THEM! (Good 4 stars)

An awesome movie for its day, this radioactive 1954 Warner Bros. release was quite entertaining. Sure, the giant bugs look a little hokey, but everything else about this film was done pretty well. There are some interesting shots at times because the film was originally expected to be in 3D. The 3D equipment malfunctioned, however, on the day of its test, making the ending shots of the flamethrowers shooting directly at the camera pack less of a punch. If you haven't heard about this movie, it's about mutant ants in the desert of New Mexico that beginning killing and attempting to build colonies on navy ships and eventually L.A. By the way, these buggers are at least 10 feet long! At times these older movies fail to excite the less patient and arguably less imaginative audiences of today, but I, for one, found this movie easy to resign myself. The use of the informational film on ants that is shown at the meeting really makes the movie a lot creepier. It made it easier for the larger ants to get under your skin. I give this movie 4 stars, but I would add to that the fact that this movie isn't for everyone. It's not really scary. There isn't a lot of gore. It's just an old fashioned, fun, 50's horror/sci-fi flick. I would recommend it to anyone who is planning to have a make-out date. Probably a good one for younger kids also.

"Make me a sergeant! Give me the booze! Make me a sergeant! Give me the booze!"

In the Mouth of Madness (3.5 stars)

This is a pretty good film. It's another John Carpenter piece. It carries an interesting message about religion and reality as it is dictated by the masses. Hayden Christiansen (from the Star Wars prequels) has a short appearance as a paperboy. In a way, this movie is sort of like a John Carpenter book-centered version of David Cronenberg's Videodrome (watch for a review of this great film in later posts). There are a couple shifts in reality, and it becomes difficult (and at times impossible) to say exactly what's actually happening and what is only imagined. It's good though. There's not too much gore but just enough to get by as a horror movie from the 90's. There's a quote on the cover to my copy of this movie that says "This is the best film in John Carpenter's career!" I'm not sure what clown wrote that or how much he was paid to say it, but still this is worth checking out. Look for the actor who played Vigo in Ghostbusters II. I don't know the guy's name, but you'll see him. Nice visual effects, good performance by Sam Neill. 3.5 stars. Definitely all Carpenter fans should see this movie. And in reality, everybody should be a Carpenter fan. You do the math.

The Thing (Good 5 stars)

This is an amazing movie! The special effects in this movie are 'out of this world' for 1982! Kurt Russel is great. The script is brilliant. This is a remake of the aforementioned 'The Thing From Another World'. It is my opinion that this is one of the most incredible movies ever. I don't even want to say anything else about this movie. Everyone should see this. 5 goddamn stars. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll scream!

The Thing From Another World (Good 3.5 stars)

This is the original version of which John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake. The basic idea is that an alien spaceship crash lands on the North Pole. Some army guys dig it out of the ice and take it back to their base. Some idiot accidentally melts the ice, freeing the alien from its dormant state, and it begins to run the isolated arctic camp amok. Being that this was made in 1951, one must not expect to see too much gore (or really any at all). Also, keep in mind that the monster will be talked about much more than physically seen. If you go into this movie understanding these things, it will be a pretty rewarding experience. The script is fun. There is a lot of play in the dialogue. All in all, it's a good movie. The characters are pretty typical of the sorts of characters you see in movies of this era. They are mostly pretty two dimensional. The monster really just looks like an interpretation of Frankenstein. That's probably for the better though. It would probably have discredited the movie to some degree if they attempted to make a ridiculous alien costume. Anyway, not too much else to say about this one. It was good. Being a huge John Carpenter fan, it was nice to get a look at some of his idol's work. 3.5 stars. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys these older sci-fi/ufo flicks.

Beware the carrot . . .

Horror Hospital (Bad-Good 2 Stars)

So I bought this for a dollar on a used vhs. The cover gave me high expectations for what this film would be, a 1970's British horror hit filled with 'black humor and grisly bloodshed'. Yeah, right. In fact, I would really like to give this movie a lower rating, but I feel that my expectations colored my opinion of it too much. If you walk into this movie not expecting to see all kinds of strange, gory, medical experiments being performed on unwilling test subjects, this movie might be alright. It's got Alfred from the original Batman movie (Michael Gough), so the acting isn't so bad. The script is passable. Also, the ending was good enough that I didn't feel right rating this movie too low. It was the first time in a long time a movie left me genuinely surprised. However, the gore is just not there. There is a little bit of blood once every ten minutes or so, but other than that you get nothing. On the back cover of this movie it talks about rampaging monsters. There is one, and you see him a grand total of maybe 4 or 5 times adding up to about 1 minute. It speaks of hippie zombies. Well, there are some kids who have been lobotomized, but that doesn't make them zombies. Anyway, I was very bored with this movie. There comes a point where the plot just sort of hits a plateau, and it doesn't give you much more to go on until the last 5 minutes or so. Unfortunately, this plateau hits pretty early in the movie. Alright, I'm sick of knocking this movie. I would recommend it only to die hard fans of Michael Gough (you know they're out there) and to people who love to be disappointed by what they read on the cases to their movies. I give it two stars mostly because the ending surprised me and because the acting was good enough to drive my hopes that something cool might eventually happen.

Depending on what color the paint was, Dr. Death might rather watch paint dry than watch this movie again.

City of the Living Dead (Good 5 Stars)

Well, I felt sort of feel guilty for mentioning Fulci's one and only flop before mentioning any of his masterpieces. So here it is! My favorite Fulci movie I have seen to date. City of the Living Dead is (in my humble opinion) the best Italian zombie flick to come out of the 80's. As I've mentioned in previous posts, the pace in these Italian horror movies can be sort of slow and are definitely not made for people who have problems with short attention spans. However, the gore pay off in this movie is so great you may not even notice the speed at which the plot moves. The premise is that a priest has hung himself and in doing so opened the gates of hell. If you are seasoned in this genre you'll know that opening the gates to hell means only one thing . . . zombies! Fulci really outdoes himself as far as the realism and nastiness of the gore in this film. The script is interesting enough. It sort of flops back and forth between a reporter and a woman looking for the town in which the gates of hell have been opened so they can attempt to seal them shut and a psychiatrist and his patient in the town where the gates have been opened. There are of course other characters we meet in this town who experience the supernatural phenomena, but the plot is mostly driven by these four who eventually meet a little boy. In the end, the four converge and have a final stand off with the evil. Who wins? I honestly could not tell you. It's difficult to interpret the ending, but not in an obnoxious way. In conclusion, I give this movie 5 stars. It has good rewatch value. I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it and possesses an attention span greater than that of a goldfish. So watch it; your life just may depend on it . . .

If you enjoy this film, keep your eyes peeled for more Fulci recommendations. Dr. Death says enjoy the maggot baby!

Zombi 3 (Good-Bad 5 stars)

It's sort of funny that Director Lucio Fulci made one of the most amazing contributions to the Italian horror genre (Zombi 2) and then followed it up with one of the most hilariously bad movies ever made (Zombi 3). I am a huge fan of Fulci, and this is the only movie he ever disowned. And yes, it really is that bad.
All aspects of this film are so terrible that where they all converge you find an almost unheard of level of trash. The acting is horrendous first of all. In fact, the acting alone is sometimes enough to illicit a laugh from me. As if that weren't enough, the script itself is actually pretty laughable on its own. Furthermore, the dubbing is pretty sloppy. For those of you acquainted with Fulci already, the gore in this movie is almost nonsensical when compared to the realistic effects in his other movies. There is really no consistency here with the zombies themselves either. Some move incredibly fast; some move very slowly. Some are able to survive in two parts even if their head is severed from the rest of their body (this is an allusion to the most hilarious scene in the movie by the way). Some people who are bitten take days to turn, while others can turn in less than 20 seconds.
Five stars: I recommend this movie to anyone who likes to laugh. Just promise though that if you watch Zombi 3 you'll watch Zombi 2. Fulci really is a great director. I don't know how to excuse him for this disaster. Just take my word for it.


Who knew their would be risks while working on a project named as innocently as 'Death 1' ?