(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

A heartbroken teen decides to revive his recently deceased girlfriend with Trioxin, the same chemical that rose the dead in the previous two films.  But upon revival, his girlfriend suffers from an insatiable hunger for… something.  Can she keep the hunger at bay with constant pain, or will she give in?

Opinion

Unlike the previous two installments, Return of the Living Dead III makes no attempt at humor, but rather establishes a unique question any fan of the Living Dead movies eventually asks:  If you revive the deceased immediately after death, are they ok?  Can they function normally?  Can they communicate?  If so, what would they say about how it feels to be dead?  It’s easily the most introspective movie in the series.  One very positive selling point of the story is the main actress Melinda Clarke, who puts everything into every moment she can and delivers a harsh but authentic performance of what it must be like to go through something unfathomable like this.

Unfortunately, the movie is hobbled by its budget.  The effects are very good, but most are not believable.  This is no slight against the filmmakers — the effects are amazing given the budget they had to work with.  I just wish they had a bigger budget.  More money would have given us better effects and less filler.

An exception to the above are the amazing practical effects regarding Melinda’s character’s piercings in the last third of the film, as the character tries to keep the hunger at bay using pain.  They look great, and some are very creative.

Recommendation

It’s a solid B movie.  If you know what that means, you’ll either really want to see it, or really want to avoid it.  It delivers exactly what is promised.

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

A warlock flees the Puritan era to modern day, looking for the three halves of the Dark Grimoire:  The Devil’s Bible that can undo all of creation.  A witch hunter from the same era gets help from a young modern woman to track the warlock and try to stop him.

Opinion

15 minutes into the film, I got the sense that this wasn’t really a horror film, but more along the lines of medieval fantasy.  Turns out I was right:  If you’re expecting scares, revulsion, and dread, you won’t find it in Warlock.  But does that make it bad?  On the contrary, I found it very entertaining.  There is a surprisingly small amount of outright scenery chewing; everyone plays it straight, which works.

While I never got the feeling anyone was truly emoting (Julian Sands as the titular character looks the part but never really feels the part), what was entertaining was learning all of the witch lore:

• You can cripple a witch’s foot by hammering their footprint
• Witches hate salt, and are both hurt and bound by it
• Witches can fly by making a potion primarily out of the fat of a young boy
• Witches cannot set foot on hallowed ground

…and so on.  Everyone knows vampire lore, but not everyone knows witch lore, and I found that maintaining my interest throughout the film.

Bonus points for a played-straight appearance by reliable 70’s and 80’s B-movie staple Mary Wolonov, who delivers exactly what was necessary for the character.

Recommendation

For some fantasy fare that is sideways from science fiction and lighter than horror, you could do a lot worse (like the two Warlock sequels I’m dreading).

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

News reporter Carl Kolchak covers a series of murders, and discovers a link between them that suggests the killer is imitating a vampire.  But when he witnesses the killer evading police, he sees things he cannot ignore, and comes to the conclusion that the killer might actually be a real vampire.  How do you convince the police department a real vampire is on the loose — and worse, how do you stop it?

Opinion

Originally a made-for-TV movie, The Night Stalker was something I’d hear about from time to time but never had a motivation for watching it until Dana Gould mentioned it on his podcast.  Based on that recommendation, I finally tracked down a pristine copy and watched it (sans commercials), which put it at a short movie length.

So how does it hold up today?  Very well!  The movie is populated completely with character actors (Darren McGavin, Claude Aikens, even Larry Linville before he was a staple on M.A.S.H.) and they all do a fine job.  The pacing is great; you’re never bored.  As an added bonus, the movie doesn’t shy away from an honest ending.

Recommendation

At only 1h15m, it’s definitely worth your time — and, if you ever have a need for such a thing, it’s appropriate for the family (no swearing, no nudity, and genuine tension without being disturbing).

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

Charlie is almost certainly sure that his new neighbor is a vampire: He sees a coffin being brought into the basement, and women have a nasty habit of turning up dead once they visit next door.  Problem is, nobody believes him.  Desperate, he enlists the help of his friends and a washed-up horror movie actor to confront the vampire once and for all.

Opinion

I’d somehow missed this movie when it first came out, but my wife Melissa had seen it nearly a hundred times as it was in regular rotation on HBO in the 1980s, so we watched it together.  Unlike yesterday’s disaster Return of the Living Dead II, Fright Night mixes together just the right amount of comedy and horror.  The supporting players (Chris Sarandon, Roddy McDowall, and Stephen Geoffreys) are standouts, with Geoffreys in particular striking an unnerving, off-balance character that made him perfect for his later starring role in 976-EVIL.

The story is simple but engaging, the pacing is even throughout, it hits all of the right vampire lore notes, and the practical effects are cheesy but fun to watch.

Recommendation

While it may not be the best film ever made about vampires, it’s great fun, and definitely worth your time.

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

That pesky toxic chemical Trioxin returns to transform the dead into living zombies that crave the taste of live brains.  The four main actors from the first installment return in an alternate storyline similar to the first film.

Opinion

The original Return of the Living Dead is one of my favorite horror movies:  It strikes the perfect balance of horror and black comedy.  I not only own it on blu-ray, but I made my own version that uses the 1080p video with the VHS audio, retaining the excellent soundtrack.

This sequel, Return of the Living Dead II, is not that movie.  It strives for 50% physical comedy, 50% horror, and misses the mark at nearly every turn.  An original screenplay forcibly adapted to the Living Dead series, it feels like the filmmakers were trying to create a kid-friendly version of the original.

Recommendation

Not worth spending time on.  If you’re thinking of seeing it anyway, know that it has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Skip it and watch the vastly superior original instead.

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

Teenage kids are killed by a burnt madman, who comes after them in their dreams once they fall asleep.

Opinion

Believe it or not, I’d never seen A Nightmare On Elm Street all the way through from start to finish until tonight.  It was the basis for many movie sequels, reboots, tie-ins, and even a horror anthology series in the late 1980s (as was trendy at the time).  Based on how many VHS copies are available on ebay, A Nightmare On Elm Street contributed massively to keeping rental stores afloat.

So, how did it hold up?  As a teenager, I’m sure I would have been very scared by this.  I recruited my wife Melissa to watch it with me, and while there were some legitimate I-can’t-believe-that-just-happened moments, they are few and far between.  The movie is less horror, more campy-slasher catered to the teenage crowd.

Recommendation

The original Nightmare on Elm Street series is probably best left in the 1980s, but if you want a conclusion to the original film, skip to the 3rd entry in the series, Dream Warrior, where the good guys actually win for a change.  And if you really want to see Freddy go at it, Check out Freddy vs. Jason which is way better than it deserves to be.

(For an explanation of what these posts in October are, see the parent post.)

Synopsis

A late 1970s cross between The Omen and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Visitor is, as the name implies, a visitor from another planet comes to Earth to try to stop a child with evil powers.

Opinion

I was expecting pure Italian cheese, being another in a long line of Italian sci-fi/horror knock-offs, but I was very pleasantly surprised by how much this film pulled off.  It starts with some science-fiction mythology that will confuse you if you don’t know the synopsis of the film beforehand, but then from about the 15-minute mark to an hour later, it’s a genuinely interesting and well-crafted film that holds your attention.  As an Omen knock-off, it works very well.  The evil girl in question, Paige Conner, is very talented (not just acting, but we see her performing some impressive gymnastics and ice skating as well), and strikes the correct tone for something sinister under the surface.  Other players (including John Huston, Shelly Winters, and a young Lance Henriksen) all play it completely straight.  (Fans of Henriksen won’t be disappointed; his acting is very natural.)  Some of the practical effects are fantastic for the late 1970s, including the best live bird manipulation I’ve ever seen in a film.  Some of the locations and Ennio Guarnieri’s cinematography are also really great throughout most of the movie.  The sound design is also excellent, and less heavy-handed than The Omen.

Unfortunately, the last 45 minutes of the film has some severe pacing problems, some character turns that don’t feel quite right (and others, such as Shelly Winters, chewing up the scenery), and a slightly clumsy final act that feels like the film ran out of time or money to complete properly.  There is also a God/Devil allegory that is hinted at, then not hinted at, then clumsily mixed with science fiction?

Recommendation

If you remember the 1970s and can overlook its problems, it’s worth seeing, if anything to see the idealized perfect 1970’s house (A pool in the living room! Front-projection TV playing Pong! A Desert Patrol arcade game!).