Review: Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI

Synopsis: When Tommy Jarvis goes to make sure Jason Voorhees is dead for good, he unintentionally brings him back to life. Now, the unstoppable killer is off on another killing spree! Will Tommy stop Jason, or will it be vice versa?

Review: As one of the longest running horror franchise in movie history, there really isn't much left up the sleeve of the "Friday the 13th" series to scare us with by the sixth installment. So, they decided to focus less on horror and a little more of fun. The results are not too bad, as far as sequels go.

Determined to make sure Jason is dead once and for all, Tommy Jarvis (played by Thom Mathews) digs up his body with the intent to cremate him. Instead, he accidentally reanimates Jason and the killing spree begins again. Can Tommy stop the now-undead murder machine, or will the local Sheriff (played by David Kegan) and a town that wants to move on from the horrors of Jason Voorhees end up getting him, along with all of them, killed in the process?

Right off the bat, if you are expecting straight-on horror from this outing, you are sure to be disappointed. Writer/Director Tom McLoughlin opts to take things a bit less serious than past chapters of this saga have been, adding in an element of humor to the mix and toning down on the graphic gore (although, personally, I think we could have used a little bit more of the latter). It's a formula he would use in many of the horror works he'd do after this, for both the big screen and the small one. While in less capable hands such things usually become a train wreck, McLoughlin never lets the humor stray too far into goofy slapstick and utter parody. There are a few of the in-jokes and camera mugging moments that are groan worthy, but overall the humor never totally overpowers the more horrific aspects of the film, as has happened in other attempts like this.

The cast, which is mostly a "who's who" of television roles, does an overall solid job with the material they are given, with Thom Mathews and David Kegan the real standouts. Mathews does a great job of making you feel for Tommy's plight, while Kegan's sheriff is a great foil to Tommy. Jennifer Cooke (who fans of the 80's television series "V" will remember) is sexy, but never in a trampy way. In fact, there wasn't really anything in the way of nudity in this film, unlike so many others of its kind, but I never even missed it, as I was just having a lot of fun watching things unfold.

In a lot of ways "Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI" was one of the earliest films that help to bridge the gulf between horror and humor, that many others would follow for the next couple of decades. And while those efforts are certainly a mixed bag, I think they made it work well enough here to make an enjoyable little popcorn horror-comedy, provided you don't think about the actual plot too much. Die-hards of straight-laced horror and gore, as well as this saga's previous chapters, will probably not find this film to their tastes. But for horror buffs who can take their scares a little less seriously, this film is a great way to kill an hour and a half and have some fun doing it. It's a fairly enjoyable sequel to this franchise and certainly a decent horror-comedy in its own right.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Eaten Alive

Synopsis: Guests who come to stay at the Louisiana motel of a mentally unstable inn keeper, soon find themselves being served up as the main course to his large pet crocodile.

Review: As a bit of a horror film buff, I'm always looking to check out some of the older b-movie horrors of the past, both to learn more about what makes for a good scare, as well as to get interesting insights into exactly how and why those things have changed over the decades. And I can safely say that "Eaten Alive" provided none of that for me.

This is the third film from Director Tobe Hooper (known mainly for his cult classic "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"). Once again, the film revolves around a mentally disturbed person, living within the southern part of the United States. This time around, the story is about a deranged inn keeper who, for reasons never explained, keeps killing the guests who come to his motel and feeding them to the large crocodile in the swamp next to it.

Those who are familiar with Hooper's style, will see a lot of similarities between this film and his most famous work, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", which was the film he made directly preceding this one. It is filled with the kind of strange and oddball cinematography, with weird neon lighting and close-up focusing shots on weird images throughout. But unlike the previous work, it doesn't really gel here. What once might have been directorial excess, is simply pointless and unintelligible nonsense. It is obvious he's trying to set an eerie and creepy atmosphere, but it is just so poorly crafted and lacking in any sense of commonality, that what is meant to feel bizarre and surreal, feels completely unbelievable instead. The script for this must have been about one page long, as that is how bad the plot and storytelling here is.

The acting is, also, very much below par, even by low budget horror film standards. It is shown that the inn keeper (played by Neville Brand) is out-of-his-mind, but we never come to understand why or what it is the guests do that sets him off. This lack of context makes it almost impossible to be scared by his crazy (re)actions and leaves you more inclined to scratch your head in puzzlement, than to feel any sense of dread or menace. None of the other characters really gets enough development for you to care about them, save that of Buck (played by a then unknown Robert Englund). His performance is the only one to have any real resonance at all and even that isn't very much.

Perhaps Hooper thought he could capture lightning in a bottle for a second time, like he did with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a couple years earlier (even going so far as to bring back Marilyn Burns to play the part of a victim once more). But as this film shows, it isn't something you can force or easily recreate. As a result, "Eaten Alive" never really comes to life or finds it's own voice (a point only belabored, by the fact this film has been renamed many different times). It just stagnates and meanders, providing no real thrills, scares, or even the macabre tone of TCM. If you are a Hooper completist, you might derive some kind of enjoyment or interest from this outing. Otherwise, you are best just to skip on this uninteresting and plotless bomb. The reason this film is highly overlooked, isn't because it was ahead of it's time. It is because efforts this poor are better off being forgotten.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: Motel Hell

Synopsis: A horror-comedy movie about the seemingly nice Smith family, proprietors of both a motel and a smoked meat company. But what is the terrifying secret behind the special flavor of the "Farmer Vincent" pork products?

Review: "Motel Hell" is quite a difficult film to gauge. It is referred to as a horror-comedy, but that description isn't very accurate, as it is more weird than funny and more macabre than scary.

The story revolves around a couple of hoteliers (played by Rory Calhoun and Nancy Parsons), who have a side business selling fine smoked meats. But what makes the meats so good is the terrifying secret ingredient of human flesh.

I have to say, going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. With cannibalism being a factor in the film, you might be expecting a lot of gruesome scenes. Yet, surprisingly, there is very little in the way of graphic gore to be found. The story is also a bit odd, in that there are some scenes that seem to drag on, yet give you little in the way of a pay-off. Also, most of the acting is fairly poor. Whether this is due to the lack of skills of the actors, or a case of a script that gives them little to work with, I can't really say. The side drama about the love triangle involving Terry (played by Nina Axelrod) and the brother of the cannibal farmer, who is also the town's Sheriff (played by Paul Linke), is little more than a strained (and sometimes dull) attempt to set up the final conflict between the brothers. Although, the film can boast of being an early work for actor John Ratzenberger (who would go onto heights of television fame on the series "Cheers"). Unfortunately, he gets very little to do in the film (including not a single piece of dialog) being nothing more than a victim to be killed. Director Kevin Connor never really seems to bring the story to life, until towards the very end. And if you haven't found yourself engaged long before that point, it probably won't much matter to you. The cinematography is fine, but it feels like it would play better on an old drive-in screen, than on your television, which is probably only fitting, as the film was obviously geared for such a venue.

The only things that save this film from the scrap pile, are the last 20 minutes of the film and the solid performance of Rory Calhoun as the cannibalistic farmer. He manages to make you believe both his down-home country manners and his twisted psychotic reasoning in killing people for food. His performance stands high above anyone else in the film. And the final battle at the film's end also brings a spark of life to what, up until this point, has been a very strange and slow-moving tale. When Calhoun's character comes out wearing a pig's head and wielding a chainsaw, it is truly a sight to behold.

As I said at the start, "Motel Hell" is a hard film to figure out. It's not really good and looks extremely dated today, but neither is it total crap and completely uninteresting. Die-hard horror buffs might want to check this one out, but I highly doubt many others would have much interest in this cult film. It really is an enigma in the world of horror cinema.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Madman

Synopsis: A group of camp counselors find themselves the victims of a legendary killer in the woods, known only as... Madman Marz!

Review: From the late 70's through the early 80's, it was the golden era of the slasher horror film. During this period, many played on the old standby of a killer in the woods theme ("The Prowler", "Don't Go In The Woods", "The Burning" and, of course, "Friday the 13th"). By 1982, this had become "old hat." Yet, late in the game, here comes "Madman"! The basic plot is what you would expect: Some camp counselors wind up as the targets of a legendary kill-crazy farmer, appropriately named, Madman Marz. It is a completely predictable and by-the-numbers slasher formula.

The acting is, as is usually the case in most low-budget slashers, almost non-existent. Save for the character of Betsy (played by Gaylen Ross, under the name "Alexis Dubin," as I guess she didn't want it to be known she was in a cheesy slasher flick), none of the characters gets developed enough to the point you know or care about any of them. The killer isn't really developed any, either, as he is portrayed as the typical "super-human" maniac, showing incredible physical strength and speed, beyond any mere mortal. It's said he murdered his family, but you never really learn why, as the script is more interested in setting up hokey hot-tub scenes, in an effort to provide the prerequisite nudity in such films. Everything just plods along in a very predictable manner.

So, what you are left with is the special effects and atmosphere to provide you any real entertainment. Fortunately, it actually does. One of the things I really liked about the setting, is how well they played up how easy it is to get lost in the woods at night. The sameness of the surroundings actually helped convey a sense of tension in not knowing exactly where you are. And since this is a time before the advent of cell phones, it comes off somewhat realistically. Of course, some of that is undone by a soundtrack which, at times, sounds like someone who got their hands on a Kasio keyboard and suddenly thought they were John Carpenter.

As for the killings themselves, it's a mixed bag that ranges from the extremely gruesome to the extremely phony! Although, some of the kills are pretty inventive, like the one where the girl is beheaded by the hood of the car she is trying to get working. I also like that they tried to keep the killer more to the shadows for most of the film. Something that might have been more out of necessity, than to illicit a sense of mystery, as when you get a good look at the killer the cheapness of the effects shows how much they lacked a budget here.

In the end, the film is merely a typical example of the schlocky early 80's slasher formula. It could be entertaining for those who are fans of the genre, or those who love to mock it. Otherwise, you can probably pass on it. It's simply another unoriginal slasher film, that looks extremely cheap and has not aged very well. Might make for a good Halloween party film, though, as it comes off as the technological equivalent of telling a ghost story around a campfire.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

It's not human... and it's got an ax? Just once, though!

The famous tagline for this little known horror in the woods slasher is, "It's not human and it's got an axe." Yet, it only uses an axe in the beginning on a middle aged couple camping in the woods at nighttime. Not too smart, from a marketing standpoint.

"The Prey" opens up with a forest fire in the 1940's. Where's smokey bear when you need him?? Now on to present day 1980, where a survivor of the 1940's forest fire is older and looking for some prey (hence the film's name). He finds it with a group of 6 camper/hikers (probably college students), looking for some good ol fashion nature trails. They get more than they bargain for. They get picked off and stalked by this unseen monster until the very end, when his looks are revealed.

"The Prey" was apparently filmed in 1978, and it shows. There are a lot of nature shots, like bugs, animals, critters, etc. I thought I was watching an episode of National Geographic. "The Prey" looks 70's, too. Bell bottoms, hair styles, the works. The monster (fire victim) looks cool. Now, I'm sure "The Prey" didn't receive big box office success. I don't know if it saw any release in 1980, but I do know the first time I heard of this film was when I saw it in the local paper, with this ad that is shown above. I thought it looked cool enough. This was in June of 1984. It played at a local drive-in. I wonder how many people actually remember seeing this on a drive-in screen. It didn't last long. I think it was only shown for one weekend only. That drive-in however is closed since 1987, and is now a business park.

I think "Prey" could have been better, and had potential to be a good little horror film, but fails on a few levels. It could have had some more character development, as well as more backstory about the Gypsies that were burned. And how is it that this child that was burned in the 1940's lived in the woods for 40 some years?? Hey, just watch playing with matches next time your in the woods. I don't want another "Prey"!!!

"Prey" gets 1 and a half stars, for a somewhat cool looking monster, some creepy woods shots and a cool poster. If only the movie could have been as cool! [Side note: The monster ended up playing lurch in the "Addams Family" films.]

Would you want to go to this school???

"Night School," also know as "Terror Eyes." It stars Rachael Ward who was kinda big around early 80's. She would go on to star in the Burt Reynolds film "Sharkey's Machine." Here she plays a college student (looking a little older than the usual), where a killer is on the loose wearing motorcycle gear and brandishing a large silver blade.

Now, beheadings are the way to go here. Who's killing these college women? There's one scene that stands out, for me. A young college girl goes over a college teacher's (older female) place, and does the nasty! Yes, you heard it right... they get it on. This is a little ahead of its time. Then, later you find the younger girl's head in the toilet! No, I'm not making this up. This is the third horror film between 1980-1981 to have a head in a fish tank.

So, the killer seems to be stalking Rachael Ward for some unknown reason. "Night School" was shot in Boston. It was released in theaters around spring of 1981. I saw it on cable in 1983 on the Movie Channel, as I did most horror films back then. Okay, wow for a little spoiler: This is a 28 year old movie, so if you haven't seen it by now you probably won't, since it hasn't been released on DVD. I doubt this will replay again either. Alright, for the spoiler, here we go----------Don't look down any further!!!! You have been warned...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

....................................Spoiler..................................

.

.

.

.

.

Rachael Ward turns out to be the killer at the end!!!!! The reason being, that she wanted to pass some stupid test, so she decided that by killing off her competition, it would get her the highest grade.

Now, this one doesn't get high grade. Only 1 and a half stars... Although it does have some decent nudity and a lot of blood shed. Oh, those early 80's cable days are so missed...

Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Synopsis: Learning the origins of the cannibalistic killer called Leatherface, we watch a group of young adults who, after suffering a horrible accident, are taken to a house of horrors and used as fodder to nurture a soon-to-be-legend.

Review: This films suffers from what most "prequel" films do, in that you already know that the most important players are not going to have any real danger or harm brought to them. And in a horror film, that is simply downright destructive. But even without this handicap, this film is lacking in many other ways.

Trying to give us origins of the legend of Leatherface and his brood, the film comes up short in actually giving you any of the insights it supposedly is to provide. The story is very incoherent, at times, giving you little understanding or interest in seeing what is happening on the screen. Sure, we get to learn who's face was used to make the famous mask and some interesting, if underdeveloped, tidbits about how the family became cannibals, but none of it ever gels into a film that creates a story that sucks you in. So, when the killings start, you really have little in the way of fear or interest in what you are seeing. None of the actors here provided any depth or intrigue to their roles, so you never come to feel anything for them, whether they are a killer or a victim.

The one thing the film does provided is plenty of graphic gore. Gore-fiends will no doubt get what they want. But there is no psychological edge to it, as was done in the original film. It just ends up as splatter for the sake of shock alone, like many of the "torture porn" movies that are passed off for modern horror films today.

This is what modern slasher films have come to, in the wake of films like "Hostel" and "Saw." But those, at least, were done from original concepts, unlike this one, which uses the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" name to draw fans of it to this pitiful display. This is easily one of the worst films of this franchise and an insult to true horror films of every kind. Unless you are simply a fan of watching blood splatter, this is a film you need to simply steer clear from.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Synopsis: Five friends on a road trip in Texas are hunted down and terrorized by a chainsaw wielding killer and his family of grave-robbing cannibals.

Review: This film is often touted as one of the progenitors of the slasher sub-genre of horror films, as well as the magnum opus of writer/director Tobe Hooper. While I certainly can't dispute either of those things, those points also do not mean that this film is everything it is hyped up to be. Nor does it seem worthy of the many sequels that would follow in it's wake.

I found many spots in the film, especially within the first half, that simply drag on way too long. Scenes where nothing really happens. By the time we reach the first kill of the film, you are already about 40 minutes into the film (which has a total run time of about 90 minutes). This glacial pacing in the early part of the film, while perhaps trying to build a mood, simply inspired boredom for me.

Also, while this film is steeped in much controversy, including being banned in other countries for it's "graphic content," and being known as one of the earliest slasher films, it is extremely light on blood and gore. Many later films of this sub-genre would be much more noted for their bloodiness and "graphic content." What Hooper looks to strive for is creating horror through a macabre atmosphere, as the eerie score and odd camera angles and settings would seem to bear out. But these are only effective to a point and some of the strange camera shots quickly become repetitive and owe more to directorial excesses, than to any attempts at psychological horror.

Since none of the actors create any characters you really come to care about, nor does the script often give you any clarity on just what is happening and why, the film hampers itself in making you truly care about anything that happens to these people. And when you are trying to scare someone, if you don't make them feel for either the characters or the situation, that is extremely hard, if not impossible, to do. The only scene that was even remotely scary was the chase scene, at just over halfway through the film. The terror of that scene (which was quite long) is visceral, but it alone cannot make up for so much wasted time earlier in the film, nor for the over-use of specialized camera shots, which make the film seem to drag on way too often.

Is "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a macabre film? Yes. Is it a bizarre film? Certainly. Is it even a little bit creepy in some spots? Sure enough. But it is not one of the scariest films ever made, as it often gets billed as. It may be one of the original slashers of cinema history, but later films would do a much better job of defining that sub-genre, which this film may have helped to originate. If you are a fan of this franchise, or a die-hard slasher fanatic, then this is a film you probably should see, if only for the historical significance alone. Everyone else can give it a pass, as there are much better slasher films, which are truly much scarier than this one could ever hope to be. In short, "don't believe the hype!"

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)