“Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer” gets off to a kick-ass start, taking us deep into the jungles of Ottowa, Canada, where the primitive natives are fighting off a man in a giant rubber cyclops monster suit.

Wait, what?

In the age of computer-generated giant two-headed snakes, space spiders, manticores, dragons, gargoyles and other assorted digitized cryptozoological pets the “Sci-Fi Channel” is famous for breeding the above scenario actually sounds completely watchable. You, the fans, have been clamoring for this for years. A horror film with a likeable slacker hero, babes in danger, and all the practical goo-spewing, latex stretching special effects you can stand.

Yes, I know that movie is supposed to be called “Evil Dead 4”, but can you take “Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer” and be happy with that instead?

Maybe, but likely not. Your first instinct is to cheerlead for this movie. You really, really want to like it—and there's actually a lot to love about it. It's got all the ingredients of the next horror cult phenomenon. Classic horror star? Check: Robert Englund, the Vincent Price of his generation. Awesome new anti-hero? Gotcha: Jack Brooks, reluctant barely competent plumber with anger issues by day, reluctant barely competent monster killer/college student with anger issues by night.

But despite the copious amounts of slime and goo something fails to gel especially in the first hour. The film is only 80 minutes but it feels much longer. In that first hour we get glimpse into Jack's background (his family was eaten by a wood troll), and join him as he unwittingly unleashes an ancient demon which begins to transform his night school professor (Robert England). Englund's great fun to watch and he holds the movie together. Still much of that time it goes in circles with Jack dealing with his anger, career, and relationship problems. “Jack Brooks” doesn't seem to move forward at any point until the last 20 minutes.

Still, “Jack Brooks” has a lot to offer in those last 20 minutes. Fans of practical monster effects and make-up won't be disappointed. Englund's transformation into a multi-tentacled creature that takes up half a classroom is the sort of thing you don't see anymore without digital assistance. So while the movie doesn't exactly work, it's a great first feature effort, and I look forward to seeing more from this team. It's obvious they've got the talent to make a great movie, even if this isn't it. Keep in mind that the filmmakers whose work they've obviously been influenced by didn't get it perfect the first time either.

The DVD comes with an amiable commentary by the filmmakers, and a few behind the scenes featurettes. The one about making the monster suits and makeup should be of interest to anyone who enjoys the movie. -Mike C.

From the "How Did My Career End Up This Way?" Series,

or the Sci-Fi Channel Maneater Series

So I'm James Van Der Beek. I'm sitting in my trailer during the filming of the Sci-Fi Channel movie Eye of the Beast. Or more accurately, I'm crouching with my head buried in my hands, muttering to myself, "I'm Dawson. I'm Dawson. I'm not in a Maneater movie. I'm back on the WB with Katie Holmes sneaking through my bedroom window. I'M DAWSON, DAMMIT!"

So I'm Phil Fasso and I just sat through Eye of the Beast. And I'm wondering if the, ahem, "creative" forces at Sci-Fi know their output isn't up to the standards of a 2nd grade school play, or if they're so far deluded they tell themselves, "Yeah, this is gooooood." What other reaction could I have, considering that in the opening scene, the lake monster feels up teenage girl while she's making out with her boyfriend? Yes, you read that right. I can't make this stuff up. And it only gets worse from there.

After that moonlight opener, we meet the sheriff/fishery department/undefined role cutie who portrays the equivalent of the town cop. She jogs to her office, where the murdered girl's brother meets her to discuss his missing sister. Enter Van Der Beek as a scientist sent from NORA to research why the fishing's taken a bad turn. The captain and his crew that are hired to take him out instantly dislike him and treat him with palpable disdain. When they discover pieces of a boat and the dying boyfriend from the opening scene, the debate about whether a giant squid exists begins.

None of this is entertaining. In fact, it suffers from the same problems of every other Sci-Fi movie I've seen. The acting ranges from wooden to amateurish to absolutely terrible,. With the exception of Van Der Beek's Dan Leland and the female lead, Kat, these characters are so thoroughly dislikeable that I wanted to see them end up swallowed by a lake monster. The script has so many holes, I'm convinced it's a first draft. A few of them: Dan's there to help the fishermen, yet they hate him on sight; Dan has committed some sort of wrong in his early career, but it's never mentioned what; the town is reluctant to believe a monster squid is the cause of its problems, but once the boat's captain brings a huge tentacle to the town bar, they're all giddy to buy into it; townsfolk who have hated each other for generations suddenly work together happily at the drop of a dime. The score is an insult to the great John Williams, as it rips off some of the minor themes of Jaws shamelessly. The monster certainly doesn't help. A mixture of CGI and practical effects, neither of which look believable or anything in the neighborhood of scary, its on screen time is thankfully brief. The only thing that distinguishes this dreck from any other poorly made Sci-Fi movie is a blatant stream of racism. The dialogue between the white seafarers and their equally prejudiced Indian counterparts is poorly handled and appallingly unacceptable.

The only redeeming thing in the entire movie is Van Der Beek. He acquits himself nicely as the attractive young man who's trying to save a town's people even if they don't really want him there, or if his bosses refuse to believe him. Though no Robert De Niro, he's not a terrible actor, as he brings just the right hints of emotion to the role. Though I'm sure those, ahem, "creative" forces hired him more for his looks than for his acting, After all, he is Dawson.

Eye of the Beast has absolutely no extras, except a trailer for the Man Eater series that starts automatically with the disc. But it does sport some interesting cover art. which portrays an octopus almost fully out of the water, crushing a bloodied fisherman in a tentacle. The art belies the actual movie, as there's very little blood, the monster only appears above water once, and it's not an octopus. It's a squid. The cover did, however, draw my 3-year old nephew, Little Al, to the disc as it sat on my floor. He grew quickly bored with the movie. Even more damning, he wasn't scared at all.

Having suffered through Eye of the Beast, I'm not expecting much more from the rest of the "How Did My Career End Up This Way?" series. I'm sure the other movies give home to poor acting, plots full of holes and monster that can't terrify a toddler. As for this movie specifically, I can only offer this: Remember, Van Der Beek. Deep breaths, and just keep repeating, "I'm Dawson. I'm Dawson. I'm Dawson."

--Phil Fasso

Eye It On Amazon.com!

About 12 years ago, I took a film studies course at Stony Brook University that focused on documentaries. I only took it because it filled a requirement for my English major. Going in, I figured it would be a boring course, in which I'd watch a number of thoroughly dull movies. It turned out it was actually a very interesting class, that taught me to be more analytical when I watched movies. So when I sat down to watch the mockumentary American Zombie, I thought of that class and watched the movie as if it were an actual doc.

And for the first 2/3 of the film, it functioned exactly like the docs I'd seen a dozen years back in that film studies class. The best of those docs had two things going for them: they followed interesting people, and through doing so put forth a powerful message. Even if the subject being documented was boring, per se, selling encyclopedias, interviews with a bunch of salesman at varying levels of success could make that world seem compelling and sad. Unfortunately, this "doc" focuses on four really boring high functioning "revenants" (which is a misnomer, as the word actually means "ghosts"). There's Ivan, the overweight Goth slacker who works at a convenience store and writes a zombie fanzine; Judy, who searches unsuccessfully for love as she assembles photo albums to document everything in her life; Joel, who leads ZAG, a pro-active zombies' rights group; and Lisa, an unhinged artist who makes string art as she tries to discover her human origins. All of these characters are outsiders; where is the football player, the model, the corporate executive? I applaud director Grace Lee for promoting the idea that those who return are outsiders; and in their new condition, they're farther outside than ever. But my God, could these four be any more dull? I would think if zombies existed, as this "doc" tells us they do, Lee could find four that were a little more edgy and exciting. Instead her subjects are the very definition of mundane. This cripples the film, as it did with a few of the docs I watched in that college course.

And what of the message? At first, that seems a little tangled. Lee appears in the doc as herself, and she's intent to show the world that zombies are victims, who deserve a fair shake at life. But filmmaker John Solomon, her co-director, seems more concerned with showing people that zombies are a threat; he's always looking for body parts in their refrigerators. These fears seem unfounded. True, the subjects are all more than a little weird, but they seem harmless to the point of meek. There's also a compelling theme of black holes, a perfect metaphor for the zombies' souls. Lee and Solomon should have followed through on that as their message, as it would have provided them with an intriguing focus.

And then, at the 2/3 mark, the message changes, and the whole documentary swerves off course, in both style and technique. Seeking entrance to Live Dead, a zombies-only festival, Lee and Solomon secure themselves limited access. The first two days commence in dreary fashion, with zombie hippies sharing in sing-alongs as if this were Woodstock. During the second night, things start to get all Blair Witchy, with shaky hand held camera work in night vision as some unknown force attacks the tent. The third day presents more mysteries, and that night the filmmakers capture something they consider shocking. From here, they try to wrap up the doc so they can present it to the public. Along the way, a few jolting turns occur, leading to a conclusion the film's first hour would never have suggested.

Herein lie a multitude of problems. First, the "shocking" footage the filmmakers capture doesn't really show anything shocking at all. How they come to the conclusion that something dangerous has happened is beyond me. Worse, the last 15 minutes clearly show that zombies are a threat to our safety and lives. As the whole first hour portrayed them as mundane and harmless, this sudden turn is preposterous; certainly Lee the character would not have edited her final product as such if the incidents in the last quarter hour had occurred. But the film's biggest sin is what its ultimate message becomes: The Outsider in Society Is Dangerous. The message is socially irresponsible, and odd coming from Lee, a minority female documentary filmmaker.

The DVD for American Zombie comes with a number of extras. What's labeled as a making of "documentary" is actually more correctly labeled a featurette. It's a poorly organized 7 minutes of behind the scenes interviews that offer an incoherent look at the movie's origins and production. Then there are two commentaries. On the first, Lee discusses the film with co-writer Rebecca Sonnenshine. Lee starts off talking about the film's genesis, involving Sonnenshine's dreams about being a zombie. The rest of the commentary functions as a nuts and bolts discussion of how and why the plot became what it was. The second contains comments from Lee and the four actors who played the doc's lead zombies. They hold a decent conversation about character motivation and provide some good anecdotes from the production, but it's a bit heavy with compliments for Lee and the genius of the film. These commentaries probably would have impressed me more had I enjoyed the movie itself. The film's trailer sells the first 2/3 of the film without giving any real indication of where it will eventually lead. There's also a PC Rom extra, but I can't figure out what exactly it does. The disc also offers trailers for a number of Cinema Libre Studio releases, none of which seem too enticing. Beware: over the menus play two mind numbingly annoying punk tunes from the film.

As a movie, American Zombie is dull, plodding and confused in its message. As a faux documentary, the film also fails. Though it holds to the conventions of true documentary filmmaking for the first 2/3, it falls apart at the end, and provides a very dangerous final message. As a zombie enthusiast, I say pass on this one. As a guy who fondly remembers just how a college course taught him to analyze film better, unfortunately I say the same.

--Phil Fasso

BUY IT AT AMAZON.COM!

Ya know how your mother always said ,"if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Well, if I lived by that rule I'd have to stop writing this review right here.

First of all I'm not even sure why Dimension Extreme picked this film up in the first place. There is not one single gore shot in the entire film! I suppose it's because it comes from the same creators as the Leprechaun films which would account for all of the witty one liners this film has to offer (which is the only thing it has to offer). But that is no excuse.

The film opens with a mother and her two young children Norbert and Angelina bunked up in a run down L.A. motel. The mother, whom by the way has more prosthetic parts than her ventriloquist dummy, is a heroin junkie/out of work stage performer. To make a long story short she OD's and leaves her kids with nothing but a creepy, large ventriloquist doll to remember her by. The doll, that seems to take on a sinister life of its own, fits in perfectly with the murdering brother and sister pair who grow up with zero parental guidance.

There isn't much I even want to say about this film, because even if you can sit through the whole thing, all you'll notice are the mistakes in it! AND, this DVD has absolutely no special features! The "brother" character is dressed up like a cowboy the entire film and does not muster a single word! The "daughter" character doesn't look a day over sixteen and apparently only cares about having a baby...with her brother. Ugh, this movie makes other films like Children of the Living Dead look like Oscar winners!

-Beth Puttkammer

Support Icons of Fright - Buy This At Amazon.com!

Salem's Lot (1979)
Every horror fan has one particular monster movie that sold him on the genre. It's usually a film he saw when he was very young, one that terrified him and kept him up long after Mom had put him to bed in his pajamas. One movie that taught him how good it was to be scared. For me this film is the 1979 adaptation of Stephen King's novel, Salem's Lot.

The film was originally intended for a theatrical run, and George Romero was supposed to direct (in fact, Romero acknowledges this in Day of the Dead, as Bub is reading the novel). Once the studio decided to shift it to TV, Romero knew he could never make the gory version he'd envisioned. Warner Bros. then turned to another goremeister, Texas Chainsaw Massacre's Tobe Hooper. With King's novel as his source, Hooper crafted an atmospheric chiller which scared me to the bone when I was 7 years old, and confirmed that I was a horror fan for life.

The movie starts in a small church in Guatemala. We meet a grizzled Ben Mears and his young charge, Mark Petrie. As they fill bottles with holy water, one lights up. When Mears says, "They found us again," the audience doesn't know what's found them, but it certainly must be something frightening. Flash back two years, to the quiet little town of Salem's Lot. Newly widowed Mears has returned home after a long absence to write a book about the Marsten House, an ominous abode that stands on a hill, overlooking the Lot. But Mears is not the only new arrival in the town. Antique dealers Richard Straker and Kurt Barlow have set up shop in town, and purchased the old dark house. When people start to disappear and die in rapid fashion, the quaint community falls under a dark cloud, casting Barlow and Straker in conflict with Mears for the very soul of the town.

Conceptually, Salem's Lot has an interesting premise. A vampire travels with his human familiar the world round, moving into small, unnoticed towns and feeding until he clears each little hamlet out. The movie suggests that Barlow has done this for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Thus, the movie stacks the deck against Mears; can the brooding author stand a chance against an evil that has survived for so long? Can he succeed where so many others surely have failed?

From this simple concept, Hooper and screenwriter Stirling Siliphant craft a rather effective chiller. The script compresses several characters (in the novel, King creates a whole town's worth of 40 or so), and alters some events that actually work better than they did in the novel (it's much better to see Barlow and Mears have their final confrontation set in the Marsten House, which plays so prominently in both print and film). Hooper shows great restraint and craft here; unlike his seminal chainsaw epic, this movie is highly stylized. In fact, for a TV production, Salem's Lot boasts lots of artistic shots, such as the opening credit sequence. As Mears holds the bottle of holy water in the opening scene, it glows blue. The light then fades to a still shot of the moon, followed by the reveal of the Marsten house; midway through the credits, the moon fades out as sunlight brings day to the town and the foreboding house. A few scenes later, as Mears stares up at the empty house in darkness, he turns and finds himself confronted by Straker. A cut to Mears reveals his shock, and then the camera swings through the air, creating a continuous shot that catches Straker's look of disdain.

Perhaps even more so than the visuals, the score lends an ominous touch to the film. Watching this film when I was young , for the first time I learned just how much the music can make or break a horror film. Driving and loud at points, ethereal and airy at others, the track is downright foreboding throughout.

But what really terrified me most with this film as a child, and still does each time I watch it, were the scenes with the vampires. These are some genuinely terrifying bloodsuckers. One boy appears at his brother's window and floats in, yellow eyes and white fangs glowing. When grave digger Mike Ryerson and a friend transport a box that moves on its own in the truck, tension is through the roof. Later, Ryerson jumps into the open grave of a victim, to dreadful consequence (leaving me to this day questioning this rather fatal move). But most frightening of all is Barlow himself. He isn't revealed until the film is more than half over, but when he finally arrives for a handful of scenes, the effect is powerful. His battle with a priest over Mark's life is an impressive showdown between dark faith and light. Though many critics knock the way his look throws back to Count Orlock of Nosferatu fame, he's certainly more frightening than had he looked like a mortal with fangs (as the novel sells him).

In short, Salem's Lot holds up for me. But will Salem's Lot frighten today's audiences? Probably not. That's not a knock on the film itself. It's just that horror fans nowadays, who've grown up on fast food horror franchises with MTV editing, are unlikely to sit through a three hour long vampire story that's light on blood and takes its time in setting up characters and plot points. I'm not even sure if the payoff scenes would entice fans of more modern horror. That's a shame, as this really is a well made horror flick.

Unfortunately, Warner Bros. does not have the same reverence for Salem's Lot that I do. A long trailer for the film is the only extra; as the film had a theatrical run in Europe, I think this trailer actually ran in theatres overseas. Much like the movie, it starts slow but builds to an intense finish, and it uses the film's music to great effect. There are English and French subtitles for the hard of hearing, and... well, the French. One oddity occurs on the disc: the scene selection is bunched into six chapters each. So you can select Chapter 1, 7, 13 and so on. As this disc came out not long after the DVD format arrived, I'm not sure if this happened because Warner Bros. was new to the game or just apathetic about the movie. Either way, Salem's Lot deserves better than this bare bones effort.
Salem's Lot still ranks in my top 10 horror flicks of all time, and that's not just out of a sense of nostalgia. It's got some real scares and just the right atmosphere for a horror movie. It may not be for all tastes, but I highly recommend it at 35 years old, just as I would have at 7.

-- Phil Fasso

Support Icons -- Buy This On Amazon.com!

Or, Friday the 13th Part 1 1/2.

After the success of Sean Cunningham's financially groundbreaking film, there was a great demand for two things: cheap slasher flicks, and the services of Tom Savini on cheap slasher flicks. Enter Bob and Harvey Weinstein, two concert promoters who were ready to make a splash in Hollywood with their newly formed company, Miramax. The company that would dominate the Oscars race for Best Picture 15 years later started off with a much more meager goal: to make a Friday the 13th knockoff, and to use that film's special makeup artist to draw in the audience.

The Burning begins with a group of boys at camp. They've decided to punish the caretaker Cropsy (though the reason for their venom is vague). The prank goes wrong, and Cropsy suffers serious burning. Released from the hospital five years later with no job or family but a whole lot of anger still in his system, Cropsy makes a quick kill in the city before heading back to the summer camp to get his revenge.

Herein lie a few problems. First off, on whom is Cropsy going to get revenge? Why does he stop to make a quick kill in the city? The woman he murders doesn't even know him. Same for the kids at the camp, who are not the ones who burnt him. Okay, one is (I'm not really spoiling anything here), but the rest have never done anything to Cropsy. The killer's motivations are muddled, which weakens the movie. As does the fact that after Cropsy gets to the camp, nobody gets killed for a long time. Once the killings start, the movie picks up, but it's a tedious affair for about 45 minutes in the middle.

So what does The Burning do right? Amazing special effects. Savini copies some of the same effects from his earlier films (he remakes the Kevin Bacon arrow effect from F13, with a change of murder weapon), but the gags are impressive. A very early performance from Jason Alexander is very good; in fact, the acting is decent across the board. Also, there's a lot of nudity (female fans should appreciate that it's not just girls getting naked). And Cropsy is a cool variation on what Jason Vorhees could have looked like had he died by fire instead of by water. All in all, The Burning is an entertaining slasher that overcomes its deficiencies.

Because I've had bad experiences with meeting Savini, I'm loath to admit it, but the best of the limited special features on the disc is Blood 'N' Fire Memories. It serves as an 18 minute discussion with him about his effects for the film. Because the special make up field passed him by a long time ago, it's easy to forget that Savini had some real cache in the early 1980s, producing effects for a whole slew of films in a very short period of time. It's also easy to forget that Savini had some real talent back in the day, and deserved all those jobs. Here, he draws back the curtain and talks about the tricks behind the effects. He also displays an utter disdain for the Friday the 13th films, but seems to like Jason Alexander and Holly Hunter. It's a short piece, but Blood 'N' Fire Memories is definitely worth a look.

The commentary is a little less interesting. Director Tony Maylam sits down with fellow Brit Alan Jones, "international film journalist" as the special features screen claims (to which I say, Who?). Maylam discusses how his direction of a concert movie led the Weinsteins to hire him. One problem is that he doesn't seem to have much interest in the horror genre; the job appears to have been a work-for-hire for him, and so he doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic during the commentary. Jones seems more than enthusiastic about the film, but he leads Maylam to rather circular discussions, so things get repetitive quickly. The two men address just about all the production stuff one would expect on a commentary, so it's informative. But it's far from great.

As for the other extras, the film's trailer gives away a little too much. The photo gallery is just a collection of still from the film, which makes it superfluous. Trailers for MGM horrors and the two Jeepers Creepers flicks round out the extras. I was hungry for a little more, but it's a decent package for a low budget horror flick.

If you've seen the first few Friday the 13th's, you've already seen The Burning. But that doesn't mean you should shy away from the DVD. The movie stands up as an entertaining knock off, with some superior work by Savini, and the disc sports a great conversation with him. Definitely worth a look, if only as a reminder not to abuse poor campground caretakers.

--Phil Fasso

We Can't Even Afford A Scary Summer Camp: Buy This At Amazon.com and Support ICONS OF FRIGHT!

As anybody who read my First Look of Diary of the Dead can attest, I walked out of the theatre with a lot of venom for the movie. It seemed that George Romero had taken the zombie concept and "rebooted" it for a generation he knew very little about; in the mix, he'd created a really bad movie. On the train home, I pondered: Had the Godfather of all zombie movies lost his touch? Arriving home that night, I sat down and wrote a scorching review. Icons of Fright posted it, and I thought I was done with Diary forever. If Romero was not willing to close the door on his zombie films, I most certainly was.

But when Diary came out on DVD, I reread my First Look. Embarrassingly, I realized it was a poorly written and badly edited piece, a work of raw anger that the film perhaps may not have deserved. I knew as I read the First Look again that I owed it to myself, Romero, and most of all Icons readers to look at the movie with fresh eyes and a clear perspective. I owed the film, in essence, A Second Look.

Let me be clear before I discuss details: Diary of the Dead is still not a good flick. It continues to suffer from many of the problems I addressed in my First Look: the acting is beyond bad; the movie is too intent on being funny at times; the characters for the most part are a dull group, and even the tolerable ones become unlikable because of their obsession with the camera; the dialogue is atrocious; worst, the film's biggest sin remains its sledgehammer preachiness. But it's not just the message that gets overstated. I realized Romero seems too intent on using dialogue to overstate everything. One scene makes this glaringly apparent. When Debra and the group reach her family home, she reaches into a potted plant next to the front door and says, "They always hide a key." Does she really need to explain this detail to the group, or the film's audience? As a master filmmaker with 40 years experience, Romero should understand that film is a visual medium, even if his filmmaking characters don't.

Another thing that struck me while watching the DVD was something I mentioned in my First Look: the lack of a strong black male. Yes, the students meet up with a militant black who's leading a survivalist group. But his time onscreen is too fleeting. I think Romero would've made a much more interesting film if he had followed this group and its leader, than the group of fledgling filmmakers he chose as his protagonists. I could have routed for that group. As with much of the movie, this seems like another opportunity squandered.

Even with all that said, I didn't hate Diary the second time around. Sure, it wasn't good, but it wasn't worthy of venom either. Romero simply took a new approach that I don't appreciate. And I'm not quite sure who this approach was meant to please. Older fans of Romero's zombie legacy will be put off by the younger cast and the focus on technology. The younger fans are the very bloggers and Myspacers that Romero attacks with the film. In the end, he may end up satisfying no one.

The nice package of extras that Dimensions Extreme put together will satisfy fans, however. Foremost is the commentary. Considering the broad swipes the film takes at technology, how suitably ironic is it that Romero sat down in Paris, France to make his comments, while DP Adam Swica and editor Michael Doherty collaborate on the track from Toronto, Canada? Romero is always a joy for me to listen to, as he's such an intellectual and a down to earth guy at the same time. Here, he discusses his critiques of society, as well as the ingenuity needed to make a low budget movie. His social views come across much better in the commentary than in the film itself. He even got me to appreciate the practicality of CG blood effects, though I still don't like the effects themselves. Swica and Doherty are a lot less prominent than Romero on the track, but this is really Romero's baby, so it's forgivable.

Character Confessionals differs from most movies' extras. Four of the students sit down individually to discuss their reactions to the zombie apocalypse, as if they're in the middle of it. The First Week covers filmmaker's visit to the set during the film's first week of production. It's brief and doesn't offer much. The Roots offers Romero's rebooting of his Dead series. It's about 2 minutes long; at that length, it can't help but be shallow. Familiar Voices offers the uncut recording of three celebrities whose voices appear in the film as those of newscasters. It's a neat little piece. Also, the winning filmmakers of Romero's Myspace contest are on the disc. I again question just how seriously anybody can take Romero's critiquing of the media age if he uses a Myspace to promote the film.

Then there's For the Record. The disc breaks this doc down into 5 pieces. Master of the Dead is a 13 minute discussion of Romero's work on the film. It includes the film's producers, and Romero himself. George discusses why he returned to small budget filmmaking with Diary. He originally wanted to shoot it for $250,000 with a student crew. He also attempted to adopt Diary to the television series format. I wonder how different that would have been from the final product. It's an interesting view into Romero's mindset. Into the Camera takes a look at the cast. None of these people interested me, though they're all complimentary to Romero. You Look Dead and A New "Spin" on Death look at the special make up and visual effects, respectively. These pieces drag on for much longer than they should; the highlights are the comments of Greg Nicotero, especially the anecdote on why he's playing a zombie doctor. A World Gone Mad discusses the logistical problems of photographing a film with only hand held cameras and very few cuts. It's an intriguing piece about overcoming the hurdles of filming like this. All in all, the disc boasts a comprehensive, if uneven, set of extras.

In the pantheon of Romero's Dead saga, Diary of the Dead was never destined to be a classic. Maybe over time it will find its audience, if only because it's got Romero's name on it. But exactly who that audience is, I can't say. I can say that it didn't deserve the scathing critique I gave it in my First Look. But a Second Look confirmed its many problems. Perhaps Romero's next look at the zombie universe will offer better.

-Phil Fasso

Zombies Don't Pay Bandwidth Fees, We Do: Buy This At Amazon.com!

The premise is weird, albeit simple. Real life horror author R. Chetwynd-Hayes, played here by haggard monster movie veteran John Carradine, is walking the deserted streets at night when a rather ill looking man accosts him and begs for help. The man is actually the vampire Erasmus, essayed with ghoulish glee by the great Vincent Price, who taps into his neck for a quick nightcap. It turns out Erasmus is an avid fan of Hayes' work, and insists on repaying him by bringing him to the exclusive Monster Club, of which he is a prominent member. Reluctantly, Hayes goes along with the appreciative bloodsucker.

Once there, Hayes questions Erasmus about a genealogy chart on the wall. Erasmus explains that all monsters emanate from three sources: vampires, werewolves and ghouls. Cross-breeding has led to a number of variations, and a few mutts. This leads to the first of three horror shorts that make up the bulk of the movie's running time.

The first short tells the tale of a shadmock, the lowest form of hybrid. It begins with a man in an asylum, and then flashes back to a couple in their dingy flat, where they discuss how to scam money. The woman applies for work at the shadmock's ancestral home, where he has secluded himself; seeing him step out from the shadows, she runs off, vowing never to return. But her greedy lover is convinced there's a fortune they can steal without the shadmock noticing, and so he sends her back. He doesn't realize that there's a price to pay for everything, especially in breaking a monster's heart. This is the best of the three shorts, because it manages to offer up a new monster, and yet holds to some of the tried and true genre staples, such as the dark, empty house. And I felt worst for the woman, who clearly is afraid to wrong her employer, and later comes to sympathize with him; yet she's beholden to her avaricious lover, and both pay dearly.

The second tale rides along in more traditional territory, with the story of a vampire. But it's spun on its ear into a comedic piece. Donald Plesence leads a group of undead hunters, intent on bringing a monster down. Clearly the boy in the story, a nerdy sort, has no idea his father is a creature of the night, and his mother has accepted the downside of a marriage to one, all the time shielding the boy. When Plesence and the boy cross paths, there are some interesting twists. Suffice it to say, some people will hold to the duties of their job no matter what the consequences. This is my least favorite of the three shorts; unlike the tales that wrap around it, this one is very obviously fang-in-cheek, and the humor really drags it down. And yet, I can't help but find the irony in this: the framing device with Price and Carradine is very cheeky, and so this tale logically fits the overall tone best. Perhaps I just don't find this vampire tale particularly funny.

The third story returns to traditional territory, but again with a twist. Humegoos are the result of cross-breeding between ghouls and humans. According to Erasmus, they don't do much of interest outside of eating carrion, but when he warns Hayes "Oh, but their relations do have some fascinating habits," it foreshadows some really ghastly things to come. The tale starts off with a horror director working on a scene. Unhappy with the actors' performances and just about everything else on the shoot, he takes it upon himself to scout out a new location. When he veers his sports car off the highway, down a road that's not on the map, bad things are surely on their way. He ends up in a ghoulish town, just the atmospheric setting he's searching out for his movie. But the terrors in this town are not to be held solely to celluloid. The rest of the story deals with his attempts to escape and return to the main highway. This short was a bit predictable, and the acting's a little hammy, but it captures the tone properly, and has a wicked twist at the end that still to this day I love.

Nobody would mistake The Monster Club for an A horror movie. But anybody who holds the horror genre in high regard will appreciate the film for what it is: solid B class entertainment that does a number of things right. The casting is foremost in its approach; Price is brilliant, especially given the limited screen time. Carradine looks worn out, the same haggard old man who appeared in The Howling that same year. But he plays Hayes with just the right twinkle in his eye, as a man who's spent his whole life creating horrors, and now has just the right sense of wonderment when faced with real ones. Genre stalwarts such as Plesence, Britt Eklund and Stuart Whitman play this movie for exactly what it is, and yet raise its level because of their performances. The scenes in the club are hilarious. Spruced all over the dance floor, the monsters all wear obviously fake monster masks, and yet it works. A number of different bands perform monster-themed songs in the club, and the tunes are surprisingly catchy. Even the direction has more than a bit of class to it, as certain scenes stand out: as Hayes walks quietly through the night, Erasmus' hand pops into the frame as if to grab him; the way the third tale looks like it's beginning in some monster's lair, and then the camera reveals it's a movie set; and by far the best scene in the film, where a stripper removes more than her clothes. Even the minor details impress; the table at which Hayes and Erasmus sit is a lit up coffin lid, with a grinning skull atop it. Roy Ward Baker, a veteran director of many Hammer horror films, turns what was obviously a low budget affair into a respectable film.

Will today's audiences be scared by The Monster Club? Probably not. Having survived through the torture porn era, I'm afraid many horror fans will find it dull, as there's very little blood. But anyone who listens to Erasmus' final speech and doesn't get a chill down the spine is totally desensitized. Trying to get the club to accept Hayes as a member, he draws a terrible picture of why man is the greatest monster of all. Powerful stuff.

Not so powerful are the special features. In my review of I Walked with a Zombie, I mentioned how that disc housed the second worst commentary I've ever suffered through. The Monster Club commentary somehow manages to outlame that one. Luke Y. Thompson, some geek with a website, and Gregory Weinkauf give atrocious statements that don't qualify as insights. Just who these two men are, I have no idea, but they have no place discussing a movie they know nothing about. Often they lampoon the flick, and their comments slap the face of its fans. Patherfinder, the company which released the movie on DVD, would have done better to avoid a commentary, than to pay these two buffoons for one.

The Monster Club

A number of minor extras appear. Oddly, a section labeled Production Credits is actually a static ad for other Pathfinder releases. The trailer is in the same vein as the movie itself, though a little thick on the cheese. The biographies are thorough. Music from the Film allows access to just that; the songs play over a static screen. The stills gallery from the film and production notes are exactly what one would expect. The disc also features an essay on the background for the film, by George Reiss (color me biased, but I like my movie review better!). As with the guys who did the commentary, I have no idea who George Reiss. Let's be honest. Not a great set of extras, but for a movie like this, I'd usually expect no extras at all. So for 6 bucks, I appreciate that Pathfinder put together any extras package. And they respected the ratio! Having only seen The Monster Club on TV before, I realized the first time I watched this disc that it had a theatrical release, in 1:85 to 1.

Much like I did with Maniac, I bought The Monster Club because of nostalgia. And those fond remembrances paid off. Sure, it's not The Omen. But it is, as the tagline on the front cover states, "A tongue-in-cheek trilogy of terror!" one I enjoyed watching today just as I did on channel 9 in my youth. Do yourself a favor and head on down to the Monster Club. It's worth the price of admission, even if you are a mere human.

--Phil Fasso

KEEP FRIGHT CLUB SCARED-BUY THIS AT AMAZON.COM!

Let me explain. As I was watching Schifrin's Abominable, I realized that this flick should have come out not in 2006, but in 1986. After all, it has all the trappings of a Reagan era horror flick: isolated location; 5 nubile teenage girls with hot bodies; lots of bloody deaths; and a guy in a monster suit! And though not particularly scary, more often than not Abominable does it right.

The plot even screams nostalgia, though the main thrust of it goes even further back to Hitchcock's Rear Window. Our hero Preston Rogers lost his wife and the use of his legs in a mountain climbing accident. Six months later, his doctor has ordered him to return to his vacation home to face his demons. Unfortunately, the doctor placed him in the care of a rather self-serving, annoying caretaker. The same day Rogers arrives, so does a group of five girls for a weekend getaway. Sensing a fresh food source, Bigfoot snatches one of the girls. Rogers tries to intervene, but both his wheelchair and a number of disbelievers hamper that idea.

Schifrin freely admits he copped the plot of Rear Window and turned it into a creature feature. Though I think Hitchcock is vastly overrated, I do love the Jimmy Stewart classic. Unfortunately, we don't get Stewart here. In his stead, we get Matt McCoy, star of such terrifying flicks as The Hand That Rocks the Cradle and Police Academy 5! He does a decent job in conveying fright and tension, and let's face it; overacting in a flick of this sort is forgivable. He does fare much better than his two main co-stars. The female lead is a fairly weak actress, and her name is Haley Joel (no, not that little twerp hiding under covers with a flash light and whispering about dead people; that's Haley Joel Osment). Even worse is Christien Tinsley as the caretaker. Hired on as the special makeup effects guy, he asked Schifrin for a role, and the director cast him as one of the leads. His acting is so atrocious, his character so frustratingly annoying, that he almost brings down the whole movie. But hey, Schifrin makes up for it in spades. Who would've expected Abominable to boast performances from Smallville's Martian Manhunter and Principal Vernon from The Breakfast Club? I can't help but find this oddball casting quite a joy.

There are more intriguing casting choices. Unfortunately, Schifrin squanders performances of genre vets such as Jeffrey Combs, Lance Henriksen, and a personal favorite of mine, Dee Wallace Stone. Sure it's great to see these stars and fondly remember them in classics such as Re-Animator, the Alien series, The Hills Have Eyes and The Howling, but they simply don't garner much screen time. Combs' character in particular, with his oxygen tank, wild spectacles and knowledge of Bigfoot, would have been a joy to have around more, if only because he's so weird. Instead, these three stalwart horror pros end up as glorified cameos whose names may draw to Abominable fans who will be sorely disappointed.

But Schifrin does plenty right to satisfy throwback fans of my generation. Flying in the face of watered down PG-13 fare, he adheres to Joe Bob Briggs' 3 B's: Blood, Breasts and Beasts. There's plenty of gore in this flick; particularly fun was watching a character get his face eaten off, and all with practical effects. Tiffany Shepis gets naked and takes a shower on film, and looks just fine in doing so. As for the beast, yes, it's cheesy. The Bigfoot in the flick looks like the retarded brother of Harry from that John Lithgow classic Harry and the Hendersons. But even that fits the whole tone of the flick (after all, does anybody remember Jason's potato sack head piece in Friday the 13th Part II?). Schifrin makes it clear both in the film's documentary and the commentary that he is a fan of old school horror, but this is evident just by watching the movie.

The documentary and commentary make up the base of a rather extensive package of extras on the disc. Anchor Bay once again gives a low budget horror flick the royal treatment (though I really wish someone in that company would figure out how to encode subtitles!). "Back to Genre: Making Abominable" runs 37 minutes and proves what a labor of love this movie was for Schifrin. Oddly, he admits that the idea for Abominable came to him on a beach during his honeymoon (I wonder what that marriage is like). Schifrin chronicles the hassles of low budget filmmaking, but also ventures into interesting territory when he discusses how he called in all sorts of favors for the film; the son of famed movie composer Lalo Schifrin, Ryan was able to lean on all sorts of contacts within the film community. Most of the actors comment on how fun it was to make the film; and although that sounds like standard fluff for a making-of, I get the sense it's true here. Sadly the doc reveals that director of photography Neal Fredericks died in a plane crash during post production; the movie is dedicated to him.

The commentary is a bit less of a joy. Schifrin's compendium of film knowledge is impressive, and he discusses some entertaining topics. But McCoy is a bore, making jokes that fall flat and genuinely dull comments. Oddly, Combs shows up only to cover his two scenes, alongside editor Chris Conlee. Did McCoy lock them in the basement for the rest of the film? Listen to it if only to see just how many movies Schifrin references within his own film.

The deleted and extended scenes add nothing to the film, and deserved their place on the cutting room floor. Also easy to pass on are the outtakes and bloopers. I generally don't like outtakes, but here they're even worse than usual, as one scene takes up the bulk of the four minute running time. The two trailers are interesting, especially because of their contrast. Galleries of still sand storyboards round out the package, as well as a DVD Rom copy of the screenplay; I never bother with Rom screenplays, so let me know if you find anything interesting there.

One more extra of note appears. Schifrin's student film "Shadows" from his days at SC is worth taking a peek at. It's a nifty little piece that states that sometimes paranoia isn't such a bad thing.

Had I watched Abominable on its own terms, I probably would have buried it in a darksome hole with so much Sci Fi channel fare. But with the entire decade of the 1980s behind it, Abominable gave me reason to rejoice. Ryan Schifrin loves the splatter fare I grew up on, and in imitating those movies, he certainly did not create a masterpiece (after all, those "run around a camp and slash up the teens" movies were never high art to begin with). But he did produce a fun little monster flick that has a sensibility nearly 20 years past due, and I dig that. And what better way to rock on with this 80s throwback than the inevitable... Abominable 2! Jason Vorhees should applaud.

--Phil Fasso

An interesting oddity recently occurred. The day after the "re-imagining" of April Fool's Day was released, I added it to my Netflix list. I was in no great hurry to see the film, as I was never a big fan of the original, and I'd heard some truly atrocious things about this new take; besides, every time I add a brand new release to my queue, I get the "Very Long Wait" notice. But here's the odd part: April Fool's Day had no wait at all. Two days after its release, I had the movie in my apartment.

The inference I drew was obvious: Nobody-- and I mean NOBODY-- wanted to see this movie. In the age of the horror remake, where the critically reviled Prom Night redux just finished #1 at the box office, fans had turned their backs on April Fool's Day. Hell, even the studio responsible for its distribution didn't seem to care; Sony dumped it straight to DVD, without any extras of note. Considering the general apathy for the movie, I pondered for a moment whether I should even put it into my player. But morbid curiosity got the best of me, and so I watched. And not surprisingly, I joined the throng and didn't really care much about April Fool's Day.

I'll spare you all the arguments against the current remake craze in horror. You've read them all, and suffice it to say I agree with every one. But the new April Fool's Day is so appallingly bland on its own, you don't even need to apply said arguments to be bored with it. For those who are fans of the original, however, let me say this. I always thought it was a one trick pony; once I got to the end, I wasn't so taken by the twist. But at least that version tried to generate some scares, even if those were cheap ones.

The new version bypasses scares altogether In fact, watching the first forty minutes or so, I would never have suspected I was watching a horror film at all. The tone is all wrong. Scary music, tension through acting, a terrifying plot, all these have been replaced with a the overall mood of a soap opera. As the end credits rolled, I seriously wondered if the powers that be had aimed to create a CW episode of One Tree House on Haunted Hill.

Adding to the soap opera feel are the characters. Or more accurately, the one dimensional caricatures. There's the bitchy debutante , only concerned with her social status and bank account; her brother, the philandering playboy; a senator who's way too young to be the RA in a college dorm; his aging wife, who must be all of 20; Scout Compton Taylor (have a fun career on the Sci Fi channel, Scout!); and some dude with a camera who wants to document events (Wes Bentley, you were much creepier). The only role not churned out of the Generic Stereotype Generator is the gay rich kid who can't swim (I can't even make this stuff up, folks). These characters meet to induct Scout into some social clique. Another character, the easily drugged "hot" blonde, arrives. Some of the characters dope her so they can film her in bed as a hateful April Fool's joke. When she plummets off the balcony, they find themselves in a whole heap of trouble, especially a year later when it looks as if she's returned to knock them all off.

This movie takes an even worse turn here. Having established the bitchy debutante as just that, the film asks the audience to sympathize with her, as all her friends are dying violently around her. I'm sorry, but this is a girl who drugged someone for her own amusement and caused her death. If this were an EC comic, she'd get her just desserts as the dead girl rose from the grave, a zombie stalking her. Alas, this is just a really bland movie, so I didn't even get my zombie fix. Instead, I get a lame plot twist at the end, one which would have driven me to hate all these characters, if only I'd cared about them to begin with.

Extras, you ask? No, folks, it would have taken some exertion to cull them for the disc. This is a lazy effort throughout, so all you get is about a dozen trailers that don't include one for this movie, and French subtitles. Yes, French subtitles. Apparently, Sony's apathy for this project ran so deep that they didn't even bother to include them in English.

As I removed the disc from my player, it occurred to me again that nobody-- and I mean NOBODY-- cared about this film. Not the directors, not the writers, not the studio, and most certainly not me. I'd say you'd do best to avoid this flick, but then, you already have. Because you don't care either.

--Phil Fasso

A moderate attempt at psychological horror that just misses the mark in terms of it’s excellence. The focus of the story is Donny Kohler, a man who we know isn’t all there from the start after he witnesses a co-worker accidentally set ablaze. Instead of helping the guy he just watches with a cold stare as if in a trance. When he returns home that night he finds his overbearing, abusive mother dead. After the initial shock wears off he does what anyone would do in this situation. He blasts some disco, jumps on a chair and smokes a cigarette. The purpose of these moments is to showcase the freedom he feels once the constraints of his demanding mother are lifted. But not all is well for Donny. The death of his mother awakens a hatred within him that has been suppressed for years. Socially awkward and lacking communication skills he goes out looking for women he tricks into coming over to his house. Once there, they are stripped, hung up by their wrists, doused with gasoline and burned alive with a flamethrower. The success of Don’t Go In The House lies heavily on the shoulders of Dan Grimaldi who plays Donny. He’s virtually in every scene and the movie doesn’t focus deeply on any other characters. They’re just there for Donny to play off of. I found Dan Grimaldi’s performance a bit schizophrenic. Sometimes playing it straight, other times over the top and at times underplaying the role I think helped convey how unstable this character is.. Whether that was intentional or not is another matter. Although the character is responsible for some grotesque acts, you kind of have some sympathy for him. I also liked how his MO was established with him offering help, usually in the form of transportation, to women in need of such assistance and then bringing them to his house. The house itself, which a large portion of the film takes place in, is the perfect choice. Some of the house is clean and immaculate while the rest is dilapidated and run down. Of course, being a horror movie, we are given a few thrilling moments. One in the form of a dream, another in a disco, and the creepy ending. Also, the image of a woman being roasted is disturbing, but that should go without saying. While other films of this nature have been better developed, Don’t Go In The House is still an interesting take of a man whose mind is deteriorating as he struggles to make his way in society.

Special Features: Audio Commentary with Dan Grimaldi/ Interview With Dan Grimaldi/ Hidden Behind The Matte - Selected Revealing Scenes Un-matted/ Shriek Show Trailers

Wow. Tourist Trap is one freaky movie. It follows a group of friends who are left stranded in the middle of nowhere after their car breaks down. Luckily for them a kind old man named Mr. Slausen happens to come by and offer his assistance. After bringing the group back to his place, a museum filled with mannequins, he takes off to repair their car. In need of a phone, one of the girls decides to check out a mansion behind the museum obviously unaware of the nightmare she is about to walk into. The mansion is inhabited by Mr. Slausen’s deranged brother Davey along with mannequins that come to life. As the night goes on and people grow suspicious, they one by one enter the twisted nightmare and it isn’t long before the truth about Mr. Slausen and his brother Davey is revealed. Tourist Trap is one hell of a trip. It’s genuinely frightening with it’s eerie, surreal atmosphere and it’s healthy number of scares. As if the mannequins weren’t horrifying enough (some with shifting eyes and others that lunge out at you and some completely animated,) we also have Slausen’s crazy brother. The character of Davey is truly disturbed. He wears a plaster mask, sometimes slightly resembling Leatherface. His behavior is child-like in the way talks and the way he antagonizes his victims. Chuck Connor gives a superb performance as Mr. Slausen, sweet and unassuming, yet there is always a hint of something more than meets the eye. The rest of the cast is good as well. Jocelyn Jones gives an excellent performance as Molly. Unlike most of the characters, she has more to work with in her role beyond just being scared which is a task in itself. Pino Donaggio handles the score and as usual comes through with something brilliant. The main score is kind of kooky, mischievous and playful just like the character of Davey. Elsewhere, he comes through with amazing string laden music that keeps a tight grip on the horror and suspense. The simple use of female voices singing "aah" when the mannequins’ mouths drop open is highly effective at sending shivers down your spine and maybe even causing a slight chuckle at the same time. There are also a few memorable death scenes. The stunning Tanya Roberts as Becky has an interesting scene for her demise as does the character of Woody. From the very start of the movie up to it’s nicely wrapped up ending, Tourist Trap is a demented ride with plenty of thrills and chills along the way. Definitely worthwhile viewing.

Special Features: Commentary with Director David Schmoeller/ Theatrical Trailer/ Cast Filmographies/ Short interview with David Schmoeller/ Trailers for other Full Moon releases.

A highly entertaining thriller about a killer who stalks brides-to-be, that owes a lot to Halloween. Not only is the movie in the same vein as Halloween, but there are a number of similar scenes which I will point out later. The movie follows soon to be married Amy (Caitlin O’Heaney) who is targeted as the next victim as she prepares for her wedding day. Amidst creepy sightings of a man who is following her, she spends time with her girlfriends Joyce and Nancy (Patsy Pease and Elizabeth Kemp) and shooting down advances of her former boyfriend Marvin (Don Scardino) who she might still have feelings for. There is also a cop by the name of Gamble (Lewis Arlt) who is desperate to catch the maniac because of a vendetta against him. Oh, and because it’s his job. The movie opens strong in a suspenseful movie theater scene and keeps it’s momentum up til the final frame. The movie has a nice even flow and never lags. The tense atmosphere is nicely accentuated in the right places with lighter moments which usually don’t last too long as the killer’s foreboding presence is never lurking too far away. It’s because of this that you never feel safe because he could turn up at any moment. There are nicely laid out suspenseful moments with plenty of genuine scares. Like Halloween, there is relatively no gore and hardly any blood. It’s a classic example of letting the audience fill in what isn’t there. The movie is both brilliantly shot and edited for maximum effect. The cinematography is also stellar with the darker scenes giving a sense that danger is right around the corner contrasting with the daylight scenes filled with rich, vibrant colors. The overall cast is exceptional and likeable as are their characters. They all have great chemistry with one another, particularly Amy and Marvin. The killer in the movie is a very simple, ordinary man. No mask or excessive strength. Yet, it’s his simplicity and calm demeanor that makes him so effective. He never utters a word, but seems to say everything on his wide-eyed, stoic faced expression. Of course, we can’t talk about the cast and not mention Tom Hanks in his first film role. His screen time is limited, but he manages to make a small part memorable. It is noted in the commentary that his part was initially bigger. Another strong point of the movie is the amazing score by Alexander and Mark Peskanov. It certainly does it’s trick in lifting the suspenseful moments and conveying the softer moments in the film with a gentler, quieter mood. Nothing like the overblown, bombastic scores crowding most films today. All in all, I’d say He Knows You’re Alone is definitely an underappreciated classic and is well worth you’re time.

Now for the aforementioned scenes that seem to mimic those of Halloween:

1. Like Laurie in Halloween, Amy repeatedly sees the killer. Laurie sees Michael outside her school. Amy sees her stalker outside of an ice cream parlor. Laurie sees Michael behind a bush when he seems to vanish before Annie sees him and then sees him again from her bedroom window in the backyard. Amy sees the killer behind a bush when she looks out her kitchen window, but he’s gone before Marvin catches a glimpse of him.

2. The scene in HKYA when the killer is on top of Amy’s car and breaks the window with his hand and reaches in to grab her is similar to Michael’s escape scene in Halloween.

3. A scene in HKYA showing Amy walking away towards her house when the killer steps in from the side of the frame and there is a jolting music cue is similar to the scene in Halloween when Laurie drops the key of at the Myers house.

4. The characters of Loomis and Gamble are similar in that they have previous experience and knowledge of the killer and feel the responsibility to capture him.

5. The characters of Lynda and Joyce have similar death scenes. Both are killed in a bedroom, one before and one after, having sex after their boyfriends leave the room.

6. The scene in HKYA where Amy is in her car panicking for her keys is similar to a scene in Halloween where Laurie is panicking for the keys to the house.

To be fair, He Knows You’re Alone seems to have inspired other horror movies as well. The killer in Slumber Party Massacre is very similar to the one in HKYA in not only demeanor, but appearance as well. And the similarities to Halloween are not mentioned to detract from the movie’s greatness, but to just express similarities from one fan to another.

Special Features: Commentary with Director Armand Mastroianni and Screenwriter Scott Parker/ Theatrical Trailer

One of the all-time best, goriest and campiest cult classics of the 80s. Duane Bradley and his deformed brother Belial are siamese twins. At a young age they are forced to undergo surgery to separate them. Years later the telepathically linked brothers head to New York City, Duane carrying Belial around in a wicker basket, hellbent on seeking revenge on the doctors who separated them. With everything going as planned, Duane unexpectedly falls in love with a receptionist named Sharon which sets Belial into a jealous rage. Not willing to let anyone come between him and his brother, Belial decides to take matters into his own mutated hands. Basket Case is without a doubt in a league of it’s own. It’s bizarre and twisted, horrific yet hilarious, completely outrageous and it works on all levels. Even the amateurish acting lends itself to the film’s greatness by adding to the camp factor. Despite it’s superfluous nature, Basket Case has many shocking moments including the disturbing scene where Belial, shall we say, confronts Sharon. There is also some impressive stop animation sequences. So if you’re looking for a grotesque and gory, good time then your search ends here. Basket Case more than delivers. Followed by two sequels.

Special Features: Commentary by writer/director Frank Henenlotter, Producer Edgar Ievins & actress Beverly Bonner, 2 Theatrical Trailers, TV Spot, Outtakes & Behind-The-Scenes Footage taken from the Director’s Personal Collection, Special Video Short: In Search Of The Hotel Broslin, Gallery of Basket Case Exploitation Art & Never-Before-Seen Behind-The-Scenes Photos, 2 Rare Basket Case Radio Spots, 2 Radio Interviews with actress Terry Susan Smith, Clips from Beverly Bonner’s Comedy Cable TV Show, "Beverly Bonner’s Laugh Track."

A worthy sequel to the classic Fright Night, one of my personal favorite movies of all time. Three years after the events of the original, Charley Brewster, through extensive therapy, has convinced himself that vampires don’t exist and that his initial belief in them was something he created to cope with having a serial killer live next door to him as well as the death of his best friend. Now in college and dating a new girl, Alex, everything seems to be back to normal. That is until Regine, a beautiful, seductive woman, moves into Charley’s old pal Peter Vincent’s building along with three others. After having a vivid dream about Regine in which she feeds on him and later seeing her feast on his friend Richie, Charley is convinced that the vampires have returned. He enlists the help of Peter Vincent, the fearless vampire killer, and his girlfriend Alex to stop the vampires before he himself becomes one. While definitely a few steps down from it’s perfect predecessor, Fright Night 2 is still a way above average sequel. Roddy McDowell and William Ragsdale return to reprise their roles. New additions to the cast include the beautiful Traci Lin(d) as Alex, the gorgeous Julie Carmen as the alluring Regine, and Jonathan Gries as Louie. Brad Fiedel also returns to helm the music score, the score from the original is one of my favorite film scores ever. Like the original there is some comedy and while it does work, it isn’t quite as clever as the original. The special effects and make-up effects are amazing. There are a lot of exciting and scary moments throughout. The scene where the vampire Belle kills the art student scared me every time I watched this movie as a kid. Anyway, Fright Night 2 is an