In fact, this story might have played better if it hadn't been presented as part of the "Friday the 13th" series... and the writer/director might have even have been motivated to bring logic to his story instead of jokes (such as the Necronomicon from "Evil Dead 2" being present in the Vorhees house and crates in the basement that are either a Lovecraft reference or a reference to "The Thing").

It's also a shame to watch a cast of decent actors be wasted the way they were here. And I won't even bother commenting on the factthe title promises something the film doesn't deliver, primarly because my twisted imagination is more than Hollywood will ever match. (I envisioned "Jason Goes to Hell" as a tale where Jason Vorhees dies as he does here... but he then goes on a killing spree in the Underworld, eventually fighting his way back to Earth because he's simply too evil for Hell.)

Despite some good ideas, this is probably a movie that even the hardlest of the hardcore slasher movie fans can skip.

'Jason X' is fresh air for tired slasher series

Jason X (2001)
Starring: Lexa Doig, Kane Hodder and Lisa Ryder
Director: Jim Isaac
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Jason is the mad killer from the "Friday the 13th" movie series. He started out as the crazed mongoloid son of an even crazier mother, but over the series he morphed into a demon-animated, industructable murder machine.

As "Jason X" opens, the unstoppable killing machine has been captured by the US Army, and a sexy woman scientist (Doig) is trying to find a way to destroy Jason once and for all... but with no luck. Naturally, Jason escapes confinement and starts killing everyone in the base. He and the scientist get trapped in an experimental cryogentic suspended animation chamber, and there they stay until recovered centuries later by a group of teenagers on an archeology class outing to Old Earth.


After the scientist and Jason are revived onboard a spaceship, Jason--of course--goes on a killing rampage, and along the way receives nanite-created cybernetic enhancement. Who will be left standing after the final, far-future confrontation between Jason and the scientist in the tight tanktop?

This is by far the most entertaining "Jason" movie since the two original films, and it's a far more fun "re-imagining" than the lame remake from last year. The script actually has a number of unexpected twists--it's been a loooong time since anyone bothered putting a real plot into a Jason/Friday the 13th movie--the dialogue sharp and witty, and the murders are mostly quite creative and often take advantage of the sci-fi setting. There are even some inside jokes that will inspire gales of laughter among those who have seen lots of films in the mad slasher genre. (The dvd is particularly amusing with its "jump to a death" feature.)

By the way, this is also the only "Friday the 13th" sequel that I have in my personal collection of movies, because it's the only one that has continued to entertain on repeat viewings.

'The House by the Cemetery' isn't worth visiting

The House by the Cemetery (1984)
Starring: Katherine MacColl, Paolo Malco, Giovanni Frezza, and Ania Pieroni
Director: Lucio Fulci
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A researcher (Malco) moves with his family to Boston to complete the work started by a collegue who committed suicide. Through a flurry of coincidences (or Fate, or maybe the researcher's specific manipulation, take your pick), they end up in a creepy house that is tied to the subject of the research. Ghosts, unkillable bats, and weird murders then drive the young family toward doom.

If you like your horror flicks with a high level of well-done gore but don't care whether the story hangs together well, then this is a film for you.

One part haunted house movie, one part slasher flick, and with a dash of mad science thrown in out of left field for good measure, " House by the Cemetery" exhibits all the strength and weaknesses that were the hallmarks of Italian horror movie makers in the Seventies and Eighties; the gore is appropriately disgusting--although the highmark in this film is definately the maggot-infested insides of the film's monster!--but there are characters who behave inconsistently or incomprehsibly and the script writers seem more concerned with getting from plot contrievance to plot contrievance, or providing excuses for the special efffects crew to go to work than they are with providing a story that hands together sensibly by the time the End Credits roll.

I know Fulci has his strong admirers, and I'm sure they will find much to like in this movie, but I was too annoyed with the coincidences, pointless ambiguities, and just plain random junk that pass for the story to get much enjoyment from it. It wasn't even fun nonsense, like you get in the Monogram and PRC horror movies from the 1930s and 1940s; it was just nonsense. (And if you are an admirer of this film, can you explain the behavior of the creepy babysitter [played by Ania Pieroni] to me? That annoyed me more than anything else in the picture.)

Oh... and that picture I used to illustrate this review? It appeared on a German poster for the flick, It's a cool painting, even if it has little do to with what actually happens.

'Behind the Mask' is an excellent slasher mockumentary

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2007)
Starring: Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethas, Kate Lang Johnson, Britain Spellings, Ben Place, Scott Wilson, and Robert Englund
Director: Scott Glosserman
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Journalism grad students Taylor (Goethas), Todd (Spellings),and Doug (Pace) are invited to do a documentary on the secret world and culture of the artful serial killer, like Jason Vorhees, Michael Myers, and Freddy Krueger and to follow the preparations and first mass-murder of teens at a forbidden, drunken party as young Leslie Vernon (Baesel) makes his first big debut.


"Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" is part mockumentary, part slasher flick. It's like a Christopher Guest and Wes Craven film got fed into the apple-presser featured in one scene of the film, and out came a singular work. It is not a film for everyone... in fact, I think you need to fit the description of "having seen entirely too many slasher-films" in order to truly enjoy this film.

The first two-thirds of the film pokes fun at journalists, artists, and the slasher-film genre in equal parts. I had a constant smile on my face, as the film created a world where Michael Myers is actually a sort of performance artist who exists in a subculture that is devoted to being the monsters of the modern age. The explanations and rationalizations of the "rules" of the slasher-flick are hilarious when they are coming from a "professional" like Vernon... and they're even funnier when he discusses his workout routine and how hard it is to look like he's walking when he's really running to keep up wiht terrified victims. The final third... well, I don't really want to say what happens in the final third, because it might ruin effect of it. (I came to this film not at all knowing whatto expect, and, while the twist and what unfolds held no real surprise, it was so expertly handled that I enjoyed it immensely.)

Director Scott Glosserman (who also co-wrote the script) exhibits a keen sense for just when to cut a scene for maximum comedic or emotional impact. The interview that ends with the awkward silence when Taylor asks Vernon if he is pro-life is hilarious. The transition between the first part of the film and the second part was also so expertly and artfully handled that it made me wish that more filmmakers had the sort of talent that Glosserman shows here.)

As for the cast, they all do an okay job, but four actors in particular shined. First, there is Nathan Baesel, who is wonderful as the charming, boyish, soon-to-be mass-murderer who walks the filmmakers through the basics of what it takes to be a legendary serial butcher in the modern world... if someone more sinister, or without the sort of comic timing that he displays here, the film wouldn't have been nearly as funny. Second, there's Angela Goethas, who plays a great "straightman" to Baesel for most of the film while subtlely capturing Taylor's growing unease with what she is witnessing. Third, there is Kate Lang Johnson, who does a fine turn as Vernon's chosen "Survivor Girl"--the virginal blonde who will be transformed from victim to fierce fighter and thus square off against him in a final battle of good against evil. Johnson has some truly great moments and even better lines in the final third of the film. Lastly, but far from least, there is Robert Englund, who, in a small but crucial role, takes a nice turn as a Dr. Loomis sort-of character... the gun-toting, topcoat wearing hunter of the evil who is Leslie Vernon.


"Behind the Mask" may be a send-up of the slasher-genre, but it is one that was done with evident love, respect, and great creativity. It is a far more effective film than any recent "serious" entries in the genre have been. It is a film that I think any old-time fan of slasher-films should seek out, because I guarentee you will enjoy it.

Only for the biggest lovers of slasher films

Girls Nite Out (aka "The Scaremaker") (1983)
Starring: Julia Montgomery, Hal Holbrook and Rutanya Alda
Director: Robert Deubel
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A maniac in a bear suit ruins a campus scavenger hunt by brutally murdering the participants. Will the chief of campus security (Holbrook) leave his office long enough to keep the bodycount in single digits and avenge the death of his own daughter?


"Girls Nite Out" is a by-the-numbers slasher film enhanced by "After School Special"-style ups and downs in relationships. The first hour or so is intensely boring, and even when the mad killer gets going, things don't liven up much. The acting is okay, but the problem is that every character is nearly devoid of personality, being nothing more than a required figure in this type of movie (The Nympho, The Nerd, The Stoner, The Joker, The Jock, The Shrew, and so on...), so the actors have even less to do than is typical.

On the other hand, "Girls Nite Out" does warn the viewers up front. I think it has probably the most boring main titles sequence of any film I've seen; I almost didn't make it through them. Plus, the bear costume as modified-by-the-killer is pretty nifty... and I guess the film can claim originality by having a basketball team mascot outfit turned into a deadly weapon.

In celebration of my birthday!

Bloody Birthday (aka "Creepers") (1981)
Starring: Lori Lethin, Elizabeth Hoy, K.C. Martel, Billy Jacoby, Julie Brown and Andy Freeman
Director: Ed Hunt
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Three children, born at the same moment in a small town hospital under a full eclipse, go on a killing spree shortly before their tenth birthday. Clever and evil beyond their years, will they manage to finish off the only people who suspect them (Lethin and Martel) before the pair can find proof that anyone will believe?


"Bloody Birthday" is an excellent concept for a movie that plays like a cross between "Village of the Damned" and "Beware: Children at Play". It features a decent musical score and a fine cast of actors--with child actors Elizabeth Hoy (as a blond, angelic-looking moppet who likes to choke her victims with a jump rope) and Billy Jacoby (as a bespecled bookworm who likes to lock playmates in abandoned refrigerators and grins happily while blasting victims into oblivion with a gun stolen from a dead police officer) are particularly chilling as the two lead killer kids, but everyone else also does a fine job in their respective parts. (Even comedienne Julie Brown in an early film role is good... although her part consists almost entirely of dancing around half naked.)

Unfortunately, this is another one of those films that's lacking in one of the most important departments--it's script. The film just sort of meanders from murder to murder, as our trio of devils with the faces of angels escalate the terror they're visiting upon the town. While the killer kids should definitely be the focus here, it would have been nice if there had been a little more meat and organization of the material between the murders. (We have police work so sloppy that Barney Fife would be embarrassed by it--has no one in the town heard of ballistics or autopsies?-- characters that are introduced for absolutely no reason--such as Lori Lethin's boyfriend--and there are only two of a number of "gun above the fireplace" moments that end up paying off; both inexcusable artifacts of sloppy writing and even sloppier filmmmaking.)

The writer also ultimately wusses out at the end. I know there's unwritten rule of filmmaking that you NEVER kill off a kid, but if there ever was a film where a kid or two NEEDED to be wasted, then this is it! One dead or severely injured kid at the end of this film would have improved it quite a bit, and I wouldn't have been left with the feeling the filmmakers chickened out at the end.

Although far from perfect, this film has enough good bits in it to make it worth seeing. There are some excellently staged moments where two-thirds of our trio of killer kids is trying to run a girl over with a car, and another where a boy is trying to escape from a fridge he's been locked inside. It's a film that's of interest to lovers of slasher-movies--particularly if your interest goes beyond mere entertainment and crosses over into scholarly/criticism--and it's also a perfect addition to any "bad seed"- or "murder in a small town"-themed Bad Movie Night. (Perhaps making it one-half of a double-feature with "Beware! Children at Play" is worth considering.)

Breaking a cinematic taboo over and over

Beware! Children at Play (1996)
Starring: Michael Robertson, Rich Hamilton, Robin Lilly, Mik Cribben, and Lorna Courtney
Director: Mik Cribben
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Some films--most perhaps--have their origin in a single idea or a single visualized scene. If those films are done poorly, it's obvious what that idea was. With "Beware! Children at Play", I think that idea was, "Hey... no one ever kills little kids in movies. Why don't we make a movie where we kill a dozen or more!"


In "Beware! Children at Play", horror novelist and paranormal investigator John DeWolfe (Robertson) travels with his wife and daughter to a small, isolated New Jersey village where his old Army buddy Ross (Hamilton) is the sheriff. More than a dozen children have vanished from the village in recent months, and Ross wants John's assistance in getting to the bottom of the matter. As they investigate, they uncover terror, tragedy, some really pathetic acting, and a very, very far-fetched plot.

With the exception of the climax, this film is about as predictable as they come. There are some mildly creative spins on the epic of Beowulf and Grendel, and there's enough meat to the story to keep the viewer engaged... so long as that viewer has a high tolerance for nonsense, bad acting, weak gore effects, and a town inhabited by every backwoods stereotype imaginable.

Oh... and you should keep in mind my first paragraph. If you don't like the idea of little children dying in droves, you should not even consider this movie... because a mass-murder of children is the film's high point.

'Nine Lives' isn't worth part of one life

Nine Lives (2002)
Starring: Amelia Warner, David Nicolle, and Paris Hilton
Director: Andrew Green
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A group of idle rich college friends get together at a remote Scottish manor house to celebrate a birthday party. However, when one of them discovers an old book that has been hidden for centuries, a restless, murderous spirit is unleashed. One by one, the friends start dying.


"Nine Lives" had the potential to be at the very least an average slasherflick. It's got a great location, it's got a cast of talented young actors and actresses (although Paris Hilton basically seems to be playing herself... but she does a better job at it than, oh, 50 Cent did), and it's got an interesting threat. However, just about everything about the film is executed badly, and the result if a movie that's more boring than scary.

Every horror film has to have pointless bickering among the characters, but in "Nine Lives", the pointless bickering is excessive, repetative, and drones on and on and on. The film relies more on Stupid Character Syndrome (where characters do idiotic things because if they didn't, the plot would grind to a halt and everyone would be safe from the monster) than any other movie I think I've seen. A couple of the worst examples:

*The characters think a room that's got giant windows and French doors along the entire outer wall is a safe place to "lock" themselves in.

*They IMMEDIATELY split up into small groups to search the house, and the idiocy that is compounded upon this is so gross that words fail me).

Aside from inadvertantly painting its protaganists as Gold Medal winners in the Upperclass Twit Olympics, the script for "Nine Lives" has the further problem of not explaining the "why" of the angry ghost. How did it come to be in the book? How did being housed in burned out pages relate to his eyes being plucked out and force-fed to him? Who made the book? (The implication is that it was the Angry Ghost himself, but that makes absolutely no sense.) How did reading it release the Angry Ghost? Why did it jump from person to person in the way that it did? Why did the screenwriter not bother giving the Angry Ghost some personality toward the end? Did the filmmakers really think the voice-over bit in the end was a decent wrap-up to the film, or make any sense as to what came before it?

"Nine Lives" also commits one of the greatest sins of the modern slasher flick: It has boring kills. Characters get stabbed, they fall down, and they die. That's it. That's simply not good enough, iif you already have a story that relies on the characters being braindead to work and you have a killer than makes Michael Myers look like he has a magnetic personality.

Like so many substandard horror movies, "Nine Lives" is first and foremost a parade of missed opportunities. It's particularly sad to see it happen here, because of the good cast and the nice set-up.

A grand opening you can safely skip

Memorial Valley Massacre (aka "Valley of Death") (1988)
Starring: Mark Mears, John Kerry, John Caso, Lesa Lee, Jimmy Justice and Cameron Mitchell
Director: Robert C. Hughes
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

The opening weekend for a new campground in Memorial Valley is plagued by disaster and a murderous wild man (Caso) who doesn't appreciate all the newcomers to his previously quiet land.


"Memorial Valley Massacre" is a cross between a slasher flick and the "vacation spot disaster movie" subgenre (of which "Jaws" is the best and most famous). The film includes most tropes from the horror movie subgenres it's drawing from, but it doesn't do anything particularly new or particularly creative with them. The cast of victims are even less likeable than usual for a film of this type, so there really isn't anyone we're not sad to see go. Further, the one minor plot-twist the film features is both predictable and so far-fetched that it's something you'll be groaning at when it comes along. And, finally, this film was in serious need of a continuity person, or someone less drunk in the editing booth. There are a couple of scenes with characters in them that aren't summoned to the location they happen at until after the scene takes place.

This film might be worth adding to the line-up for a Bad Movie Nite, but otherwise it's not worth your time.

You didn't expect anything else, did you?

April Fool's Day (1986)
Starring: Deborah Foreman, Ken Olandt, Pat Barlow, Deborah Goodrich, and Jay Baker
Director: Fred Walton
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Muffy St. John (Foreman) invites several of her good friends from college to spend the weekend of April 1st partying at her isolated family home. Fun turns to fear when the guests start to fall victim to a murderer.


"April Fool's Day" demonstrates that long before Wes Craven's "Scream" movies, filmakers were playing with the subgenre's standards and audience expectations to create films that deliver both the familiar and unexpected. The coolest about "April Fool's Day" is that the title and the jokes that day brings to mind are used to their utmost all throughout the movie... all the way up that twist upon the all-too-expected "unexpected twist ending.

With a cast that's not only handsome but also talented, a solid, expertly paced script that only works as a slasher tale but also serves as a almost-classic suspense film, this is a movie that fans of both slasher flicks and mystery films should get a kick out of. (The only possible dissapoitment I can see is if you like gory death scenes with lots of blood. This film features none of those. There is a really cool scene in a well where.... I better stop. I don't want to spoil anything!)

This isn't a Farmer's Daughter Joke

Silent Bloodnight (2005)
Starring: Vanessa Vee, Robert Cleaner, Alexander E. Fennon and Mike Vega
Directors: Stefan Peczelt and Elmar Weihsmann
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A farmer and his son (Cleaner and Fennon) go on a killing spree in a small Austrian town to avenge the rape and murder of the farmer's daughter, and to eliminate any potential witnesses to the rape and their subsequent killings. And then to get rid of witnesses to the killings of the witnesses. When sex-pot local access channel TV reporter Sabrina (Vee) starts to investigate the string of murders, she becomes a target as well.


From its title through the final scene, "Silent Bloodnight" is a stupifying mess. The plot makes absoultely no sense, the reasons for the many killings are nonsensical (even for a pair who must have been psychopathic before the slaying of their daughter/sister), questions are raised in the course of the movie and never answered, and the film SHOULD have been over about thirty minutes in, if the local Chief of Police (Vega) wasn't so incompetent that it broke my disbelief's suspension. (I want to know where to send the repair bill.)

The film also has the further problem that its cast is made up of Austrian actors performing in English. Their Engilsh is decent enough, but I can imagine that those who didn't grow up around a variety of accents may occasionally have trouble understanding what is being said at times. I also think that the fact the film was shot in English instead of German may have harmed some of the acting in it. What we have here is actually a little above par for a low-budget slasher film these days (where anyone with a Camcorder, some red dye, and a few friends with enthusiasm and spare time on their hands thinks they can make a movie), but I can't help but wonder if Vee might not have been better in a couple of the scenes if she hadn't been so obviously focused on enunciation of English phrases that might otherwise be slurred and incomprehensible under her Austrian accent. (Arnold Schwarzenegger makes it seem a lot easier than it is.)

This movie would really have benefited from a few more thousand dollars worth of budget, and a decent group of British voice actors. In fact, this is ready-made to be redubbed, as several scenes have been carefully staged to avoid any signs in German--we don't even see the side of the police car that appears a few times--and the actors are listed in the credits with Anglicized names.

With all that said, the movie still has a number of good qualities. First, lovers of the slasher-genre will enjoy a number of parallels to the early "Friday the 13th" movies, and they should also appreciate the fact that this is an attempt to make a serious slasher film. Second, any horror fan will able able to appreciate the decent camerawork throughout--I wish the entire film had been as spooky as the opening scenes of the barefoot young woman in a white dress doing ballet steps down a country, but what we get is decent enough. Third, the gore effects are expertly done (except for the spurting severed neck we see a couple of times... they should have made the shoulders look a little less plastic). Fourth, Sabrina does her newscasts in a bikini, and she and the most of the other girls in the film are usually wearing tight or skimpy outfits, just like old time slasher-flicks! The film also features a very high degree of nudity and sex. Fifth--a personal favorite of mine--the film features a van that gets turned into a mobile gas chamber!

"Silent Bloodnight" was a film that I had a little harder time than usual assigning a rating to. The movie has some pretty glaring flaws (the weak script that relies to a large extent on Stupid Character Syndrome being the biggest), but there was also a fair degree of craftsmanship and creative energy evident throughout. More importantly, the film kept me entertained, even while rolling my eyes at the lameness of Mike Vega's character, and the entertainment value always is an important factor in how highly I rate a movie. In the final analysis, this film ends up at the low end of average with a rating of Five.

Evil Clown knocks them dead in 'Torment'

Torment (2008)
Starring: Suzi Lorraine, Tom Steadman, Ted Alderman and Lucien Eisenach
Director: Steve Sessions
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A young woman (Lorraine) is released from a mental hospital into the care of her alcoholic husband. The two go to an isolated house so she can continue her recovery and they can renew their relationship in a quiet environment. Unfortunately for them, a psycho in a clown costume (Eisenach) is capturing and torturing people in the area.


This movie was hard for me to assign a rating to. While there is much about it that I like, there is much I don't like. It's one of the better psycho clown movies I've seen, but it's got some serious flaws.

Suzi Lorraine gives an interesting performance as Lauren, a former mental patient who spots a psychotic killer as he picks out his next victim, but who is disbelieved due to her history of mental illness. The way the script sets up the chain of events that leads Lauren into the worst possible danger is well executed and her confrontation with the Killer Clown (called Dissecto in the credits but unnamed in the film istself) is very suspenseful. Unfortunately, these strong parts of the movie are undermined and outweighed by the weak parts.

"Torment" feels like its two halfbaked scripts that have been combined into one film. They weren't necessarily BAD scripts... they're just unpolished and they work against each other and ultimately end up undermining what suspense and tension they could have produced if they had been two different movies.

The clunky dialogue at times made up for by some well done lines, and the few overlong and even redundant scenes in the film are likewise counterbalanced by some truly creepy, scary and startling moments. (For example, the repeatative expository scenes and dialogue of the fact that Lauren is fresh out of mental hospital are annoying, but they are more than made up for the scene where Dissecto invades her home, or when she is hiding in his.) As far as this goes, the good counterbalances the bad.

However, the way the film makes it crystal clear from the outset that Lauren isn't hallucinating the spooky clown lurking in the bushes-- the extended scenes of him torturing a pair of missing Mormon missionaries is most definately not something she's imagining--and so there is no real tension produced by the "is she crazy or isn't she" question... although it does make her husband come across like a grade-A asshole. If you're into "torture porn", I suppose you might enjoy those aforementioned scenese of Dissecto performing for and upon his victimes, but I'm too squeamish for that sort of thing--having recently experienced my own encounter with excruciating pain has made that sort of material hard for me to watch--but the sloppy costuming of the "Mormons" can't be anything but a strike against the movie. (It's bad enough one of the "Mormons" had a shaved head, but none of their missionaries would EVER sport a soul patch/jazz dot!)

Bad costuming (and the sloppy direction that allows it to happen aside) it's the absolute certainty the audience has of Dissecto's existence that undermines Lauren's story. It makes us dislike her husband to a disproportionate degree and it makes everything leading up to her encounter with Dissecto feel like it goes on and on, because we know the real action won't start until he dispatches the husband and starts stalking her.


And that's too bad. Suzi Lorraine gives an good performance, but my impatience with wanting the movie to get to where the real action was made it hard to notice. Tom Steadman likewise gave a decent accounting of himself as Lauren's moronic husband... and I think that if he had been given better dialogue to deliver, he might have been even better. (To a large extent, he's The Amazing Redundant Exposition Man, and this reduces his role to something less that what it could have been.)

"Torment" is a movie that has a lot to recommend to fans of thrillers, slasher movies, and "torture porn". Unfortuantely, the thriller elements and "torture porn" elements are at odds with each other and between them they almost manage to make the slasher element moot and make the ending seem false and forced because it doesn't feel like a natural outgrowth of anything. These, plus the stilted and clumsy nature of some of the dialogue and the excessive exposition in certain scenes drag this down to a low end of average, despite its strong points. (Speaking of excessive exposition... one thing the film never even hints at is the Who and the Why of Dissecto. Part of me would like to know more about him, but another part of me likes the "senseless evil" aspect this presents. I think the fact I'm torn is another sign that the script needed more work.)

Despite its flaws, though, "Torment" is worth checking out if you're into killer clowns, or if you enjoy small-scale horror films.

'House of Wax' has little in common with classics that share the same title

House of Wax (2005)
Starring: Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, and Paris Hilton
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A group of teenaged friends get lost and then stranded in an isolated stretch of back country. Seeking help in a nearby town, they come upon a wax museum far more remarkable than it even appears at first... and the fact the whole building that houses it is made of wax is pretty damn remarkable. Naturally, there's a crazed killer or two lurking among the exhibits.


"House of Wax" is scary in the way one of those Halloween haunted houses that spring up in neighborhoods, amusement parks, and empty warehouses this time of year is scary. It's also a film that requires a similar level of suspension of disbelief and willingness to play along. While it does contain some genuinely creepy moments, its very premise is so far fetched and ludicrous that even the most "game" viewer will find himself shaking his head at times. The acting is what you'd expect in a film like this, and the director and casting folks need to be congratulated for putting the best actors in in the movie in the leads.

For slasher-movie fans, there are a couple of nice kills--including that of Paris Hilton's character--but limited gore. For fans of absurd, there's the climactic encounters between siblings--our protagonists good girl Carly (Cuthbert) and her rebel-without-a-cause-but-with-a-criminal-record brother Nick (Murray) versus the crazed twin brothers who are masters of the House of Wax (both played by Holt)--in a most unusual environment, and they build to a thrilling finale to the film. For fans of horror movies in general, there are some good scares and a handful of wild set pieces that make the movie worth your time.

Happy Valentine's Day!

My Bloody Valentine (1981)
Starring: Paul Kelman, Neil Affleck, Lori Hallier, Don Francks, and Peter Cowper
Director: George Mihalka
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A bunch of young miners and their girl friends throwing a Valentine's Day party are stalked and killed by a psychotic miner bent on avenging a decades-old tragedy.


"My Bloody Valentine" is one of any number of holiday-themed slasher-flicks (with "Halloween" and "Silent Night, Deadly Night" being the most famous of the lot), and it is blessed with a better-than average script, better than average group of actors, and a killer who's one of the most striking appearing of the madmen who slashed and stabbed their way across movie screens in the late 1970s and early 1980s. His full mining gear, complete with gasmask and helmet with mounted lamp, is creepy enough, but he's downright terrifying as he stomps down mine tunnel, snashing the lights to make the already dark mine even darker.

On the other hand, that nice, spooky costume also has the drawback of requiering that the slasher in "My Bloody Valentine" has powers of stealth that must outstrip even those of the mightest ninja: How, exactly, does a killer who wanders around with a spotlight mounted on his forehead sneak up on his victims? However he manages it, this guy does.

Although mostly well done, the script does have two major weaknesses. The first is the town's chief of police. I don't think I've seen a dumber cop outside a 1930s "dark old house" mystery. The second is the "clever" twist in regards to the true identity of the killer. I don't think even audiences in 1981 would have been surprised by that groan-worthy, badly executed "surprise."

The print I saw of the film was obviously and heavy-handedly edited. There seems to be an entire segment missing from part of the chase in the mine, and almost all the murders are edited so the gory bits happen off-screen. (While this tends to lessen the impact of the murders, the one exception is the murder that takes place in the shower. The angle from which we see the body when it is discovered is more disturbing than it would have been if we had seen the kill, or seen it from the discoverer's point of view.)

"My Bloody Valentine" is worth a look if you're into slasher movies. It's competently made and well acted. (It's a shame that it appears to have been butchered by studio censors. Maybe a "restored" version can be produced, if the cut footage still exists in a vault somewhere; it's unlikely, as the film is not part of a series, nor does it feature anyone who went on to become a big star. If the right bits of footage are restored, this would be a stronger movie.

'Dark Ride' is not worth shining a light on

Dark Ride (2006)
Starring: Jamie-Lynn Sigler, David Rogers, Patrick Renna, Alan Solowitz, Andrea Bogart, and Jennifer Kelly Tisdale
Director: Craig Singer
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Six college kids decide to spend the night inside a diliapated carnival ride that was the scene of more than a dozen gruesome murders some 15-20 years before... just in time for the insane killer to escape from a mental instution and return to his old stomping grounds. Much screaming, bleeding, and dying ensues.


"Dark Ride" is a by-the-numbers slasher films that features better-than-average cinematography, decent acting, a nice musical score, and decent set design... to a point. Unfortunately, that decent set design doesn't quite extend to what feels like a logical layout for what supposedly is an attraction designed to be experienced while sitting in tracked carts--the carnival ride at the center of the movie simply doesn't feel real. Another weakness is that there isn't a single likeable character to root for in the film, yet none are so repugnant that the viewer roots for their death either. These bland characters are one of the clearest manifestations of the laziness of the script, which also manifests itself as a plot that only works because of a convergence of coincidences so ludicrous that even the biggest believers in a Grand Design will be rolling their eyes.

The fact that not one, not two, but three totally unconnected circumstances had to come to pass for the events of the film to occur also make the obligatory twist ending seem more obnoxious than shocking.

Hardcore fans of the slasher genre will undoubtedly get a kick out of "Dark Ride". The more casual horror fan will probably find themselves wishing that a little more thought had gone into the script.

The past comes a'slashing on the 'Terror Train'

Terror Train (1980)
Staring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Ben Johnson, Hart Bochner, David Copperfield, and Derek McKinnon
Director: Roger Spottiswoode
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

On New Year's Eve, a murderer is stalking and killing a group of college students onboard a moving train that's host to a costume party. As the victim's pile up, Alana (Curtis) discovers the link between them... and realizes that she is likely to be next.


"Terror Train" is a cross between "Murder on the Orient Express" and "Halloween" (the original... not the turdish 2007 remake). It's got a great setting from which a host of possible victims can't escape, it's got gory kills, and it's got a killer who is moving freely among his (or her) unsuspecting victims, and the killer's identity is even one that be puzzled out by an attentive viewer before the characters realize it, so it's a movie that plays fair like any good mystery does. It's a film that should please those who like lots of suspense and mystery in their slasher-movies, although there are a couple of gory moments to keep the other half happy, as well. (Like most early--and superior--slasher-films, however, most of killing happens off-screen and is left mostly to the imagination of the audience).

Three primary elements combine to make this film the successful thriller that it is.

First, it features some great acting and sound design. The way the actors occassionally sway while moving through the train hallways and the everpresent train-sounds lend a great deal of believability to the film, more than is found in many movies set on trains where little details like uneven and constant motion beneath the actors' feet is often forgotten by sloppy directors.

Second, it features some fine performances by actors who are working with a meaty script. Ben Johnson as the firm-handed train conductor, and Jamie Lee Curtis as yet another "Survivor Girl" (to borrow a bit of terminology from "Behind the Mask") both get to fight the mad killer and be heroes. Curtis also gives what I feel is her best performance in any of her early films, including "Halloween" and "Halloween II". She's also positively gorgeous to look at throughout the movie. Hart Bochner also takes a turn as a truly dispicable character whom the viewer is almost glad to see get his.

Finally, the film features some great lighting and even better cinematography. These help to make the train set seem more real, but they also play a big part in making it frightening and in making help seem very far away when characters are confronted by the killer, even if it might be just a few yards along in the next train car.

Although rumor has it that director Roger Spottiswoode is embarrassed over having made this movie, I think "Terror Train" is an underappreciated movie that is worth seeking out.