About – Dyer's Dungeon:

Horror Movie Reviews

These are the movies reviewed so far on this website.

MOVIE RATING SYSTEM: (Better late than never)

5 – Nearly Perfect. Must see for horror fans!

4 – Not perfect but still very good. Highly recommended for horror fans!

3 – An average movie; worth watching if you have nothing better to see.

2 – Not a very good movie but still contains some good moments, concepts, or other items.

1 – Watchable only by the completest or those looking to kill time.

I have a confession to make. This is the first movie I can remember as a child that scared me. I remember seeing it on a small 12” black and white TV with my brothers in their bedroom late one night when I was around 5 years old. The scene of the dead astronauts rising from the grave and tearing off their plastic death shrouds terrified me. When I started getting serious about horror 15 years ago, I went looking for the movie that had scared me so much when I was young. I fell in love with it once I found it and watched it again. I tell you this not because the movie is so terrifying that I expect any adult watching it to be scared (remember I was a young child) but because it certainly colors my opinion of it and therefore my review. So that is my confession.

As for the movie, this is an Italian science fiction movie directed by the great Mario Bava. (See issue two for a spotlight on him.) Like many Italian horror movies of that time, it has a basic premise, minimal action, and a limited storyline. So why do I love it so much? I think it’s because the visuals are great and moody, creating a gothic horror picture in space and showing imagines unlike any other space movie I can think of, except maybe the one that was inspired by it in the 70’s; but more on that later. Italian movies tend to focus on style over story and that is obvious here. But what style! Bava works his usual special effects magic on a shoestring budget, making a few Styrofoam boulders, a fog machine, and a lot of trickery make an empty soundstage look like an expansive, rocky planet’s surface. Furthermore, he uses the visuals to contrast the vast, dark, openness of the spaceship interior with the brilliantly colored, smoke covered, rocky and claustrophobic exterior of the planet’s surface, (which is a reversal of the usually seen cramped ship and planetary expansiveness.) The costumes are also a unique spin on the space epic look, with tight black leather space suits that look more like what you would expect to see on a vampiric villain than on a space crew. Finally, and most important, the scenes of the dead rising from their space graves are filmed well, creating a creepy and terrifying moment.

The basic story is simple. Two twin spaceships are heading towards an unexplored planet, drawn by an unknown distress signal. They approach the planet only to be caught is a strong pull threatening to crash their ship into the planet’s surface and causing all but the captain to pass out. At the last moment the pull on the ships slows down, causing them to land safely. As the crew of the Argos come to, they attack each other with an intent to kill. Only the captain is unaffected, and he manages to snap them back to their senses before they kill each other. It turns out their sister ship had a similar occurrence and all members died. The captain and the crew of the Argoos must bury the dead, find the ship that signaled them originally, and gather parts from their sister ship to fix their own so they can leave the planet. But something is causing the dead crew members to rise and attack, while at the same time, some of the living crew seem to become possessed and attacking their fellow crewman or damaging the ship whenever they sleep. We soon discover the cause, but will the crew learn it soon enough for anyone to survive and escape the planet?

This is filmed less as a science fiction movie and more as a gothic horror movie in space. This movie, along with IT! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958) appears to have been a major influence on the 1979 movie Alien. Planet of the Vampires lent the distress call summoning the doomed crew to the Alien plot, along with the idea of the horror template and mood being used in a science fiction setting. It! would give the concept of a space alien hiding on board and picking off the crew one by one from the shadows.

There is a lot to enjoy here, despite the simplisity. There is a lot of suspense as some crew members disappear, and others become possessed and have dangerous motives. It all creates a mystery that leaves the crew confused, paranoid, and in danger, as they are killed off or taken over by the aliens one by one. There is also a fascinating and fun side trek to an ancient alien ship. The soundtrack is void of music but instead filled with eerie sounds of winds and other unsettling noises as the characters deal with the dangers of the planet’s surface which helps create an eerie mood. Besides, it ends with not one, but two twist endings; so even if you see one coming, you probably won’t see both!

One last note. Like most Italian films of the time, the actors all spoke their native tongue while filming, which means everyone is dubbed but the captain, who was an American actor. That means some of the dubbing, and therefore the performances, can seem a little stilted for some of the crew members. It’s not bad, just not especially good. But that is a minor issue.

So, there you have it. I absolutely love this movie despite the fact that it has no hidden meaning (that I know of), no deep story or dialogue, and most odd of all, no vampires! 4.75 out of 5 damaged meteor reflectors for me. Probably about 3-3.5 for the average horror fan.

By 1970 Hammer was fading as the dominant force of horror they had once been. With change in public tastes, more permissive cinema that made their “sexy” horror seem quaint, and growing competition within the UK itself from Amicus and Trigon, Hammer was looking for a way to revamp (pun unintended) their success. One of the ways they did this was to bring more nudity and sexuality to their films. They also looked for a new subject to capture the filmgoer’s imagination to replace their tiring Frankenstein and Dracula films.

To help on both fronts they turned to the story of Carmilla, a lesbian Vampire. Originally published in 1872, the story was fairly faithfully retold in The Vampire Lovers released by Hammer in 1970, featuring Ingrid Pitt. With its success Hammer tried to recreate the formula with 2 other vampire movies in what is now dubbed the Karnstein trilogy (after Camilla Karnstein who features in some part, in each of the three films.)

Twins of Evil is the third and probably my favorite of the three films. It is also the most removed from the original Camilla story and the themes of the first movie. Gone are the lesbian themes and the main villain being a female vampire. Added is a far more complex story and ambiguous characters.

A pair of beautiful identical twins, played by playboy playmates Mary and Madeleine Collinson, are sent to live with their aunt and uncle after their parents die. Their uncle Gustav played brilliantly by Peter Cushing, is the head of a zealot religious brotherhood that seeks out single young woman to burn at the stake as witches. Unfortunately, they live in a hamlet overlooked by the castle of Count Karnstein, a depraved man looking to make allegiance with the devil. Count Karnstein finds himself visited by his long dead ancestor Camilla, who turns him into a vampire to better serve the lord of darkness. The two twins, Maria and Freida, are polar opposites, one virtuous and godly, the other rebellious and craving darkness and cruelty. While sneaking away at night to visit Lord Karnstein, Frieda gets more than she bargained for and finds herself transformed into a vampire. Soon Gustav discovers the truth of her new nature, but will he punish the correct twin?

There is a lot going on in the movie, but the theme of good and evil and the confusion of the two stands at the forefront. Specifically, who is good and who is evil and do such distinctions truly even exist? First, we have the twins. One is clearly pure and good while one clearly has an evil bent, even before her vampiric transformation. Yet the two are linked. So much so that when one is injured, the other feels the pain. We see this theme of their linkage repeated in that only one person in the movie can claim to tell them apart. To the villagers, there is no discernable difference between them. It is as if they are represented by the film as two sides of the same person. The good and evil of one soul in two bodies. Then there is Gustav. The leader of the strict puritanical religious group, who strives to live a godly life and seeks out satanic influences to protect the people of his land. He should be our hero, yet his very desire to do right by God makes him see witchcraft and evil everywhere, leading him to blindness, murdering innocent woman in the name of God. Hardly a hero. So next, heroism should fall on our schoolteacher’s brother and musician Anton. In fact, he seems to be the hero at first, standing up for reason and facing off against Gustav in the name of decency. Yet he professes his love and desire for the twin Frieda, but the minute he believes her sister Maria is coming on to him, he strips her and begins to make love to her. So much for the true heart of a hero. Perhaps the only character that is portrayed as pure evil is the sinister Count Karnstein. Yet even, he plays the hero for a brief moment standing up to Gustav and berating him for his murder of innocent young women in the name of piety. The movie seems to be telling us not to judge a person by their outward appearance, for those that seem good may be a force for darkness and possibly the opposite can be true as those we deem as evil may have some goodness within. This last point is specially made obvious for us by the nearly ironic fate of the good twin.

The idea of people posing as the force of righteousness yet doing harm to others in the name of God is especially pertinent in our society today, as is the idea of those painted as sinners and ungodly perhaps being misjudged. Looking past the words or images to see the actions beneath is timeless advice.

But even if you don’t care about any of that or don’t see any messages in it at all, it is still a great movie to watch. Throwing out any deeper connotations still leaves us with a quality story, wonderful period piece visuals, and a darn entertaining movie! The acting is quite good (as Hammer films usually are) and this may well be one of Peter Cushing’s top performances with an extremely nuanced role of a man trying to do what he believes is right only to realize what he has been doing may not have been in the service of God at all. He plays both the blind righteousness and the eventual revelation-caused inner turmoil as only Cushing can. Even the two twins, who were hired for their beauty and willingness to dress in sexy see-through negligees and bare their breasts, do a high-quality job, delineating their unique personalities through expression and behavior despite appearing identical on the surface. There is never any confusion for the viewer as to which is which.

Overall, this is a highly recommended Hammer movie. It is among the top of their films during the later part of their history when they were floundering and looking for a new way to engage fans. In fact, in my opinion, it is on par with much of their early work, but with a lot more sexual situations (and even more nudity that got left on the cutting room floor.) It’s just a lot of fun, even if the name is misleading! 4.0 out of 5 beheaded vampires.

Event Horizon is a big-budget, science fiction/horror mishmash that failed at the box office but has since picked up a cult following. It stars Sam Neill & Lawrence Fishburne and is considered a cosmic horror movie.

In the year 2040, a ship named The Event Horizon; created to use the power of a black hole to “fold” space, allowing it to jump from one spot in the galaxy and appear somewhere else; took its maiden voyage. When it opened its portal to move through this folded pocket, it did not come out the other side. It was presumed lost.

The movie’s story begins 7 years later, as the crew of The Lewis & Clark, a rescue ship lead by Fisburne’s character; awakes from stasis. They are unaware of why they have been recalled from leave and sent on this mission and are not happy about it. With them is a stranger, Dr. Weir (Neill) who informs them that he is the designer of the event horizon and it has finally reappeared after its jump. Their job is to rescue the crew if any remain, and figure out what happened to it. They soon discover that the ship had entered a pocket of space that may have possibly been hell, and the crew met a dark fate. Even worse the ship brought back a presence, haunting the crew with their own personal fears and trying to protect its new home at all costs.

The movie is crisp and high quality in the way that big budget movies generally are, and the set design fantastic. The acting is top notch and the concepts intriguing. The mystery behind the disappearance of the event horizon; where did it go and what happened to the crew are; to me at least; explored well and has a horrifying and satisfying conclusion. So why did the movie do so poorly at the time of its initial release? Well for one thing, as is often the case when large studios are behind a film; too much interference from the studio, rushed production, and heavy editing sent rumors and panic out among the horror community causing them to shy away from the movie. Perhaps a bigger problem was the editing. The movie has massive amounts of gore in it…or should have. The scenes that show what happened to the crew are edited into quick flashes, barely perceptible; except a few scenes that are shown on a video monitor. Only one gore scene remains and even that is edited to only show the aftermath. So while gore is not needed to make a good horror film, this movie has the unfortunate problem of being too gory for average movie fans and not gory enough for the die-hard gore fans.

The fact that the movie suffered from such handling is a shame because even with the meddling the movie has a lot to offer. Beyond the positives mentioned above it treats its characters well, giving them depth and personality and allowing us to feel for them as they experience their greatest fears appearing to them in visions, and we care about them when they die. Fishburne in particular is great in his role and you get to know his character and his motivations inside and out. Sean Pertwee is another stand out. The only failure in this regard is Dr. Weir, whose background is shown but not fleshed out nearly enough, probably due to the severe editing. It almost feels like they should have shown more, or taken it all out instead of teasing it but never giving it a pay-off. The ship too, is well designed, visually stunning and a character unto itself. The affects are all top notch except the CGI fire in one scene that leaves a little to be desired.

The color palette, blues and browns mostly, help create not only a space-like atmosphere but coupled with the shadows and angles, also a sinister and foreboding feeling. This works well with the story since we don’t know exactly who or what is the threat.

Even though the pocket dimension is assumed to be hell, the demons are not literal, but suggested. The movie is considered cosmic horror since the “enemy” they face is a larger, all-encompassing power; which leaves many of the crew mad after coming in contact. If you read the definition of cosmic horror in the Sub-Genre: Diving Deeper section, this movie fits it to a tee.

Overall, if you like science fiction and aren’t bothered by quick flashes of gore, I think you’ll enjoy the ride this space cruise takes you on. Assuming you don’t end up in Hell. 3.5 Bloody eye-sockets.

I can’t say very much about the storyline for this movie or the events in it. Okay, in truth I could, but knowing too much about the movie takes away from the pleasure of figuring it out for yourself. This movie has a lot to say but it works far better if you experience and learn things at the same rate as our main character. I can tell you that the story follows a young nursing student returning home to her grandparents’ home to meet up with her family again after being away at school. She slowly learns that there are things going on there that seem odd to her and will change her trajectory in life forever.

She will also discover that there are two types of people in this world. The cruel, who will think nothing of stepping on others to create their own happiness, and those that will not do so and thus become the ones that get stepped on. She must decide for herself which she will become.

The movie is dark, brutal, and deep. It is also full of WTF moments that will leave you asking, “what did I just see?” and “what was that all about?” Making these moments all the more surreal is the fact that when they happen, no one seems to take much notice. If they do, the events are treated as normal occurrences and are little more than an inconvenience, if they are acknowledged at all.

Best Wishes to All is a Japanese movie and has a Japanese sensibility about it but I imagine even for them, this movie takes a shocking and brutal turn. For us in the U.S., its likely even more unsettling. I will warn those who want to watch it that the movie is a very slow-paced movie, which is by design. The movie is built on the horror of discovery and how it affects a person to realize life is not what they thought. It requires the paced buildup of discovery, initial shock, and the slow dawning of the reality of the situation and finally self-discovery; none of which can be rushed to be effective. The deliberate pacing makes the movie better, but for some who have trouble with “thinking” movies or “slow burns”, they may find this annoying. In addition, for all the same reasons listed above, the movie is relatively low on violence, gore, and other bloodshed except for a single scene. Yet somehow this doesn’t keep it from being visceral many times, which couples well with the dark psychological horror.

I highly recommend this movie for several reasons. The dip into Japanese culture and sensibility is certainly worth your time as is the feel for Japanese film and pacing. It is also an effective horror movie, creating a sense of unease and discomfort that settles on the viewer and rattles the nerves very effectively. But mostly I recommend it due to the message within the movie. A message that will leave you asking yourself which type of person you are, a user or one that is used by others. And what price will you pay, whichever you are. 4.75 out of 5 creepy old people.

A lot of people today think new horror is transgressive; that it touches on dark and taboo subjects and can be quite disturbing. But the truth is, horror has always been that way. That’s part of horror’s nature. It’s just that from the 30s through the 60’s, the Hayes code prevented movies from such disturbing matters to be in the forefront. But issues such as bestiality, rape, torture, and other dark and taboo subjects were all still there. They were just lurking under the surface and not in plain view. Even sexual aggression and perversion. In fact, especially sexual aggression and perversion.! You may have had to think about what you were watching to see it, but it was there!

Mad Love is one case in point. On the surface it is a remake of the Hands of Orlac with the standard horror tropes. It is a story of pianist who loses his hands in an accident and has new ones grafted on. Unbeknownst to him, they are the hands of a murderous knife thrower, and he begins to exhibit a penchant for throwing knives when angered. In this version there is a mistrust of science, a madman who tries to get the girl by underhanded ways, and the female he threatens. Pretty tame and standard stuff. But by shifting the focus from the tragic victim of a transplant surgery to the mad doctor who is obsessed with the heroine and uses the operation as a way to further his own agenda, you get a different feel altogether than the original tale. Looking closer at Mad Love you see a tale of sexual obsession by a man who is fascinated by death, so much so that he likes to watch the woman he “loves” get tortured in a grand Guignol style theater production and likes to visit the guillotine and watch executions. It makes you wonder what he would do if he did win the love of his desire. This movie was considered so disturbing in its time that it was attacked by critics and caused England to ban all horror movies for a time after its release.

The movie isn’t particularly in your face in the horror department and isn’t really scary, although there are a few dramatic and suspenseful scenes. It’s more of an unsettling movie than pure terror. The cinematography is beautiful, leaning heavily on the German expressionist style, with slightly off-kilter sets and looming shadows in the Dr. Gogol’s mansion, which echoes his mind. The lean towards expressionism is not really a surprise as the director was Karl Freund who was a German cinematographer before coming to the US.

All the acting is top quality. Peter Lorre, in his debut in an American film, is especially brilliant as the demented Dr. Gogol who is a brilliant surgeon but teetering on madness, to which he eventually succumbs. He plays the madness both slow building, and then over the top as only Peter Lorre can. His bulging eyes and shaved head make him disturbing and alien-like, adding to his sinister madness. He also elicits a bit of sympathy (from me anyways) as he believes and eventually confirms that his “love” is left unrequited and that the object of his desire is repulsed by him. Likewise, Frances Drake is excellent, playing the woman he is infatuated with. She is probably one of the strongest females of this period in film, repulsed by the Dr. but forced to use him to get what she needs, unfortunately tying her closer to him in proximity as well as indebtedness, but in doing so also builds his fantasies and mania up to a fevered pitch. She does a particularly good job showing her fear and revulsion even while trying to hide it. This is highlighted when he is urged to give her a kiss and does so at the play’s closing party, with overenthusiastic passion. Without the strength of the two actors here and in her earlier meeting with him, the tension and fear for her safety would not be nearly as strong, and the movie wouldn’t have worked as well.

To sum up this is a movie of its time but with themes that still are relevant today; the threat of an obsessed man and what he may be capable of to get her, as well as he might do to her if he does. But unlike in today’s films, we are not spoon-fed or shown the outcome of the situation and must glean the potential danger from the events themselves.

This is definitely worth a watch; just for Peter Lorre’s performance alone, although I wouldn’t put it in the upper echelon of classic horror, mostly due to its failure to create any really horrifying moments but instead creating more of a slow unease. Overall, to me, the movie doesn’t build on the tension nearly enough, which seems to be a byproduct of its times. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it could have used 1 or 2 moments of stronger terror to really push it over the edge. Still, with that being said, it is a classic for a reason and deserves 3.5 out of 5 face-scratching cockatoos. Watch it with someone you love or at least someone you are obsessed with!

A special thank you to Jeff Owens who turned me on to this movie. I had heard of it before but never really had much interest in it. But Jeff expressed his love for this movie many times both on his podcast with Richard Chamberlain (Classic Horrors Podcast) and in print (We Belong Dead for one). So, I had to see what it was about and when I found it on a streaming service, I settled back to see what the excitement was all about.

To begin with I thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. I can’t tell you it’s a great movie, but I can tell you it’s a fun movie and harkens back to the days when horror didn’t need wise-cracking villains or try to be funny to make a movie fun.

It’s a simple story. Rich man and his rich family show nothing but disdain for the nature their mansion is on. The animals, seeming led by the titular frogs, decide to seek revenge. Caught in the middle is the nature photographer who ends up by chance, to be at their home. Rich man refuses to believe he is not at the top of the food chain and ignores the situation until it is too late. He demands that if his family, if they want theirr inheritance, do likewise.

What I like about it: First, the scenery is beautiful. Taking place in the swamps of Florida the images of the wildlife, Spanish moss and lagoons and waterways are beautiful to behold. As a zoology major and animal enthusiast I also love the “nature strikes back theme” and this is one of the most powerful, on point eco-terror I can remember. The beginning with the photographer’s pictures going from beautiful scenery to trash floating in the water sets up all you need to know about the animal’s motives. Speaking of which, the title frogs are a joy to behold. I have never seen such large and fascinating looking frogs in my life. They are in fact, not frogs at all but Cane Toads, native to Central America and not found in the U.S. But there’s no reason to get picky here. I get giddy just thinking about the crew members dumping 30 or so of these massive beasts on the lawn, porch, docks, etc. and trying to keep track of them as they jump everywhere including on top of each other and even landing awkwardly on their backs or making a face plant. The characters, while not fully fleshed out, are deep enough for you to understand motivations and even “enjoy” the family politics. As a domineering southern family patriarch, Ray Milland is perfect and makes you both loathe and respect him at the same time. That is, until he goes off the deep end, sacrificing everybody’s safety for no other reason than because he wants things the way he they have been in the past, regardless of how foolish it is now. His power trip makes him ridiculous in a “bite off your nose to spite your face” way. Best of all we get to see a very young Sam Elliott sans mustache and gravel-vice. Throw this all together in a blender and you have a very fun afternoon of film watching.

On the downside, the editing leaves a lot to be desired, as with only a few exceptions, the creatures and the people could be in two separate movies. At least in the death scenes. We see the people, then the creatures, then the person react as if something bit him, then his death throes. Yet we rarely see any real interaction between the two. On the rare case when we do see interaction, such as in the case of the attacking alligators, the gator is obviously dead. The poor use of actors interacting with the animals is probably due to the low budget, dangerous and poisonous nature of the creatures used, and Ray Miland’s refusal to interact with the frogs as they disgusted him. Whatever the reason, it certainly detracts from the movie overall.

So, if you are looking for a fun, 70s style horror movie that you don’t have to get too deep or involved in and would like to just sit back and enjoy a blast from the past, fun horror, you can do a lot worse than frogs. Especially, if like me, the animals getting their revenge is your type of thing (or you just love watching beautiful natural places and animals). 3.5 out of 5 flesh eating snapping turtles.

Imagine getting a call from a soul trapped in Hell. Even worse, imagine if that call was from someone that hated you because you were the one that sent them there!

Brought to you by the same people who made Sinister and The Black Phone. This movie continues and even builds upon the director’s usage of 8 mm to and diving into extremely dark subject matter. When I first heard about this movie coming out, I was not very interested in it. While I really liked The Black Phone, I felt like it was the type of story that was a stand-alone story. With the villain dying, it didn’t really leave opportunity for a sequel, unless they did something very dumb just to use the movie’s name as a quick cash grab. And with my distrust of sequels overall, I figured that this was exactly what this movie would be.

After the movie had been out a while, I heard good things from those that had seen it. But I was still worried. I was hearing the grabber from the first movie had become a threat by preying through dreams, which seemed like a stretch from the first movie. The grabber was a wholly human character. He was not a mythical, superhuman, or undefeatable monster such as Michael Meyers or Jason Vorhees. He was a simple child murderer who was eventually defeated and killed. Making him supernatural seemed antithesis to the first movie and increased my fear of this being a cash grab. But then I remembered that despite the villain being a normal human, there were para-psychic phenomenal throughout the movie. Finn had the ability to talk to the dead through the Black Phone. Gwen was haunted by precognitive dreams and was painted as a child with supernatural connections. These made the idea of a dream killer relevant and even a natural follow-up. And indeed, the second movie is built on both of these abilities.

This is the point where we have to talk about the knife-fingered elephant in the room. When I heard the grabber was going to be haunting via dreams, I immediately thought of Freddie Kreuger and A Nightmare on Elm Street. I thought this would likely just be a rehash of that franchise. While there are some similarities between the ideas which I will discuss later, overall, the two movies have very different approaches. The grabber is going after Gwenn to get revenge on Finn. He stalks her dreams due to her ability (not his), and she is the only one he is after. His contact to Finn only comes through creepy calls from Hell from old disabled phones, again because of Finn’s ability, not his own. His dialogue, while chilling and threatening, doesn’t really hold any real threat to Finn. But the biggest difference is the tone of the movie. It is far grittier and darker than even the first Nightmare film and despite the parapsychological abilities of the two main protagonists, it feels realistic. The one large misstep I feel the movie makes is when the creeper physically assaults Gwen in her dreams and her body is affected in the real world in an over-the-top fashion. Bleeding in the real world from an axe wound in a dream is one thing and works well but watching her floating through the air or spinning at top speed in circles seems silly and breaks the terror they have built up so well. They are also too close to similar scenes in Nightmare. To a lesser degree I also had issues with the climactic scenes on the frozen lake when the Finney can harm or affect the Grabber in the dream world from the real world. Yes, Gwen is dreaming so her ability to interact with the grabber makes sense. But no one else should be able to.

Still even with these two missteps the movie is an exemplary case of a sequel done right. The story is well-written with things all coming together to fit nicely in the end and is not in any way a copy of the first movie. But it does play off the characters and ideals of the first movie nicely, even occasionally repeating themes, actions, and quotes, in pertinent moments. It is a natural expansion of the characters and events of the first movie taken to a logical next step. Finny is trying to hide from and bury any pain from his experiences in the first movie, becoming a mirror of how his father was. He is burying himself in drug use and avoiding what he doesn’t want to believe. He is also full of anger. The father himself is still haunted by his wife’s suicide but is recovering from the alcoholism that plagued him with the help of his children. Gwen is living with the rumors that swirl about her for her psychic abilities and trying to cope with them but is doing far better than Finney. So, the characters are moving through another chapter in their lives and starting a new chapter in their dealings with the grabber; not just repeating either.

The way the 8 mm film is used whenever Gwen is dreaming works extremely well as the sound fades and we just hear the hisses and scratches of the film. This, along with the shaky and dark nature of the lesser film stock, creates some of the creepiest moments I have seen in a long time! The imagery of the children being murdered, their attempt to reach out to Gwen, and the grabber himself in this format makes this a terrifying and disturbing movie in and of itself. The make-up is also worth mentioning as the frost bitten and decaying grabber and the ghostly children are amazing and disturbing, especially among the contrast of darkness and white-blue snow.

The plot goes as follows: Gwen begins having dreams where she sees young children being killed gruesomely in the snow. Then she sees them under ice writing a letter on it. She wakes to the sound of a phone ringing. She follows the phone to the door and opens it. She is then revealed to be asleep, walking as she is awakened by Finney. These dreams continue throughout the movie with Gwen going further in her dreams each time, each time seeing what is around her but processing them into her dreams. Eventually they lead her to the basement where Finney was held prisoner by the grabber. She answers the ringing phone there in a great moment which twists around back to an earlier scene. She then learns that the visions are of boys from a nearby Christian camp that were murdered years ago. Learning that their mother worked at the same camp, Gwen is determined to investigate it. She and Finney, along with Ernesto, who is a friend of Gwen (and Robin from the first movie’s brother) take jobs at the camp as counselors in training. Unfortunately, due to a severe blizzard the camp is closed down with only a few staff present. While there, the power of the Grabber is unusually strong, and Finney begins to get calls from him while Gwen finds her dreams becoming more dangerous. They need to find the Grabbers earliest victims and lay them to rest before the Grabber can finish her off. There is obviously much more that happens along with a few things we learn that deepens the story both of his movie and the first, but I am keeping it basic so as not to ruin anything.

So, for me, this movie is a 4 out of 5 hypothermic camp counsellors. It is so creepy and well written it should be a 5, but due to both the major and minor missteps that take this gritty and dark movie and make it too over the top in campy action and copies Nightmare too much I am knocking off a point. But for all that, it is still definitely worth seeing for the rest of the movie though. If you feel the same way I do, you will forgive those particular scenes in lieu of the effectiveness of the rest of it!

Thie movie can be found in the ALL THE HAUNTS BE OURS 2 Box set from Severin. I find most of the movies in these two sets interesting from a perspective of learning about the various cultures around the world through their folk horror. Although many of the films aren’t fantastic and some are even boring, there is a lot to learn from them. But nestled into both sets are some really good horror movies. Nang Nak caught me off guard and was a pleasant surprise.

Evidently the story of Nang Nak (or sometimes Mae Nak) is quite old in Indochina and has been told in films at least 20 times or more. This was the first time I had heard of it. This representation of it was made in Thailand in 1999 but has the feel of a much older film, possibly the 70s, and takes place in the 1800s.

A young villager (Mak) leaves his home and pregnant wife to go to war. His friend who goes as well is killed and Mak is badly injured. He is taken to the Buddhist monk, Somdej Toh, for treatment. He manages to survive, but just barely and recovery takes several months. Once healed he returns home to find his wife and young child waiting for him but the village is abandoned and decaying. Mak and his wife Nang are reunited but it is soon revealed that his wife and child died during labor and that he is living with a ghost in a rotting hut. He cannot see this and those that attempt to reveal it to him are quickly dispatched by the ghost. He eventually discovers the truth and flees to the monks to help him just as the villagers attempt to burn down his house to rid themselves of the ghost they fear so much and end up enraging her. Things come to a head as simultaneously a shaman attempts to dig up the grave and exorcise the ghost, and Somdej Toh also shows up and attempts to peacefully settle the matter.

There is much to love here. First, the scenery of the canal where the couple lives is beautiful with great shots showing the plants, canals, and animals of the area, The animals are used as omens as seen by the Loas and Taiwanese people, such as the owl th at enters the home during Nang’s death and stays in the rafters afterwards, has long been a symbol of death for them, much like a vulture is for us. There are also many things shown about the culture of the time that is fascinating and accurate, such as funeral traditions and the importance of the monks in their culture. Despite this being more a love story than a horror story in the eyes of the director, the horror is quite effective. Gore is far more common than you would expect in a folk horror feature and looks quite good. The battlefield that the protagonist finds himself wandering through is littered with limbs and dead bodies and the scene of the midwife’s corpse being eaten by monitor lizards is especially graphic. The story itself is also horrific, when you take the time to realize that Mak is living with a spirit and among the rats and filth and not even realizing it. There is an unsettling scene where a local monk visits him and for food Mak offers him a bowl of what looks like desiccated dead animals (possibly rats). He shows his baby to the monk yet all the monk and we the viewers see in the hanging cloth hammock are cobwebs and debris. Then there is the scene at the graveyard where the corpse is dug up by the shaman which, despite being in the jungle during a rainstorm, has a very gothic feel, particularly upon seeing the withered and dry husk of the corpse of Nag Nak and her child.

Obviously, this movie may not appeal to everyone as it is slow paced and focused less on horror than on the love story between the ghost and his wife. She has come back solely due to her devotion to him and works hard to make him happy and take care of him, not the ingredients that make for a horror drenched scare fest. But for those who like dark fables and cultural legends or those who just like to experience many styles of horror there is a lot here to enjoy. 3.5 out of 5 ghostly babies.

Warning: If you haven’t seen this movie yet but still want to, I suggest you wait to read this or any other information on it until you have seen it. It works much better with no knowledge beforehand. I have tried to avoid spoilers here but it’s nearly impossible to not at least hint at some of the surprises in store.

I’m not sure this should be considered a horror movie based on the fact that the director didn’t seem to be going for scares or a sense of terror. It seems to be more of a dark comedy/thriller. But there are some dark moments and there are themes of dominance, lack of personal freedom, rape, being sacrificed for another’s agenda, machines and what happens when they are misused and go out of control, and of course murder, all of which can fall under the horror umbrella. I have also seen it listed and discussed on multiple horror sites. But mostly, I just wanted to talk about it so I’m going to forgo my own opinions and go with what seems to be the consensus.

There is much that works well within this movie. Especially if you don’t know much about it before you go in. But even if it has been spoiled for you or it’s a second time viewing there is still a lot to enjoy here. In fact, once you do know the main “twist” or even all of them, there may even be more to enjoy upon a second viewing. You will catch all the clues that are slipped in as to what is really going on that were right in front of you, but you didn’t catch the first time. The “what is the weather?” line, the discussion between Kat and Iris, Iris’s nickname and a load of other hints and clues. There is not a scene or even a line in this screenplay that is wasted. Everything said and done either foreshadows or sets up what is to come.

The movie has a lot to say on the incel movement, what love is, how many men look at women and other complex gender issues. But they never get in the way of the story. It is full of twists and turns and unexpected events. It moves fast and fluently with minimal flaws despite the complex story. There may be a single flaw in logic but then again maybe not, as I may have just missed a justification as to how the robot’s intelligence got reset from 0% after it rebooted. Regardless, it all works nicely. There are bits of humor scattered throughout but not so much as to destroy the seriousness of the material. Essential to the underlying themes is the character of Josh, played perfectly by actor Jack Quaid. He is perfect as the self-absorbed man who thinks he is much smarter than he really is, making mistake after mistake but always thinking he knows what he is doing. He is oblivious to his partner, only caring about his own needs and yet thinking he is perfectly considerate. He contrasts well with the character of Eli who understands the true meaning of a relationship despite their similar situation. And like all self-absorbed people, he thinks the world owes him because he is basically good, even though he is clearly not. He is the perfect representation of many of the male adults in this country today and the movie does a good job of skewering this mentality.

Overall, it’s a fun movie on the surface but has a darker underbelly if you want to dig deeper. There is also death, blood and carnage but it’s not particularly graphic enough to be considered gore so even that isn’t a deterrent for those who aren’t a fan of violence or horror. Again, it doesn’t seem to want to terrify its viewers but entertain them, and it does so admirably.

So, this movie has a lot to say and even more to love about it. Is it a horror movie? It depends on who you ask, but it’s certainly not scary. Therefore, as a movie I give it 4.5 out of 5 Russian sod farmers but as a horror movie it gets only a 3 out of 5. So don’t watch it if you are looking for a good scary movie, watch it though if you want to see a great movie.

This is a movie brought to you by the same man who made two of the most diametrically opposed Christmas movies ever. Black Christmas and a Christmas Story.

Andy went to Viet Nam to fight. His mother prays daily for his return and repeats his promise to her that he will return home. She clearly dotes over him. Imagine how happy the family is when Andy returns home late one night and surprises them. But something is different about him. The war has affected him. He spends his days morose and moody, sitting quietly and rocking in his chair. He doesn’t want to see anyone. Unbeknownst to his family Andy came home with an addiction. The kind of addiction that involves using a syringe. The changes in him begin to affect his family. His mother ignores the changes and his father grows angry at his inability to do anything or respect anyone. The two parents fight over him and their differing opinions of him while the sister takes the shrapnel from their war. Things get especially tense when Andy seems to suffer from PTSD and in a fit of rage strangles the family dog. The father has had enough, while the mother continues to defend him and act as if nothing is wrong. But Andy is a shell of his former self and he is slowly crumbling…

Does that sound intriguing? Does it sound like a serious drama and look at how war can affect a young man and destroy his family? Well, it is. But it’s also a horror movie.

Everything I said above is true and accurate. But I left a few points out. You see, as we see in the opening credits, Andy died in the war. But in a variation of The Monkey’s Paw, his mother’s desires and clinging to the promise he made brought him back and brought him home. But he is still dead. And he is slowly crumbling…literally. His addiction is human blood which he kills for and injects into his veins, as it’s the only thing that can restore his crumbling and rotting body.

Being a Bob Clark film and made in the 70s, it still has that realistic and gritty feel that his other films have. No high polished CGI or computer heightened colors here. In fact the colors are muted and washed out to some degree. The gore itself is minimal as most of the death either occurs off screen or is fairly subdued. There is a man who gets run over by a car and while obviously disturbing, it is shown from a distance and is bloodless. There is blood in the movie, but mostly after the fact and on Andy’s clothes. And the rotting flesh of Andy is effective but not gratuitous. Just aging and paling skin with some peeling. This is a movie made to make a point and it is highly effective in doing so while not forgetting to be a horror movie. In fact, its point makes the movie even more terrifying in my opinion. Without it, it would have just been another undead monster flick. But the lower class family is so realistic and the family dynamics so well shown that the horror comes just as much from the affects this ex-soldier brings home from the war as it does from the killings or the rotting creature Andy has become.

One last note. The ending of this movie is pretty powerful in its imagery and brings an even odder sense of pathos to the movie. It’s a visual reminder of the movie’s theme and brings it all crashing home. Warning: This is not a feel good movie!

I give this movie a 4.25 out of 5 dead truck drivers. It’s a fantastic drama/ horror but some might find it a little slow on the action.

One of the things I like about movies from the 70’s is that they can get pretty dark and they don’t mind wallowing in the filth and depravity of the seedier sides of life. And despite their reputation as prim and proper, England is willing to wallow in that same mud pit alongside the rest of us. If the Hammer films aren’t proof enough for you, then Frightmare directed by Pete Walker should make it frightfully obvious.

There is gore aplenty here but it’s the story that really kneels down into the muck and sends a wave of disgust through you. And that is not a complaint but a high compliment! After all, isn’t that the role of horror movies? To disturb you and make you feel unnerved? If not, then why do we watch them. And if you are looking to be disturbed and made to feel uneasy, then I highly recommend this film. It’s ghastly in the greatest sense of the word.

I don’t want to reveal too much of the story but here is a brief synopsis. We first see a man go for a tarot card reading. Then we see his corpse being found with ghastly wounds. We are then treated to the sentencing of a man and woman sentenced to an asylum do their unnamed yet horrible crimes. We cut to the present (1974 that is) where we meet a young girl and the bikers she hangs out with. She seems to be out of control and wild, causing trouble and setting up a situation that leads to the death of a man for no other reason that he refused to serve her at a bar because she is underaged. She lives with her older half sister who tries to keep her in-line to no avail. Meanwhile, the older sister has a problem of her own. Her father and the woman he married later have now been released from the asylum as the doctors feel they are cured. But are they really? And what is it that happened in the first place, and could it be happening again?

Vague, I know, but much of the shock of this movie is from how things come together and where they go. I will tell you it involves some grisly scenes and dark themes. Although there is gore, more is implied or seen after the fact than shown happening. Perhaps the worst (best) scene involves a drill being used on the head of a freshly dead corpse. We don’t see the actual drilling, but what makes this scene unnerving is not only the blood spattering the face of the one doing the drilling, but their look of absolute delight as it happens.

The reason this movie works is mostly due to the direction and the two actors who play the parents of the two girls. They are both very credible in their roles and we actual buy into why they do what they do and therefore accept the whole concept as believable. Without such stellar acting the movie would have seemed ridiculous and over the top, instead it is a chilling indictment of the mental health profession. The other reason the movie works is the ending. Or rather the journey to that end.

I mentioned I like 70’s horror because they aren’t afraid to wallow in depravity. Another reason is that they don’t feel the need to tie up everything with a happy ending. Life doesn’t always give us a happy ending so why should something that is supposed to be a dark reflection of life need to? Well, this is certainly one of the darker unhappy endings I’ve seen in a long time. We don’t just see a negative outcome, but we have seen these characters enough and learned enough about them to understand and even care about some of them; even some of the “villains.” Which makes the spiraling down to the finale and the final freeze frame all the more traumatic.

I realize movies of this nature aren’t for everyone. Some may find that the slow tension and character building too slow for their tastes and the gore may be too much (or for some too little) compared to the psychological horror of the film. If you aren’t terrified by horrific situations or the darkness of an idea or concept as much as the blatant scare tactics of jump scares or more physical horror, you may not enjoy the psychological side of horror that this film relies on to carry it above and beyond a normal horror film. But I still think there is enough of the former to chill you and make this a worthwhile watch for you. 3.25 drills to the brain if that’s you. 4 bloody parcels if you fall into the former camp.

My favorite Werewolf Movie!

The plot is basic. A solider in Scotland fails his bid to get into an elite armed forces unit. Later, his platoon is sent on maneuvers in the wilderness on a practice mission. While there, they come across the lone survivor of the same elite forces he was attempting to join. The very same man who failed him, in fact. The soldiers soon discover they are in the territory of a pack of werewolves and that there is more to their trip than they were led to believe. Along with a female zoologist they stumble across, they take shelter in a farmhouse where no one is home in an attempt to survive the night. Soldiers vs. Werewolves. That’s the main gist.

The premise sounds flat; a mindless action movie where the werewolves are just a plug-in replacement for another army. Yet, somehow, it is way better than that!

Written and directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent) as his first project, the characters have depth and the story a few nice turns and twists; just enough to keep from being too simple but not enough to complicate things too much. The acting is top-notch and the direction nearly perfect. The pace rarely slows down and the tension is ratcheted up throughout. In addition, these may be the best looking (and scary) werewolves I have seen on film; looking more like wolves that walk on two legs than furry humans with fangs. And they stand about 7 feet tall! All the special effects are done practically with actors playing the werewolves. The specially designed werewolf heads are robotically articulated to allow snarling as well as ear and eyebrow action giving them life like movement.

Among the gore, violence, and fighting there are moments of humor, mostly among the soldiers and their reactions to the events unfolding before them. The actors are mostly unknown here in the U.S. but does feature Sean Pertwee; Alfred in the Gotham TV series. Interestingly, the movie despite being a top box office smash in the UK and other countries, did not find distribution in the US and so never made it to the big screen here. Instead, the Syfy channel picked it up and showed it making many horror buffs pass it by due to the poor quality and ridiculous CGI movies Syfy was known for. Only later did it find its audience and since that time it is often offered up as one of the best werewolf movies made. I agree.

There is little else I can say about this movie except WATCH IT! While it’s not the creepy, dread-filled movie I usually prefer, it is a well-made movie, full of action, great special effects, homages to other movies and deadly monsters. It’s tense and puts you on edge. Most importantly; it makes for a fun time!

One warning: the actors have strong accents so you may want to have subtitles on until you get the hang of figuring out what’s being said. Or you can not worry about it and just enjoy the action

4.5 out of 5 bloody werewolf talons.

This year was book-ended by two remakes of classic horror movies. Both were highly lauded and promoted before their release, and both were directed by giants in the horror genre. But for me, they couldn’t be more different.

This year was not a good one for me and it was foreshadowed with a major disappointment. I was highly anticipating Nosferatu’s release and when I finally got to the theater on the first weekend of January to see it, I was extremely disappointed. It looked beautiful, but it was, well…boring. It didn’t bring anything new to the story of Dracula and felt cold and unemotional. And don’t get me started on the mustache.

So, when I finally found time to sit down and watch Del Toro’s Frankenstein, I was a bit apprehensive. I had been looking forward to watching it for months but was nervous I would be let down again. After all, could even my favorite director bring something new to a story that has been told so many times before? Some of the reviews I had seen regarded it as less than stellar, which only deepened my fear. I laid back down on the couch, turned on the TV and hoped for the best.

I needn’t have worried.

To begin with, even if you don’t care for any other aspect of the movie, you must admit that it’s a feast for the eyes. But the same could be said of Nosferatu, so that alone doesn’t make the movie great. Still, the juxtaposition between the beautiful color palettes and the gorgeous scenery with the gore and bodily fluids presented on the screen create a truly memorable image, worthy of hanging in an art gallery of the disturbed and morbid. Something like an image of demons marauding in an idealistic field of flowers.

But what really made the movie work so well for me is the amount of detail put into the characterization of both Victor Frankenstein and his creation. Moreso than any other rendition of the Baron and his monster, we understand them, and judge them based on what we see inside of them. In Victor, we see his arrogance along with a much darker side. While Cushing played an evil Frankenstein quite well in the Hammer series, this Dr. Frankenstein is somehow worse than evil. He is impatient, judgmental, and willing to abandon his “child” when he didn’t meet his standards and demands. For all his failings, Cushing never turned his back on his own creations and did his best to nurture them. It is this dissatisfaction and abandonment, which mirrors much of the issue he had with his own father, that makes the monster’s life such misery. It is the standard cycle of poor parenthood we see throughout history and is still an issue today.

We can clearly see through the character of Elizabeth as well as the blind beggar that the creature wants only to feel loved and friendship, but Victor wants only to succeed on his own terms and when the monster can’t meet his standards, he is disposed of. Again, much like his own father. In short, we see what the monster’s life could have been if someone had nurtured him, not turned his back and grown angry when dissatisfied that his own idea of perfection was not met.

On the flip side, the creature is clearly the abused child, hated and tortured because he does not meet others’ ideas of what he should be. No one is better than Guillermo Del Toro at directing sympathy towards his monsters, as he does in The Shape of Water and The Devil’s Backbone. Always letting us know that it’s not the monstrous looking beasts that are the true horrors, it’s the humans who harass and abuse the outsider. And that is especially made apparent in this movie. An added touch to the mythos that worked well is that this creature is immortal; his infused life-giving spark of electrical impulses always restarting the body after it is damaged or life momentarily stopped. Likewise, his wounds heal at a rapid pace tissue healing by the surging electro-pulses constantly pumping through him. As the creature becomes more fed up with life and his place in it, he is horrified to find he cannot die, making this a sadder creature and more sympathetic, as he finally decides to seek Dr. Frankenstein’s help to make him a companion that can give him a friend and lover throughout his life. Victor, in his selfishness and anger, will not grant tis wish and once again, the staging and dialogue of the scene shows us clearly who is the monster.

The movie, more than any other Frankenstein, is worried more about the emotional and psychological side of the story, digging deeply into both, and worrying less about the shocks and terror. It is less a horror than a drama; but built using monstrous pieces and parts; much like the creature himself. It is at the end that we clearly see the situation for what it truly is; the simple story of a father who has betrayed his son by focusing on his own self-involvement and leaving his child to deal with the world and all its horrors on his own. And in the end, as with many dramas, when all the damage is done and it is too late, the father sees things clearly and attempts to make things right. And, as in most dramas, the end is melancholy yet tinged with a moment of beauty and happiness.

Of course, none of this would work without great acting and a story that keeps you interested. The two major players, Jacob Elordi as the creature and Oscar Isaac as Frankenstein, are brilliant in their roles. Surprising me though, was Mia Goth, who I was familiar with only through the X, Pearl and Maxine trilogy. Here she plays Elizabeth, Victor’s soon to be sister-in-law. I did not expect her to play a refined and demure character so competently, based on her previous work. Yet, she is also quite good. Even though her role is only a minor one her importance to the story is essential, so her scenes interacting with the monster needed to be perfect and she handled them quite well.

So, in the end, this movie is beautiful to look at, has some good but not overbearing action scenes to keep things moving, has horror (and a bit of gore) sprinkled liberally throughout, and phenomenal acting. In addition, the monster’s make-up and design worked very well to my eye; looking like what I would expect a man made of parts to look like more than most other versions. I particularly like his look once his hair began to grow long and unkempt.

So once again Del Toro has made a masterpiece and has shown us that man is a monster and those that we deem monsters may just be sympathetic outsiders forced into a monstrous life by the treatment of others. I give this movie a 5 out of 5 ice bound ships and I hope that if Nosferatu mirrored my 2025 this one is a portent of what 2026 will be!

There are horror movies that are fun to watch and leave you exhilarated when they end. Then there are horror movies that are dark or downbeat and leave you depressed or emotionally drained. Then there are horror movies that are so bleak or uncomfortable while they play that they leave you feeling like maybe you shouldn’t be watching it. Maybe it has crossed a line and is so dark that you are moved into despondency or hopelessness.

Who can kill a child is one of those latter movies. In itself, it’s just a dark horror movie; but nothing to make you feel so full of turbulent, miserable, emotions that it ends up creating. But the title credits of the film will haunt your dreams and even your waking hours for many days to come and sets the movie up as something more than just a horror movie. As the credits flash we see actual footage of war torn and famine infested countries full of maimed, burnt, and dead children, that consistently stop to freeze on a particularly harrowing image. It’s designed to make you feel uncomfortable watching, and it works. By the time the movie proper starts, you are already despondent and the scenes to come have far more gravitas.

From that point on we follow a married couple (Tom and Evelyn) somewhere in Spain. The woman is pregnant with the couple’s 3^rd child. The man insists the mainland village is too crowded and too full of tourists and plans to travel to a village on an island not far out, that he visited some 10 years previous. Before they go, they hear the radio in a bar reporting on a war zone in a distant country and it mentions the suffering of the children there. The bartender states that whenever war and other bad things happen, it is always the children that pay the cost and suffer the most. This sets up the forthcoming narrative and ties it to the opening credits.

The couple soon charters a boat and sails to the small island of Almanzora where a group of children are fishing on the docks. Tom tries to talk to one of them, but the child just stares at him angrily and when Tom tries to look inside the child’s bait container, his hand is instantly slapped away by the child. This is a harbinger of what is to come. Reaching the town center, they find it deserted, yet the local café still has chickens roasting on a fire pit that are now burnt and blackened. Tom is still nonplused as he assumes the people are just at a festival that is held on the other side of the island on some occasions. But things get odder and creepier as the phone rings with a pleading voice on the other end that hangs up almost immediately. Tom leaves the café to search for food and finds no one about, while Evelyn waits. A small child enters the shop and is fascinated by the pregnancy caressing her stomach intently.

Eventually the couple discover that the adults on the island are nearly all dead, killed by the children. The few they find alive are soon killed. One unfortunate soul is hung upside down and whacked by the child with a long-handled sickle. Realizing their life is at stake they try to escape the island but are blocked by the children. Eventually they must decide, are they willing to kill children to escape?

The movie quality is typical of 70s foreign films, but the acting is good and the scenery quite beautiful. The gore is minimal, more disturbing in context than actual depiction; with red, tempered paint blood and only a few cuts and scratches shown. Since it is a Spanish film, it has subtitles.

So, overall, this is a profoundly disturbing movie with a bleak ending and a dark message. It is clear some force has taken over the children, and it’s hinted that they are taking retribution on the adults for the wars and other tragedies that have befallen them without their consent; yet have scarred and murdered them in droves. The force seems to be transmitted through the children by touch or visual contact with others, leading to a particularly disturbing death near the end of the movie.

With that, I can only recommend Who Can Kill a Child? based on what you are looking for in a movie. If you’re looking for a fun movie watching experience, pass it by! If looking for something darker and more thought-provoking, I give this movie 3.5 out of 5 human pinatas!

Val Lewton was in charge of horror production at RKO studios and was expected to compete with Universal’s horror masterpieces. The problem was, he didn’t care for typical horror movies of the day. He was also given a much smaller budget to work with. His bosses gave him titles names for movies designed to draw in the typical horror crowd and tell him to make a movie using that title. He was given the title Cat People in hopes he would make a movie similar to Universal’s The Wolfman. How do you use that title and still make a thinking man’s movie featuring suspense and not just simple exploitative thrills on such a miniscule budget?

You make this movie!

Cat People is considered a masterwork of tension and psychological horror and it’s not hard to see why. Lewton and his director Jacques Tourneur believed less is more and that what is unseen is scarier than anything you could see. The movie they made exemplifies this idea, using shadow and innuendo to do most of the work. Despite very little terrifying actually being seen in the film, it worked and was a major hit.

The story is this. A man named Oliver meets an immigrant woman name Irena at the zoo. They quickly fall in love and get married, but she tells him that although she loves him, she is afraid to touch him physically because the women from her village are cursed to turn into a panther if certain emotions are too strong; especially passion, anger, or jealousy. She asks him to be patient while she overcomes her fear. At first, he is patient and sleeps separately from his wife. But when his attractive co-worker Alice confesses that she has loved him a long time, he quickly decides he loves her and not Irena. This causes Irena to become jealous as she senses this emotional shift and she begins to stalk Alice. Things come to a bad end when her lecherous psychiatrist decides the only way to get her to confront her fears is to force himself on her.

The movie has several motifs running throughout it. First is the idea of being caged or trapped; which is reinforced throughout by the multiple visual images of Irena visiting the panther at the zoo and a cat held in a box all day while Oliver keeps it at work. Second and more sub-textual is the idea of lesbianism hidden just below the surface. One of the writers admitted the sub-text was intentional in the writing. In the 40s homosexuality was not acceptable in the public eye and many people had to hide their true nature to keep their jobs and standing. To aid in the charade they would marry to keep other people from questioning their sexuality. Looking through this lens, we see Irena in a marriage where she loves her husband who is her best (and only friend) but cannot bring herself to touch him sexually and the grief it causes. The lesbianism is further enforced in an early scene at the wedding dinner when a strange woman approaches Irena and asks in her native Serbian tongue “Sisters?” in an evocative and disturbing way. Other ideas are also explored but these are the largest two.

This movie is a masterwork of shadow and light, using it not only to create mood and dynamic visuals but to further the motifs. Watch closely and you will see shadows that resemble cage bars, often on Irena (a caged panther or a homosexual trapped by her inability to live her true self?). The shadows also work to convey the implied dangers, especially in the pool scene where we see no actual threat but the shadow of a large cat can be glimpsed briefly among the shadows dancing across the wall from the pools waves just before the jealous wife enters the room.

Care was taken to make this a quality product and it shows in places other than the lighting. The sound design is wonderful, especially he scene where Alice is being stalked by Irena and the footsteps go from two pairs to one. You can just feel the shift from human stalker to panther. They also took time with the casting to find a leading lady that actually has kitten/cat like qualities in her face and put her poses that often resemble a cat such as when she sits by her husband at the sofa or scratches it after her husband admits he no longer loves her.

One final historical note, this movie is considered to have the first known jump scare commonly referred to as the Lewton bus scare (see the movie and you’ll understand the nickname). But unlike modern jump scares it’s not a thrown-in, unmotivated scene but instead motived by a normal part of the story-line. And surprisingly, despite the movie’s name, it does not involve a cat leaping out.

This movie is essential viewing whether you a horror fan or not; if only to see the history of film and how a filmmaker can make fantastic product without a big budget or lowering themselves to baser plot, gore, or cheap thrills. This was probably the first movie to work on creepy and tension as opposed to the standard terror model. While it may not be as scary today, at the time it had people screaming in the aisles.

5 out of 5 sexually frustrated husbands for this one!

Dark Harvest is an odd movie. You can figure out pretty early where it’s going, yet you still enjoy the ride getting there. Besides, the story isn’t the point, interesting as it is. It’s the point that’s the point. More on that later though.

The story is simple. The mythos behind it is a little more complex. It goes like this. In a small town (in the 50s?) out in the sticks, a demon known as Sawtooth Jack returns every year on Halloween night. The legends say if he reaches the church, the town will be cursed the following year and crops will fail. Each teenage boy is locked in his room and fasted the week prior and on that night, they are released to hunt down the monster; already worked into a frenzy. The one who destroys him and saves the town, is given a new car, a large sum of money, and is allowed to leave and go see the world. Likewise, as a reward, his parents are moved to the rich side of town and given another large sum of money and new house. The story follows one of the teenagers whose brother won the following year. He isn’t supposed to compete since his brother already won, but feeling inadequate, he sneaks out and joins the following year’s hunt.

Intriguing premise… and interesting monster. The creature seems to be filled with candy and upon killing it, the hero gets to feast on the candy within. The creature is nasty and of singular purpose…and very deadly.

So far so good. The down side to the movie is much of the production has the slick over-glossed and CGI look that many of today’s films have, which for me at least, keeps me from getting too drawn in. It feels like a movie and not a believable (albeit fantastical) portrait of life. As far as the action, it works fine but offers little new or special.

What makes this movie worthwhile for me is the message behind the story. The story is an allegory/morality tale that hits home today. It’s a story of selling out the youth of today and their future to satisfy our own greed. You can apply the message how you want, destroying the planet for today’s profit; an old man reaping profits off of the young workers’ hard toil leaving them with little to show; or governmental officials looking to fill their pockets at the expense the future of the country; they all apply. The allegory holds true to whatever you want to assign it. Coming out with a sharp and stinging commentary hidden beneath a horror persona always appeals to me and seems apt for the genre, seen as far back as The Twilight Zone.

So the mythos is intriguing and the metaphor timely. But is it entertaining? Of course your mileage will vary but I would have to say yes. The story flows well and the characters are well defined and interesting. No cardboard cut-outs here and no typical slasher-soulless-stick figures. The story is well written and the finished product enjoyable. Is it scary? Not to me; but so little is. For me it doesn’t scare but the concepts and situations the characters go through are terrifying to consider.

So while the movie could have been a bit better overall, it certainly works well enough to make a good night of viewing. I give it 3.5 out of 5 pieces of demon gut-candy.

What a strange movie…

On one hand, this is an exploitation film; low budget and set out to shock with the most disturbing ideas the writers/directors could muster. Even the title screams out “exploitation!” On the other hand, this is a well-thought out. Well-written movie with deep social messages and not a simple gore fest. In fact there isn’t much blood at all, but there is death. It also has good performances by actors, keen observational direction and writing, and quality cinematography.

This is less a story and more a character study. The story, as it is, focuses on a young man infatuated by fire and with deep metal scars from his childhood. After witnessing someone at his work catching on fire, he heads home to find his abusive, controlling mother has died. His mind snaps altogether and he turns his house into and incinerator to strip and kill women he brings there. There’s your exploitation. But the movie is less focused on the deaths and burning than on the troubled psyche of the main character. The writer/directors said they were inspired by Psycho. They didn’t want to film another Norman Bates though, instead they wanted to see what makes a Norman Bates. They succeeded admirably with a believable story where the killer of the piece can just as often garner sympathy as disgust. The special effects are very good and the make-up pretty good as well.

Due to the nature of the film don’t expect a lot of action, instead expect a much slower paced movie that explores abuse and its effect on our lead; in and out of his killings. Also, remember this is an exploitation film so expect to come out feeling dirty, grimy and in need of a shower and expect an unexpected twist or two. The movie was on the video nasties list and banned in the UK for over 40 years.

It’s hard to recommend this movie to just anyone as it will only appeal to a certain type of person. One who doesn’t mind slower paces but likes to dig deep into the mind of a social and mental outcast and doesn’t mind a little disgust. If that’s you, I’d say this is 4 flamethrowers out of 5 but if that isn’t you, then it’s more likely to be 2 out 5 burning women. Still, it’s certainly on the list of any horror completest. And with good reason.

Posted Oct. 11th 2025

Messiah of Evil (1973)

While writing the script for American Graffiti for their former classmate George Lucas, two film school graduates were offered a chance to make their own movie by some Texas investors. The only stipulation: it had to be a horror movie. Jumping at the chance, they quickly began working on this movie. More concerned with aesthetics than anything else, they created a dream-like, creepy film. Throughout the movie, many things that happen don’t seem to have a reason or explanation, which just adds to the disorienting experience. The investors ran out of money before the film was completed, so a key scene was left un-filmed. This missing scene is described by the lead in a tacked-on ending, filmed by the investors not the filmmakers. The tacked on ending works well enough to bring the film closure and adds the trope of an unreliable narrator (see Terror Tropes this issue) to add to the already hazy, unreal, quality of the film. The plot (as it is) revolves around an attractive young woman named Arletty who gets a disturbing letter from her father, a painter; that tells her not to come looking for him. The first thing she does, of course, is travel to the seaside town he lives in to look for him. Once there, she finds his house abandoned and his diary, which describes his fears of some unknown force taking hold of the town and of descending into the same state of madness. Looking for him she runs into a man named Thom and his two “groupies?”. They show up at his house later and she invites them to stay there with her. The mystery deepens as we learn the townspeople serve a dark entity that is foretold to return under the coming blood red moon. The people themselves are mad, ghouls, zombies, or some other form of flesh eaters. In the end, Arletty and Thom are cornered by villagers as they try to escape.
The plot is not the reason this movie shines. In fact, if you are looking for a concise and clear storyline you can turn away now. Instead, it’s the creepiness and atmosphere of doom that seems to permeate each frame that puts this above low budget exploitation fare. There is an odd, unreal, quality that creates a sense of uneasiness or even dread. Partly due to the understated acting and part due to the odd paintwork of the studio many scenes take place in. But mainly its effectiveness is due to horrific scenes which are filmed in such a way that they creep you out and build fear rather than overwhelm you with gore. The cinematography and scene design reinforce these feelings.
It’s unfortunate that the scene that was never filmed revealed a plot twist that now, never happens. It revealed who the messiah of evil was (hint: they were one of the characters that was already in the movie). Then again, that scene may have just detracted from the surreal atmosphere. By focusing on the monstrous followers instead of the actual arrival of the messiah, we are left with questions that leave us uneasy.
Although they saw no profit from this movie, the writer/directors did have some success later in their career. As mentioned, they wrote the script for American Graffiti as well as Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Temple of Doom. They also directed Howard the Duck. Okay, so maybe they weren’t all successes.
If you are going to watch this, remember that is a low budget affair from two inexperienced directors so don’t expect the next “The Omen” or “The Exorcist.” It’s also from the 70s so expect a slower pace and lesser film stock (which is part of why I love 70s movies). But if you go in with an open mind and a willingness to give up on logic and just let the movie creep over you, you may find it to be a satisfying and disturbing way to spend an afternoon. 3.75 out of 5 half-eaten rats!

Island of Lost Souls (1932)

Based on the book, The Island of Dr. Moreau by H G Wells, this is a black & white movie made by Paramount Pictures. For those of you who aren’t aware, the overall plot begins as a man is picked up at seas after his ship has sunk and follows him as he ends up being dropped on the island of the title. There a doctor and his assistant do experiments on animals, in attempt to turn them into humans through vivisection and other dark methods in an effort to speed up the evolutionary process. The movie stars Charles Laughton as the mad doctor and he is perfect in the role as the heartless and evil doctor who uses animals and humans alike to progress his theories. He comes across as mad but also calculating and manipulative. There is also a cameo from Bela Lugosi but as one of the animal men he would be unrecognizable if not for his distinctive voice.

Obviously as a product of the 30’s the violence and bloodshed is not showed on the screen, and the plot is more important than action or wild special effects. However, since it is before the Hayes code handcuffed many scripts to certain rules of conduct, it touches on some very dark and disturbing themes. Bestiality in particular is hinted at as the doctor tries to mate his creations with humans through either trickery or force. There is also the shadow of disturbing torture and cruelty to animals for the sake of science. And even though there is no blood or disturbing violent scenes, the death of one of the main characters at the end is horrifying by what is not scene and the screaming that accompanies it. This is a movie that would not have been able to be made just a few short years later.

Made at a time when movies didn’t have the ability to use CGI or even create the quality of special effects we see many years later, it must instead depend on high caliber acting, a good plot, and a buildup of unease and an uncomfortable undertone. Of course, being so old the “horror” of the picture does not really scare or affect modern audiences in the way it would have back then, but it still entertains and leaves a disturbing aftertaste if you let it wash over you and you absorb its darker side. While the animal men do not have the quality of make up as they could today, it works well enough and is heightened by the shadows they tend to mostly stay hidden in.

This is a piece of cinema history and a classic. I highly recommend it. 4 out of 5 furry animal men!

Horror Movie Reviews

Planet of the Vampires (1965)

Twins of Evil (1971)

Event Horizon (1997)

Best Wishes To All (2023)

Mad Love (1935)

Frogs (1972)

Black Phone 2

Nang Nak (1991)

Companion (2025)

Deathdream:
aka Dead of Night: aka the Night Andy Came Home (1974)

Frightmare (1974)

Dog Soldiers

Frankenstein (2025)

Who Can Kill A Child (1976)

Cat People (1942)

Dark Harvest (2023)

Don't Go In The House (1979)

Posted Oct. 11th 2025

Messiah of Evil (1973)

Island of Lost Souls (1932)

Horror Movie Reviews

Planet of the Vampires (1965)

Twins of Evil (1971)

Event Horizon (1997)

Best Wishes To All (2023)

Mad Love (1935)

Frogs (1972)

Black Phone 2

Nang Nak (1991)

Companion (2025)

Deathdream: aka Dead of Night: aka the Night Andy Came Home (1974)

Frightmare (1974)

Dog Soldiers

Frankenstein (2025)

Who Can Kill A Child (1976)

Cat People (1942)

Dark Harvest (2023)

Don't Go In The House (1979)

Posted Oct. 11th 2025

Messiah of Evil (1973)

Island of Lost Souls (1932)

Deathdream:
aka Dead of Night: aka the Night Andy Came Home (1974)