Dementia 13 (1963) review

(7/10)

     Cheesy horror producer, Roger Corman, teams up with a young Francis Ford Coppola to produce Dementia 13, a slasher flick well worth the watch. The movie may have its flaws, from unimpressive performances to lack of plot information, but Coppola's directing style and Corman's fear factor combine to form a horror movie that's actually kind of memorable, well-made, and pretty creepy.

PLOT: After her husband suffers a fatal heart attack, Louise Haloran (Luana Anders) must travel to the Haloran family estate to secure a place in the family's inheritance and remove suspicion by showing up for the anniversary memorial of John's sister, who died tragically as a child. An opportunity comes up for Louise when she convinces John's mother (Ethne Dunn) that she can talk to spirits and would try to communicate with the late child. However, things start to go wrong when people start to slowly disappear from the estate due to the hands of an unknown axe murderer stalking the premises. The remaining members of the family must help fight off the murderer and solve the mystery of whom it is and what the motive is. The plot is a great concept executed brilliantly for the most part. The many twists and turns that the main story faces are obviously written with great care, stringing together a classic slasher movie plot. However, some events just don't seem to be explained as well. Dementia 13 ties up most of its loose ends by its conclusion, but we have a surprising lack of character development. What was the true relationship between Louise and her husband, and has it always been that way? How about the relationship between all of the siblings disregarding the little girl's untimely death? So much is left unexplained that could have clarified some questionable aspects in the story.

ACTING: The performances in the movie weren't bad, but they also weren't excellent. Each played his or her part accurately and fittingly, but not to a prestigious or memorable degree. The best performances came from Luana Anders as Louise, Ethne Dunn as Lady Haloran, and Bart Patton as Billy Haloran. A lot of performances were just hit-and-miss, like that of Patrick Magee (who would go on a decade later to play the wheelchair man in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange) as Justin Caleb. Some moments, he was brilliant, whereas others came off as kind of silly. As stated previously, the acting isn't terrible, but nothing too impressive.

SCORE: The score for Dementia 13 is actually very intense and scary for its time. It helps build suspense and tension and hypes up every scare. The creepy mood is very much influenced by the intensity of the score, which isn't terrible, especially if the score is as well-made and fitting as this one.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie are actually pretty great for the time. The blood looks as real as it can in black-and-white, and heads do roll this early in horror film. Personally, I think Roger Corman is to blame for the effects, but rightfully so. For the time, they're gory, gutsy, and intense like a true horror/slasher needs to be.

OTHER CONTENT: One of the best things Dementia 13 has going for it is having Francis Ford Coppola in the director's chair. Though very early on in the fantastic filmmaker's life (he'd go on to direct The Godfather - Parts I & II, Apocalypse Now, The Outsiders, etc.), this film reflects a good portion of his signature directing style. Coppola uses powerful imagery and harrowing cinematography to stir up certain emotions, establish symbolism, and hint at certain concepts that help establish the tone of the movie. If one looks with a keen eye, one would be surprised. Coppola and Corman vibe together very well as filmmakers, as evidenced by how genuinely creepy the movie is. Everything is built up and set up right, with the story falling into place and the horrifying mayhem chasing behind it, bloodthirsty, dark, and just the right amount of macabre. This is laden all the way up to the shocking conclusion, which is genius and pretty frightening at heart, but rushed. No sooner than the viewer sees who the murderer is the movie ends. The murderer shows his face, the motive is explained in two sentences, and the credits roll. No falling action, no "what now?", or even a reaction from the others watching on in horror is provided, but a speedy ending. It's very intelligent and kind of mind-blowing, but it's also kind of a trippy place to just end the film with all that's provided.

     Coppola and Corman's horror gem, Dementia 13, is actually a great slasher flick for its time. It's creepy, bloody, intelligent, well-directed, and kind of mind-blowing near the end, but it suffers from some bland performances, unexplained plot elements, and a rushed ending. The movie is well worth a watch for horror fans everywhere and should be remembered just as much as the well-known slashers like Psycho or Black Christmas. 

Maniac (1934) review

(7/10)

     Maniac pushes the boundaries beyond what was common and typical of cinema back in the 1930s. It's frightening and disturbing even today, leaving the one watching feeling uncomfortable- which is exactly what it wants. Though the film possesses many problems from some terrible acting and unnecessary plot twists, it still remains a very unique exploitation horror made with a mindset way ahead of its time.

PLOT: Insane Dr. Meirshultz (Horace Carpenter) and his hopeful apprentice, Don Maxwell (Bill Woods), are planning to give life to a once-dead human being with a real human heart. After sneaking into the local morgue and bringing a dead woman back to life, the doctor's passions and psychotic tendencies get stronger. His lust for his experiments gets so crazy, Maxwell ends up shooting him out of panic. In an attempt to cover up what he's done from the public eye, Maxwell uses his skills as a master of disguise to impersonate Dr. Meirshultz. However, after taking on the role of the late doctor, he starts to actually believe he's the real Dr. Meirshultz and takes on his impassioned intentions to an even further degree. The plot is a very excellent concept altered too much. The plot at its bare bones is very well thought-out and perfect for a good horror film. What ruins it is that the filmmakers added a few too many excess plot twists that didn't really have anything to do with the film or its essence, like some of the sequences with the injected "maniac" and Maxwell's wife and her friends. Some of it just seemed to hold little relevance to the genius horror plot presented. However, it was executed well enough to fit almost snugly into the flow of the film.

ACTING: The acting in this film is very hit-and-miss. The two main leads are the best performances in the whole film and actually grow very realistic and convincing as it progresses. Horace Carpenter plays a very chilling role as the mad scientist Dr. Meirshultz, and Bill Woods plays an even more frightening role as Maxwell. Carpenter's performance was of a very convincing mad scientist, whereas Woods' is comparable only to a true mind going mad. His performance in this film is disturbing, almost iconic, and as manic and insane as the title and his character suggest. However, the rest of the Maniac's cast are best described as circus clowns. The performances are stereotypical, annoying, and very inexperienced. It look as if some of them had never seen a camera before in their lives. Aside from the two very talented leads, the cast is pretty terrible, granted it was the 1930s.

SCORE: The musical score of this film wasn't anything too special but fit the mood just right. It was very dramatic and spooky-sounding.

OTHER CONTENT: Maniac is an exploitation film worth praise and more recognition by horror fans around the world. The film pushed many boundaries beyond what was accepted to be filmed and what was considered taboo. It's one of the first of its time to contain content like animal brutality (staged), grotesque blood and gore, Satanic imagery, heavy talk of mental illness, and full-on female nudity. One didn't see anything like that from the 1930s world of cinema- even taking horror into consideration. Most of the rage around this time was from stars like Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff in spooky mainstream horror movies, but none of them had the guts to push past the boundaries of the taboo. Aside from being just controversial for its time period, Maniac is actually pretty frightening and well-styled. The leads set up and deliver a feeling of paranoia and terror and the horrific imagery really drives the feelings home. The director of this film (Dwain Esper) knew how to send a message and drive the point home by painting a portrait of madness on the screen rather than straight up telling the viewer what changes were going on. It wasn't just fighting animals and dramatic, Satanic overlays that signified the character's descent into mania but the well-written tidbits of psychological facts and life advice given in between each sequence of the film. Each one preceded a twist in the story and a change in Maxwell's character, helping the viewer feel not only well-informed about the science of his mental condition, but uneasy as the viewer knows what's coming next and that whatever it is won't be very pretty. The film has a very dedicated style, enhancing the frightening and disturbing moments and giving it the real dirty, gritty, and somewhat uncomfortable feel of watching a true exploitation horror film.

     Maniac is an exploitation horror that demands to be remembered. The frightening and disturbing imagery is way ahead of its time, racing past what's acceptable of the time period without looking back to wave goodbye. Most of the acting is quite awful and lackluster, but the two leads stole the show. Each's depiction of his own mania is a terrifying and convincing, delivering even still today. The plot is genius, punctuated with style and only interrupted by unnecessary plot twists that even still help the film's flow. Maniac is no true horror masterpiece for sure, but it definitely deserves credit for what it has done and for what it still does to viewers today- make them feel both frightened and uncomfortable.

Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961) review

(3/10)

     Creature from the Haunted Sea is one of the most infamously terrible horror movies with terrible performances, an indecisive plot and style, cheesy special effects and a lack of screentime for the so-called monster. The movie tries to parody so many different styles that it only ends up parodying itself in a mess that's so bad it's borderline hilarious.

PLOT: During a time where Cuba is in political turmoil, criminal Renzo Capetto (Anthony Carbone) makes a deal to transport a group of Cuban exiles out of the country while also taking some of the country's national treasure. Capetto plots while on the boat with American ex-agent Sparks Moran (Edward Wain) to kill the exiles and blame it on an apparent sea monster so he can keep all of the money for himself. However, things begin to go awry when a real sea monster shows up and starts terrorizing the crew. Capetto must escape the sea monster to get away with the riches and the girls he wants. The plot is a hot mess with abundant unnecessary twists and turns. It seems to focus too much on the comedy relief and attempts at satire and not enough on the horror aspect of the movie. So many characters, situations, and quirks were just random and un-called for making the plot of this movie an unbalanced and substantially dead mess.

ACTING: The performances in this movie were very amateur at best. None of the actors or actresses truly stood out or showed any real emotion. In fact, it becomes hilariously evident about halfway through the movie that even the actors have given up. It's like they knew the movie was terrible and just didn't want to even put effort into it anymore. These performances are the equivalent of grabbing some random people off the street and offering pay.

SCORE: The score in here was very quirky and unfitting for most of what this movie intended to be. The music in no way matches the mood of a super-spy flick or a horror movie.

EFFECTS/ANIMATION: The special effects for the creature were very cheesy at best, making the monster appear clearly fake and apparently thrown together. As terrifically cheesy as the monster's costume effects are, his appearance is somehow one of the most widely known of early black-and-white horror films. Maybe Creature from the Haunted Sea is just notorious for being cheesy and bad? In addition to the creature effects, there were some unnecessary animations at the beginning of the movie. They served no purpose, changed the whole tone of the movie, and mislead the viewer in many ways, from under-exaggerating the monster and over-exaggerating the action and comedy. One can start a pure comedy, family movie, or children's movie with light-hearted animations in the title credits, but a horror film? It just doesn't sound reasonable.

OTHER CONTENT: Creature from the Haunted Sea seemed to just not know what it wanted to be. As it begins, the audience is led to believe it's going to be a super-spy satire complete with laughs for all. As it progress, however, it seems to wander into the territory of goofy Gilligan's Island-style comedy and doesn't really touch upon the horror genre or the whole "creature" part until near the very end. Even if it did want to be a comedy or a satire, it should have focused only on that aspect and not try to take the movie in a dozen different directions. Cheesy horror genius Roger Corman has made some ridiculous cinema, but this one seems to be the most brainless and underdeveloped. The movie surely would have been much better had the makers scrapped most of the additional characters and plot twists and added more production value and maybe even more screentime for the monster which bears the movie's name.

     Roger Corman's Creature from the Haunted Sea is widely recognized among classic horror fans throughout the world, but in all reality one of the most terrible and cheesy ones the decade has to offer. The plot has too many unnecessary twists and can't choose which genre it really wants to follow, the special effects are cheesy to iconic excess, and the acting is hollow and ridiculously untalented. Save your time on something much funnier or much spookier, like an actual satire or an actual horror film.

Carnival of Souls (1962) review

(8/10)

     Carnival of Souls provides loads of creepy imagery, a convincing lead, and a very curious plot. The film hasn't aged well compared to modern standards, but it still remains one of the creepiest and most intensely suspenseful horror films of its time.

PLOT: Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) and her friends are foolishly driving around one day when they get in a fatal car accident, of which she is the sole survivor. Soon after, Mary decides to move away and start anew with aspirations to become a church organist. However, a threatening, ghostly man (Herk Harvey) begins stalking her, popping up out of nowhere and terrifying her daily. Mary also starts having these random moments where she's completely disconnected from reality- no one can hear her and she can hear no one else. As Mary's life begins to go downhill, she grows more frightened of the mysterious man and more drawn to the town's abandoned carnival in hopes of finding an solution. The plot is very illogical and unexplained in some aspects, but for the most part comes together quite nicely and shockingly at the film's final twist. The sudden realization for the most part ties things together, spelling out certain things plainly and leaving the rest up to interpretation. Personally, I love films that leave some situations up to interpretation. However, a lot of viewers bash films for doing this in excess. In reality, when a little thought is put into it and everything is put into perspective, the plot is a brilliant and chilling concept, probably even more terrifying in its time.

ACTING: The performances in this film are pretty excellent, especially for their time. Herk Harvey plays a creepy role as the mysterious man though he doesn't have much of a vocal role. Other great performances come from Frances Feist as the gentle landlady Mrs. Thomas, Sidney Berger as the stereotypical drunk John Linden, and Stan Levitt as the compassionate Dr. Samuels. The show-stealing performance, however, comes from the lead, Candace Hilligoss as Mary Henry. She puts on a show so convincing and so horrifying that it even feels real. The viewer starts to feel more and more sorry for her as her life starts to plummet downhill, portrayed perfectly by Hilligoss. One can truly feel the depression and torment that overtakes her as the demons torment her and start ruining her personal life. She plays the part that well.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The musical score in Carnival of Souls is very creepy and atmospheric. It sets the mood for the ever-present suspense and creepy scares. It may seem just as spooky as the next horror movie in the decade, but either way it set the mood just as well as was necessary.

OTHER CONTENT: Carnival of Souls is a very in-depth horror film for the 1960s that provides a lot to talk about at heart. The suspense is very well laid out throughout the film, always building and only giving in for brief, freaky scares usually involving the mysterious man or those who look similar. The makers of this film knew how to handle suspense. On the more obvious side of the fear spectrum, long-lasting creepy imagery is presented to break the loud, suspenseful silence. The creepy scares and imagery seen throughout this film may be fairly simplistic, but they succeed in creating a creepy, eerie, and downright uncomfortable atmosphere. They leave a long-lasting impression in the viewer's mind comparable to modern day haunts like the images presented in The Grudge. What also adds a lasting impression is the many in-depth theories about the plot. As the film concludes, (SPOILER), the audience sees obviously that Mary didn't survive the car crash. However, what could this mean? When you think about it, she couldn't have just been wandering the earth as a ghost being tormented by demons because people still were talking to her. This spawns many theories, like the possibility of Mary being stuck in a sort of purgatory-like state and that the other ghosts are trying to make her cross over. However, this spawns even more theories like what each character Mary spoke to represented and if there is really a more in-depth and metaphorical meaning to the film as a whole. This may have been from the early age of horror film, but it still makes the viewer think and leaves one hell of a lasting impression.

     If one were expecting to watch Carnival of Souls and expect a fun, spooky, or cheesy horror classic meant to entertain, one would be horrifyingly surprised. The film contains an intense amount of depth, suspense, and creepy imagery as well as a master performance by its lead. One doesn't just get a scare here but a memorable and thought-provoking impression rather surprising in comparison to other horror film of the time.

The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014) review

(7/10)

     It's always good to discover a hidden gem in the world of horror, as too many lackluster rip-offs and low-budget failures make up the genre today. The Taking of Deborah Logan is an underrated horror film that, though is quite derivative, borrows from all the right places. At some parts, the script flops and the plot's many twists don't add up, but for the most part, this is an all-around creepy, well-acted, and exciting horror film. At least it's better than a lot of the poor excuses nowadays.

PLOT: Mia (Michelle Ang) and her camera crew venture out to document the life of Deborah Logan (Jill Larson), a woman suffering from the early sings of Alzheimer's disease. Deborah's daughter, Sarah (Anne Ramsay), has been staying with Deborah as her disease begins to drain her memory. As the crew gathers footage for their Alzheimer's special, strange things start to happen to Deborah and the people around her. Her disease starts to spread faster, her tantrums start to get more violent, and unjustifiable occurrences start to take place in the family household. The crew slowly moves from documentary mode to investigative mode once these occurrences begin, causing them to uncover some serious mysteries about Deborah's life and former clients. As clues are slowly uncovered, Deborah's condition seems to escalate from Alzheimer's patient to the possessed. The plot is a very cool idea. The whole "found footage" aspect isn't so fresh anymore, but the more specific details make the film seem real unique. It's a documentary gone wrong in the most haywire fashion. Who goes to film an Alzheimer's documentary and expects to get caught in a story of possession? It's a found footage film meets a paranormal investigation. Neither idea is fresh, but combining them has seemed to work in the past.

ACTING: The performances in this film are actually quite great. The star of the show was definitely Jill Larson as the possessed Deborah Logan. Larson portrays Logan's descent into madness and possession in such a way one would get chills. Fully-expressive facial contortions, powerful speech, and accurate motions define the frightening change in Deborah. Larson's interpretation of Deborah sinking from hopeful housewife to evil spirit is quite shocking, believable, and amazing. The rest of the cast was pretty excellent too, with other impressive performances by Anne Ramsey as Sarah, Michelle Ang as Mia, and Ryan Cutrona as Harris. Everyone else played off the drama and trauma created by Deborah in the film quite well.

EFFECTS: The visual effects in this film weren't the most realistic or well-polished, but they were definitely creepy and interesting. The several freaky incarnations of Deborah are quite frightening to look at though obviously fake. What wasn't too obviously fake, however, was the cringe-inducing simulation of the medical procedures Deborah had to go through. Those could make anyone feel uncomfortable because it feels so real and that's rather unsettling. The effects did fail in certain parts, but for the most part they inspired some pretty freaky and occasionally cringe-inducing effects.

OTHER CONTENT: The Taking of Deborah Logan is probably one of the most underrated horror films of its time. Though there are a lot of flaws, it still manages to excite and creep out the audience. The filmmakers used the proper techniques to distribute the scares among the steady-building suspense the film contains throughout. It builds up suspense and then delivers satisfaction to the audience through small scares until the pot finally boils over near the end. The film is in no way unique, but it knows how to put plot and horror elements to proper use. Most of its scares and situations seem derivative of other works (The Exorcist, Grave Encounters, The Last Exorcism), but they all seem to fall together just right when combined. However, that does also create a few plot twists that don't add up. They twists start to get so preposterous that they run together and begin to make less sense. The filmmakers borrowed the situations well, but didn't tie up all of the loose ends or account for the baggage left by borrowing these situations. The script is also pretty bland and poorly written at parts near the end of the film, but for the most part, everything's rock solid. The film does have a lot of flaws, but it takes what it finds and puts them together in such a way to make exciting entertainment.

     The Taking of Deborah Logan deserves a lot more credit than its gotten thus far. Though it's very derivative and preposterous at times, the film takes the elements its given and puts them together quite nicely, exhibiting a very talented cast and building suspense and excitement up to the frightening end. This film provides some truly creepy imagery and succeeds in grabbing its audience and holding their attention tight as a rope in tug-of-war. Sometimes one just has to give a film a chance and consider what its up against, which is what made this film such a pleasant find in terms of horror.

Scary Movie 3 (2003) review

(3/10)

     The Scary Movie series hasn't been good since the first installment, which this addition proves. Though it is an overall improvement over the previous sequel, Scary Movie 3 still falls to the same juvenile and ridiculously unfunny standards. The movie does succeed, though, in its laugh-out-loud moments and some decently clever jokes. It's like everything's the same, but more polished with more experienced writers.

PLOT: Since the events of the previous installment, Cindy (Anna Faris) has become a newscaster on a sexist TV network, and Brenda (Regina Hall) has become an elementary school teacher. As usual, strange things have begun happening in town, from alien crop circles popping up out of nowhere to a killer videotape circulating around town. Cindy finds her way into this tragedy when she watches it herself. Now she must battle the forthcoming evil with her new love interest, an aspiring rapper named George (Simon Rex). The plot is just as typical as the previous movies. The filmmakers take the main plotlines of several films, add a few jokes, then blend them together. In this one, Signs, The Ring, and 8 Mile are primarily being spoofed, causing their plotlines to intermingle together. Had the films been evenly parodied and the jokes been more well written, this would have been a great piece of satire. However, only a few moments are able to bust through the hilarity barrier.

ACTING: The performances in this movie were about the same as the first for the most part. Anna Faris and Regina Hall returned as their original characters and did about as well as usual- just as sarcastic and dim-witted. A couple of characters were introduced in this addition that were decently humorous. These characters were Mahalik (Anthony Anderson) and C.J. (Kevin Hart). The duo played well off each other and their running gag was quite humorous. Other decent performances come from the likes of Charlie Sheen, Queen Latifah, and the late George Carlin.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The soundtrack was pretty much rubbish ultimately. A few obscure rap songs, a couple original rap battles, and a few sheds of composed score make up the entirety of the soundtrack. Nothing much can be said about this one other than the fact it's bland and mediocre.

OTHER CONTENT: Most of the movies in the series are pretty terrible, but this one was kind of in the middle. This one wasn't the worst but it definitely wasn't the best. This one had almost as many juvenile, unfunny, and awkward jokes as the last one, but this one also actually had a few laugh-out-loud moments. A couple of well-timed one-liners and cleverly parodied situations keep this addition from being entirely devoid of laughs. Most of the running gags failed, but the select few that didn't were definitely worth the screen time.

     Scary Movie 3 is a parody not entirely devoid of laughs, but very sparse. A few jokes with good timing, clever spoofing, and quotability made their way past the hilarity barrier, but for most jokes, everything was so juvenile and underdone that it came off as unfunny. This, however, is in no way the worst in the series or the best. This one simply didn't do anything truly significant or entertain well enough to be considered satisfying. It's not bad enough to kill you within seven days of viewing it, but it might want to make you be abducted by aliens to flee.

Poltergeist (2015) review

(6/10)

     Most horror remakes these days grow to be trashed by Hollywood flair and jump scares. The remake of Spielberg's Poltergeist just barely falls short of that. The modernized remake adds little to what the source material provided back in the eighties, but what it does add is supple for the general public. Some creepy imagery and new quirks keep the movie from completely failing.

PLOT: Eric (Sam Rockwell) and Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt) Bowen are moving into a new house with their three children when, as in the original film, strange things start to happen. As the family gets established in their new house, electric anomalies start occurring and things start to happen on their own. As time goes on, things get stranger and stranger until the youngest daughter is sucked into a vortex leading into the spirit world where she stays trapped. The family goes to seek help to defeat these malevolent spirits and recruit the help of two different, rival paranormal investigators. As in the original film, the family and crew must pull the daughter out of the spirit world existing due to the house's location above a sacred burial ground. The main plotline is pretty much unchanged from the original film, which would be nice if the producers would have dedicated to some of the scarier parts of the original as well. They try to add too many generic changes like cheesy jump scares and alternate situations loosely based on those that happened in the original. The movie tried to be its own entity, which it is in a bad way. It's the bland remake everyone wasted their hype on. If people had expected a small homage to the film in place of something brilliant in the horror world, the movie's reception would have been more reasonable.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are for the most part pretty bland. The roles are let down by unenthusiastic acting and unfitting roles. Sam Rockwell, though talented in some of his previous media, was a terrible fit for the father in Poltergeist. None of the other cast really adds any spirit to the movie except for maybe Jared Harris and Jane Adams as the rival paranormal investigators, Carrigan Burke and Dr. Brooke Powell. They were decent in their roles, but maybe that's because the characters felt fresher and not defined by too much of a previous standard. They kept the plot a bit more interesting in its changes.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The score composed by Jake R. Sanderson isn't anything too fresh. The score just does what it needs to, which is adding suspenseful and creepy music to the background.

EFFECTS: The effects here are hit-and-miss for the most part. Some of the more basic effects were pretty well done, like the clown doll and electricity effects. However, some of the effects were just the trippy equivalent of overused CGI. For example, the spirits inside the vortex were a cool concept to add, but the effects made them look extremely fake and over-polished. The effects of the vortex itself were probably the best in the movie, as they were at least visually pleasing.

OTHER CONTENT: For the most part, it may sound to the audience like I'm trashing the Poltergeist remake entirely. For the most part, it does have a lot of flaws to the close eye of a horror buff. However, it does add a few new views on certain aspects of the movie. Modernizing the film was good in relation to the use of technology. It made the whole "haunted house" effect feel a bit more definable. Also, the remake adds some truly creepy imagery in parts. Though not as frequently freaky as in the first film, the imagery still does present a feeling of uneasiness, especially in relation to any scene with the clown doll. The movie also doesn't take too long to pick up and get the action rolling, which isn't so bad. It captures the audience's attention at the beginning and does its best to keep the audience hooked while establishing little sections of background story. This remake actually does have a few successes compared to all of its flaws, which its why it's not a completely bland adaptation of the classic. The remake is pretty generic yet entirely its own entity, rising and falling in several different aspects the original had all together.

     In today's world, it's so easy to ruin a classic with a terrible remake attempting to recreate movie magic. This remake of Poltergeist is one step above that. It isn't too terrible, but it isn't too great either. The movie tries to establish itself as its own entity but for the most part fails. So much things were done wrong, which actually makes the things done right stick out. Some new creepy imagery and modernized views keep the movie from completely bombing, as well as the fairly frequent scenes of action. The movie is worth a watch, but probably only one. For these filmmakers, that may be frightening enough to give up or give it another try in the horror world.

My Favorite Movies for the Halloween Season

     

Hello, fellow film critics and movie lovers! To celebrate the time of the season, I've decided to discuss some of my favorite movies to watch during the Halloween season. Some may be your typical choices, but others may come off as an obscure or even pleasant surprise. Ranging from stellar horror films to fun-filled goofy movies, here are my favorite films for the Halloween season.

Trick'r Treat (2007)

This horror film is the epitome of terror for the Halloween season. The movie tells a tale of one particular Halloween night in which a series of spooky events occur. From a tale of zombie schoolkids coming back from the dead to a virgin werewolf's first night out to kill, this festive film commemorates the holiday very well and remains one of the best horror films in recent years. It's a real treat laden with tricks!

Creepshow (1982)

Metaphorically, it's the precursor for Trick'r Treat. Creepshow started the idea of mini-episodes presented in a pulpy manner. This film, patterned with a talented cast of stars, is as humorous as it is terrifying. With an even balance of camp and stylish horror, this horror classic from George A. Romero and Stephen King suits the season and its creepy tone very well.

When Good Ghouls Go Bad (2001)

Now this one is a surprise to the unsuspecting reader that expects only the true horror and Halloween-themed classic. This obscure family Halloween film stars Christopher Lloyd as the main character's undead grandfather back by means of breaking a curse over the town forcing them to never celebrate Halloween. The movie, though not really scary or clever, is a lot of fun and filled with a ton of positive spirit for the holiday. Halloween is refreshed, restored, and glorified, showing its importance and true meaning with excellent storytelling and dialogue. This is one of my favorite Halloween films for its optimistic look at the holiday, which really does hit home for me.

Ernest Scared Stupid (1991)

To stray away from movies with meaning, I simply enjoy this one for its simplicity. There isn't much of a meaningful purpose behind this movie; it only makes me laugh. I've watched it ever since I was really little, and I still enjoy watching Ernest run around like a babbling idiot (as usual). It's a lot of crazy fun and, though not an expertly made film, is still a Halloween treat.

Halloween (1978)

This one doesn't take too much thinking to figure out. The iconic theme song, thick suspense, and excellent film-making make this film a staple for the holiday and its horror-marathoning fans.

The Evil Dead series (1981 - 1987)

Excluding Army of Darkness, the Evil Dead series lays out a perfect horror scenario and cleans house with a campy, bizarre bloodbath, both terrifying and entertaining the masses. At times, the movies are shot just well enough to induce nightmares, even in their low-budget simplicity. At other times, the dialogue and turn of events just gets so ridiculous that it's downright hilarious. The films feel like a horror funhouse. They're both a thrill and a laugh at the same time!

Boo (2005)

Now, this one is another obscure and subordinate Halloween movie in the eyes of the public. This horror takes place on Halloween when a group of teenagers break into an abandoned mental hospital that's claimed to be haunted. One by one, these teenagers become possessed and start fighting each other and "melting" at death. The movie is in no way the best, but it's still an interesting watch. It's much like an old movie from Sci-Fi; good for low quality expectations.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Firstly, this movie is NOT a Christmas movie! It's clearly a Halloween film. It starts on Halloween with Halloween characters and ends on Halloween. The film from the creative mind of Tim Burton has been known to bend its holiday intentions, but this is my argument. The movie has a memorable soundtrack with realistic themes and precise stop-motion animation. Since the very beginning of my life, this film has been a staple to my Halloween season marathon.

The Corpse Bride (2005)

Subsequently, this film is just as good and fitting for the season. With a gothic feel and haunting film-making, Burton creates another beautiful stop-motion creation. The whole concept of the undead and their world serves as ample evidence of a fun Halloween flick.

R. L. Stine's The Haunting Hour: Don't Think About It (2006)

Probably the most juvenile of the picks on my list, this movie makes the cut for its creepy atmosphere and impressive concept idea. The idea of a horrifying monster that comes to life and comes after you once you think about it is truly creative and a clever premise. With the writer's reigns being held by Goosebumps writer, R. L. Stine, the movie is bound to have an ample amount of scares and awesome plot twists for its target tween age group. I still watch this today for the memories it brings back and for recognition of its truly unique concept.

Hocus Pocus (1993)

You knew, if you've read any Halloween movie list or TV guide, that Hocus Pocus was going to make this list. The Halloween family classic is a notorious pick for all Halloween movie junkies to watch every season. Much like Halloween, this movie doesn't take much discussion to figure out why it's in my top Halloween list.


Well, fellow readers, you have reached the end of my list. Any surprises or was everything nice and predictable? These movies are all close to me for several different reasons whether it be content or childhood memory, and I try to watch them every Halloween season to celebrate. Maybe some of my picks are the same as yours. I hope each and every one of you have a safe, satisfying, and Happy Halloween! Thanks for reading my list!

A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) review

(3/10)

   This is perhaps the strangest and weirdest addition to the famous horror franchise. A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is a mix of hit-and-miss performances, terrible effects, and a weird, overly-cheesy tone. It was as if the filmmakers decided to make a fan film rather than an actual installment.

PLOT: Alice (Lisa Wilcox) has been living her life peacefully with a loving boyfriend, Dan (Danny Hassel), and also has a baby on the way. Until recently, notorious nightmare-killer, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) had been destroyed and cut off from the real world. However, Krueger eventually finds a new way, using her baby's dreams to access the real world and kill more teenagers. Even worse, Krueger is "feeding" these souls to Alice's baby in the womb, brainwashing him to be Krueger's apprentice. Krueger has a more obvious weak spot this time, as he's afraid of his mother, Sister Amanda Krueger (Beatrice Boepple), who appears in the nightmares as well. Sister Krueger wants to capture her son back and keep him from killing anyone else. Somehow, Alice has to get Krueger away from her kid and quite possibly in the hands of Sister Krueger. The plot in itself is preposterous and executed in an illegible, illogical (at least in terms of the series) way. I'm starting to think the series should have ended with the previous installment. Because of this execution, nothing can even be taken seriously, for one would just laugh and queston how any of this makes any sense at all.

ACTING: The performances in this strange installment were mainly hit-and-miss, with Englund and Wilcox being the lead performances. They both did decent job, but in truth, all performances were rather messed up due to an awkward, unfunny script. Most people laughed at Krueger's cheesy kill jokes in the previous movies; however, the script is so bad in this addition that Krueger's lines couldn't even inspire a chuckle. A couple of other performances were decent, including Nick Mele as Dennis Johnson and Danny Hassel as Dan. They weren't exceptional, but definitely tolerable.

SCORE: The score in this one is way over-dramatic and unnecessary. It makes the movie feel like it's taking itself way too serious.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie, for the most part, were complete garbage. Everything looked goofy, fake, and just plain embarrassing for any horror movie in general to have. The only effects that were fairly decent would be the few claymation and digital effects. They were cool, but buried beneath the stinking heap of effects preceded by them. If you laugh at anything in this movie, laugh at how bad the effects are.

OTHER CONTENT: Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is just a strange, unnecessary installment to a franchise that would have been better left alone. Everything feels weird, preposterous, and exhausted, as no variety is added to the franchise. If Krueger even fails to satisfy, the movie shouldn't have existed. The only emotions one could leave this movie with are embarrassment and confusion, for that's what this attempt at a horror movie is: a confusing embarrassment.

   A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child should not exist. There was no reason to make the movie except the possibility of making money off of trash. Terrible script, goofy special effects, and a preposterous plot pull this movie down to the bottom of the barrel. I suggest if anyone's a Freddy fan, skip this installment. None of it is even necessary.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) review

(5/10)

   In almost every major horror franchise or series there's a singular film within that certain series that is neither really bad nor really good. For the Freddy films, A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master fits this description. The movie's performances and overall quality falls, but not too far, as Freddy's nightmares are more fun-to-watch than they've been thus far. The scare factor isn't totally lost, but it is barely there as compared to the previous films that were actually good.

PLOT: Taking place several years after the last movie, Kristen (Tuesday Knight), now released from the mental facility, has been having reoccurring nightmares where she finds herself in Freddy's house, but with no signs of life. Kristen still pulls her old friends, Kincaid (Ken Sagoes) and Joey (Rodney Eastman), who are also out of the institution, into her dreams. They begin the get annoyed with this and try to reassure her that Freddy's dead for good. However, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) is resurrected and begins to appear in the Elm Street teens dreams. Freddy has grown more powerful than ever, killing the original Elm Street kids. However, before she passes, Kristen makes a friend from class named Alice (Lisa Wilcox), whom she pulls into her dream and gives her "dream powers" to after Freddy kills her. Now, when Alice dreams of Freddy, she pulls a classmate in by accident and gains the skill of whatever that person was good at when Freddy kills them. Alice alone is the only person who can stop Freddy from taking the lives of the innocent teens on Elm Street. The plot is very well thought out, but relatively flat. After the old Elm Street kids are killed (which is early on in the movie), not much changes. In fact, the plot is forgotten and rushed into a kind of way where there's a nightmare/kill every ten minutes. The movie is mainly made up of kills with a premise but nothing else. The plot is trashed for stylistic killing.

ACTING: The performances in the movie aren't the best but aren't the worst either. Englund, Sagoes, and Eastman come back to reprise their roles, which they do fine job of. In this addition, Freddy is seen more throughout the movie and more of his character is shown, displaying for the audience how clever and sadistic Krueger can be. Switching out Patrica Arquette for Tuesday Knight was an overall bad choice, for she didn't give off the same effect as Arquette in the role. However, she wasn't the worst person they could've chosen.The only newer performance that was worth any significance was Lisa Wilcox as Alice. She was definitely a good person to give the lead role to, as she didn't show it any dishonor or cruelty. None of the other performances are really good or worth remembering. The rest of the cast just played their roles and fairly flatly.

SCORE: The score in this addition is creepier and more prevalent, led by lesser-known Craig Safan, who went on to score more movies. This nightmare also, like its predecessor, had a few original songs. However, they weren't as good or memorable as those in Nightmare 3.

EFFECTS: The special effects are pretty well done overall in this Freddy movie. The effects aren't the very best, but they definitely are quite remarkable. A gruesome roach transformation, a soul-sucking kiss, and even a peek inside of Freddy's collection of souls make this movie feel like an underrated special effects marvel. Though reeking of B-movie madness, the effects do their job well.

OTHER CONTENT: A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master is neither a dramatic fall or triumphant rise from its predecessor. In fact, you could say this one was made strictly to entertain without completely sucking it up. This idea is evident in adding more scenes with Krueger and speeding up the kill frequency. The movie does feel like it was made in a hurry, but it doesn't deter it from being any less entertaining. The blood flows freely and the audience is left to laugh at or uncomfortably watch Freddy's many antics and stylish kills. This one was purely made for entertainment and giving the general audience what they want: more Fred and more violence.

   A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master is truly an underrated B-movie as compared to the series; it's actually entertaining but nothing to take seriously in any way, form, or fashion. The performances and plot (or lack thereof) failed, but the entertaining antics of Krueger and his stylized torture is enough to numb a horror fan's mind and entertain the masses.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) review

(7/10)

   Indeed an improvement from its predecessor but not topping the first, A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors revives the franchise from the death it was previously put in. Improved performances, cooler special effects, and an even balance between hilarity and terror earn this addition respect within the franchise.

PLOT: Once again on Elm Street, infamous nightmare serial killer, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), is terrorizing the teens that reside in the area. He tricks young, misunderstood teen, Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) into slitting her wrists resulting in her admission to the local youth  mental hospital. Within the institution, she meets several problematic teens with the same common problem as her: Freddy Krueger coming to kill in their dreams. The problem has hopes to be remedied, though, when older Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) becomes the secretary at the hospital and ways to help remedy the teens worries with their nightmares. However, Freddy seems to be getting more and more powerful as he takes the lives from the last of these Elm Street children. He gets harder to beat, and harder to try and conquer as the chief staff in the hospital disagree with Nancy and allied Dr. Neil Gordon's (Craig Wasson) methods in helping the tormented teenagers. The plot is very interesting and well executed. Putting Krueger in a mental hospital with a bunch of teenagers is similar to letting a hungry Rottweiler in a house full of cats. It's brutal and entertaining to watch, but expected. The many twists and turns of this plot, also, are very effective and very well done. The story is very much alive in this Nightmare.

ACTING: The performances in this Freddy film are very much improved than in its predecessor. Veteran actors Robert Englund and Heather Langenkamp reprise their roles as Freddy Krueger and Nancy Thompson with a certain chemistry. The two characters approach as age-old enemies though we feel these two have been each others age-old foil, for they both possess similar qualities but are very much the opposite. Langenkamp has even improved from the last one, establishing a character outside of the intense segments. The rest of the performances are excellently done, especially those of Patrica Arquette as Kristen, Ken Sagoes as haunted teen Kincaid, Jennifer Rubin as former junkie Taryn, Bradley Gregg as sleepwalking Phillip, Ira Heiden as paraplegic Will, Laurence Fishburne as orderly Max, and special appearances by John Saxon as Mr. Thompson and Zsa Zsa Gabor as herself. The cast here, though some are young, are very well played. Everyone plays their respective parts as though they had been that character their whole life.

SCORE: The score is very well done and as familiar as the first Freddy score. This soundtrack is different, however, with the addition of two songs ("Into the Fire", "Dream Warriors") by hair metal band Dokken. "Dream Warriors" lives to be a memorable track still, especially around this season.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this one are miles better than its predecessor. The effects are still used for a cheesy type of appeal, but this time they don't look as cheap or crudely made. From the Freddy-snake to Philip's puppet walk to each individual characters death scene (for those who do die), the effects are noticeably better but still used to get a kind of cheesy, B-movie effect.

OTHER CONTENT: The third Nightmare is miles better than its attempt at a predecessor. The story is thicker, along with the performances, and the balance of funny and scary is yet again in place. However, this one just feels funnier than the first, as the kills get increasingly more specific and ridiculous. However, this is not bad. We find ourselves laughing at Freddy, as if he were a clown performing for our entertainment. It is in this Nightmare movie where Freddy starts to feel like less of a serial killer and more of a stylish murderer. Freddy entertains and thrills, inspiring a few devious chuckles from the horror-loving audience it intends to please. Nightmare 3 is definitely a true horror at heart, however. Though Freddy comes out as funny, he still thrills us in this film, as we still think inside of how gruesome each way would be to die.

   Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is definitely the revival of a long-lost franchise. Everything has improved tremendously, from the cast's performance to the special effects. The balance of scare and fun factor is successfully brought back, showing its fun face more often than it ever has. Freddy Krueger is an entertainer for his devoted audience, but a tremor for all of those who take his kills seriously. With a more developed story as well, this flick rises to an enjoyable Freddy feast.