Home of Scott Tepperman's movie reviews. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
/>
Scott's Top Shots
Find out what movies Scott has on the top of his list of movies you need to see!
'/>
Tears For Ears
Click on the "Tears For Ears videos" tab at the top of the page to watch clips from Scott's karaoke performances both solo and in his karaoke duo with Bill Karalius.
Dead Serious Radio
Tune into Dead Serious Radio on Blogtalkradio.com to listen to Scott discuss various topics in the paranormal field with some awesome guests.
Hands-down the best film of 2008 (and boasting one of the all-time greatest soundtracks), Repo: The Genetic Opera is a relentlessly original “horror” movie with 99% of its dialog delivered in an operatic fashion laced with heavy gothic undertones. Steampunk styles mixed with mind-blowing set designs make for an extremely effective and unforgettable movie watching experience.
The thoroughly-engrossing story concerns Shilo (Alexa Vega – Spy Kids), a young girl with a rare blood disease who is secluded from the outside world by her overprotective father (Anthony Stewart Head – Buffy the Vampire Slayer). What Shilo doesn’t know is that her “perfect” dad is actually a contracted killer who repossesses organs from various victims who default on their payments. The film brilliantly weaves violence, gore, humor, and sentimentality into a very satisfying package that delivers something NEVER seen before – an experimental underground cult film with a high degree of quality and competency.
In addition to a great script, wonderful cast, and stunning visuals, Repo: The Genetic Opera also has an infectious soundtrack (which has the distinction of having the most songs EVER recorded for a film). Every song is brilliantly delivered by the talented cast who all display surprisingly strong vocal performances. Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas) is an accomplished opera singer and gets quite a bit of material to work with here, but make no mistake – Anthony Stewart Head (an accomplished musician himself) OWNS this movie. His vocal ranges, acting, and delivery outshine everyone else on screen (which is quite a feat considering that everyone is exceptional). The Repo Man is actually the main hero of the film and Anthony Stewart Head draws the audience in with his sympathetic and complex character.
The film moves quickly from one elaborate scene to the next, never losing any steam along the way. It is an exciting, engrossing and completely unique production that will undoubtedly please fans of experimental cinema. There are no wrong turns or shortcomings whatsoever in this film - Repo: The Genetic Opera is nearly flawless from beginning to end.
1992 saw the release of a brand-new genre classic unlike any horror film before. That movie was Candyman, a classy, effective entry into the overly-saturated market of mediocre and highly-forgettable fright flicks. It was a new era for the horror film – disturbingly realistic violence, original story, solid performances, and a haunting musical score all presented in an operatic manner that could not be easily dismissed by critics as “just another slasher film”. In fact, the reviews were anything but bad.
Candyman was here. And it was good.
Three years later (which, in “horror sequel” world is an eternity), the hook-handed killer returned for an exceedingly well-made follow-up to the stylized original. Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh continues the story of Daniel Robitaille, a slave who fell for his master’s daughter and was consequently tortured and killed for his actions. The story retains both the quality and eeriness of the original and yet manages to improve on character development by weaving a fascinating, plausible backstory into the origins of the Candyman himself. Whereas the first film was considered simply a very strong entry into the horror genre, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh works on so many more levels. At its core, it remains a relentlessly entertaining horror film, but it also works as a thriller, a human drama, and even a romance.
It is very rare for a horror movie – especially a sequel – to have as much going for it as this one does, but when everyone involved both behind and in front of the camera is as professional and competent as the filmmakers and actors here are, the end result will be reflected in the film. For an excellent film to be completely outdone by its own sequel is an amazing accomplishment. Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh is, without a doubt, one of the greatest horror sequels ever made.
Filmed in 2000 and shelved for three years due to NC-17 rating concerns and being dropped by BOTH Universal and MGM studios after they saw the finished movie (and later picked up by Lionsgate, home of Saw – go figure!), rocker Rob Zombie’s directorial debut, House of 1,000 Corpses, is an all-out assault on the senses and good taste. It’s disjointed. It’s sick. It’s depraved. It’s disturbing. And it’s fantastic.
The story concerns a group of four friends who are traveling the country backroads in search of serial killers and other local legends – most notably, the one of a sadistic madman known as “Dr. Satan”. When they stop at an intriguingly weird gas station/circus sideshow hybrid, they unknowingly step into a world of murder, cannibalism, sadism, torture, and Satanic worship at the hands of the Firefly family led by the gleefully twisted Captain Spaulding.
What transpires on-screen for the next 90 or so minutes is a rollercoaster of nervous humor, dazzling visuals, unsettling atmosphere and a wonderfully haphazard plot that keeps everything moving rather quickly. The movie’s style covers quite a wide array of the genre. The first half of House of 1,000 Corpses is an enjoyable throwback to the late ‘70s/early ‘80s era of slasher films, while the second half is reminiscent of the pacing of late ‘80s and early ‘90s entries. Rob Zombie, who at the time of filming this movie had only directed a few music videos, does an effective job of blending flashy lights, quick cuts, and old archival-type footage into a workable finished product that will stand out on the merits of its style alone (one point of interest: Director of Photography, Alex Poppas, also serves as Director of Photography for SyFy’s ‘Ghost Hunters International’ - awesome!).
While the violence and realistic gore is definitely in strong supply, it is the subject matter of House of 1,000 Corpses that people will find most disturbing. The fact that its stars Sid Haig, Sherri Moon Zombie, Karen Black, and Bill Moseley all seem to be having WAY too much fun as the cannibalistic clan of murderers makes the film even that much more sickly enjoyable.
House of 1,000 Corpses is not for everyone. But if sick humor and twisted horror is your cup of tea (it certainly is mine), then grab some biscuits. The perfect movie for you has arrived.
Veteran director Michael Wadleigh delivers a heavy-handed horror film about the consequences of man’s encroachment on nature and society in probably one of the finest examples of a great “werewolf” movie to ever hit the screen. Released in 1981 (the same year as the wildly-popular werewolf movies An American Werewolf in London and The Howling), Wolfen is one of those rare horror films from the 80’s that showcases great skill – both in front of and behind the camera.
Albert Finney, Diane Venora, Edward James Olmos, and Gregory Hines star as members of the NYPD embroiled in a gory murder mystery surrounding the death of a successful architect, his wife, and their chauffeur. At first, the murders appear to be the work of a ritualistic killer, but soon appear to be caused by the hands of something more supernatural – an ancient species of “super wolves” bent on protecting their ever-dwindling land and hunting grounds.
While the slow pacing of Wolfen may initially dissuade some viewers, the intriguing storyline and strong moral values about society and man’s callous behavior towards both nature and wildlife should keep many viewers glued to their seats. This is a “thinking” person’s horror movie – the fear comes not from what actually transpires onscreen, but rather the “what-if” scenario caused by urban sprawl that we are experiencing more and more in our real, everyday lives.
Superior in all aspects, Wolfen delivers the goods. It is a well-written, somber, horror tale sprinkled with just enough supernatural elements and Native American customs to make for a highly-rewarding movie watching experience. This is truly a great film that you will undoubtedly want to revisit numerous times. It’s definitely worth a spot in your home DVD library.
This odd horror film is neither scary nor bloody but, rather, a fairly entertaining thriller that was released in 1979 (which, by the way, was a GREAT year for horror movies). While Silent Scream is undoubtedly a “bargain-basement” cheapie, the story is actually pretty solid.
Four college students rent rooms at an old mansion run by a creepy family with some dark secrets of their own. When the teenagers start showing up dead, two detectives set out to uncover the mystery. Although the ending is a bit of a letdown, the journey getting there is actually pretty entertaining. The film is competently made and its entertainment value has not waned over the years (remarkably, it has aged extremely well). However, it does seem to suffer from an ending that tries to be better than it actually is, which seems oddly out of place with the tone set by the rest of the movie.
The casting is odd as well; Yvonne De Carlo (“Lily” of TV’s The Munsters) and comedian Avery Schreiber are cast alongside a bunch of no-name kids who all fall victim to a perfectly creepy Barbara Steele (in probably the most disturbing role ever with no dialogue) - her facial expressions alone are enough to make your blood run cold. Her performance shows why she was one of Europe’s “scream queens” and it is her performance that helps to slightly elevate Silent Scream above many of its peers. In fact, some of today’s better horror films seem to have taken a page from this film (for example, the idea of unsettling classical music playing is alluded to for several scenes in 2001’s Jeepers Creepers).
While Silent Scream is certainly not fast paced, it isn’t boring either. Characters are enjoyable, the story is interesting and (at least up until the lackluster ending) the story delivers exactly what it should – no more, no less. It’s no classic, but you could do much worse. It’s definitely worth checking out.
1986 was a great year for cheesy horror films. The “slasher” craze was at the top of its game and new horror movies were being cranked out almost weekly - either as “straight-to-video” releases or to cinemas in a very select amount of theaters. Many of these films got lost in the endless parade of new titles and often served no other purpose than to help fill up shelves at the local mom & pop video store. Some were bad, some were good, but all managed to find some type of an audience. To me, one gem stood out in particular and, while overlooked and forgotten about for many years, is now poised to find a new audience thanks to its recent debut on DVD which can finally replace the long out-of-print VHS copies that are scarcely available. That movie is Chopping Mall (a.k.a. Killbots) and it holds the honor (or dishonor - depending on what you think of my taste in movies) of making my list of “Top 10 Favorite Movies Of All Time”.
In the film, a new line of experimental security robots is activated at a popular shopping plaza. Eight teenagers working at this same mall decide to hide out in a mattress store until closing time for an all-night party of drinking and “other things”. During a storm, the control center for these machines is fried by lightning turning the robots into unstoppable killers, trapping the kids inside. So begins one of the most entertaining journeys in the genre of horror films…
Corny, cheap, and gloriously stuck in the 80s, Chopping Mall is a wonderful homage to the decade of excess and mindless entertainment that actually holds up better today than it did during its initial release. A very likeable cast (who are surprisingly good in their roles), a biting sense of humor, non-stop action, a decent (if not implausible) storyline, great robots, cool cameos, and a highly-addictive electro-synth soundtrack help solidify Chopping Mall as the ultimate cult-classic, along with one very important thing: rather than developing a cult following on the basis of being strange or outlandish, Chopping Mall is actually GOOD. I can say without fear of contradiction that watching Chopping Mall will be the best 77 minutes of movie viewing experience you will ever have.
Check your brain at the door. Grab the popcorn. Turn out the lights. Crank your TV. Let Chopping Mall entertain you like nothing you’ve ever experienced before. It’s unforgettable. You’ll love it.
Over the years, I’ve seen literally hundreds of “haunted house”-themed horror films. Many were lackluster (Paranormal Activity), many were decent (The Amityville Horror), and many were actually quite good (Burnt Offerings). Regardless of how good and/or original they were, they always managed to pale in comparison to the seminal ghost film, Poltergeist – that is until I saw Insidious.
This tense, believable and well-researched horror film may have de-throned the Steven Spielberg-produced/Tobe Hooper-directed fright flick as the “greatest haunted house film”. A very impressive feat considering that its creators James Wan & Leigh Whannell (the talented creators of Saw and the criminally overlooked Dead Silence) managed to outdo one of the classics of modern day cinema widely considered to be one of the very best horror movies ever made.
Right from the beginning, Insidious grabs you with its depiction of typical American life. A family goes about their normal daily routine as odd things slowly begin to unfold one-by-one. A fall at home lands their young son in what appears to be a state of coma. Heartbroken, the close-knit family presses on. A series of unexplained events transpires and, when the frequency and intensity of these begin to escalate, the family decides to move. However, that is only the beginning of their problems as they soon realize that their son is not in a coma but, rather, has the ability to astral project (in essence, a sleepwalking spirit) and may have gone too far – opening the door for demons and evil spirits who are hell bent on destroying the entire family.
VERY scary, extremely entertaining, and relentlessly paced throughout, Insidious is a phenomenal movie which I cannot recommend highly enough. I NEVER jump or get unnerved during horror movies, but Insidious got to me. There are several moments that actually gave me some serious goosebumps and I was kept on edge through the entire film. For those that think the horror genre is dead or running out of fresh ideas, see Insidious. It will change your view of current horror movies – and, quite possibly, make you a believer in the paranormal. One of the greatest horror films in recent memory.
Aside from Full Moon’s most successful and popular catalog title, Puppet Master, the low-budget film production company has another secret weapon in the slightly lesser-known (and better) franchise – Trancers.
The plot is highly original: a crass, chain-smoking cop from the future travels back to the year 1985 (not-so-ironically, the year the film was made) in order to apprehend a criminal that is using psychic powers to transform ordinary citizens into zombie-like monsters in order to carry out his devious plans.
Unlike the Puppet Master franchise which varies sharply from film to film, the Trancers movies have been Full Moon’s most consistent deliverer in terms of quality. A majority of the cast remains the same throughout the series’ run (including “A-list” actress Helen Hunt, who miraculously remains on board for the first three films). The underrated Tim Thomerson plays Jack Deth, the anti-hero who looks as if he’d rather be doing anything else than his job at hand (think Ash from The Evil Dead and you get the picture). A low budget, sci-fi/horror hybrid of Scanners and Blade Runner (which, by the way, is HIGHLY overrated), Trancers is miles away better than both of those films – yet, remains largely unseen. The story is extremely unique, the characters are both likeable and believable, the special effects are cheesy (in a good way) and the subsequent installments only serve to strengthen the original by continuing the storyline in a plausible, enjoyable manner. What’s even more impressive is that director Charles Band manages to create a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles that is eerie, poignant, and beautifully executed. While this scene is quite brief, it is a perfect example of the care and skill that the filmmakers have in handling what would easily be nothing more than a throwaway “cheesy B-movie” in less competent hands.
While the Trancers franchise may have stumbled slightly (still, not too bad) with its most recent installment, 2002’s Trancers 6 (in which star Tim Thomerson is painfully absent for the first time), it is a strong series that manages to weave a fascinating and highly-addictive storyline (Trancers III remains my personal favorite) that is a great deal more enjoyable than one may give it credit for. Ridiculously hard to find for many years, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND tracking down the entire series while it’s still available – you may very well get sucked into the Trancers universe.
Despite what many people believe, the art of the remake should be considered just that – an “art. What may seem like a quick “cash grab” to make a few bucks at the cinema is actually no easy task. A properly remade horror movie should do three main things: 1) Expand or improve on the original, 2) add a few new twists and surprises along the way, 3) maintain the integrity of the original film’s vision. Sadly, more often than not, these films fall flat in their attempt. For every excellent remake (like Prom Night, Halloween, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre), there are many substandard efforts (When A Stranger Calls). Such is the case with Sorority Row, a mediocre dumbed-down redo of 1983’s vastly superior The House on Sorority Row.
This 2009 retelling of a sorority house prank going wrong and its cover-up can best be described as I Know What You Did Last Summer laced with T&A. Slapping a “Sorority Row” title on this film is pointless and insulting; it could have easily been named at least 20 different things given its by-the-numbers, formulaic plot. While Sorority Row is certainly not a complete failure, it suffers from some incredibly bad writing and one too many twists at the end. During this endless climax, I found myself restless and checking the time quite often – not a good sign when my attentiveness during such “classics” as Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator and Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh kept me glued to my seat.
On a positive note, Sorority Row delivers in some key areas: 1) it has a competent, likeable cast, 2) its brisk pacing really adds to the entertainment factor, and 3) some of the deaths are gory and creative (which, let’s be honest, is what most people look for in a film like this). It’s just unfortunate that this remake pales in comparison to the clever, sharp murder-mystery story of the original.
Sometimes it’s bad timing. Sometimes it’s bad marketing. Sometimes it’s bad press. Whatever the reason, this criminally underrated horror gem from 2001 is nearly perfect in all aspects of its execution. Valentine is a wonderful throwback to the glory days of “slasher films” – the early 1980s. This movie tells the story of Jeremy Melton, a nerdy reject in school who, after years of being mercilessly bullied and mocked, grows up to take revenge on his childhood peers – or does he?
This simple plot sets the stage for an unexpectedly enjoyable series of ‘stalk and slash’ scenarios, along with a great cast (especially for a horror film), some wonderful set designs, a great killer, and a well-written script with a great ending. Enough said.
While the familiar story may seem “typical”, the competency and maturity shown by director Jamie Blanks (Urban Legend – another of his solid efforts) is anything but. He handles this movie like a seasoned professional and his talented cast – including David Boreanaz (TV’s Bones), Katherine Heigl (TV’s Grey’s Anatomy) and Denise Richards (Wild Things) – do a solid, believable job with the high-quality material.
Horror films have long made the holiday season a perfect target for their stories. While Christmas seems to have the largest selection of quality classic horror movies (Black Christmas, Christmas Evil and Silent Night, Deadly Night – just to name a few), Valentine’s Day is running a very close second (My Bloody Valentine, My Bloody Valentine 3D, and Valentine are probably the best). Valentine is a rare overlooked find – the deaths are inventive, the soundtrack is great, humor is found in ample doses, and a decent “whodunit” story is wrapped neatly within this should-be perennial horror classic.
For those looking for an old-school horror movie made for today’s modern times, you can’t do much better than Valentine. A must see for fans of the horror and/or thriller genre.
Over-hype is never a good thing. People’s expectations are unrealistically heightened due to stellar reviews and positive word-of-mouth and, often times, come away feeling disappointed and cheated. Nothing quite embodies the term “over-hype” better than Adam Green’s Frozen, a painfully dull horror film that quite possibly may be the worst film I’ve seen in a decade (admittedly, I watch some real “gems”, so THAT’S saying something…)!
I’m not kidding…
A trio of close friends sweet talk their way onto a ski lift, only to be accidentally stranded mid-air for days while the resort is closed – and a pack of vicious, hungry wolves circles below. Think Open Water in the air and you’ve got Frozen.
The story premise sounds engaging but, unfortunately, nothing in the movie is. The story is contrived and lacks any real thrills or scares, the straightforward screenplay throws no curveballs or surprises at the viewer, the characters aren’t that particularly interesting and the acting (given the fact that most of the scenes are played for dramatic effect) is sub-par. Worst of all, the film is extremely boring – limping along its 93 minute running time (which, by the way, feels waaaaaaay to long) to its lackluster ending. From beginning to end, Frozen is just bad.
In recent years, director Adam Green has made quite a name for himself by co-directing the moody 2007 film, Spiral, and the inexplicably popular Hatchet series (again, a good, but slightly overrated effort). Ironically, Frozen may be earning him his best press to date, yet remains his weakest movie by far.
A slew of excellent reviews and a successful run at Sundance leave me simply scratching my head at what I watched. Either as a mislabeled horror movie, a thriller, or a human survival drama, make no mistake – Frozen will leave you cold.
Ah…the early 80’s. Horror movies were all the rage and the slasher film was in its heyday. Halloween, Friday the 13th and COUNTLESS rip-offs (many of which were actually quite good) flooded the cinemas and home video Beta market. It was hard to distinguish one from another – except the ones which starred Jamie Lee Curtis. Terror Train and Prom Night are probably two of the better known horror/slasher films to emerge from this time. While Terror Train was an entertaining, old school “whodunit” murder mystery, with ample doses of blood and violence thrown in, Prom Night benefitted from the casting of Jamie Lee Curtis and not much else. To be fair, it was pretty standard horror stuff (even back then) – teenagers keep a secret and one-by-one they are hunted down and killed by an anonymous killer. Prom Night had some great scenes, a likeable cast and a great twist ending. While certainly not bad, it just seemed to come up a bit short.
Enter 2008 and the age of the remake. Since a great deal of success had been attained by reworking “classics” (most notably, horror films) for several years, Sony’s Screen Gems thought the time was right for a Prom Night redux. Given Screen Gems’ history of releasing “teen friendly” films which usually carried a PG-13 rating (often considered a death sentence for horror movies), fans sat in bewilderment as one of the underground classic slasher films was now being given the watered-down, “big-budget” treatment on the silver screen. However, I eagerly awaited the release of this redo - curious to see what would be done to remake the original which, in my opinion, wasn’t all that great to begin with.
While both horror fans and critics unanimously dislike this movie, I once again find myself in the very small (nonexistent?) minority that actually liked this movie. Much more than the (gasp!) original.
Even with the lack of any blood, graphic violence, or nudity, make no mistake – Prom Night (2008) is a great little thriller. The story is simple, yet effective; a mentally-disturbed teacher becomes obsessed with one of his students and follows her to the prom to kill all of her friends in order to be with her forever. That’s it. No overblown story with motives and contrived situations. That’s needed for certain horror films, but not here. Prom Night(2008) is a full-throttle horror film that never lets up on the action for its full 90 minutes. The cat-and-mouse tension is very entertaining, the kills are bloodless (but effective) and the characters are likeable. What’s more to want in a tamed-down slasher film? Not much - I really liked this one.
Stumble across the original 1980 version and the 2008 remake and torn between which to choose? I vote Prom Night (2008) – it’s the night to die for.
When the original Scream hit theaters in 1996, it was a huge hit – mostly due to its satirical biting nature of the entire horror genre. It was funny. It was scary. It was original and it worked. Two sequels were released in quick succession over the next four years – Scream 2 (which remains the strongest entry of the franchise) and Scream 3 – an enjoyable, yet underwhelming, trilogy-ender.
Now, 11 years after the last sequel was released, Scream 4 arrives to reboot the seminal 90s horror series. With so many years having elapsed (in both screen time and “real” time), many people may be wondering – does it succeed? Well, yes and no…
Once again, original Scream creators Wes Craven (director) and Kevin Williamson (writer) are in charge - along with returning veteran franchise favorites Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox. While it’s an amazing feat to have everyone back on board both behind and in front of the camera, Scream 4 suffers from the “been-there-done-that” syndrome and (aside from a clever opening with great cameos and a great conclusion) comes across as mediocre and even bland. The film contains more blood and violence than the first three installments COMBINED, but never manages to reach the sheer genius of the first two films.
There are, however, a few strong positive elements working in Scream 4’s favor: 1) it is better than Scream 3, 2) its self-awareness is still dead-on (the film even manages to get in quite a few jabs at the Saw franchise!) and, most importantly, 3) the returning characters from the original trilogy are front and center once again. With all of the “younger generation” actors on board, the original three are still the stars – no passing the torch or supporting roles. They were the ones who made the series a success and the creators behind Scream 4 understand and respect this.
Surprisingly, where Scream 4 falters mostly is in its storyline. The film has practically no character development, no logic, and feels disjointed and sloppily thrown together at times. Even worse, the characteristics and mannerisms of the main leads make them seem completely different people than what were originally portrayed in the earlier films. Obviously, some changes are expected since many years have passed. However, these characters seem cold, detached from one another, and all-around different. Very odd.
Plans have been announced to kick off another trilogy of Scream films. While Scream 4 certainly won’t change the direction of horror like the original did in 1996, it’s still better than most of the crap out there. Worth a watch, but don’t expect a nostalgic trip down horror memory lane.
In 1989, a litte low-budget horror film was released direct-to-video, spawning the beginning of what has become the most successful direct-to-dvd series of all time. The Puppet Master series chronicles the story of a puppeteer named Andre Toulon and his living marionettes as they try to protect the secret of their magical reanimation from unscrupulous characters out to exploit the puppets' secret for their own good. Despite how the series' reputation has developed incorrectly over the years, the puppets are "the good guys" and generally only turn violent out of self-defense for themselves or their "puppet master" creator. For a horror series over 20 years old and with 10 installments (and yet ANOTHER one scheduled for a 2012 release - sweet!)moving freely forward and backward through time, the continuity has admittedly become problematic. However, make no mistake - the Puppet Master series is one of the classic horror franchises and deserves its often-overlooked respect.
While the sequels have varied greatly in quality (parts 4 and 5 remaining my personal favorites), they have each added their own chapter to the Puppet Master legacy (ironically, one of the unfairly maligned installments - Puppet Master: The Legacy, tries to makes sense of the convoluted storyline by assembling the best scenes of the series into a cohesive, chronological order). After nearly a decade without a new PM movie and following in the wake of what many consider to be the worst of the franchise (Curse of the Puppet Master & Retro Puppet Master - of which I enjoyed both), Puppet Master: Axis of Evil was released in 2010. How does it hold up? I'm happy to say probably towards top of the list.
Puppet Master: Axis of Evil starts intriguingly with new scenes added to the now-classic original film's opening to create one of the more clever twists to the franchise - a simultaneous act unfolding, which steers the story in a believable (NOT contrived, for a change) direction and allows for AOE to hit the ground running. Over the years, many puppets have been introduced into the "family", severely limiting each puppet's screen time to accommodate the ever-growing group. However, this latest installment dusts off the main five puppets that originally made the first film a success: Blade, Pinhead, Jester, Leech Woman and Tunneler. Everyone else is absent for this particular cinematic outing. Fan favorite Six-Shooter is acknowledged, but Torch (my favorite) is nowhere to be found and still remains the best, most underused puppet in the series. What a shame.
To regurgitate the film's plotline at this point is pointless. Fans of the series (of which I am a HUGE one) simply want to know several key things: is the film good, is there a lot of "puppet" screen time, are the effects well done and - most importantly, is CGI used. First off, yes - the film is good. Interesting story, decent pacing and likeable characters (minus the HORRENDOUS acting) keep this PM movie near the top of the pack. Secondly, once again, the puppets' screen time is limited. However, this is one of the best screenplays for a PM movie to date, so it compensates for the lack of "puppet" action - somewhat. The gore effects are minimal, but effective. Blood is believable and there are some great "puppet" scenes, unfortunately there are not many of them. Lastly (and most importantly), as with the other PM installments, I am happy to report that CGI is not used.
While this is great news, the "stop motion" technology that had originally given the puppets "life" in the earlier films (and remains a fan favorite technique) seems to be gone as well. Rods are used to animate the puppets this go around, with CGI being used only to digitally remove the wires and rods from the final product. This works pretty well, except for the fact that the puppets are now very limited in their movement (think of a hand puppet bouncing up and down on camera and you get the idea of the effect). However, their screen time is so scant that it hardly shows their limitations.
The last 15 minutes or so of Puppet Master: Axis of Evil kicks into overdrive with one final confrontation between our "heroes" and the evil characters in the film going head-to-head in old school Puppet Master style, proving that the well-worn franchise still has several tricks up its sleeve - and at least several more installments in its future. Full Moon founder Charles Band and director David Decouteau both know the franchise - and its fans - extremely well by this point and the two of them throw everything they can into making Puppet Master: Axis of Evil a worthy entry and a great jumpstart to an aging franchise that may very well be in its twilight years, but still has enough gas in its tank to run with the big boys.
For several consecutive years, Lionsgate ruled the Halloween box office with a new installment of their biggest "go-to" money maker, Saw. Like clockwork, another sequel was released to bad reviews and eager audiences - easily making the Saw franchise the unchallenged box-office champion of the Halloween season.
This got the attention of Paramount Pictures.
Wanting their piece of the Halloween pie, they decided to gamble on a small, independent "ghost story" feature they acquired to see if they might strike a chord with audiences by playing on the interest of the public's obsession with anything paranormal. On Halloween 2009, Paranormal Activity opened to strong numbers at #1 over Saw VI, the lowest-grossing installment for the franchise to date, toppling the now-aging franchise from its top-spot Halloween stronghold. An effective marketing campaign and (mostly) stellar reviews helped it rake in nearly $200 million dollars - not bad for a movie that was reported to have cost $15,000 to make.
For those that have not seen the film, the simple story centers around Katie and Micah - a young couple who start experiencing strange, unexplained goings-on in their home. Believing their house to be haunted, they set up cameras in an attempt to document the activity.
Unfortunately, the scariest thing about Paranormal Activity is that it is one of Paramount Picture's most successful film to date.
This poor excuse for a horror movie suffers from one of the most damaging qualities of film; it is extremely boring and dull. While credit has to be given to the amateur filmmakers for trying to give it a valiant effort (the performances are good, the story has potential and there are a couple of decent scenes sprinkled throughout), Paranormal Activity suffers from a disjointed focus and an awful, contrived ending that feels out of place with the rest of the movie - added, no doubt, to leave the door open for PA2.
Due to the fact that practically everyone in America has already seen this film, I actually recommend the uninitiated to check it out - but set your expectations very low. It doesn't even come close to living up to its hype.
Never in the history of filmmaking has a movie so closely predicted the future state of the world, the entertainment industry, or the evolution of society more than David Cronenberg's brilliant study into madness and the darkest recesses of man's psyche, Videodrome. This sci-fi/horror classic's critical praise and cult status are well-deserved, due to a tough,uncompromising look at the crumbling of the human race and desensitized culture in the not-too-distant future.
James Woods (in the best role of his career) stars as Max Renn, a sleazebag TV producer who accidentally intercepts a pirated signal of a mysterious broadcast which specializes in extreme torture and sadomasochism. Looking for the next new thing for his struggling channel, he embarks on a frantic search for the source of the material, having nothing more to go on but the name of the broadcast - Videodrome. On his journey, he meets psychiatrist Nicki Brand (Deborah Harry of "Blondie") and soon finds himself enmeshed and consumed by this new alter-reality now facing him. He quickly finds out that no one can be trusted and uncovers a government conspiracy to alter the state of the human society through subliminal programming by actual signals broadcasted through TVs.
Heavily political and ahead of its time, Videodrome challenges the existence of "reality television" as being a pre-planned, deliberate programming of society to be manipulated solely for mind control. While the film was released in 1983, it has chillingly depicted the actual state of the media in today's modern times quite accurately.
While Videodromewas met with largely favorable reviews, its poor box office reception was indicitive of it being "ahead of its time". Now, nearly 30 years after its release, the film resonates with its audience more powerfully than ever.
While I HIGHLY recommend this outstanding movie, my statement does come with a disclaimer: Videodrome is not for everyone. It is a heavy-handed, dark, and often confusing story that almost definitely will have to be viewed a second time (at least) to get a full appreciation and understanding of its message. But for those willing to invest time, brain power, and even emotion, the payoff is well worth it. "Long live the new flesh!"
The overlooked 1990 film, Hardware, is an interesting blend of sci-fi and horror that feels like a hybrid between Blade Runner and The Terminator, with a dash of Demon Seed and even 1984 thrown in for good measure. Dylan McDermott (yes, THAT Dylan McDermott) stars as Moe, a post-apocalyptic scavenger who brings home a twisted mass of scrap metal for his artist girlfriend, Jill (played by the gorgeous Stacey Travis). Little do they know that this heap of metallic waste is actually an abandoned military defense droid who promptly regenerates itself and takes Jill prisoner in her own home.
This somber morality tale succeeds more often than not and the visuals are quite impressive to boot. Graphic violence and strong sex scenes are in plentiful quantities, while the mostly unpredictable story manages to keep the viewer engaged throughout the film’s average running time. Upon its release, critical reception seemed largely tepid due in part to its heavy-handed view of a world devoid of a trustworthy government and its bleak, uneven view of society. The fact that Hardware could not be easily categorized as a “sci-fi”, “fantasy” or “horror” film greatly hindered its box-office return as well.
Interestingly enough, unlike many films, this one seems to improve with age. Director Richard Stanley (who, unfortunately, made one more film after this and seems to have all but disappeared from the public spotlight of directing movies) has eerily predicted certain aspects of the future which have now become a reality (i.e. characters using infrared cameras, human interaction being largely replaced by computer technology, etc). Watching Hardware in today’s times, these elements convey a feeling of believability, which no doubt had been suspended – or perhaps, even lost – in the past. Aside from these factors boosting the film, a great conclusion helps elevate this movie to a level over most of its peers from that time period.
While not an excellent film, Hardware is a good, solid and powerful story that only occasionally loses itself along the way. It’s more than worth tracking down.
Since 2004, a new Saw film has been released around the Halloween season and has done lucrative business for the people at Lionsgate. However, 2008’s Saw V and 2009’s Saw VI (which many consider to be the series’ best entry) marked severe drop-offs in returns at the box office. Citing that this may have been the first signs of a dying franchise (no pun intended), Lionsgate was rumored to have scrapped its last two planned sequels – Saw VIII and Saw IX in favor of one final, end-all movie to conclude the Saw franchise. To mark the special occasion, they even decided to shoot the film in 3D (hence, the film carried the title Saw 3D in theaters).
Being a HUGE fan of the franchise (and one of the few who prefer the last three films over the first three), I eagerly awaited the “final chapter” of my beloved horror franchise. With problems during production, an unhappy director (who was contractually forced to direct Saw 3D and removed from helming Paranormal Activity 2), and a script that was quickly rewritten to cram three film’s worth of material into its remarkably short running time, I was still fairly confident that Saw 3D would deliver.
Does it? Absolutely. The Saw franchise ends on a high note; Saw 3D is easily the best, most entertaining installment of the series (with Saw VI running a very close second).
Saw 3D succeeds for many different reasons: 1) it has momentum, 2) it has a ton of what the series is known for – gore, and 3) it does come full circle in a logical, believable manner (well, for this series, anyway). Picking up EXACTLY where the previous installment ended, Saw 3D weaves an intriguing, straightforward “cat and mouse” approach with Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor, who by the way, is my favorite movie villain) up to his old ways and Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) running for her life. The film moves at a breakneck pace, cramming in story, backstory, intriguing character exposition and an excellent (if not somewhat predictable) ending. While this entry may not be as abstract or “surprising” as other installments, its direct, in-your-face approach and sly humor is a welcome change from the now well-established norm.
While horror buffs and critics alike have vented their displeasure over the lack of screen time by Tobin Bell’s Jigsaw character (who, with the exception of Saw VI, has had an increasingly diminished presence in the series), it is a testament to the strength and quality of the Saw 3D story that keeps this one on track and, for the first time in the series, doesn’t seem to suffer from his absence.
While many franchises seem to change, evolve and take on a whole new feel, the Saw series has remained remarkably the same through all seven movies. All in all, Saw 3D is a fitting stopping point for a series that has, admittedly, become somewhat creatively bankrupt, having repeated the EXACT storyline as the previous installment and painted itself into a corner, so to speak.
Fans of the series fear not, I have little doubt that another installment will be on its way in a few years. Let’s just hope they keep the same formula that made this series the most successful horror franchise in movie history. Game over. For now…
One of the greatest horror films ever made, Near Dark follows the story of a loner named Caleb, whose chance encounter with beautiful vampire Mae leaves him with an insatiable craving for human blood. As he tries to fight off the impending transformation inside of him, a harrowing, thought-provoking and eerily effective story unfolds. Thanks to the strength of the writing and the caliber of the actors (including Bill Paxton, Adrian Pasdar, Tim Thomerson , and genre favorite Lance Henricksen), the characters are believable, sympathetic and well-defined. The balance of romance, thriller, horror - and even western, are perfectly blended to make for a fully-immersive (and often times scary), viewing experience.
Upon its initial release, it was overshadowed by the release of the now-classic, The Lost Boys, which opened around the same time to a much wider audience and benefitted from a more “teen-friendly” cast (ironically, Near Dark is a much better film – go figure). Quickly disappearing into the shadows, its home video release was even shorter. Having been released only once on VHS by HBO Video in the late 1980s, the title soon went out of print and well-worn copies eventually started disappearing from local video stores. For what seemed like an eternity, the title was extremely difficult to find – and the copies that were available fetched enormous price tags. The movie had become little more than a legend whispered about in “die-hard” horror fan circles.
Thankfully, the film is back in circulation again on DVD, albeit probably for a short time – given its erratic distribution history. I strongly advise anyone to pick up a copy of this brilliant movie while they are still able. While I am not a prude by any sense of the word (the “Saw” franchise still remains one of my personal favorites), it is refreshing to see a vampire horror film that avoids any major bloodbaths (save for one bar scene) and has absolutely no sex or nudity. Both genre and non-genre fans alike will undoubtedly enjoy this masterpiece.
Near Dark is one of those rare movies that is absolutely flawless in its execution – there is not one false note or shortcoming throughout the picture. This is quality movie making at its best. The fact that it comes from the critically-lambasted “horror movie 80s” just makes it that much more special.
/>
'/>
7:15 PM
Scott Tepperman
Hands-down the best film of 2008 (and boasting one of the all-time greatest soundtracks), Repo: The Genetic Opera is a relentlessly original “horror” movie with 99% of its dialog delivered in an operatic fashion laced with heavy gothic undertones. Steampunk styles mixed with mind-blowing set designs make for an extremely effective and unforgettable movie watching experience.
