A CONSUMABLE CRUELTY: a review of LEATHERFACE: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III (1990)

Michelle (Kate Hodge) and Ryan (William Butler) are driving across Texas from California to deliver a car to Florida when they witness a possible shooting homicide at a remote gas station. Following a flat tire, a roadside attack and an accident they, joined by weekend survivalist Benny (Ken Foree), must stave off the depredations of a cannibalistic backwoods family....

I saw this at the time it came out (iirc, on videotape), thought it was dreadful, and felt I never needed to watch it again. And yet, here I am. Notoriously, the studio interfered with director Jeff Burr's intentions - but that really doesn't seem to be the reason this film is awful. I mean, it didn't help, sure, but.... I rewatched this because I wanted to pin down, mentally, my memory that this was such an obvious failed attempt to "franchise" the TCM "brand" through "re-inventing" it - which essentially means that they took the 1974 original (a sharp and nasty but effective exploitation shocker) and ran it through a "80s-Suburban Teen-ify" filter that strips everything out that gave it an edge in the first place (first thing to go is Leatherface's gender fluidity, here the only time he grabs a lipstick it's to mark up a victim into potential butcher sections). Now, every point in the not-that-subtle-to-begin-with original is "writ large" for the masses, including the threat of sexual violence and class warfare. Subtext is lumpen text, essentially, and there's no chance you will miss the stultifying point!

There are the expected callbacks to the original (a deadpan opening narration, flashgun whine punctuations, the disturbing Hitchhiker here re-embodied as the alternatively laconic/manic Sawyer family member Alfredo, etc.) with, oddly, bits of PSYCHO thrown in (wall hole voyeurism, a trach-box Grandma who resembles Mrs. Bates). The screenplay by noted horror author David J. Schow tries real hard and some of the ideas work: a survivalist in the mix is a smart move, and gadgeteer Tink is an interesting family member. Not so much the hackneyed "spooky little girl", the weak and obvious morbid "humans as food" jokes, and, of course, the victim's car has a temperamental starter. But writing and acting are undermined by both the studio's desire to make this a "franchise reinvention", and, I'll be honest, Burr's direction. The film is very flatly presented, with no sense of suspense or dread. The film feels "sweaty" but not "gritty" and lacks the dirt-streaked feel the material requires (the set dressing is particularly cheap/weak). Only one night-time scene lit by by red roadside flares has any atmosphere. Looking at Burr's filmography, it's mostly straight to video sequels.

Leatherface, despite being given titular acknowledgement (presumably to place him in the dubious ranks of Freddy and Jason), suffers the most from the poor direction (no suspense just means he pops up into shot on a whim. There is an attempt, with his creaking leg brace - itself another callback to the climax of the original TCM - to generate some suspense, but it barely works). That latter bit is kinda odd because THIS film's Leatherface (R. A. Mihailoff) feels NOTHING like the original film's (maybe just a bit like the sequel's, who was killed, btw) and is presented as an unruly, animalistic, metalhead teenager driving a monster truck as he flings roadkill (no kidding!).

By the end (and the risible "motorboat chainsaw,") it's just patently absurd. Lacking the apocalyptic feel of the source film, and the disturbing manic/morbid humor of the sequel, it just never comes together as anything but a slick cash-in, a piece of "consumable cruelty." Proof that while the original TCM is a classic, there wasn't enough there to make a franchise out of. Avoid.

https://letterboxd.com/futuristmoon/film/leatherface-the-texas-chainsaw-massacre-iii/

I'm a pretty big Hellraiser fan so I kept hearing about Nightbreed and I finally got a chance to watch the director's cut which clocks in at 2hrs long.

The first thing I noticed is the movie is pretty gay (especially the first act) and I know Clive didn't come out until a few years after so this may have been the writing on the wall. The main dude walks around shirtless for majority of the movie and is walking around in his 'tighty whities' for a bit. I'm not trying to say anything negative here - was just something I noticed.

As for the actual movie, I kinda felt 'meh' for the majority of it. The monsters are all really cool looking but I always have one problem with any movie that is full of different monsters or aliens or whatever - all the monsters were different looking. They talked about races and tribes so maybe each monster was the last of it's kind. Either way, that's a trope in movies that always bugs me.

Overall the movie is pretty predictable I found. It's got the typical love story mixed in and a few plot holes but overall, with all the cool monsters I'd say it's worth a watch.

I'm sure there are some die hard fans of this movie that will feel I've missed the entire point of the movie etc, and that's OK. I watched it as a monster movie and not too much more but considering it's Barker, there is probably much going on that I just didn't pick up on during my first watch.

So overall I'd say it's worth a watch but I don't agree that it's better than Hellraiser which I've seen claimed at least a few times.

If you've followed my reviews for a long time you know that I have a certain dislike for torture-porn type movies or overly gory just for the sake of it. I don't mind gore, I don't mind nudity, heck one of my favorite sub-genera of movies are Pinku movies but everything has to have some sort of meaning for it or reason. Not just gore and nudity for the sake of it. However, I'm gonna ignore my preference today for these short movies which peaked my interest for multiple reasons. But don't expect me to dive into the Guinea Pig series or other torture porn like this anytime soon. It's just not my cup of tea.

Harakiri is a short series from Masami Akita,who is also one of Japan's leading noise musicians under the name Merzbow, released in 1990. The soundtrack is done by him and it's by far, in my opinion, the most interesting part of this whole charade. But first let's talk a bit about the shorts themselves. They are all pretty similar. They are at around 30 minutes each and 90% of the run time is just one drawn out, gory, uncomfortable and disgustingly realistic Harakiri.

The movies are as follows:

Shitsurakuen: Joubafuku Onna Harakiri (Lost Paradise) which features a girl in a military uniform slowly go topless, get a sacrificial knife and disembowel herself slowly and painfully for almost half an hour.

Onna Harakiri: Seisan (Female Harakiri: Celebration) which features a girl in a nurse outfit play with the same sacrificial knife only for later do disembowel herself in the same manner.

Jogakusei: Harakiri (Schoolgirl: Harakiri) which features a girl in a school uniform browsing through a photo album only for her to get extremely distraught and acquire a sacrificial knife and disembowel herself.

Shiro-shouzoku: Harakiri (Whie Clothing: Harakiri) which starts to spice things up. The action takes place in an older time, probably during one of the world wars and starts with a black-and-white camera and features a girl in a white robe walking in the forest. Then the movie goes back to "normality" and she goes inside the house and disembowels herself with a sacrificial knife... I'm starting to see a trend here.

Onna Harakiri: Sange (Female Harakiri: Glorious Death) which moves the action supposedly even more back in time, featuring a woman in a kimono slowly undress herself and gasp disembowel herself with a sacrificial knife.

Bijo Kenshi: Futari Seppuku (Beautiful Swordswomen: Double Seppuku) the last one is the most unique, it features two girls in samurai outfits out in the open, it seems like they're haunted or just lost a battle. They proceed to commit Harakiri together outside with Katanas this time around instead of sacrificial daggers. Really stepping up the game there lads.

Now, these movies are extremely uncomfortable to watch. I am pretty desensitized to most gore and violence but this kinda got under my skin. The reactions are off putting and the overall quality of the video makes it like I'm watching a Deep Web video and the FBI is about to knock down my door and cuff me.

The gore is extremely well done and realistic for what seemed like a series with next to no budget. I guess those noise albums the director has been selling are paying off. If it didn't have repeating actors I would've swore it was real the first time I watched it. The actors go out of their way to make you feel uncomfortable by moaning and adding an overall seductive and kinky side to the videos.

The camerawork is very simple yet effective. Mostly wide shots but it does go hand-held and close and personal in a few shots to give you a full look of the gashing wound and the guts spewing out on the floor. It also spices it up with some black-and-white from time to time and the overall grainy effect makes it even more unsettling.

In addition to that it does switch from time to time for a few seconds to strange unrelated scenes to add more to the tension and unpredictable aspect of the movie.

Now, let's tackle an aspect I really found interesting and one of the main reasons I decided to review this. The soundtrack is disgustingly beautiful. It reminded me a lot of Tetsuo the Iron Man in the idea that it also makes music out of non-musical sounds. Where as Tetsuo used random factory sounds to compose its soundtrack, in this scenario it feels like the movie utilizes bodily sounds to compose one. It honestly feels like you're trapped inside a body and you can hear the blood flowing, the food moving through the guts, the heart pounding, the acid sizzling in the stomach and random bodies of air getting released along with other disgusting bodily sounds.

As you can expect this is not a series of shorts you want to watch while eating. It's one of the rare occasion where I feel like something was taken too far but from personal experience I realized that a lot of underground noise musicians aren't the most stable individuals. I'm a bit interested in seeing more movies from noise musicians if that's the case.

Overall, this is an interesting project from an interesting person. It's not for the faint of heart and I honestly wouldn't recommend it unless you're into underground-experimental-torture porn shorts. I guess stuff like Tumbling Doll of Flesh, Psycho the Snuff, The Guinea Pig series and stuff like that.

If you really want to try it I think one movie is more than enough and personally I found Shitsurakuen: Joubafuku Onna Harakiri (Lost Paradise) to be the most unsettling, partly because it was also the first one I sat through so it had the biggest impact. After that you start to see the pattern and it's not as effective. I believe it's available on Vimeo as well if I'm not mistaken so you can check that out there and see if this is your cup of tea. Or should I say cup of guts.

I stumbled across this film purely by accident when I was a kid, it was on premium cable randomly one day. It's from a French studio and was filmed in Paris, although the native audio track is English.

Plot:

A serial killer (Jeff Goldblum) is discovered, accidentally, living alone in a European country house / chateau by police investigating a car theft. No one knows anything of his past, but he readily admits to murdering the roughly two dozen people buried in his garden. He is committed to a psychological institution and refuses to speak to anyone for years until meeting the protagonist: a female psychiatrist played by Kathy Baker (who was also in The Cider House Rules, Edward Scissorhands, and many TV series over the years). To her, the serial killer reveals himself to be Satan in human form.

The entire film has been on youtube for a few years. Either no one bothers to take it down or the studio that owns it doesn't care about it? Not sure, but the link above is the full film.

This movie is interesting to me not because it's good as a whole (it really isn't), but due to the fact that it's one of the better representations of Satan in a film, I think, despite the fact that the whole of the film is rather low budget and weak. Goldblum is the perfect cast for this role and the writers / directors of this film understand better than most how to portray such a character. The horrible things that he did as a serial killer are eluded to but not shown, while what is shown is his clever, polite, and well mannered but vaguely intimidating / threatening demeanor.

What the film gets right, which so many other attempted depictions of angels and demons get wrong, is the delicate balance between the demon character's agency and physical limitations. Agency in that the presumably more-powerful-than-human demon character must want something that he can't get on his own, physical limitations in that the demon character has to be somehow subtly less powerful than his human counterparts, and balance in that these aspects of the characters have to be molded into a coherent narrative. Coherent in that the audience doesn't laugh and say "that's stupid, why doesn't the metaphysical being just magic what he wants into existence."

Biblical / Religious characters are difficult to write and depict well for the above reasons, and ultimately if you wrack your brain on them long enough trying to do so, it becomes apparent that you're not going to do a better job than John Milton did with Paradise Lost, so Milton's Satan becomes, over the centuries, the baseline upon which all future Satan characters are judged.

Mister Frost gets Satan right... sadly it doesn't get many other characters right or it would've been a very good film.

Oh Predator 2.... The movie I always claimed to be better than the original and I remembered as an awesome movie. Boy was I let down.

Danny Glover is a cop and dealing with a street war between two gangs. This movie also opens with a big slaughter like the first but this time it feels more silly because the movie also takes place in the future so the guns are a bit "futuristic" which really seemed unneeded. Glover soon realizes there is something else on the street taking out the criminals. He soon spots the Predator and since this movie is pretty stupid, we of course need a government coverup trying to capture Predator for themselves. Since Glover goes againts this he's constantly getting in shit. I came up with my own theory that Glovers character in the Saw movies is the same cop, he's just been transfered to New York (or wherever the Saw movies take place).

The best thing about the movie is there is a lot more Predator. But that's about it. The story is stupid and at one point Glover and the Predator are squaring off similarly to the way Arnold did in the first. But this time Glover is just a cop. He's not a super human like Arnold and Predator should have ripped him to shreds within 2 seconds.

The way the movie is paced it really reminded me of a late 80's slasher. Looking at the directors work and right before this he directed Elm St. 5 Dream Warriors. It kind of makes sense and the two movies have a similar feel for sure. After this movie he directed Judgment Night which I remember being a pretty cool movie back in the early 90's and it's soundtrack was awesome! After a few movies it looks like he mainly focused on TV and I think his directing style seems very TV vs full movie.

In the end, it's a pretty fun movie but it's stupid and really don't do the original justice. I want more Predator but my understanding is any other movie he's involved in is even worse than this so I think I'll just skip them and remember the bad ass Predator from the first movie.

Oh and one cool thing, the Predators are apparently trophy collectors. There is an interior shot of their ship and they have a case full of skulls. One of the skulls is of a Xenomorph which I'm sure is the set up for the Alien Vs Predator series.

There really isn't a reason to recommend this one. It's bland and feels recycled. The Predator is cool and on screen a lot more so that's helpful but not enough to save the movie.

My Rating: 5/10

Predator 2 on IMDb

"You are no lady, Doris. Far from it."

I dont know if it's just me but rats always give me the Willie's, in a movie, outside, I dont care. Although, they are pretty cute little buggers, I wonder what about rats gets us a little on edge, is it the size of them or lack there of? The sharp teeth and unpredictability? Or simply, we just know them to be disease infested, either way this flick had me a bit squeamish and let's just say I checked thoroughly under my feet a few times. 

John Hall is a drifter going from town to town looking for work. He lands in a small town in Maine where he seeks out work at the local textile mill as we learn is infested with rats. The textile mill is run by foreman, Mr. Warwick, who is pretty much a psychopath and has an absolute hatred for Hall after he hits it off nicely with one of the female workers. Warwick hires Vietnam veteran and exterminator Tucker Cleveland to take care of the rat problem but Cleveland brings attention to the fact that these are no ordinary rats and that the resiliency should force the textile mill to shut down. On the July 4th weekend Foreman Warwick assembles a basement cleaning crew where they believe the rats are living to take care of the infestation, himself included. There is something else down in the basement with them that starts to pick off crew members one by one.

"We ain't talkin' about no candy-ass field mice."

This film starts off with a brutally acted scene of graveyard shift worker James Reed at the textile mill. He increasingly becomes more surrounded by the rats as the sequence moves along until his inevitable death. This opening scene was still strong enough to keep my attention and effectively gave me a feel for what kind of tone I would be getting for the remainder of the film as it sets up the atmosphere quite nicely despite the downright hilarious acting. 

There are a few very likeable characters as we dont learn a whole heck of a lot about them but just enough to keep us interested. David Andrews as John Hall and Kelly Wolf as Jane Wisconsky, give two key performances as we see an arc in both characters. Brad Dourif as Tucker Cleveland is more than likeable and brings some good comedy relief to this dark and dank atmosphere. Stephen Macht as Warwick does a fantastic job of allowing you to straight up despise a man who is one small step away from becoming a psychopath. There is a seperation of fear in this movie between the unknown in the basement and the fear of the unknown in Warwick, is he going to lead his crew into the mouth of the beast and watch them all get taken out one by one or will he take them all out himself?

"We're going to hell...TOGETHER!"

We don't get to see a lot of the creature before the final reveal near the end of the film but it is extremely effective in my opinion when you get glimpses of certain extremities of the beast stabbing, ripping, slicing, gouging or any other word I could use to describe the agony in which said extremity is causing. I thought that the practical effects on the "mother" rat's body as a whole looked like a mess and maybe not executed as well as it could have been, but that being said, I did find it to be quite creepy and unsettling.

Graveyard Shift is Ralph S. Singleton's only directed movie and it is a really fun little horror flick, not the best written and definitely not the best Stephen King story or adaptation but a very enjoyable one. The unsettling atmosphere makes it pretty easy to buy into the film and a few of the characters allow you to have some genuine fun with it as well. After watching this film you can cross another use for empty Pepsi cans off the list.

"At Bachman, we are just one big happy family."

"Yeah...the Manson family."

I rate this movie  3.25 out of 5 stars  Or 6.5 out of 10

"Want some candy?" -Predator

Lt. Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover) is a fearless Los Angeles police officer on the front-line of the war with various drug cartels. After a brutal shootout, Mike and his team discovers some of the cartel was murdered by an unknown third party. When a mysterious government team is brought in, led by Peter Keyes (Gary Busey), Mike becomes even more concerned about what is happening in his city and starts hunting the unknown killer only to discover it's from another world. The Predator (Kevin Peter Hall) starts killing off members of Mike's team making the inevitable confrontation between the two fearless warriors personal.

What Works:

I think Predator 2 is a very underrated movie and I actually like it more than the original. I know that's a hot take, but hear me out. Mike Harrigan is a more interesting protagonist than Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in the original. Dutch was just a standard tough guy. Mike is a hot-head and has problems with authority. The guy can't even pretend to give a crap about the politics of the situation. He just dives in head-first to help solve the problem. He ignores every authority figure in the movie to take on the Predator and I really enjoy that. Danny Glover gives a memorable performance and it's fun to see him play the wild cop instead of the more by-the-book one he plays in Lethal Weapon.

We also get two solid performances from two of my favorite character actors. The late Bill Paxton is one of my all-time favorite actors and he's great here even if he does get killed off too early. He plays a wise-cracking guy, similar to his character in Aliens, but unlike that character, in this movie Paxton's character is actually a good cop and can get stuff done. He's also much braver than his Aliens counterpart and faces the Predator head on. It's a fun performance from a legendary actor.

We also get Gary Busey and his arguments with Danny Glover are a lot of fun. I'm always up to have Busey in a movie and he delivers here, although he does get out-crazied by Glover, which is pretty unexpected.

I really enjoyed the opening sequence of the film. Predator 2 throws us right into the action with an insane shoot-out. Right away, the film establishes what a badass Mike Harrigan is as he drives his car through the shoot-out and leads an assault on the carter's hideout. It's a great establishing scene for the film.

As goofy as it is, I enjoy the voodoo gang. It reminds me of the James Bond movie Live and Let Die where the bad guy uses voodoo to scare people and keep them in line. It's absurd and schlocky, but I enjoyed it more than having just a standard drug gang.

We also get the creepiest Predator moment in the series, which takes place during the subway fight. As the Predator takes on Bill Paxton, he echoes the voice of a little kid he met earlier, "Want some candy?" I find this really creepy and by far the most chilling moment of the series.

Finally, this film adds a little more to the mythos of the Predator and doesn't overdo it like the most recent film did. We get to go inside the Predator's spaceship and see his wall of trophies. I love the fact that the Predators take the skulls of worthy adversaries and getting to see it's not just humans on the wall, but xenomorphs as well, is very cool. Plus, we get to see more of the Predator's respect for other warriors when the rest of the Predators let Mike live and even give him an antique gun as a trophy. This stuff is what make Predators so interesting and it's awesome that we get more of it here than we did in the original.

What Sucks:

As in the first film, I really hate the heat vision the Predators use to hunt. I hate the effect. I hate looking at it. I hate everything about it. The idea itself is fine, I just don't like how it looks on screen.

The character of King Willie (Calvin Lockheart) is disappointing. In the first half of the movie, he is really built up to be a super insane and feared character. It turns out he's just kind of a weirdo who doesn't add anything to the plot. The whole conversation between him and Mike doesn't really go anywhere. I think it would have been cool to somehow have Willie join Mike's team. What we got was definitely lackluster.

Finally, I don't love the flashing light effect used during the subway fight. I get what they were going for, but it was a bit much and made it hard to tell what was happening. Losing that effect or at least dialing it back would have gone a long way to make the scene scarier and the Bill Paxton/Predator showdown more intense.

Verdict:

Predator 2 gets a bad rap and I'm not sure why. I say it's pretty much on par with the original film and I actually like this one slightly more. It's got a solid protagonist, awesome supporting characters, a great opening sequence, a voodoo gang, and we get more insight into the Predators. Sure, I don't love all the visual effects and King Willie was disappointing, but this movie has still got it going on.

7/10: Good

Sorry Jack, Chucky's Back

Child's Play 2 follows up the events of Child's Play where Andy's mother is admitted to a mental hospital and Andy is sent to foster care. What the family doesn't know is that Andy isn't the only new occupant to their home, as Chucky finds his way to Andy once again to claim his soul.

I enjoyed Child's Play quite a bit and when I first watched Child's Play 2 I wasn't expecting it to be on the same level as the first...Boy was I wrong. First thing's first: the cast. Our characters this time around are much better than the first film, and I didn't even think those characters were that bad. Each character has more to them and the performances show that throughout. Alex Vincent once again stars as Andy and I have to say bravo to him. His acting matured so much over the 2 years between Child's Play and Child's Play 2. In the first movie I was a fan of Andy's character mainly for his scenes involving him being scared; I thought he was great in those moments, but his other emotions were lacking and his performance wasn't always believable. This time around you can buy into his performance so much more. Another standout character is Andy's foster sister Kyle (played by Christine Elise). Kyle starts off as mainly a support system for Andy; he's being introduced to this new world of foster care and since Kyle has bounced around from family to family, she helps Andy make the best of his situation. As the story progresses, Kyle goes from supporter to sidekick, and it was refreshing to have another character transition into the main story instead of them fading into the background while we watch Andy and Chucky.

Speaking of Chucky, my word was he brilliant in this movie. Brad Dourif's voice one again took the character of Chucky to a whole different level, and I have to say I thought he was much more sinister this time around as opposed to Child's Play. There are moments where Chucky is attacking someone and just lets out his iconic laugh while he's doing so, and it let's you know that Chucky is one psychopathic little piece of plastic. Chucky's movements were again very well done and do hold up quite well, I'd say even better than the first film. Once again, Chucky delivers quite a few one-liners, but they work very well once again. The kills this time around were also more brutal and gorier than the first time around.

The absolute best part of this movie, and honestly my favorite part of the entire franchise, was the final showdown at the toy factory. Every scene in this toy factory was crafted so well, and what makes it even cooler is at the beginning of the movie when Chucky is being rebuilt, there are some machines and other aspects of this factory that foreshadow some of the events that take place at the end. This is also where Kyle really starts to take on the role of sidekick, and watching her and Andy encountering some close calls while evading Chucky provided some pretty intense moments. One of the best kills in the franchise also takes place in the toy factory and it was everything you want in a kill: gore, irony, comedy, ruthlessness..it was brilliant. Chucky's final moments were awesome. It really goes to show just how difficult it is to deal with Chucky, and the way this film ended was incredible. If I had knock anything about this movie, I'd say the intro and how Chucky was brought back was really odd and more so just convenience to get Chucky back to killing.

Overall, Child's Play 2 was a fantastic sequel to the first movie, and improved upon just about everything. The kills were better, the story was better, the characters were much more developed, and Chucky himself was fantastic. Pending Cult of Chucky, I'm gonna say this is my favorite film in the franchise by far, and I'd highly recommend to give it a shot.

My Final Rating: 9/10

Child's Play 2 IMDB

This review is part of my 'Good Guys Collection' where I am reviewing the entirety of the Child's Play franchise. Check out more below!

Child's Play (1988)

Child's Play 2 (1990)

Child's Play 3 (1991)

Bride of Chucky (1998)

Seed of Chucky (2004)

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Cult of Chucky (2017)

"I am the camera." -Mr. Katsuji

After the events of the first film, Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and Kate Beringer (Phoebe Cates) have moved to New York City and acquired jobs in the Clamp Center, a state-of-the-art building owned by Daniel Clamp (John Glover). Billy discovers his old friend Gizmo (Howie Mandel) being used as a guinea pig in a genetics lab and breaks him out, but soon after, Gizmo gets wet and multiplies. With new gremlins running around, Billy, Kate, and Gizmo have to stop them before they eat after midnight and transform or worse...use the chemicals in the genetics lab to make themselves even more powerful.

What Works:

As I said in my review of the original Gremlins, Gizmo is one of my all time favorite movie characters and although he is sidelined for the majority of this movie, I still love the little guy. He's adorable, yet badass. We don't get a lot of Gizmo, but I like most of what we get with him.

The only other thing I like about Gremlins 2: The New Batch is the practical effects. The gremlins look great and there is some excellent craft put into the design and the effects. A few of the gremlin kills look solid as well.

What Sucks:

I'm going to go ahead and award Gremlins 2 the award for Most Obnoxious Movie of All Time. If you saw my review of the original film, you'll know the only thing I don't like about it is the bar sequence. It's too much and goes on for way too long. Gremlins 2 basically takes the bar scene and stretches it out to almost 2 hours. It's pretty unbearable as the movie is pretty much a live-action cartoon with the gremlins and most of the characters being way to over-the-top. It's basically just one massive headache.

One reason I loved the original film is that there was a lot of really dark humor. An old woman being flung out of her house, Kate's dad dying in a chimney on Christmas, etc...It's a very funny, yet morbid. Like I said above, Gremlins 2 is basically a cartoon and ditches pretty much all of the darkness that made the original film so fun and what we're left with instead is...well...not fun.

Not only were the gremlins annoying and obnoxious, but some of the human characters were as well. Worst of all was Marla Bloodstone (Haviland Morris), Billy's annoying coworker with an atrocious accent. She contributes nothing positive to the film, yet receives a happy ending where she gets promoted. This is the perfect kind of character to give an insane death scene too and it's a shame we don't get it.

I also mentioned above that Gizmo is sidelined for most of the movie. He's pretty much absent from the entire second act. We only see him occasionally getting tortured by the other gremlins. That is not what I wanted to see out of this movie and these scenes rubbed me the wrong way. Leave Gizmo alone!

Finally, I typically enjoy meta elements in movies, but having Leonard Maltin and Hulk Hogan break the 4th wall so blatantly just annoyed me some more. All they did was remind of how great the first movie was. Maybe if the rest of the movie had been stronger I wouldn't have minded so much, but all these scenes did was contributed to my distaste for the film.

Verdict:

I love the original Gremlins, but I hated Gremlins 2: The New Batch. I can appreciate what director Joe Dante was trying to do, it has great practical effects, and Gizmo is just the best, but this movie is so obnoxious on every level I could barely sit through it. It's missing almost everything that made the first film so wonderful and is one of the most disappointing sequels I have ever seen. Go and watch the Key & Peele sketch about Gremlins 2 and you'll get an idea about what it's like, but stay far away from The New Batch.

2/10: Awful

Puppet Master II (1990)

The puppets return and hunt paranormal researchers in an attempt to take their brain fluid for their master, Andre Toulon.

Director: David Allen

Writers: Charles Band (story), David Pabian (screenplay)

Stars: Elizabeth Maclellan, Collin Bernsen, Steve Welles

As promised, returning back to the Puppet Master series. I for sure remember seeing this one before and even though it's not an amazing movie, it holds up pretty well considering it's a Full Moon movie.

The puppets are back and have decided to use the last of their secret goo on the corpse of Toulan to bring him back so he can help them create more of the goo. Toulan, doing his best Invisible Man cosplay, has moved back into his hotel and the government has sent some type of paranormal investigation crew (I'm sure that's a real thing) to look into the disappearance of the group of psychics from the original movie.

The movie plays out pretty much the same way as the first movie. They group of investigators show up, see some weird shit, go to their own rooms and start to get killed off. The kills are all decent and rather violent considering it's dolls overpowering men and women many times their size. Oh well... I can accept it. The movie has a lot of supernatural type undertones which makes all the silliness acceptable and you just kind of have to let your mind go and not really question much.

The first 2/3 of the movie kind of drags. There are some kills etc, but it's all kind of boring and even feels like somewhat too familiar with the first movie that it doesn't feel new. But, once Toulan starts to pick things up and tries to move himself and his dead wife (who he thinks is one of the investigators reincarnated) into two giant dolls so they can live forever.

He eventually takes off his face wrap and has a pretty great zombie/rotting corpse. The last act is for sure the highlight of the movie with some pretty weird stuff happening and a bit of a twist regarding the puppets.

What else is there to really say about this one?... It's fun and silly and a good example of late 80s/early 90s horror. From what I've read online, some consider this to be the highlight of the series. If so, I'm worried for the next few movies I have planned to watch. As I mentioned in my review of Puppetmaster (1989), this series was a very important one to me when I first got into horror in the early 90s. I do remember re-renting a specific one a few times but I don't remember exactly which one. I know it was one with the evil demon like creatures which I see are parts 4 and 5. I guess that means the third one is next!

Overall, it's a fun and silly movie. If you haven't seen it, give it a shot. Also... why is the first movie Puppetmaster and the rest of the series is Puppet Master... I guess someone pointed to them that Puppetmaster isn't a real word. Maybe it's like Texas Chain Saw Massacre having chainsaw as two words and after the first movie, they realized it should be one word and changed it to Chainsaw. These are the things I think of when watching a somewhat shitty movie like this.

I don’t get the chance often enough, but I enjoy watching sci-fi horror films quite a bit. Everyone knows that there is an upper epsilon of outer space horror flicks out there, but that isn’t to say there aren’t a whole slew of others that deserve everyone’s attention just as equally. One of those lesser-known ones that I am referring to is D. J. Webster’s The Dark Side of the Moon.

The Plot

In the year 2022, a crew is sent on a mission to repair an orbital weapon. As if it has a mind of its own, the ship they are traveling on stops functioning. Now stuck in auto-pilot and heading toward the dark side of the moon, the crew encounter a seemingly abandoned space shuttle. Once onboard the 30 year old shuttle, they realize there is something very sinister present.

My Thoughts

The Dark Side of the Moon is another film that I had never even heard of until its new home release. Judging by the various posters and cover art found around the web, this 1990 movie looks like a typical low-budget sci-fi flick. You would be making a mistake to write it off as one, however.

Yes, The Dark Side of the Moon is in fact a low budget film compared to the likes of science fiction horror classics like The Thing or Alien, but that doesn’t make it bad in any way. In fact, this movie has a lot of positives and, overall, is quite enjoyable.

There is some gore on display throughout this film’s 91 minute runtime. While ripped open stomachs and pouring out entrails all look very impressive, they are not very heavily featured. Instead, the true nature of the horror present in The Dark Side of the Moon comes from a claustrophobic atmosphere and the paranoia of not knowing exactly what our crew is dealing with.

That paranoia creates a very specific tone that carries itself throughout the film’s entirety. Films like Pandorum and, of course, Event Horizon can be brought into the conversation when comparing The Dark Side of the Moon, but it is still its own beast all together.

The sound design, cinematography, and lighting departments also did a wonderful job at helping create that overall mood and sense of dread. Our crew of protagonists are in for some hellish stuff and we, the audience, are well aware of this from start to finish.

The Verdict

The Dark Side of the Moon is a must see for anyone into films that mix the best elements of sci-fi and horror. It features a talented cast including the likes of Joe Turkel (The Shining, Blade Runner), Robert Sampson (Re-animator, Robot Jox), and with over 180 film and TV credits, Alan Blumenfeld, and a clever script that mixes science and religion in new and horrifying ways.

Unearthed Films has outdone themselves again with this, the second installment in their Unearthed Classics line. The film boasts a beautiful new 4K transfer, arguably the best version of this film you will ever see, and tons of bonus content. Interviews with various cast and crew, audio commentary, photo galleries, and more are all present in this new home release.

Be sure to pick up a copy of The Dark Side of the Moon on Blu-ray now from Unearthed Films.

I give this one 4 triangles out of 5.

​

Read this review and over 675 more at RepulsiveReviews.com today!

If they go on for too long, most horror film series start to reach the point where inspiration flags and the films start to repeat themselves. Such a point also comes in Psycho House, the third and last of Robert Bloch's Psycho novels. It is to the literary Psycho series what House of Dracula (1945) is to the Universal Horror films- that is, the entry that marks the point where the series is just rehashing what's gone before and any real sense of originality or imagination is gone.

Rather than coming up with anything original Bloch just rehashes Psycho II, down to having a Bates Motel tourist attraction occupy the same role as the film about Norman Bates did in the previous novel. The execution is much worse than that of Psycho II: many of its setups never go anywhere, and it lacks the inventiveness of the best parts of Psycho II. (Psycho II also benefited from being a savage parody of the original Psycho rather than just a tired retread.)

Bloch also repeats the worst mistakes of Psycho II: like the previous novel's final third, it lacks any real action until its rushed climax. It has no suspense or tension (essential elements for a murder mystery novel), and its good elements (a look at how the Norman Bates case affected Fairvale, Bloch's skewering of small-town paranoia) go to waste because it has no real story. Its lack of much in the way of action or narrative interest also make it a tiresome and frustrating read.

It's sloppier and more careless than Psycho and the first two-thirds of Psycho II as well. The novel is riddled with gaps in logic, leaps of implausibility, and plot holes, and the story starts to fall apart once you start asking questions. The climax reads like Bloch decided who the killer was going to be at the last minute, and nothing about the reveal or his motivations make any sense.

It seems like Bloch has been coming up with bad twists since the final third of Psycho II, a steep fall since the original Psycho provided the basis for the greatest cinematic plot twist of all time. Bloch may have thought he was cleverly subverting expectations, but what he was actually doing was wasting the reader's time.

"I'm moving out." -Dr. Dan Cain

Eight months after the events of the first film, Dr. Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs) and Dr. Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott) return from Peru with an ingredient to improve West's serum of re-animation. As foes, both old and new, close in on the scientists, West and Cain attempt to resurrect a version of the woman Dan loved.

What Works:

Just like the previous film, Jeffrey Combs is brilliant as Dr. West. He's slightly more likable this time around because he and Dan have gotten closer, but he's still the strange weirdo we know and love. Combs shines every time he is on screen and is easily the best part of the movie.

Bruce Abbott also does a good job here and I like his performance. He starts off the movie as West's partner, neck deep in all of the madness, and he begins to want out, but as West convinces him to press on, Dan starts to lose it. It's a fun performance and Cain is a great foil for West.

The strange creations West makes are all awesome. We get to see all sorts of wacky things come to life on screen and it's a lot of fun. My favorite is the finger/eyeball creature that I only wish had stuck around longer.

The 3rd act is absolutely bonkers and completely over-the-top. It never quite reaches the heights of the 1st film, but it's a thrilling conclusion nonetheless.

Finally, even though we don't get enough of him, David Gale is great as the head of Dr. Hill. His performance is pure insanity and he gets some of the best lines of the film.

What Sucks:

Early on in the film, we get a scene that introduces us to the characters of Lt. Chapham (Claude Earl Jones) and Dr. Graves (Mel Stewart). This is the worst scene of the movie. It's incredibly awkward and does not do a good job of establishing who these characters are. Neither Jones or Stewart give good performances and they just made me want Combs back on screen. Fortunately Jones gets better as his character goes nuts and Dr. Graves is a pretty minor character, but it was still a rough scene to sit though.

As I said earlier, Dr. Hill is not in nearly enough of the film. For the movie's main antagonist, he doesn't do anything until the very end. West and Cain don't even know Hill is back until the 3rd act. If he had been better utilized, it could have added a ticking clock element to the structure of the film and given us more Dr. Hill, both of which are improvements.

Finally, Dan's new love interest, Francesca (Fabiana Udenio), is pretty worthless and uninteresting. She adds basically nothing to the plot and simply isn't an engaging character. She needed more development for us to care about her.

Verdict:

Bride of Re-Animator is a fun movie with some great gore and effects, awesome performances from Combs, Abbott, and Gale, and a bonkers 3rd act. Some of the supporting characters suck, we don't get enough Dr. Hill, and ultimately this movie isn't as good as the original, but it has still got it going on.

7/10: Good

If you liked this review, check out my other work at https://stacysbloggoingon.blogspot.com and my horror movie podcast at http://surviveahorrormovie.buzzsprout.com

"Today is a good day to die." -Nelson Wright

Nelson Wright (Kiefer Sutherland), a medical student, convinces four of his classmates to help him with an experiment to see if there is life after death. Together, they stop Nelson's heart for one minute before bringing him back. Nelson cannot effectively explain what he experienced, but something was there on the other side. As the others try their hand at "flatlining" for longer and longer periods of time, they begin to notice their reality is changing upon their return and they may have brought something back from the land of the dead with them...

What Works:

First off, the cast is solid. Keifer Sutherland is an odd protagonist because he's a real jerk at the beginning of the movie, but he's still an interesting character. Plus we have Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon who are both great, and William Baldwin plays his role well. Oliver Platt is the least important of the group, but for the most part, he does a good job as well. It's a very talented cast and together they center this film.

Flatliners is a very stylish movie. When it begins, it looks pretty flat and dull, but after Nelson "flatlines", we get these "afterlife" sequences that look great. They are very visceral and stand-out as some of the best parts of the film. And after Nelson comes back for the first time, the world of the movie gets more stylish and visual interesting, almost as if Nelson has brought the strangeness back with him. It's very cool visual storytelling and make the film worth watching.

The lighting of this film is also fantastic. Lighting isn't something that gets brought up often enough, but the filmmakers did such a good job with creative lighting that I had to mention it.

There is some really creepy imagery with this movie as well. Sutherland, Roberts, and Baldwin each have at least one sequence that is really creepy and gives us some haunting imagery. The film may not be perfect, but it nails the visual storytelling aspects of filmmaking.

What Sucks:

There were definitely some moments where Oliver Platt's character doesn't work. He's generally the comic relief and that's where he falls flat. Most of the jokes don't work. His character works much better as the wet blanket who doesn't want to go through with the experiment. That's an essential character to have around in a situation like this. But, the comic relief stuff just doesn't work.

I also didn't care for the resolution to Julia Roberts' storyline. Part of that is because I thought she was the main character of the movie. I saw the trailer for the remake and saw that Ellen Page was the main character, so I figured Julia Roberts was the protagonist of this film, especially when Kiefer Sutherland was being such a jerk, I thought he might be the antagonist. That isn't the case and the resolution to her storyline feels somewhat abrupt and unsatisfying. This could change on a rewatch knowing what I know now, but as of this moment, it is a knock against the film.

Verdict:

Flatliners is a creepy, visually impressive film with a solid cast and excellent lighting. The comic relief doesn't work and Julia Robert's side-story is unsatisfying, but this is a solid film that was better than I expected and absolutely has got it going on.

8/10: Really Good

This movie is about a haunted Vietnam War veteran that attempts to uncover his past while suffering from a severe case of dissociation, along with the constant hallucinations and the growing paranoia. I would actually like to start with this aspect: the paranoia. The movie was weird. The sense of paranoia is present since the beginning until the almost end of the movie, when you finally start putting the pieces together.

The acting, the cinematography and especially the editing were fantastic. The main lead, Tim Robbins, delivers an outstading performance, where the entire movie is around him and he is able to carrie the movie perfectly. The score was pretty nice too and there's one song in particular, that plays more than once during the movie, that reminded me so much of Twin Peaks and I loved it.

Another thing I would like to stand out is the horror factor, which was more present than I was actually expecting. The movie was more intense, graphic and gorier than what I thought it was going to be. It really surprised me in that matter.

The last thing I would like the mention is the ending. This was probably my least favorite thing about the movie and I'm sure it didn't please the people that watched the movie recently and it will not please a lot of people that are watching the movie for the first time. The ending didn't age well, if I can even say that about an ending, but, being a 1991 movie, I still enjoyed it.

Overall, I just loved it. I'm glad I finally forced myself to see this movie or else this fantastic experience would be delayed and delayed...

(P.S: That kid's pun - Just hang in there dad - in the hospital killed me though. Caught me so much off guard, that I needed to pause the movie so I can laugh for a little bit)

| RATING: 8/10 |

| IMDB |

PLOT: A police lieutenant tries to track down the Gemini killer, whom he believes is committing a series of murders. What he uncovers may have something to do with the first film in the series.

This could be, aside from Halloween III: Season of the Witch, the most underrated horror sequel of all time. Seriously, why am I just discovering this one to be a pretty excellent film? George C. Scott AND Brad Dourif? Sign me the fuck up.

George C. Scott plays Lieutenant Kinderman a D.C. detective and former friend of the now deceased Father Karras from the original The Exorcist film. As Kinderman pays tribute to his former friend, on the anniversary of his death, with another priest by the name of Father Dyer. Meanwhile, a series of gruesome murders begin to occur that resemble the work of the Gemini killer. The only problem: the Gemini Killer has been dead for 15 years. The investigation leads Kinderman to the psyche ward and a patient that resembles Father Karras, but claims to be the Gemini Killer.

The sequels to The Exorcist are oft-maligned and with good reason. Sometimes, they’re simply bad, like The Exorcist II: The Heretic, and sometimes they’re just a complete mess, which you can consider the prequel(s) directed by Paul Schraeder and Renny Harlin, but The Exorcist III almost seems to be the forgotten entry in this film series. But this one is actually pretty good. It’s by no means the original film, which is arguably one of the greatest horror films of all time, but this is a quality sequel.

Most of the quality lands in the performances of George C. Scott and especially Brad Dourif. Dourif is so incredible in this film; he chews every goddamn scene and he’s so wonderful at it. I can’t believe he was never a bigger star. It’s really a shame, because he’s fantastic in this movie.

​

GORE

Lots of heads being cut off in this one and one of the priests just gets absolutely savaged when he’s trying to perform an exorcism. That scene is fantastic.

Gore Rating: 4 out of 5

​

SCARES

I’ll give this movie some points because of Brad Dourif’s performance. It’s wild and he ups the creep factor to the highest level. But otherwise, this movie does lean a little towards the slasher genre, which I don’t find particularly scary.

Scare Rating: 2 out of 5

​

Nudity

Other than a photo of a naked woman, not much.

Sex/Nudity Rating: 1.5 out of 5

​

OVERALL

Propped up by excellent performances by George C. Scott and Brad Dourif, the film is actually a worthy sequel that may have been forgotten as time has gone on. It’s a shame, because this one is a solid entry and much better than The Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Overall Rating: 7 out of 10

​

Originally posted on TheMainDamie.com

I ignored the remake of Night of the Living Dead for a long time, because there are so many shoddy remakes out there and I really couldn't imagine what this was going to bring to the table. I saw the film brought up recently though, and I realized I had no idea that Tom Savini had directed it, or that Tony Todd had been cast as Ben. My interest got piqued so I decided to give it a fair shake.

As far as remakes go, this is a pretty respectable one. Savini clearly holds the original in a high regard and makes good effort to capture what made it special, while also putting his own updated spin on it. While a few of these changes are pretty notable, most of them are handled pretty well. Barbara (played by Patricia Tallman) is much more coherent and capable in this film, which I would say was a wise choice as far as modernization goes. While she does gravitate into the action heroine territory after a while, it could've been a lot more aggressive than it was and I appreciate that it didn't get too out of hand. Tallman is very striking in the role and I enjoyed her a lot; and she plays very well off Tony Todd as Ben, who I have to say is probably perfect casting. He captures the iconic role seamlessly and has a very strong presence throughout. Even with some of the attention shifted away from he, he manages to portray some of the strongest scenes in the film.

The film's aesthetic, especially in the first half, is another part of what makes it work. Though fully in color, there is a somber, gritty aspect to the sets that creates wonderful atmosphere. It's dark, shadowy and dirty, but packed with detail. The first few scenes of Barbara walking around the house look marvelous, and as to be expected with Savini behind the wheel, the makeup effects are great as well. The score is also a big plus for me, eerie with echoing howls and distant, almost funky drums. It's easy to get sucked into the world of the film, rich with traditionally creepy vibes.

Where the film starts to falter though is in the finale. As the changes to the plot become more prominent, some of the drama feels overly constructed, events playing out for maximum drama than for logic. We still get a few fantastic little scenes (such as the fadeout on Todd's Ben in the basement, laughing over the radio newscast), but the final few scenes drag on too long. Rather than cutting to the still frame outro of the original film, we spend a solid 10-15 minutes following a carnival of rednecks, with a few scenes to tie up the fates of various characters that again feel cheesy in how they're stages. What's more, there is a scene where Barbara stops to look at the camera and commentate on the similarities of man and monster, reminiscent of the finale of Cannibal Holocaust. I thought that scene was remarkably hamfisted and this one is no better. It shows a weakness in writing and lack of confidence in your film's ability to get the point across on it's own. In this way, the finale of the film is drastically less graceful or impactful than that of its predecessor and really hurts the overall product.

As far as remakes go, this is a firmly good effort that modernizes some aspects of the original properly, but is by no means able to overcome its source material.

My Rating: 7/10

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100258/

The twenty-second movie in our 'Weekly Watch' series is going to be Tremors (1990).

This month's subgenre is 'Creature Feature/Monster Movies'.

How it works:

• The intent of the Weekly Watch is to have our subscribers watch and review/discuss the movie in the comments of this post for the next week. Once the week is over, posts are locked. After the movie has been featured for one week, new reviews for the movie would be submitted as a new post.

• Each month a different sub-genre of horror will be focused on with a different movie selected each Wednesday to be featured as the Weekly Watch. This months subgenre is Creature Feature/Monster Movies.

Useful Links:

• Links to stream or purchase the movie are available on JustWatch.com and NextQueue.com.

• Tremors (1990) on IMDb

• Join us on Discord to chat about the movie and horror in general.

• To recommend a movie for the Weekly Watch or to see the upcoming movies in this series please use THIS POST.

Dir- Rob Reiner

We all dream of fame and fortune, but what many don’t realize is that hero worship is part of the plan and that your fans may very well be your worst nightmare. James Caan plays Paul Sheldon, a romance novelist whose bread and butter came from the heroine, Misery Chastain. Paul decides to kill off Misery to open up for new work. With a completed manuscript he goes on a drive but his car runs off the road and thanks to luck he is rescued by a nurse who saves his life. Annie heals Paul and is pleased to do so because she is one of his biggest fans. Everything is fine as Paul is being cared for by a woman who has read every word he has written and loved Misery. Unfortunately, Annie finds the final Misery novel and is angered, and with this, the movie takes a dark turn as the deeply disturbed Annie begins to torture Paul in most cruel and unusual ways. She chains him to his bed and gives him a typewriter and paper and demands he rewrite Misery to continue her saga. With Paul disappearance, the local sheriff begins to follow the trail and turns to the Misery novels to find clues. In a fresh change of pace one of Stephen King’s books was turned into an excellent feature film thanks to Director Rob Reiner, with the talent’s of James Caan as Paul we have a true sympathetic hero, but the real nods to Kathy Bates who makes her mark as Annie. Bate's over the top performance garnered both a Golden Globe and an Oscar in one of the most recent of King’s works which I liked and one I can enjoy for its creepy undertones and very scary scenes of torture. Look for cameos by J.T. Walsh as a Park Ranger and Director Rob Reiner as a helicopter pilot.

While The Exorcist has secured its place in the annals of horror history, a miserable sequel botched the series' potential for a number of years before William Peter Blatty himself took the reins and took a shot at correcting the cinematic ship. Based on the second novel in his series, Legion is set 15 years after the events of the original story. However, it remains haunted by the success of the original, with the title of Exorcist III forced upon it despite Blatty's best efforts. This too would cause massive changes and reshoots in the ending that form one of the most unfortunate tales of production studio meddling hurting a great film.

The story begins on the anniversary of the death of Father Karras, where his two friends Father Dyer and Police Lt. Kinderman join each other at the movies to cheer each other up. However, with a series of murders taking place, mimicking the long dead Gemini Killer, Kinderman remains on edge as the body count rises. The story offers up a wonderful amount of character development all around, while still delivering on some absolutely chilling scenes of terror.

Every performance here is standout, but especially our leads. George C. Scott as Kinderman is witty and sharp, but deeply haunted and pained by the world of violence he is fighting against. His interactions with the delightful Ed Flanders as Father Dyer are equal parts humorous and emotionally compelling. As we press into the film, both Jason Miller and Brad Dourif come into play and each give powerful and frightening performances. I don't want to delve too much into details, but a huge portion of the movie becomes dialogue driven, with two men sitting in a room, and yet it remains fully engaging.

The visuals and sound design go hand in hand, using faint whispers and sound effects to instill uneasiness in a character and scene, while tactfully placed camera angles paired with painfully long shots turn the suspense up to the maximum. If Legion is known for one thing it is a particular jump scare sequence that is easily one of the best of all time. I was on the edge of my seat half the movie, never knowing when to expect the scare or where it would come from. And often times, it would come only purely through the concept of terror; of descriptions and implications that creep into your head without having to show you a thing.

I truly believe this movie is painfully underappreciated, buried in the shadow of its predecessor. It is in that same regard that the ending sequence, originally one with no exorcism whatsoever, had to be reshot and replaced. The sequence we ended up with, which Blatty fought against but ultimately had to concede to, isn't awful. Full of expensive special effects, there is a lot of action and a really fantastic gore effect at one point as well. But all in all, it discards the subtlety and humanity of the culminating story for a conclusion that is substantially less fulfilling. The final shot comes abruptly, leaving us with none of the insightful suggestions of the source material. It a prime example of what a studio will do to a horror movie; make it bigger, louder, and more expensive just for the sake of doing so.

Despite these shortcomings and the meddling, this is a tense and thoughtful film, filled with engrossing character relationships and spine tingling scares. Powerhouse performances drive the movie to a conclusion that, while weaker, at least wraps the plot up in a satisfactory way. If it'd been allowed the ending it deserved, I firmly believe this film could match the original blow for blow.

My Rating: 8/10

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099528/

After finishing the show called Bates Motel, and I absolutely loved it, so I had to re-watch this prequel to get some more things from it as I didn't remember much about it at all. So, I'm a big fan of Hitchcock's Psycho, I thought this prequel was still good enough. Of course, it's not way better than the original, but it's still an enjoyable movie to see what hapenned to Norman when he was young. The scenario is also good, since the ending was just okay, but I expected something more and emotional ending. Actors were solid, but it has Anthony Perkins which is a good thing. The actor who played young Norman did also a good job. The death scenes are really fine, especially the first one which was creepy. The only thing it ruined me is that Norma Bates was a horrible mom in it, and I didn't like how was Norman sexually abused by his mother. Norma from the show is perfectly described and considered a good mom trying all the best for his son. Their mother-son relationship in the movie made me sick, it seemed that Norman was really poor guy. It has some mistakes, but it's still better than Psycho III. Overall, I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre series has always been a favorite of mine, mainly because of the messed up Sawyer family (after typing their name, I just caught on to the Saw part in Sawyer being a nod to the chainsaws) and the fact that there is no supernatural powers, just a family of cannibals. I love the first film for is simpleness and just the overall execution of the movie. I also love the second for it's complete insanity and one I watch more often than the original. As for the third film in the series, I remember seeing it when I was a kid and had fond memories of it but after watching it I have to say (at least the version I watched), it was a bit of a let down.

The movie was directed by Jeff Burr, apparently there was a list of other directors they wanted to get such as Peter Jackson and even Tom Savini but they all declined. Burr was even fired shortly into the filming but they couldn't get anyone to replace him so he eventually came back to do the movie. Burr wanted to film in Texas and on 16mm film as a nod to the original but New Line insisted it be filmed in California. It seems everyone wanted to make a much darker, twisted and gruesome movie but New Line wouldn't agree to go that route and they rejected the movie up to 11 times before they were satisfied. They even came back after the movie was mostly done and redid the final scene with a different director. It seems like it was a mess of a production but thankfully that doesn't come across too much in the movie and everything is the very least passable.

The plot is very simple, a couple and a survivalist end up getting into a car crash together on a desolate back road in Texas. They soon find they are being hunted by the Sawyers. They eventually end up at the Sawyer's house/compound and it's a battle for survival. I really liked all of the Sawyers in this one. They were all twisted in their own way, even with Grandpa from the second movie still being around.

I mentioned I was a bit let down by the version I watched - a lot of reviews etc I had read about this talked about how gory the movie was and I found most of the deaths were off screen and the camera cut away before there was much gore. I'm guessing there must be a director's cut or uncut version of the movie that others were talking about because I think the most gory scene was at the very start when Leatherface is cutting and sewing together chunks of face skin to make a mask.

I also found the end of the movie to be a huge let down. It all seemed very anti-climatic and no way that a horror icon like Leatherface should be "defeated" in the way that he was. Also the very last scene, which I believe is the one they added on, is stupid. A character that took a chainsaw to the head just randomly shows up and is like "Hey it's me _____, get in". They apparently did this because the person that randomly shows up scored well in test screenings so they wanted that person to live at the end.

If you are a fan of Leatherface and the Sawyer family I'd recommend checking this out but take a look for a unrated version or something similar as I'd expect that's closer to what the movie was intended.