MY CALL:  Definitely not for everyone.  This film is sweet and funny, but it has its Texas Chainsaw moments, too.  It’s a cute little murderous movie.  MOVIES LIKE The Voices:  Maybe American Psycho (2000), which is much smarter and more serious.

Ryan Reynolds (RIPD, Safe House, Green Lantern) seems to be supportive of indie and experimental films.  The Captive and Buried presented him with new challenges, and I suppose The Nines and Finder’s Fee presented some different styles to try to round him out as an actor.  His latest non-mainstream endeavor is The Voices, in which he plays the voices of his Scottish-accented cat Mr. Whiskers, his dog Bosco, a weird Bunny Monkey sock puppet, and a dying deer his character hits with a car.  It’s like a slasher-Psycho version of Eddie Murphy’s The Nutty Professor.

The cat is menacing; the dog, warm-hearted. Like having a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other, Bosco is everything good in Jerry whereas Mr. Whiskers exudes the evil from the darkest corners of Jerry’s psyche.

If that sounds a bit odd to you, your suspicions are correct.  This film is odd.  Were it not for my being a Ryan Reynolds fan, I’d probably have spent the first 20 minutes of this movie wondering if renting it was a mistake.  That said, the story does find its legs and gains some traction.  It doesn’t end up anywhere great, but it certainly turned out to be something interesting.  At the very least, it’s a story you have not seen told before (not like this anyway).

Meet Jerry…sitting alone talking to a goldfish bowl in a Chinese restaurant.  Story of his life.

Jerry (Ryan Reynolds) is a sweet, likable factory worker with schizophrenia.  He tries to fit in and live a normal life, but his actions highlight his eccentricities, alerting everyone around him that something about him is weird.  As a product of not taking his medication, he comes home to a friendly talking dog and his cat, who verbally abuses him with a Scottish accent.

Jerry has a crush on Fiona (Gemma Arterton; Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, Byzantium, Clash of the Titans) that turns from something pathetic into something awkward and then develops into something tragic…but the whole time we feel for Jerry.  Things gets worse when Lisa (Anna Kendrick; Pitch Perfect) goes out on a date with him.  Completely incompetent and thus facilitating his madness is Jerry’s psychiatrist (Jackie Weaver; Haunt, Stoker), who never takes appropriate action regarding Jerry’s treatment and medication.  Gemma Arterton, Anna Kendrick and Jackie Weaver all contribute decent performances.

Oops.

The most interesting and eye-opening scene by far is when Jerry actually takes his medication and, to his horror, sees his sickly abject home and muted pets as they truly are.  The scene brings the story together and solidifies Jerry’s ensuing actions and our forgiveness for those actions.

Yup.  That’s Gemma Arterton’s head.  And here he is feeding it cereal.  Her head keeps him company and asks if she can have a “friend” to keep her company.

This movie is nothing spectacular, but Reynolds does a fantastic job of presenting his murderous character through a sympathetic lens, begging reasonable forgiveness for even his most heinous acts.  He’s the killer you feel sorry for…you even want to see him happy even though you know it won’t happen, making this a very endearing psycho-killer film.  LOL

Also, I’m not sure if this was just an authored scenario or a sleight of social commentary about our health care system, but it is only because the health care system (especially his psychiatrist) fail Jerry that he causes anyone harm.

The film closes with a weirdly funny musical number at the end featuring Reynoolds and the major cast during the credits.  Nice touch to wrap up the mania of this cute little murderous movie.  Definitely not for everyone.  This film is sweet and funny, but it has its Texas Chainsaw moments.

When filmmakers push the envelope, test limits and do that which no one before them has done, we often call it art.  But when filmmakers push the envelope and then shove the contents of the envelope down your throat, it often loses its luster and shifts to an altogether different genre.  In horror, disturbing art joins the likes of Martyrs (2008), whereas the overkill gets sorted into a pile of shocky-schlocky exploitation movies.

In a recent podcast episode we had a discussion about the line between such “art” and crap.  Here’s what we discussed…

Yeah….I’m somewhat hesitant to call it art.

The Human Centipede: The First Sequence (2009) was strongly marketed far before its release.  Not much was revealed about it, except for the–and pardon the expression I use here–but the “ass-to-mouth” theme being embraced by a German mad scientist.  At this point in cinematic history we have seen a lot of harsh, gritty movies…I Spit on Your Grave (2010; and the original), The Last House on the Left (1972, 2009), Cannibal Holocaust (1980), Salo (1975), Martyrs (2008), Inside (2007), the Cube and Hostel and Saw franchises were already upon us.  As a group of horror fans, we’ve become pretty hard to shock.  So, admittedly, creative filmmakers are left with little choice but to go to extremes to shock us.

This first film brought its three-man monstrosity intended as a piece of intense shock film art.  I’m not sure if it was art, nor would it bring pleasure to most viewers, but this film brought us something we had never seen before…something conceptually gross, disturbing and terrifying.  Making it more effective was how (as with Hostel) it was told through the perspective of the victims.  Dare I say it, but the victims’ experience was very well-acted.  Their sympathy, horror and suffering were palpable.  What little nudity there was never felt exploitative; rather it revealed vulnerability.  It was very effective and there was very little gore or violence.  In a strange way, this distasteful film was done…tastefully?  No pun intended.

To quote my podcasting comrade, John Lasavath: “There’s a good chance this movie wasn’t made for you.”

The Human Centipede 2: The Full Sequence (2011) followed suit with the marketing campaign of the first.  Tom Sixx boasted that this human centipede would be much, much bigger, and it was!  But more isn’t always better, Tom.  We grew from 3 to 12 segments (i.e., victims) and our assembling amateur scientist was far more grotesque than his predecessor.

In this sequel, The Human Centipede: The First Sequence (2009) exists as a movie “in the movie,” making this something of a metamovie.  A mentally retarded, severely disturbed and abused man obsessed with Tom Sixx’s movie takes it as medical canon and pursues his own dreams of a bigger, better human centipede.  This sequel (again, now as with Hostel 2) presents its story through the mad scientist’s perspective.

Contrasting the original, this sequel had a lot of gore and violence and the nudity felt less organic and more on the side of exploitative…everything felt more that way.  This film was just “more” of what we saw before, viewed through a sicker and more gritty lens.  It absolutely wasn’t necessary to bring us this film, but it still continued its story in a different way that felt like more than a simplistic rehashing of its precursor.

The Human Centipede 3: The Final Sequence (2015)…  Thank God for this being the “final” sequence.  I don’t think I could handle another.  Watch the trailer and gather your thoughts…

So now you’ve seen it, in all it’s Grindhouse awfulness.  How many victims does it take to shock us now?  500!!!  The shit has hit the fan and disturbed a butterfly, that butterfly flew off and landed on the nose of a yak which sneezes and causes a yak stampede quaking the nearby mountains to the point of a Himalayan avalanche leading to an irregular cooling and transpiration event as all the snow melts at lower altitudes causing a huge storm…and that storm rains yak shit on all who view this movie!

This is a bad movie that was made bad on purpose.  The previous two films were told with a straight face.  This third film is the Sharknado of Human Centipedes.

Proudly sponsored by the audiobook company Audible, your new MFF podcast episode is here!

We hope you enjoyed our previous action-packed episode on Corona, Belgian Beer, BBQ and the Fast and Furious Films (Episode 10).

This week the MFF crew discuss their favorite in-theater movie experiences, dissect the “rules of the ghost” from It Follows and assess the “art vs. exploitation” of The Human Centipede franchise.
We also answer such important questions as…

“What made The Cabin in the Woods, Love Actually and Total Recall such amazing theatrical experiences?”
“Can Coors Light make Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li watchable?”
“What is the connection between The Fast and the Furious and Point Break…and ultimate Frisbee?”
“What makes a great dread-building scene in a horror movie?”
“When does It Follows take place?”
“What movies would benefit from recasting the lead role with Zac Efron?”

This week’s podcast is based on the following MFF reviews and articles:

It Follows: A Fantastic Horror Film Full of Dread, Urgency and Patience

It Follows (2015), entrancing and unsettling, this gritty timeless film serves as a powerful cautionary metaphor to the consequences of unprotected sex.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011), an ass-to-mouth film about psychosis and poor hygiene

A brief discussion of The Human Centipede franchise, with opinions on the trailer of The Human Centipede 3: The Final Sequence

The Cabin in the Woods (2012), blowing away expectations

Bad Movie Tuesday: Street fighter The Legend of Chun Li

 Is it film art? Or is it just an exploitative grindhouse film?

Sit back, relax and learn about everything you missed.
If you haven’t seen some of these movies, be comforted that we will geekily inform you as to why you should watch them.

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the pod on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

  
MY CALL:  Far from anything resembling horror, this boring art-house Iranian film features a skateboarding hipster vampire.  Amazon boasts numerous positive reviews, but horror fans should beware.  MORE MOVIES LIKE THIS:  Film noir, I guess.  Pretty much stuff that film students love and I hate.

Knowing that we are in for an Iranian vampire story, this black and white art-house endeavor opens in a manner which immediately strays from our expectations.  From his snug white t-shirt to his hair, our protagonist smacks of a young Middle Eastern Marlon Brando, like a 50s greaser who at any moment may break into a dance number snapping his fingers and chanting some West Side Story Jets/Sharks theme or scream “Stellllllllllla.”  Further Americanizing this film the sets, wardrobe and neighborhood could just as easily, or even more easily so, have been set in suburban Ohio rather than Iran.  (It was actually filmed in California, by the way.)

But, oh yeah, this movie is also about a vampire.  A vampire who only preys upon bad people—and who ensures that notion is well understood to the audience through over-exposition more deafeningly than a nearby jackhammer.  For just a moment this reminded me of Innocent Blood (1992) in premise alone.  Our most contemporary vampire (a young woman) listens to American LPs demonstrating to her audience two things: 1) hipsters in Iran are just as annoying as they are here, and 2) the score was the most (or only) brilliant part of this film.  However, whatever the artistic intent behind her music and dancing and wardrobe and other Americanized themes, I failed to find any other brilliance here.  Also on the “neat” side, the opening scene includes a cat which is later utilized as a device, like a judgmental observer of the truth behind the protagonist’s father’s addiction and paranoia.  But this didn’t really lead anywhere special either.

Although I must acknowledge that the black and white helps the film by masking racial and cultural differences by obscuring skin and clothing color.  But other than witnessing a sympathetic relationship between a young 50s style man and a young hipsterish vampire, I got nothing out of this.  I was excited to see this film, yet it was boring since the opening scene.

Was this art?  No—but I’m sure many will disagree.  Was it artistic?  VERY.  Using a skateboard as something of a symbol for the discovery of compassion was artistic, maybe a little “neat,” but ultimately fell shy of making any impact on me (or my girlfriend).  I imagine I’ll get some flack from “film fans” out there complaining that this is not a horror movie and shouldn’t be assessed as one.  But guess what?  This is JOHN’S HORROR CORNER and I’ll warn my readers as I see fit. LOL.  Besides, I doubt anyone who would like this film reads my articles and, furthermore, I didn’t enjoy this as a non-horror film either.  I didn’t enjoy it, in any form, at all.

Yup.  That’s a skateboard in the bottom left.

In my eyes, writer/director Ana Lily Amirpour proves that she can make artsy films.  She clearly wasn’t trying to make anything resembling horror—or so, I hope she wasn’t trying to—so horror fans should probably steer clear of this film much as I wish I had.  I’m sure many will see greatness in this; but I also think those will be people who are disgusted by studio blockbusters, gore or mainstream comedies.

Somewhere in this story I think there was a plot, but I felt more like I sat through a series of scenes that simply “seemed to be linked.”  A guy owes a drug dealer (who got the protagonist’s father hooked on drugs), he meets a friendly vampire who takes a shining to him, she helps him with his drug dealer problem, they find a mutual affection.

If you are a lovelorn film student, this may be for you. If you are a horror fan: RUN.  Run far away and fast in the opposite direction.  Amazon is producing a wealth of positive reviews, none of them praising any component of actual horror.  Such praising reviews consider the film “a tale of love and loneliness set in a fictional Iranian town”; “a vampire romance”; and “a visual metamorphosis of the characters as they both make life-altering decisions, without any dialogue required.”

Horror fans, don’t be fooled by these positive reviews.  To use a line closer to horror: “It’s a trick. Get an axe.”

MY CALL: An excellent anthology that focuses more on storytelling than shock value—but it still has its moments.  These fun short stories span serious to silly and original to trope-rich.  Well worth a watch!  OTHER HORROR ANTHOLOGIES:  Some other fun, decent and/or clever anthologies include (in order of release date):  Black Sabbath (1963), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), The Uncanny (1977), Creepshow (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye (1985), Creepshow 2 (1987), Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (1993), Campfire Tales (1997), 3 Extremes (2004), Trick ‘r Treat (2007), Chillerama (2011), Little Deaths (2011), V/H/S (2012), The Theater Bizarre (2012), The ABCs of Death (2013), V/H/S 2 (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013) and The ABCs of Death 2 (2014).

Having directed several episodes of TV’s Tales from the Crypt and Tales from the Darkside, John Harrison had the right experience to bring these stories to life.  The wraparound story is rather Hansel and Gretel-ish, featuring a young Matthew Lawrence (Boy Meets World, Creature of Darkness) incarcerated in a kitchen-side cell being fattened with cookies.  The young boy distracts his captor (Deborah Harry; Videodrome), who plans on preparing and serving him for a hoity-toity dinner party, by reading twisted stories from a book aptly title “Tales from the Darkside.”  The three stories are not linked themselves, but still find a good synthesis with the wraparound story.

Our first story “Lot 249” features a group of graduate students played by a young Christian Slater (Stranded, El Gringo), Julianne Moore (Carrie, Psycho) and Steve Buscemi (Con Air, Escape from LA)…that alone gives good reason for any movie fan to see this.  Young Buscemi is an archaeological power geek who acquires (somehow) a sarcophagus with a mummy in it.  How he pulled this off without eBay and bypassing customs inspections is beyond me.  So what do you do with a mummy other than maybe sell it to turn a profit?  Well, have no fear of indecision because the mummy comes with instructions—in the form of a scroll in hieroglyphics.  Of course he reads this scroll, after all horror cannot transpire otherwise, and the mummy goes about killing people.  The execution of the story is weak, but it’s cheeky tone makes up for that.

Next is “Cat from Hell,” a new take on Edgar Allan Poe’s The Black Cat.  A wealthy geriatric recluse (William Hickey; Puppetmaster) hires a hit man (David Johansen; Campfire Stories, Freejack) to kill his cat for $100,000!  Sound funny?  Well not to our recluse, who explains how the cat had already killed three members of his household.  Of course, our hit man takes the job and it turns out to be considerably harder than he expected.  Enjoy.  This one is zany but told with a straight face.  You’ll giggle, but you’ll also wince.

It gets gory in a really fun way!

“Lover’s Vow” is the most clever story by far, it offers no laughs at all, and it steers clear of the tropes we find in the other two segments.  In this story an artist (James Remar; Horns, The Unborn, The Warriors) sees something that he shouldn’t have and he swears a vow that he would never tell what he saw or describe his mysterious assailant, which is apparently a gargoyle.  Later in the story he meets the love of his life (Rae Dawn Chong) and all the while he keeps from her this secret.  There’s a cool ending.  I never saw it coming, but my girlfriend managed to predict it.

The gargoyle is actually pretty cool.

I first saw this as a child, so this flick has a powerful nostalgia over me.  But the stories are still entertaining to see unfold and I feel this should entertain today’s horror fans who haven’t yet seen it—especially viewers old enough (maybe over 30) to appreciate the practical effects and the before-the-were-stars cameos.

Enjoy.

PULP REVIEW: noun//A review devoid of a thorough or complete synopsis, but including snarky snippets of ideas and overall opinions/recommendations.
Alt. def. A review of a movie that was not worth my time to write a full review.

If I’m writing a review this short, then I probably wouldn’t recommend it.  That said, here are three movies I don’t recommend.

The Mirror (2014) started off with a bit of promise.  In this found footage film we are quickly introduced to our young British protagonists and I found them to be instantly likable.  They have bought an allegedly haunted mirror and set up cameras in hopes of capturing evidence of the paranormal so that they can win some contest.  It’s clearly a very low budget film, but I’d blame this film’s eventual degeneration on poor writing.  Once weird things start to happen, the likability of the characters is squandered, I stopped supporting them, and I found myself just waiting for something interesting to happen…but to no avail.  The best part of this film was meeting the characters in Act 1.  Act 2 simply set up some interest that never found a satisfying conclusion in the 3rd.  Most disappointing was how components of the final act were blatant bastardized rip-offs of Oculus (2013)…not that this is surprising.  I’m always glad to give any film a shot, but this turned out to be wholly dissatisfying.  I’d recommend avoiding future projects by writer/director Edward Boase.  I saw this with my girlfriend (also a general cinephile and horror fan) and she was even less impressed than I was, expressing that she didn’t even find the characters likable.  We don’t recommend this.

Extracted (2012) features sci-fantasy fan favorite Sasha Roiz (Grimm, Warehouse 13, Caprica) as a scientist who has engineered a method of “seeing” people’s memories.  He ends up in a dangerous situation after he is trapped in the mind of a felon–not unlike the concept behind The Cell (2000), but without all the cool stuff and suspense.  Somehow the story remained interesting while the movie itself felt completely uninspired and unexciting.  Sadly good premises are often lost in subpar movies, and this is sort of the case here.  I was expecting something of a thriller mystery that would have me at the edge of my seat for a fun movie night with the girlfriend.  What I got was a ho-hum mystery that I’d watch while laying on the couch alone and half-asleep with a cold on a Tuesday afternoon after calling in sick from work.  My girlfriend summarized that this movie felt like Inception, Awake, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Ghost, Groundhog Day and Sublime…but clearly not in the best way, nor as effective as any of the aforementioned.  This could have been an awesome film, instead it was merely a serviceable direct-to-DVD flick.  It wasn’t bad per se, but I wouldn’t recommend it either.

Exorcismus (2010) was shockingly helmed by the director of The Returned (2013).  I say “shockingly” because I thought The Returned was fantastic, yet this film felt stale.  I’ll start by pointing out that I was drawn to this movie because of Doug Bradley (Pinhead of the first several Hellraiser movies).  As it turns out, his role was very small.  Not making up for that at all was the hardly passable “possession acting.”  By this I refer to the lead role (a possessed teenage girl) when she is acting under the influence of an otherworldly force.  They tried to spice things up with a clever twist to the story, but the only way I was moved was by the rolling of my eyes.  Ultimately this may have been one of the least impressive possession movies I’ve seen.  The Rite (2011), The Devil Inside (2012) and even The Possession (2012; which I had called the “the Diet Coke of Possession movies”) were all more effective–but likewise, I wouldn’t recommend any of them either. :/

Poltergeist (1982) changed the face of horror and paved the way for new horror tropes.  The horror genre already had its share of great haunting movies (e.g., Ghost Story, The Amityville Horror), but Poltergeist changed the game when it yanked little Carol Ann into the spirit world and called in the paranormal researchers for help instead of the police (who surely would get the wrong idea) or a priest (for some sort of exorcism).  The concept of “the other side” had not been approached so effectively before nor in such a direct manner.  And the use of paranormal researchers had never been so brilliantly portrayed.  In many ways I consider the original to be a perfect film even today.

Both Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist II (1986) stand as excellent proof that the best horror came from the 80s and even today I enjoy these films for reasons beyond simple nostalgia.  However Poltergeist III (1988), while watchable and not a “bad” horror movie, suffered a drop in quality so noticeable that many Amazon shoppers prefer to buy the Poltergeist/Poltergeist 2 DVD combo pack in lieu of the “trilogy pack.”  Now why is that?  I’d suggest that by part III the novelty had worn off and the “new tropes” pioneered by the franchise had already become that overplayed song on the radio you once loved but now can’t stand even though you can’t help but to sing along because you know all the words.  Similarly, I loved Paranormal Activity (2007) and Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)—actually very Poltergeist­-esque films.  But sadly, just as with the Poltergeist franchise, things started to fall apart with PA 3 (2011), and PA 4 (2012) really just upset me.  To that effect, I’ll say that I never felt a remake was necessary for Poltergeist, but I was admittedly excited to see what they’d do with it after the success (and my enjoyment) of the recent Carrie (2013) and Evil Dead (2013) remakes.

The following is an article (not so much of a review) comparing the approaches, strengths and weaknesses of the recent remake to Tobe Hooper’s 1982 predecessor.  But before we proceed…

SPOILERS!!!   If you have not yet seen this remake then DO NOT READ THIS.  SPOILERS abound!  Instead I’d suggest you visit my older article:
John’s Horror Corner presents Strong Opinions: on remaking Poltergeist (2015)

A great tagline and a great poster for the 1982 original.  2015…the exact same tagline with a less effective poster.

The Parents. As the remake begins, we are introduced to our family.  The only element that made me like them was Sam Rockwell as the sarcastic, out-of-work and somewhat irresponsible father.  Rockwell steals the show right away with his snippy commentary, his support of his wife and his interactions with his kids.  The problem here is that he—or more so his one-liners—is the keystone to me giving a damn about the entire family…and I didn’t care all that much.  Despite his great one-liners, he pretty much phoned it in and DeWitt was (and I’m so sorry to say this) awful as the mother.  In the original, Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams were perfect.  Every time you saw their faces you felt whatever they felt and feared what they feared.  They were just normal people with normal hopes, but these characters “felt” like people you wanted to succeed, or at least you wanted them protected from restless spirits.

The original casting in 1982’s Poltergeist felt perfect. But this portrait of an American family is, in fact, reproducible.  Shame they failed to do it again in 2015.

The Kids. The teenaged daughter went from a typically self-interested teen to someone devoid of appropriate human emotion.  When Maddee is taken to the other side, she doesn’t seem traumatized or sad or scared.  But once the TV medium shows up she is excited to meet him and nothing but smiles…as if her kid sister’s soul wasn’t in jeopardy…as if the worst thing that would EVER happen to her family wasn’t happening right now.  I guess this is no major drop-off from the original.  The character just seemed “off.”

The young boy is likable but he pulls a totally unwarranted 180.  He goes from being afraid of everything (including the dark) to behaving like a first class hero at the drop of a dime.  Worse yet, this scaredy-cat should be traumatized to the point of catatonia!  He has attacked by an evil clown doll and attacked by a possessed evil tree monster!  Yet he somehow musters the courage to plunge himself into the deep end of the CGI swimming pool of other side and is completely unphased by the zombie-like twisted souls that form the corridors of the netherworld?  Who is this kid?  Constantine!?!?!  I’m sorry, but there was nothing credible about this and instead of feeling inspired by this brave little boy I just felt annoyed by the stupidity behind penning that scene.  The boy in the original was a traumatized mess and he dealt with a much scarier evil tree and at LEAST an equally evil clown doll!  Just because your kid sister needs help it doesn’t justify emerging from a Marvel chrysalis as a superhero.

And our brunette Carol Anne, Maddee?  She was a cute kid and did an appropriately passable job.  But she was no Carol Anne!  Both Maddee and Carol Ann were cute, you wanted to save them, and when things got creepy so did they.  But Carol Ann seemed to have more personality than Maddee, thus seemingly reducing Maddee to a storytelling device rather than a character.

The Paranormal Researchers. In the original the academics were great and Tangina was amazing.  Their highly different approaches, background and personalities somehow found excellent synergy in the story and added extra character dimensions without adding confusion.

Tangina was perfectly weird.  She is NOT reproducible!  I’m glad they didn’t try.  Any medium can be a weird character, but if they go super short then they’re just trying too hard.

In the remake the academics are okay and Jared Harris is at times good as a modern ghost hunter medium with legit skills.  As excited as I was to see him in this after his role in The Quiet Ones (2014), I didn’t feel that Harris added any suspense or legitimacy to the story.  Adding Harris’ character was not an improvement; it was just adding “more.”  I wish his role was better written and more integral.  Meanwhile the academics came off as a less interesting, less credible, and less well-acted version of the 1982 troupe.  Also, for better or worse, they didn’t remake the crawling steak scene or the bathroom mirror scene of 1982, both of which involved the paranormal researchers.  I’m half glad they didn’t.

I’ll admit this looks fake.  But the 1982 clay-faced fakeness of this actually made it seem more surreal and off-putting. This was really hard to watch as he tore his own face apart!  This scene may have stood the test of time…and the test of gross-outs.  Really hard to watch!  I thought they might try to recreate this iconic and gory moment.  Instead we got a weird closet scene involving a young researcher and a power drill.  It was highly predictable and dumb; although I was mildly entertained by its tropiness.

Jenga!  The original boasted a startling scene in which the haunters stack things in the kitchen.  It sounds overly simple, but it was very effective and was delivered cleverly masked beneath Carol Ann’s playful connection to the spirits early in the story.  Rather than reproduce this, the remake decided to impossibly stack comic books to barricade the young boy from escape.  I can offer no more elaborate opinion than to simply say: it was dumb.

2015 tried to get needlessly clever with this scene.  I’d say it backfired.  This image has no place in this or any movie.

1982…perfect.  It made an unscary scene startling while demonstrating Carol Ann’s sensitivity to the spirits.

It was copycatted much better by Dark Skies (2013).

The Evil Tree.  In both films we find the young boy placed in a room with a view of an ancient, almost sinister-looking tree.  The buildup was effective in both with the child appearing noticeably troubled by the tree’s appearance, but somehow the CGI-ness of it all made the 2015 remake vastly inferior to me.  We see the tree swiftly reaching around corners and whipping the boy down the hall like he was on a rollercoaster.  While visually dynamic, the remake’s take on this scene just lost its creepiness once the tree’s effects came into play.  What’s more is that the original evil tree tried to EAT the boy, leaving him covered in filth.  The remake’s tree simply menacingly held him in the air like Harry Potter’s womping willow playing a game of keep-away.  This 2015 tree felt like a not-so-scary scene from an adventure movie rather than something of horror.

 So what’s scarier?  Having the tree from Hell try to eat you in 1982?  Or being hung upside down in 2015?

Attack of the Graveyard.  The 1982 original boasted an elaborately intense scene as coffins erupted from the back yard during a storm and terrified the mother (JoBeth Williams).  This was the scene that properly revealed the anger of the poltergeist and justified the story while also delivering one of the most memorable scenes of 80s horror.  The remake squandered this notion entirely by reducing it to a CGI muck-covered arm reaching for the selfish teenage daughter (who nobody likes anyway) through a hole in the floor in the garage.  I’m not a CGI-hater…I just hated this CGI scene.

Calling Carol Ann.  The scene is simple and integral.  The paranormal researchers just arrived at the house and the parents need to provide some evidence that their daughter is still there even though she “isn’t there.”  In the original this was a very powerful scene.  The parents had just given a tour of the house including Carol Anne’s telekinetically disturbed bedroom and we see Craig T. Nelson’s sleep-deprived and exhausted demeanor as he almost comically calmly explains the situation with an inexpressively deadpan face.  Their desperation is palpable and they need these researchers’ help.  So they stand near the TV, which serves as sort of a White Noise (2005) conduit, and call out her name awaiting a response.  JoBeth’s calls for Carol Ann are followed by a plaguing silence.  But when Carol Ann responds with her sweet tone and the uplifting score, we are moved with hope.  Calling  The tone and the score were intense and even scary, and then so uplifting once Carol Ann responded, then so “off” when she was scared thinking she saw her parents.  for Maddee (our brunette Carol Anne reincarnate) on the other hand, was done with no tension, urgency or hope.  This remake squandered that touching scene…and by the same means screwed up the recovery of Maddee from the other side.  The parents’ disposition after losing Madde, meeting the paranormal researchers and “calling” for Maddee from the other side simply never felt like they were “all in” when any other parents would be, nor did they appear as disheveled (at least emotionally) as they should have.  To call 2015’s remade scene bland would be polite.  It was boring and reproduced without life; like a cupcake devoid of sprinkles or icing or a cake made without sugar.

The Other Side.  In the original the other side is something mysterious and abstract, and consequently scary in its unknown nature.  Carol Ann (and her SOUL) was trapped in this alternate dimension and JoBeth Williams simultaneously wore shades of vulnerability and mama bear bravery as she dove in to save her, emerging from the otherworldly portal with Carol Ann in arms and covered in gelatinous ectoplasmic afterbirth.  Neither of them breathing after this perhaps unsurvivable experience, the father (Craig T. Nelson) scrambles to clean the slime from their noses and mouths desperately repeating “breathe, baby, breathe…breathe.”  Deep down we all knew we’d get a happy ending—but that made the scene no less intense nor any less satisfying when Carol Ann awakens and most adorably and in her itty bitty voice mumbles “hi, daddy.”  My heart about sunk and my eyes nearly watered as a relieved smile traversed my face.  That scene was perfect.  Flash forward to 2015 and the young boy out of nowhere steals the role of netherworld spelunker.  He wanders corridors of flailing zombie arms and spirit whispers without a fear in the world (but not coming off as credibly brave either) and emerges from the portal with his sister by plopping on the living room floor like a trout dumped from a fisherman’s net on a boat deck.  Then they wake up and that’s it.  Basically there’s no sense of tension in the decision to venture to the other side, no urgency while waiting, and no concern about their welfare upon their return; just a weakly rehashed scene from the original.  And while we’re at it, “showing” us the other side was not a good decision.  Just because Insidious (2011) borrowed it from the original and decided to show it to us doesn’t mean you need to show it here!  If you ask me, both films failed to produce a credible depiction of 1982’s other side.

Why weren’t the scary guardians of the other side enough?  Why did we have to go in, 2015?

SUMMARY.  The pacing didn’t feel right at all.  I felt like we were rushed from recreated scene to recreated scene so quickly and forcefully that there was no time (nor the writing) for the characters to develop or for us to decide to give a damn about them.  The characters more than anything are what made the original work so well, and the ball was dropped for the remake.  The original had synthesis.  I feel like if I hadn’t already seen the original, I’d be off put by the pacing even more.

The original is still a great film but I no longer consider it an effective “scary” movie to an adult audience.  To kids, yes, very scary.  To adults…?  Nope.  Not horror fans anyway.  The upcoming remake was criticized on Cinema Blend and other horror forums as being a horror movie for kids.  But that’s actually what the original would serve to be today!  I still love the original as it remains emotionally powerful today and intense, even if not scary.  The 33 year old effects were better, too.

THAT AWKWARD MOMENT…WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT DEBORAH LOGAN WAS POSSESSED BY THE SPIRIT OF AN EGG-EATING SNAKE.

The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014) was a creepy horror mystery about Alzheimer’s disease and nosy academic researchers.  It turns out she’s not just rapidly mentally deteriorating…but rather her penchant to swallow things whole has inhibited her other daily living activities and concentration.  Just imagine…someone is trying to have a conversation with you about current events all you can think about is this…

and this…

I guess if Deborah’s caretaker had just stocked the refrigerator with strawberries, this whole child-swallowing scenario could have been avoided.

Succumbing to her desire to swallow things whole, she impulsively tries to swallow a child:

This may not appear reasonably possible, but note the egg-swallowing snake…

Like the snake, Deborah unhinges her lower jaw thus separating the lower mandibles for a wider gaping mouth…

And like the snake, she attempted to dine.

Deborah’s fixation affected her so much that doctors thought she was suffering from Alzheimer’s when, in truth, she was possessed by the spirit of an egg-eating snake.  CLEARLY!  Poor Debby was not the first in the horror genre to fall prey to such “egg-swallowing snake demon” possession.

Even Freddy Krueger suffered from this malady in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987).  In this film, we watch as Freddy struggles with the overwhelming desire to swallow things whole.  Just look here.  At any point during this swallowing scene Freddy could have chomped down and bit his victim in half or grown arms to slash her with his clawed glove.  But no…smh…he just focuses on swallowing her whole and ends up failing.

Clearly, egg-swallowing snake demon possession is now a thing in horror and humans (or they evil, dream-invading spirits) are not the only victims.  Below we find the dog from Man’s Best Friend (1993) suffering from this anaconda dining affliction.

Tiger, you will be missed.

Then in The Borthers Grimm (2005) a horse is similarly possessed and, like the voracious Deborah Logan, swallows a child whole.

And as if that wasn’t enough, egg-swallowing snake demon possession has transcended the animal kingdom to even afflict trees.  Case in point:

I give you the Poltergeist (1982) tree.  This is, perhaps, the first actual case of possession by an egg-swallowing snake demon.  SEE?  This is a thing, people!  And something to fear!  I wager being swallowed whole would royally suck.  I mean, you’re getting digested, possibly crushed, and all the while suffocating.  Terrible way to go.  SMH.

I hope you enjoyed this new installment of “That Awkward Moment in Horror.”  Please also check out “That Awkward Moment” in Horror: Part 1: Classic Horror, Sexuality and Dating.

Proudly sponsored by the audiobook company Audible, your new MFF podcast episode is here!

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.  If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

We hope you enjoyed our previous episode on All things James Bond.

SUMMARY:  This week the MFF crew discusses George A. Romero’s zombie filmography, cultural impacts of progressive casting and social commentary, undead eating habits and a zombie origin involving blueberry pie and space yeast.  Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead are discussed in depth, followed by brief assessments of Romero’s subsequent zombie films.  As always, there will some be spoilers and loads of smarmy comments.  You have been warned.  ;)

We also answer such important questions as…

“Why can you contract zombiism from a bite, but not from having zombie blood splattered in his face?”
“Why don’t the Day of the Dead zombies of south Florida eat the alligators?”
“Did Day if the Dead make “Bub” too smart?”
“How could yeast from Venus or well-aged blueberry pie possibly be involved in the origin of zombiism?”

Sit back, relax and learn about everything you missed.
If you haven’t seen some of these movies, be comforted that we will geekily inform you as to why you should watch them.

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

MY CALL: An excellent and classic anthology featuring some familiar tales.  OTHER HORROR ANTHOLOGIES:  Some other fun, decent and/or clever anthologies include (in order of release date):  Black Sabbath (1963), The Vault of Horror (1973), The Uncanny (1977), Creepshow (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye (1985), Creepshow 2 (1987), Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990), Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (1993), Campfire Tales (1997), 3 Extremes (2004), Trick ‘r Treat (2007), Chillerama (2011), Little Deaths (2011), V/H/S (2012), The Theater Bizarre (2012), The ABCs of Death (2013), V/H/S 2 (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013) and The ABCs of Death 2 (2014).

Based on comic book stories Tales from the Crypt and The Vault of Horror, this British anthology begins as five strangers on a catacombs tour who end up trapped with a robed monk who reveals the dark secrets of why each of them is there.  This “crypt keeper” (Ralph Richardson; Time Bandits, Rollerball, Dragonslayer) seems all too knowledgeable about their sins and reveals how they all came to be here today.

The stories involve crazed madmen, zombies in various forms, prophetic dreams, twisted wishes and some very, very angry blind men.  Perhaps due to the dated style, these horror stories will bring you no sense of horror today.  They will, however, make you smile as they are nice little horror stories whose concepts have been used over and over again in past decades.  Think of them more as campfire stories than facets of a horror film.

There are five short stories, one for each stranger in the crypt…

And All Through the House stars Joan Collins (Empire of the Ants) a trophy wife who murders her considerably older husband on Christmas Eve to make herself a rich widow.  While this may sound evil enough already, she executes her plan with her daughter asleep (or is she?) upstairs.  That same evening we hear radio announcements of a recently escaped psychopath wearing a Santa Claus suit…and all get what they deserve.

This short story is an absolute delight in its simplicity and it has been retold on Tales from the Crypt, season 1, episode 2 (1989) and then replayed by Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984).

Reflection of Death changes pace for the worst with a less engaging tale of a man sneaking away to leave his wife and family for his mistress.  The man awakens from a bad dream revealing his future (much as with a “ghost of Christmas future”) only to relive it.  A clever idea at the time (over 40 years ago), but now a trope too played out to hold up.

Poetic Justice finds Peter Cushing (Horror of Dracula, The Mummy, The Curse of Frankenstein) as the elderly Arthur Grimsdyke, the kindest widower living only for his dogs and the local children whom he entertains with homemade toys.  Arthur’s neighbor takes action to part Arthur from the things he loves most along with his formerly saintly reputation and happiness.  This predictably leads to Arthur’s death and revenge.

Wish You Were Here will feel most familiar, being based on the now-troped-up popular story of the Monkey’s Paw.  In this story a formerly wealthy man finds himself deep in debt and forced to sell his assets.  After breaking the bad news to his wife, she suddenly notices some strange text etched in an antique Asian statuette that offers three wishes to its owner, but offers a warning as well.  Not heeding the warning his wife hastily wishes for riches…only to find grave consequence.  Subsequent and more careful wishes to solve her error only make things worse.

We find more use of the Monkey’s Paw concept in The Monkey’s Paw (2013; which I DO NOT advise watching) and the Wishmaster (1997) movies…among many others.

Blind Alleys is by far my favorite short of the anthology and the one that stuck with me in the 20 years since I first saw this movie.  A selfish (to the point of being cruel—except for when it comes to his dog) retired veteran takes a job as a superintendent of a home for blind men.  As the “officer in charge” he budgets himself steak, brandy and fine art for his office as the elderly blind men freeze through the winter with little meat to warm their plates.  When their requests are not met and a fellow resident dies after succumbing to illness in the cold, the blind seek revenge in a way that just makes my toes curl in delight…a way that makes me think “and this is before the Saw films came out.”

This is a classic horror anthology not to be missed.  It may not be dripping with gore and the stories may seem simple by today’s standards, but it’s easy to see what makes this a beloved horror classic.

MY CALL: A decent classic, but a classic may often feel dated. Keep your expectations low and this may be very entertaining.  OTHER HORROR ANTHOLOGIES:  Some other fun, decent and/or clever anthologies include (in order of release date):  Black Sabbath (1963), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Uncanny (1977), Creepshow (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye (1985), Creepshow 2 (1987), Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990), Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (1993), Campfire Tales (1997), 3 Extremes (2004), Trick ‘r Treat (2007), Chillerama (2011), Little Deaths (2011), V/H/S (2012), The Theater Bizarre (2012), The ABCs of Death (2013), V/H/S 2 (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013) and The ABCs of Death 2 (2014).

Based on comic book stories Tales from the Crypt and The Vault of Horror, this British anthology begins when five strangers accidently take an elevator to the “subbasement” of a building only to end up trapped in a room where they all have no choice but to sit, pour a drink and chat to pass the time. The theme of conversation is that each of them inexplicably shares the recent experience of a grave dream that felt so real that it was as if it really happened. They take turns goading each other to share their dreams, which clearly seem disturbing to each story teller.

The stories involve murderers, double crosses, being buried alive, vampires and voodoo vengeance.  Perhaps due to the dated style, these horror stories will bring you no sense of horror today.  Also, unlike its Tales from the Crypt (1972) predecessor, these stories largely do not seem as iconic or particularly interesting. This film has a lower IMDB (6.6 vs. 7.0) and Rotten Tomatoes (51% vs 70%) scores. They’ll still make you smile, though.  Think of them more as campfire stories than facets of a horror film.

There are five short stories, one for each stranger…

Midnight Mess is about a man who hunts down his missing sister to a quiet little town with the intention of murdering her for her recently inherited fortune. During his trip, he his warned by several locals that “they” come out at night. Confused by this warning, and clearly not heeding it, he goes about his business and finds out the hard way that he should have listened.

“Your fangs look so legit.”
“Thank you.  Yours, too.”

This short story is unforgivably dumb and made me think twice about continuing with the movie. I’ll admit that I giggled at the final scene…but it was bad. Thankfully, the stories get better.

The Neat Job features an obsessive-compulsive neat freak who, without getting to know her, marries a woman so he would have someone to take care of him. Unfortunately she lacks his unhealthy attention to detail and order, which creates much tension between them and leads to dire consequence for one of them.

This story was an absolute delight and by far my favorite of the anthology. It is rich with dark comedy as we see his obsession blossom before his now fearful wife, who is driven mad by his mania. Truly a pleasure.

This Trick’ll Kill You is about a magician and his espoused magician’s assistant on vacation in India to discover a new trick for his act. He discovers a mystic woman with a magical rope trick that he absolutely must have—but it’s not for sale. Desperate for success on stage, he will do anything to possess the secret of the trick.

This one was a mixed bag. It started out very interesting only to later reveal that there was nothing behind the story; no clever twist or turn. It was entertaining, but conceptually simple to the point of disappointment.

Bargain in Death provides the answer to “what could possibly go wrong?” A man decides to fake his own death (using some metabolism-slowing drug of sorts) to cash in on an insurance policy. The catch is that his friend will cash in the policy and then dig him up from his grave before he suffocates in his coffin.

It’s not as predictable as it sounds. A bit random and a bit entertaining, but the story is nothing special.

Drawn and Quartered combines some interesting ideas used in later horror films/stories. An artist who is financially cheated by his agent wants revenge so he “buys voodoo” to bestow him with the ability to control fate. Whatever happens to his art, happens to whatever was painted. Destroy the painting, destroy the model. The catch? The artist must now protect his own self portrait.

This was an interesting story and the fun was in the anticipation. The only short story better fitting to end this film would be The Neat Job, the two of them clearly being my favorites.

This is a classic horror anthology not to be missed.  It may not be dripping with gore and the stories may seem simple by today’s standards, but it’s easy to see what makes this a beloved horror classic.

MY CALL: This movie is dumb.  Really dumb.  But it’s also gory, campy, bad in a good way and full of laughs and weird things like werezombeavers. MOVIES LIKE Zombeavers:  Looking for more self-aware horror that will make you laugh?  Try Black Sheep (2006), Cabin Fever (2002), Cabin Fever 2 (2009), Cabin Fever: Patient Zero (2014), Shark Night 3D (2011), The Boneyard (1991), Critters (1986), Gremlins (1984), Ghoulies (1985), Piranha 3D (2010), Piranha 3DD (2012).

This flick dutifully pays homage to the likes of Piranha 3D (2010), which feels like an Academy Award winner next to this.  It answers what happens when an inexperienced director teams up with two inexperienced writers, none of whom having written or directed anything in horror?  Certainly nothing amazing, but perhaps something that’s still worth the price of admission at the very least…as long as you brought beer, that is.  That’s what Zombeavers is.  It’s the very least…the very least that it takes to watch a movie and not hate, regret or dislike it to the point that it cannot be enjoyed.

This movie is definitely funny (and fun in general), but there are scenes that I feel may not have been intentionally funny (although this film is very self-aware of its quality and tone).  The acting is deplorable, the writing is horrendous, there’s basically no story nor any clever shots to boast.  Yet I didn’t mind.

Perhaps a product of the film’s own self-awareness, no time is wasted before leaping into some lakeside nudity.  It may not be raining breasts in terms of the gratuitous nudity, but they got to it right away for those who care.  Later in the film we’ll endure some quintessentially tasteless sex scenes (brief nudity at most) that feel like a one-way ticket to pound town on frat row.  The sex dialogue is pretty funny.

The highlight of the film is animatronic beavers, which are delightfully bad.  After being exposed to some sort of toxic waste that was dumped in their lake, these rabid twitchy zombie beavers remind me of the glorious creature effects of the 80s.  Their spastic movements are reminiscent of evil Muppets or shaky-limbed gremlins.  While they are surely funny to watch, something about them remains menacing.  Really—I think the twitchiness makes them appropriately off-putting.  I’m somewhat reminded of the mounted deer head in Evil Dead 2 (1987) crossed with the trickster gopher from Caddyshack (1980).

As you can see BELOW, the shots very tasteful.

As if directly copying scenes out of Night of the Living Dead (1968), the zombeavers break their way through boarded up windows in the panicked victims’ vacation house and the deck of the tanning raft.  The beavers are pretty smart.  They chew through phone lines and know when to regroup.

If the cheap zombeavers were the best aspect of the film, the gore came next.  The rubber guts and torn latex flesh is thankfully abundant as throats are bitten and bodies sundered.

Quite a pleasure was the transformation of a bitten girl into a werebeaver zombie (or werezombeaver?)—not unlike what happened in Black Sheep (2006).  These infected victims behave as if they caught a beavered up version of the Evil Dead’s (2013) contagious zombie demonism.  After being infected, a young woman twerks her tail—YES, she grew a beaver tail—and terrorizes her friends with her buck teeth which pushed their way through her front teeth.  She even bites off a guy’s penis in the spirit of Piranha 3D (2010).  Yikes!

Clearly this flick has a good sense of humor.  At one point a guy throws his girlfriend’s dog in the water as a decoy for the beavers and when the zombeavers break their way through the cabin floor, it’s like a game of Whack-a-Mole.

 That poor dog. SMH

The ending (and opening) scene is gloriously stupid, along with the outtakes at the end.  My favorite outtake was the dog in the water being chased by the zombeaver props.

I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoyed the more recent movies listed above in “MOVIES LIKE Zombeavers.”

Proudly sponsored by the audiobook company Audible, your new MFF podcast episode is here!

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!
We hope you enjoyed our previous episode: The George A. Romero Zombie Special.

SUMMARY:  This week the MFF crew discusses the spectacular George Miller action-gasm Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), share a general disgust for the Poltergeist (2015) remake while reminiscing the 1982 original, and answer silly Friday the 13th questions about Jason Voorhees and Camp Crystal Lake.  This episode is pretty much nothing but spoilers and loads of smarmy comments.  You have been warned.  ;)

We also answer such important questions as…

“Why we’re worried about The Rock reprising Kurt Russell’s role in the possible Big Trouble in Little China remake?”
“Why on Earth do they keep re-opening Camp Crystal Lake?”
“Is Fury Road‘s Max actually Feral Kid?”
“What does Jason Voorhees eat?”
“Why doesn’t anyone care what happens to the family in the Poltergeist remake?”

This is exactly how we felt about the remake, too, Sam.

This week’s podcast is based on the following articles:
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), mechanical arms, Valhallan cults, flamethrowing guitars and the best action movie of the decade!
5 Reasons that Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) is the best thing ever!
Mad Max: Fury Road: A Beautiful R-Rated $150 Million Gamble That Cannot Be Replicated
John’s Horror Corner presents: Critically comparing the Poltergeist (2015) remake to the original Poltergeist (1982)

Sit back, relax and learn about everything you missed.
If you haven’t seen some of these movies, be comforted that we will geekily inform you as to why you should watch them.

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

MY CALL:  I consider this movie a major disappointment in terms of storytelling.  But it certainly has its merits in the creepy and scary department.  Watch at your own risk.   MOVIES LIKE Insidious: Chapter 3:  Poltergeist (2015), Insidious (2010) and Insidious Chapter 2 (2013).

I am not a fan of these films.  If you are, I strongly recommend reading Mark’s reviews of the Insidious films instead of mine.  Mine will probably just upset you…much as this franchise continues to upset me.  I enjoy these franchise films for creepiness and scares but abhor their poor storytelling.    :/

The Insidious franchise has never done much for me.  Some people love it and praise these films up and down as the next best thing…I’m not one of them.  Directed by James Wan (Saw, Dead Silence, The Conjuring), the first installment (2010) succeeded in introducing us to fantasticly written and acted characters for whom we cared, great shots and stellar scares–but somehow to its detriment, the movie felt like three different movies forced together one after the other.  It began like a mix between a weird haunting and a Lifetime movie about a home invader, moved on to some really cool build up as we learn what the problem is, and them degenerates into great scares but off-kilter storytelling as we dive into The Further.  This could have been done splendidly, but I found no sense of smoothness in the transitions; individual scenes felt strong but they struck me as hastily sutured together to form a Fankensteinian stitch-work horror of storytelling.  In its defense most of the cast was amazing, however the story lacked any sense of synthesis and the overexplanation of The Further (and simply trying to show it to us rather than leaving it a mystery) really depleted my interest in the film.

Insidious Chapter 2 (2013; also directed by James Wan) continued to follow Patrick Wilson (The Conjuring) and Rose Byrne (28 Weeks Later) down an even more shakily-told storyline whose tone inexplicably shifted to near farcical at times with an insanely possessed Patrick Wilson grinning like the mounted Evil Dead 2 deer head.  I liked parts of Chapter 1 very much, but nothing about Chapter 2 brought me any pleasure and I was hardly entertained.  Despite the presence of solid actors and a proven director, I was relieved to hear that Wan was stepping back for Chapter 3 and that we would start anew with a largely different cast.

Now with a new first-time director (Leigh Whannell, who wrote the first two installments), we venture into this incredibly unnecessary prequel which serves little more purpose than to re-introduce us to the psychic medium Elise (Lin Shaye; Ouija, A Nightmare on Elm Street), show us how she teamed up with her paranormal investigator Geek Squad duo, re-visit The Further, and tell us a new story.  It pains me (but doesn’t shock me) to say that in all endeavors this film failed.

The budget is low and this is most obvious during the scenes in The Further.  I maintain the film didn’t need to take us there and “show” us The Further again, or in the first place.

Insidious Chapter 3 suffers from the same snags as the Poltergeist (2015) remake.  From the start these films assume we already care instead of giving us a good reason to care.  Sure, you can show me a struggling widower raising his kids or a family facing some hard times.  But you don’t earn my sympathy and manifest urgency just by putting that on screen and then dropping these families into bad supernatural situations–and that’s all we get here.

Hey, Elise?  Did you find the soul of the story in there?  It seems that a demon stole the soul and life from this plot.

Teenager Quinn (Stefanie Scott) helps her struggling father (Dermot Mulroney; The Grey, Stoker) to take care of the house and her younger brother.  Their dynamic is stale but we understand the situation and its challenges well.  We learn that after the loss of her mother Quinn tried to “contact” her spirit and, in doing so, caught the attention of something insidious.

Quinn and her father end up seeking the help of Elise, our recurring franchise medium who also has her very own insidious demon’s maligned attention (The Bride in Black from Chapters 1 & 2) from trying to contact her dead husband.  Specs (Leigh Whannell; Cooties, Saw) and Tucker (Angus Sampson; Mad Max: Fury Road) return and here is where they first team up with Elise.

The evil spirit after Quinn is The Man Who Can’t Breathe.  A disturbing sight to be sure, this antagonist adds a major creep factor and some significant scares.  To that end, I’ll say that the insidious spirits of all three films have always been exceedingly successful at making audiences uneasy and it is for this reason that—however much I whine about them—I’ll go see every Insidious film they make.  The greatest (if only) success of this film is the creepy tone and its ability to catch me off guard with good jump scares.  Not simply loud noises.  But jump scares–but well-staged jump scares arriving after a creepy, tense build-up.  Kudos for that.  Being a grumpy critic at times, this really kept me from regretting the film.

An evil spirit steals “half her soul.”  HALF!  Really?  We’re meant to just let that one go.  Okay, fine. Which half?
Was it the half that had the better writing for this film?

I was especially reeling with discomfort during the scene (NO SPOILER here, it was in the trailer) when the possessed Quinn kicks her leg casts to crumbs and then walks on them…with bone crunching sounds.  Yikes!  So wrong!  Painful to watch.

Sadly, the abrupt turns in the story (many of which leading to dead-end characters we never should have met or notions that add nothing to the story) left me with a bad taste in my mouth and a finale that wasn’t satisfying.  But Elise and Quinn were both well-played and, upon further reflection, this will remain in my eyes an excellent scary movie night, popcorn flick.

“Animals in horror” has always been a fun topic to address.  Today I want to talk about dogs.  Dogs are very versatile tools in horror movies.  The dog can be the evil antagonist, a pet or minion of the bad guy, a harbinger of danger (serving more as a storytelling device than a character) or as a heroic character.  Today I have randomly chosen to highlight 3 horror movie dogs in no particular reason and with no particular theme.  Enjoy…

Zombeavers (2014); Gosling the Jack Russell Terrier.  Now, dogs are typically heroic in horror movies–even if their heroism leads to their demise.  But this poor pup never stood a chance with these jerks. 

So the 20-something victims and their dog are stranded on a dock-raft on a lake besieged by zombie beavers.  In an effort to create a diversion, some jerky bro throws his girlfriend’s dog in the water to serve as a decoy and draw away the zombeavers so that he could safely swim to shore.  He SACRIFICED the dog!!!!  That’s like pure evil. 

The poor dog (Gosling) gets eaten.  The offending bro gets his when he has his scrotum bitten off by a werezombeaver!  Even the guy’s friend, the buffoon wearing the knit winter hat while swimming in a lake in summer, gets his.  He has his foot bitten off and later he also turns into a werezombeaver.  Yes!  I said a werezombeaver.  Like a werewolf, but a were-zombie-beaver.  That’s a thing now people…and an appropriate punishment, I think.

 That poor dog.  SMH.

Blood Beach (1980) 

In the opening scene a lady is walking her dog on the beach and she is pulled into the sand by some “thing” which we later learn is a giant scrotum flower monster.  As she is pulled down screaming, far before the release of Tremors (1990) by the way, her dog frantically barks for help. 

A cat would have just watched her with contempt.  I’m just saying dogs are better pets in horror movies, that’s all. 

Sadly, the dog is later found dead and beheaded near a small sinkhole in the sand.  However, the police pathologist claims that the dog’s head was not cut off but literally pulled off by something with “long strong fingers and very sharp fingernails.”  Essentially, it is only because of the dog that we have any reason to suspect an inhuman culprit.  So, in a round-about way, the dog was a major help in the investigation.  Go, dogs!!!

Moving on…

The Boogens (1981) 

This golden oldie features likable characters and some pesky little tentacle monsters that are never explained.  It’s really just for those who appreciate great dog characters and the slow-burns of the 70s and 80s in which you don’t see the monster until the very end.

Tiger, the dog character, is used very well.  Most dogs in horror movies just bark at basement doors and harbinger the presence of a slasher in unlit hallways, often causing distractions leading to their owners’ demise.  Tiger actually helps develop the viewers’ relationship with the main characters.  He’s a cute dog and he gets many of his own scenes; you’ll like him.  Most notable among the dog scenes was after the dog investigated the monster and was killed…

This dog owner is dumb!  Yes, by all means, move in for a closer look at whatever rended the metal floor grating.  Whatever it was, it couldn’t possibly do the same to you!

I mean, you saw THIS [above] and it looks like your dog’s hair is on it…
So this dog WAS here…and now it’s NOT…but its fur is on the grating.  I wonder what could have happened…

This chick had it coming.  She probably wasn’t even a good dog owner.

In loving memory of Tiger.

Stay tuned for more Dogs in Horror…

Transformation scenes are often the coolest things we see in horror films–especially when they’re executed with practical effects.  Some of my favorite transformation scenes are also the most gory and brutal.  So today I’m highlighting some transformations in which the “new form” (be it a werewolf or otherwise) pushes its way out of the “old” (human) form.

In the Company of Wolves (1984)

These are gory, abrupt and to the point; like the human skin was just an ill-fitting suit entrapping a monster.  This same approach has been used before and many times since.  The first film (that comes to mind anyway) using this transformation method was The Fly (1986).  Now I know what you’re thinking, Brundelfly’s transformation was a slow mutation and his human form was almost gorily “molted” off as would be done by an insect.  However, the final phase involved tearing through his own chrysalised flesh as if it were some sort of walking, talking pupation stage.  The same tactic was utilized for the werewolf flick In the Company of Wolves (1984) and The Howling (1981), and far later by the werewolf character from Hemlock Grove (2013-present; Netlfix show).

The Howling (1981)

In kind of a funky way, this tactic was used by Freddy Krueger when he turned a tough teen into a roach in A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 (1988).  While on the topic of Freddy, he turns into a lot of things–basically never featuring transformation scenes.  Shame.

The Thing (1982), which offers unpredictably protean changes in which chest cavities become bear trap-like toothy maws and self-detaching heads grow eye stalks and spider legs and crawl away.  Or Society (1989), in which there is a ton of transformation but very little of it being witnessed and it is more in the form of merging/melding people together in inordinately macabre manners.  That said, the horrific practical effects were delightful.

But enough of this banter.  Here are a few transformations that I really enjoyed.  Stay tuned for future installments in this series of articles…

Tales from the Darkside (1990), the short story Lover’s Vow.

Lover’s Vow features a man who swears a vow of secrecy to a gargoyle to keep its existence a secret.  When he breaks this vow, it turns out that the women he married (who he met the same night he took the gargoyle’s vow) is actually the gargoyle!!!  What’s sick here isn’t the fact that they had two children together, but rather that–upon breaking the vow–the gargoyle tears its way out of its human skin (again, his wife’s skin!!!) to punish the oathbreaking husband.  Enjoy the imagery:

Just tore right our of her.  I like it.

Zombeavers (2014)

Admittedly, this transformation scene is less transformative (perhaps largely due to budgetary limitations).  But the claws and teeth form in the right manner for my theme today.  This is also probably not one of the truly “best” transformation scenes in terms of quality or detail, but it made up for it with silliness and unexpectedness.  I think it deserves to be here.

Quite a pleasure was the transformation of a bitten girl into a werebeaver zombie (or werezombeaver?)—not unlike what happened in Black Sheep (2006).  These infected victims behave as if they caught a beavered up version of the Evil Dead’s (2013) contagious zombie-demonism.  After being infected, a young woman twerks her tail—YES, she grew a beaver tail—and terrorizes her friends with her buck teeth which pushed their way through her front teeth.  She even bites off a guy’s penis in the spirit of Piranha 3D (2010).  Yikes!

In the MoviesFilmsandFlix Podcast Episode 17, we discuss the transformation scene of Zombeavers (2014) in gruesome detail.  So please tune in and enjoy.

Wolfcop (2014)

This is here for its “Holy Shit Factor.”  This film is pure lycanthropic lunacy and the gritty, sloppily gory painfulness of the transformation scene will bring sophomoric glee to your inner gorehound.  Faces split and are torn away, slaws erupt from fingertips and skin sloughs off like mange in this slapstick werewolf flick.  The worst is what happens to his manhood…in the MoviesFilmsandFlix Podcast Episode 17, we discuss the transformation scene Wolfcop (2014) in gruesome detail.  These images hardly do it justice:

I hope you enjoyed these gore-slathered movie memories and perhaps you have been directed to new things you need to see for yourself.  Stay tuned for future installments…

NSFW  NSFW   NSFW  NSFW
This article is rich with images you do not want your boss to see when he’s looking over your shoulder at work. View at your own risk.
NSFW  NSFW   NSFW  NSFW

 MY CALL:  There are certainly better horror anthologies out there, but I really enjoyed two of the stories herein.  Looking for a film that features egomaniacal magicians, horrifying elderly nudity, alternate dimensions, demonic genitals, “sort of” zombies, a fork frenzy massacre, Mexican Satanists and an evil ice cream truck?  Then this may be for you—of course, with very small doses of everything.  OTHER HORROR ANTHOLOGIES:  Some other anthologies include (in order of release date):  Black Sabbath (1963), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), The Uncanny (1977), Creepshow (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye (1985), Creepshow 2 (1987), Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990), Necronomicon: Book of the Dead (1993), Campfire Tales (1997), 3 Extremes (2004), Trick ‘r Treat (2007), Chillerama (2011), Little Deaths (2011), V/H/S (2012), The Theater Bizarre (2012), The ABCs of Death (2013), V/H/S 2 (2013), The Profane Exhibit (2013) and The ABCs of Death 2 (2014). A found footage episodic horror anthology, the movie opens with the overarching horror story.  These short films vary substantially in filming style, acting, gore, direction and writing quality.  Below is a summary of each short film and, sometimes, a cheeky quote…

Overarching Story.  This opens with scattered videos of a man recording his girlfriend.  They seem quite happy until their clips lead to a terrible accident in which his girlfriend disappears and suddenly calls his phone–flickering in and out and apparently in trouble (via Skype call).  Everything hereafter strangely seems to revolve around a police chase with an ice cream truck as people who the boyfriend knows keep dying in weird ways as we go from story to story.  Meanwhile, this story continues intermittently and then concludes the anthology.

Dante the Great. Dante (Justin Welborn; The Signal, The Crazies, The Final Destination) was once a struggling wannabe magician living in a trailer park who somehow came into possession of Houdini’s cloak. This cloak gave him real magical powers and, subsequently, fame and megalomania. He telekinetically dissects a rabbit with a thought, levitates people, teleports them, breaks their bones (this was REALLY cool), guts them…but this power comes at a price.  The cloak needs to be fueled.  By what you may wonder…?

I really enjoyed Dante the Great, directed by Gregg Bishop (The Other Side, Dance of the Dead).  The pacing was perpetually entertaining and the ending was cliché but fun.  It reminded me of Lord of Illusions (1995) with a dash of The Craft (1996).

Parallel Monsters. A man creates a portal to another dimension that is exactly the same as his own…except that everything is mirrored in this twisted story. He meets “himself” who thinks the same, invented the same machine at the same time to cross dimensions and they used it at the same time.  The two (versions of the same) men are giddy with discovery and decide to “trade” universes for 15 minutes.  Only, once the switch is made, it seems that things are a bit more different than expected.  Even morality and the general sense of “good” is reversed.

“Oh, look.  An alternate dimension me.  What could possibly go wrong?”

Directed by Nacho Vigalondo (The Profane Exhibit, The ABCs of Death), this Spanish language short film starts out fantastically—we sit back wondering “what’s going to go wrong”—but veers into the bonkers zone towards the end.  Not just the off the deep end, but into the “demonic genitals” end.  That said, I loved this.  The storytelling gets a bit slow in the middle, but you’re bewildered in the horror of this “other world” and we get some nice surprises. Bonestorm. A group of teen skateboarding troublemakers recording a webseries about their ill-conceived stunts decide to venture to a secret spot in Tijuana, Mexico to party and finish their project. They encounter an earthquake tremor, a deeply disturbed woman who appears to be in a trance, long decayed remains, small shrines and a skate arena complete with a pentagram drawn across the floor.  The kids don’t seem to consider that anything is wrong.  Stupid.  Not just the kids, but the story, acting, filming, writing, effects…smh. The extremely shaky GoPro shots offer nothing to the story other than mirroring the chaos of these teens’ judgment.  This film relies on entropy for entertainment, but it’s not working for me at all.  Some kid gets blood on the pentagram, a bunch of weirdoes show up to tear the kids apart, and there’s apparently some sort of “Hell Beast.”  Cultists chant, wear cultish outfits, light blood on fire with black magic…things just get more stupidly bonkers, and not in a way that I find cool or funny.  This feels like a gory acid trip written by a flunky.  The gore is abundant and ill-executed—it almost draws a smile.  And no sense can be made from the mayhem. It should come as no surprise that the men behind this film were the least experienced in terms of directing.

SUMMARY:  Far too much attention is dedicated to the over-arching story, which offers nothing but incomprehensible chaos.  It isn’t clever.  However, some of the deaths will please viewers with surprises.  While it tries to show us a lot, the wraparound story is less engaging than the much simpler ones used in V/H/S (2012) and V/H/S 2 (2013).  I could have done without this wraparound story altogether.  It ends the anthology in a major disappointment and isn’t creepy or scary, nor twisty or explicative.  Trick ‘r Treat (2007) did this all much better, with a wraparound story that actually connected the stories instead of simply serving as a gift bag with a bunch of random stories therein. People may complain up and down (in some reviews I’ve read) about Dante the Great and Parallel Monsters.  But these are exactly what I wanted!  They’re stories I haven’t seen or heard before and they were done adequately.  Good or bad, they were at least adequate and (for me) fun.  The wraparound story and Bonestorm were simply a waste of film, both of which being so mundane and flat out awful that I’d be all the happier if they were altogether omitted at the expense of the film’s running time. I guess I was pleased with this movie.  Not overall, but because I got two interesting stories out of it (hidden among the other crap).

Proudly sponsored by the audiobook company Audible, your new MFF podcast episode is here!

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

We hope you enjoyed our previous episodes on: Mad Max Fury Road and Poltergeist 1982 vs. 2015 (Ep 16) and Kung Fury, WolfCop, Zombeavers and Three Toed Sleuths (Ep 17).

SUMMARY:  This week the MFF crew discusses Jurassic World (2015) and the latest chapter of the Insidious franchise (2010-2015), reflect on the history of their prequels, and bicker over nonsensical fights between Kurt Russell’s and Dwayne Johnson’s movie characters.  This episode is pretty much nothing but spoilers and loads of smarmy comments.  You have been warned.  ;)

We also answer such important questions as…

“Who would win in a fight between Kurt Russell from Soldier and The Rock from The Scorpion King?”
“What makes Elise the most courageous character in the Insidious franchise?”
“How did life turn out for Tommy Boy?”
“In Jurassic World, why didn’t they just text when the cell service worsened?”
“Just how many of Dr. Grant’s warnings were ignored in Jurassic Park?”

And how did Elise end up with that handy lantern in The Further?

This week’s podcast is based on the following articles:
John’s Horror Corner: Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015), another exceedingly creepy chapter in this franchise.
Insidious 3: A Fantastic New Chapter To Further the Insidious World.

Sit back, relax and learn about everything you missed.
If you haven’t seen some of these movies, be comforted that we will geekily inform you as to why you should watch them.

You can stream the pod at the Sharkdropper website, listen to us on with your mobile app OneCast, or download the podcast on Itunes.
If you get a chance please REVIEW, RATE and SHARE the pod!

MY CALL:  Not as scary as it used to be but every bit as fun, Wes Craven’s original Nightmare is a creation that no horror fan should be without.  A little hokey by today’s standards, but also still creepy.  MOVIES LIKE A Nightmare on Elm Street: Other classics  everyone should see include Poltergeist (1982; discussed at length in our podcast #16) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), The Hills Have Eyes series (1977).  For more recent horror with a similar sense of humor try Wishmaster (1997) and Hatchet (2006).

Now over 30 years old, I think it’s safe to say this is a horror classic…and it’s a classic I still enjoy and revere.  However, like many “classics,” there are aspects of this film that will disappoint horror fans reared by films of the last 10-20 years.  The effects are dated (although I love these practical effects still much as I do those in The Thing and The Fly), the plot and characters are a bit hokey at times (but that’s forgivable in the horror genre), and it feels more campy by today’s standards when it felt drop dead serious at the time of its release.  So I contend that it is my duty to defend the importance of the classics to our younger readers and assign some homework to those who have not yet seen the pre-remake/reboot Freddy Krueger.

This film opens with a nightmare, and an inherently creepy one at that.  We are taken to a shadowy, steam-spewing boiler room where a mysterious stalker rakes his “claws” across old pipes as he slowly advances upon his prey, his dreaming victim Tina.  The evil assailant swipes his claws at her and she awakens with her nightgown shredded four-fold.  Rattled by the experience, Tina shares her horrible dream with her friends Rod, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp; Star Trek Into Darkness) and Glen (Johnny Depp; Tusk, Dark Shadows), who have all eerily had similar dreams about the same “clawed” killer.

Written and directed by Wes Craven (Cursed, Deadly Friend, Deadly Blessing), we are introduced to the terrifying notion that someone (or something) can hunt and kill us in our dreams…and you really die!  Our killer is Fred Krueger (Robert Englund; Wishmaster, Hatchet), a demonic power with an ugly red and green sweater, a single clawed glove, and a face still-moistly burned beyond recognition.  As a villain, Freddy is iconic and has graced the screen for 9 films!

This film may not have the emotional power of Poltergeist (1982; discussed at length in our podcast #16) or the blunt-force trauma holy shit factor of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), but is instead its own entirely different animal.  Freddy gives us hints of a twisted sense of humor as he cuts off his fingers and slices open his own maggot and pus-filled chest or licks Nancy and laughs through a possessed phone, but (unlike many of the sequels) there is nothing slapstick or comedic about it really.  He is a twisted and pure evil.  It’s intended to be sick and disturbing, not funny (to anyone but Freddy, that is)—although fans laugh at it today.  We find these kinds of scenes delivered with a deliberate humor in Hatchet (2006), Wishmaster (1997) and so many more releases of the past 20 years…and also blatantly more deliberate in later installments of the Nightmare on Elm Street or Leprechaun franchises.

Simply meant to be terrifying back in 1984, Freddy looks a little hokey today—in a fun way.  He runs down alleys like a crab with a limp waving his glove hand in the air, he jumps atop Nancy and rolls around instead of wisely slicing at her, laughs after mutilating himself.  My movie companion actually said the movie, at times, felt a little dorky.  And I couldn’t agree more.

Starkly contrasting these “dorky” scenes are dream sequences with a bodybagged Tina calling for help and being dragged away through the school hallway, the boiler room scenes, the harrowingly weird death scene of Nancy’s mother towards the end, Tina’s gravity defying death scene, and Freddy’s twisted laughter in the boiler room.  These scenes remain “effective” to me, but they lack the right kind of production to remain sufficiently creepy or scary today (even with all the lights off as I watch).  Of course, I’m a bit numbed by the hundreds of horror films I’ve seen.  Perhaps these scenes will make you all quiver a bit.  If not those, then at least the little girls jumping rope while reciting Freddy’s dark nursery rhyme.

 Whoa! A cool death scene in any decade.

 Timelessly creepy.

Look for John Saxon (Blood Beach, Enter the Dragon) and Lin Shaye (Insidious Chapter 3, The Signal) as we watch Nancy and her friends discover what drives Fred Krueger, learn his origin, and figure out how to defeat him through a combination of booby traps and bringing Freddy from the dream world into reality.  Just try to ignore the lamely written controlling nature, denial and alcoholism of Nancy’s mother.  It should also be noted that as Nancy, Langenkamp (not Robert Englund) carries the film.  Freddy is done well with creepy execution, but he has almost no lines and little screen presence until the end.  It’s Nancy who validates our fears, rallies awareness despite her parents’ disbelief, and battles Freddy.

Without going into detail, I should add that I still enjoy ALL of the practical effects in this film.  Sometimes the simplicity makes it more gross, weird, off-putting, or even a bit funny.

The ending is deliberately sort of silly and illogical.  But that was and remains a fun staple of horror—twists, even if stupid, that make us smile.  If there was a deliberately funny moment, it had to be the last scene with the car and Nancy’s mother being cartoon-yanked through a tiny window on the front door.

Is that prop a blow-up doll?

This is a truly fun movie experience and worth the ride, even if you laugh today in 2015 whereas others screamed back in 1984.

If you need another trusted opinion, check out this review from Rivers of Grue.

MY CALL:  Perhaps my favorite zombie movie of all time, this is gory, often funny, occasionally brutal film features credibly flawed characters that we can get behind and a believable story of a zombie apocalypse.  MOVIES LIKE Dawn of the Dead:  Try Romero’s other early zombie movies (Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead).  They’re amazing.  Want to see some other films that paved the way for horror as we know it today?  Try Poltergeist (1982; discussed at length in our podcast #16), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Back in 1978, gore like this wasn’t so common.

In the spirit of our recent podcast, The MFF Podcast #15: The George A. Romero Zombie Special, I must also credit my fellow podcasters John Lasavath and Mark Hofmeyer as co-writers of the content in this review since I am including some of their insights herein…

In 1968 George Romero revolutionized the “movie zombie” concept by delivering the contagious, flesh-eating zombie (in lieu of risen corpses of vengeance via Voodoo).  Zombies “eating people” was a notion that had not before been realized on film.  Needless to say, in the next 10 years flesh-eating zombies became a celebrated theme in horror.  After numerous copycats followed Night of the Living Dead (1968), Romero finally made his highly anticipated sequel.  After various delays, eventually Dario Argento flew Romero to Italy, where Romero penned the script.  Romero had complete creative freedom and, in exchange, Argento got to make his own cut however he wished—and he did so with none of the humor.  I am quite curious to see this cut, but I doubt it would be as entertaining.

In Dawn of the Dead (1978), we find ourselves looking at the world now that the zombie apocalypse is well under way and a fact of life.  In equal doses of satire and realism, hunting and gun enthusiasts (i.e., proud rednecks) rally together and form base camps to “hunt” the zombies, draining beer coolers as they heckle each other’s marksmanship over lunch.  Very funny, yet very believably delivered with perhaps a somewhat straight face.

We focus on four survivors who find their way to a shopping mall (back when malls were a relatively new thing) in the spirit of consumerism.  Shortly after their arrival, they observe waves of zombies being drawn to the mall…as if it was their instinct to go there to find what they need—flesh, in this case.  National Guardsmen Peter (Ken Foree; The Lords of Salem, Death Spa) and Roger join Stephen and Francine in realizing that their residence in this mall may last longer than they anticipated.

Romero is more a prophet than filmmaker.  Just look at his Nostradamus-like foretelling of society’s degeneration on Black Friday.

This was definitely the most fun movie in Romero’s initial zombie trilogy.  There’s a playfulness to it.  And why not?  A lone zombie poses little threat to an able-bodied, wary person like a National Guardsman.  We see Roger and Peter running around the mall having fun, like two bros playfully running football drills, as they collect groceries and equipment.  Roger slides down the escalator rails, they taunt and herd zombies where they want them or knock off their zombie hats, they sprint through department stores—all the things we would get yelled at for doing when we were kids.

Stephen can’t shoot, so Roger teaches him the now common knowledge that zombies are killed with headshots; Peter and Roger being chummy.

We get some great zombie kills in this film, my favorite of which being when the helicopter chops off the zombie’s head—the top of it anyway.  Just watching the zombies wander the mall offers its own form of entertainment.  Romero never gave clear direction to the zombie actors.  He wanted them to do whatever they wanted and some of their facial expressions are priceless.  That gave us today’s zombies.  My favorite zombie had to be the Hare-Krishna.

We see a lot of this Krishna-zombie.

Of course, the tedium of their mall-inhabiting lifestyle wears on our protagonists.  There’s a strong sense of irony when we find Peter playing racquetball on the roof as the zombie apocalypse presses on.  Eventually they develop a desire to move elsewhere and find other survivors.  This is where some tension builds.

Despite being so gorily loaded with rubber guts and torn flesh, this film has a good sense of humor to it until the end, which closes on a dark note when a paramilitary biker gang overtake the mall and all chaos breaks out.  This long segment of the movie is a tolling dose of reality and human nature.

Some may criticize the “inconsistency” of Romero’s zombies, sometimes moving fast and sometimes slow.  But here’s something to consider:  Zombies, like any movie antagonist, are a dangerous as they need to be in any given scene.  They’re as fast or dangerous or scary as the scene merits.  That’s the difference between reality and filmmaking, life and drama.  Whenever a protagonist martial artist character faces a single bad guy, you get one fight that endures exchanging countless blows lasting 5-10 minutes of screen time.  However, when that same martial artist encounters 20 bad guys, each bad guy is dispatched with one or two quick, easily delivered techniques.

Now a staple in zombie movies, our protagonists face the fear and reality of seeing one of their own succumb and contract zombiism.  This is handled well, with early dashes of pragmatism and ultimate pessimistic reality, denial and inner conflict.

Another curiosity is why a bite (however minor it may be) will cause a victim to die within days and become a zombie, whereas getting zombie blood splattered in Roger’s face (e.g., the truck recon scene) is no worry at all for contracting zombiism—consider what happens to Brendan Gleeson in 28 Days Later.  To this end, I say chill out.  This was Romero’s second movie and he “invented” the zombie you have come to know and love.  The “zombie rules” were still being written right in front of us and, in Romero’s zombiverse, this was the first time it happened.  He was just making a movie, people.  Blood splatters are exciting and manifest urgency.  Don’t overthink it.  Romero hadn’t even identified the zombiism definitively as a curse, virus or anything…we just get hints.

Speaking of those hints, a news clip from Night of the Living Dead (1968) suggested the possible cause of zombiism was radioactive contamination from a space probe from Venus crash-landing on Earth.  Perhaps there were radioactive bacteria on the probe that were ingested by patient zero, and the reason only a bite will cause zombiism is because the affliction lies in the intestinal bacteriofauna (or gut flora) in the infected zombies.  Why might a scratch infect you?  Because the zombies sloppily eat with their hands, which are now covered with this alien bacteria.  There!  Blood splatter controversy solved.  LOL.

Another hypothesis of the zombie outbreak origin…

We embark on a rollercoaster of emotion as this gory film was loads of fun and managed to make us wince in the utterly brutal opening scenes, laugh in the middle, and grow tense at the end.  The characters expressed various credible human responses to pressure and danger, bravery and cowardice, control and chaos.  The story was solid and the dilemmas faced made sense.  Night of the Living Dead will remain Romero’s most important film and the most significant zombie film perhaps ever to be made.  But I find Dawn of the Dead to be his best film.

Want a second opinion on the film?  Try this review from Rivers of Grue.