Dr_Drew_Says Reviews

Ghost Team One (2013)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 18 June 2014]

Ghost Team One (2013) - The Good, the Bad and the Cleverly Under-appreciated

Synopsis: Comedy/Horror movie shot in the home camera-documentary style about two friends, their battle for the same girl and the hilarious exploits in trying to capture the haunting of their house by an Asian Madame from the turn of the century.

The Good: While this film is over-the-top in its sexual tropes, there is a lot of clever humor and fun to be had here if you allow yourself to enjoy the characters. The filming concept is basically a play on the Paranormal Activity schematic... house is haunted, document it by using a video camera and by setting other cameras up around the house. This is simply the borrowed device used to capture the film in a tongue-in-cheek way, it isn't what the movie is about. I think that concept has been lost on some of the other reviewers here. If you are looking for something scary, this isn't the movie to watch. This is about the characters and the ensuing hilarity involving a ghost that is driven to manifestation by sexual activity. If you can get past that concept, you might have a good time with this one. I found the characters fresh and very funny, for the most part. Tony Cavalero steals the show as Chuck, the former drug addict who is currently in a lengthy period of sobriety and because of it, he is very unbalanced and irrational. His possession scenes at the end are hilarious (as long as you can get past the Asian stereotypes). The movie succeeds because the characters are relate-able and how they interact while thrust into a crazy situation amidst fawning over a girl is fun to watch unfold.

The Bad: Some of the humor is definitely groan-worthy, I admit. The concept is built on this uber-sexualized premise of two horny guys and a prostitute ghost, so of course the language and category of jokes are going to be somewhat low-brow in nature. If you can't handle that, this is one that is best passed by... although I feel it would be a mistake to dismiss this movie on that premise alone. There are elements of the movie that don't feel that fresh either. Even from a comedy/horror standpoint, this parody of Paranormal Activity has been done a few times, so the concept is one that is starting to get old. The characters save this particular submission to the movie-watching world, but that doesn't keep it from feeling a bit stale at certain times.

The Cleverly Under-appreciated: Especially on IMDb, the reviews have been pretty brutal. As of right now, the overall rating is under 5.0 and I am not sure I get that. Maybe people are expecting a straight-up scary movie here? If so, maybe you need to learn a bit more about a movie before you watch it. Or maybe the concept went right over your head? Who knows. All I know is that I thought this movie was perversely clever at times and to me, it's being a bit under-appreciated. This isn't the type of movie for everyone... and I get that, but when Scary Movie is rolling with a 6.2 rating and this has a 4.8, I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that. The characters here are far more like-able and the style and execution is much fresher than a movie full of cringe-worthy gag humor. This movie's success for me is built on character interaction and script management. Both were pretty darn good for a low-budget comedy-horror. And this relatively unknown cast made me do something Scary Movie never did.... laugh.

Black Sabbath (1963)

Dr. Drew says... 7 out of 10

[7/10 · 18 June 2014]

Black Sabbath (1963) - The Good, the Bad and the Cinematic Beauty

Synopsis: A trio of Italian cinema giallo/horror shorts: "Il Telefono" - the story of a woman driven to madness by disturbing phone calls, "I Wurdelak" - a period piece of a family driven to destruction by a vampire-like being, "La Goccia d' Acqua" - translated as a "A Drop of Water", it centers around a nurse who steals a ring from a corpse who comes back for revenge.

The Good: A beautifully crafted set of films that each show unique qualities, yet somehow feel cohesive. All three shorts are set in different time periods, yet the atmosphere of the film in its entirety feels familiar and establishes continuity, so you never feel like you're starting a brand new movie. It's a quality that is rare, so I am endeared to few anthology-type movies, but this one succeeds. As for each of the shorts independently, for me, "La Goccia d' Acqua" was by far the best and most effective. Few movies created in the 1960's hold any sort of true scariness to them in present day, but this segment does just that. It's a very creepy piece and can challenge most modern horror in its ability to raise the hair on your arms. It's something about the look of the corpse and how the suspense of the scene builds to a fever pitch and ultimate reveal. While I enjoyed the other two segments as well, this segment really made the movie for me. It finished the film on a high note and made me momentarily forget a few of the things that were lacking in the first hour of the film.

The Bad: While the entire film is good, I felt that the first two segments didn't quite hold up as well over time. "Il Telefono" is a very straight up giallo, which I felt that Bava perfected over time, but is somewhat lacking in it's bite here. The piece is relatively tame and the ending was predictable. I found it rather boring in spots as well. "I Wurdelak" is a step in the right direction for the film, but it drags on a tad too long (which is not something you should feel with short films). Karloff is good in the part of Gorca, but otherwise, the acting is period-piece over-the-top. This is fine if the story is grand in scale, but with roughly a half hour of screen time, there simply wasn't enough material for the "Gone with the Wind" dramatic acting. The tale is essentially a love story, but with so much happening so fast, it loses its believability and that takes you out of the story. I feel like these are minor gripes in the grand scheme, though.

The Cinematic Beauty: The film in its entirety is gorgeous. For what the "I Wurdelak" story lacks in depth, it makes up for in its beautiful set pieces. The Old World ruins and the chilling brutality of the winter landscape embraces the viewer. Each segment has excellent use of lighting and color, specifically "La Goccia d' Acqua". A simple strobing green light outside a window gives this segment ten times the atmosphere and sets up a very suspenseful ending. In addition to the light, the dripping water effect is palpable, heightening your senses and creating massive tension in a very simplistic way. Bava always had this sort of attention to detail and it is what makes his films so easy to watch. Sometimes it is hard to pinpoint exactly why you like to watch a movie. On the surface, the individual segments of Black Sabbath are not ground-breaking in concept at all (aside from the last possibly). The vampire concept, even in 1963, has been done hundreds of times. The difference is Bava's superior attention to detail and the creation of an atmosphere within each of the films to draw the viewer in. In doing that, you create a movie that is successful in its execution.

Eraserhead (1977)

Dr. Drew says... 5 out of 10

[5/10 · 21 March 2014]

Eraserhead (1977) - The Good, the Bad and the Interpreted

Synopsis: An art-house tale of domestic repression. Henry is a quiet man in a dystopian, industrialized world. He is thrust into a relationship and fatherhood he's not ready for and slowly finds himself succumbing to the pressure of it all.

The Good: This is the hardest type of film to review. It's one of interpretation, symbolism and hidden meanings. Ten different people can watch it and come away with ten different interpretations of the film, which is likely what Lynch was going for in the first place. For me personally, I am not going to take some artsy-fartsy approach to this movie and simply state "if you can't understand the meaning, then it is too artistic for you". I hate that sort of thing. I get that this isn't a movie for everyone, but you have to be able to relate to the film one way or another or the concept is simply lost on the viewer. Lynch didn't lose me, but there were times when I was certainly confused. What I did love about the film was how well Lynch conveyed the plight of Henry without dialogue. The industrialization of the world Lynch portrays is a hissing, steaming, rumbling, disconcerting environment that grates on your nerves as you watch Henry toss and turn in the unsettling apartment. It reminded me a lot of the Japanese film "Tetsuo: The Iron Man". The imagery, such as the un-potted plants (basically, just mounds of dirt with plants in them) the radiator, the constant rain and whirring of machinery, the dream sequences... all these things captivate the viewer and regardless of whether it all makes sense, you understand Henry's fears and inner desires. As a husband and a father, I can understand the stresses of that role and for someone not prepared for it, this is a great visual and visceral way to watch that experience play out. Who wouldn't be haunted by finding out your girlfriend just gave birth to Admiral Ackbar?

The Bad: The movie simply gets too "out there" at times. I've only watched the movie once, true, but there were too many head-scratching moments and they begin to stack up by the end of the film. It ends up feeling cumbersome to watch. I feel like I could watch it ten more times and still not understand certain elements of the story. There is most certainly a core storyline to be followed that is somewhat clear and the viewer clings to that (even if it that storyline is itself somewhat ambiguous), but when we start getting to the Eraserhead sequences, most viewers are going to get left in the dust. Art-house folks will praise it for that value and give it a 10. Mainstream movie lovers will give it a 1 because, at times, it makes no sense in logical movie terms. Me, I found it fascinating, yet too metaphoric in parts, so I can give it nothing but a middle of the road grade.

The Interpreted: I find that films that require too much interpretation can be taxing on the viewer. I'm not saying everything has to be spelled out or wrapped up nice and neat with a big, red bow, but interpretation has it's limits for me. This one somewhat exceeded those limits. While certain aspects of the film (mostly the cinematography) were visually appealing, the feeling of "what is going on?" isn't an enjoyable one when watching a film, especially when the story isn't tied together all that well at the end. There were metaphorical props in this movie that, aside from not even knowing what they symbolized with respect to the story... hell, I didn't even know what I was looking at! It's really tough to fully enjoy a movie when you are scratching your head through half of it.

The Descent (2005)

Dr. Drew says.... 9 out of 10

[9/10 · 21 March 2014]

The Descent (2005) - The Good, the Bad and the Claustrophobic

Synopsis: After the death of her daughter and husband, Sarah reluctantly joins her thrill-seeking girlfriends on a cave diving expedition in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains. After being tricked into entering an uncharted cave, the girls find that they are very lost and not alone.

The Good: This is one of my favorite horror movies of the last ten years. Director Neil Marshall gets just about everything right. I've seen a bazillion horror movies and rarely do I find them scary, but this movie hits the heart of my fears. Isolation, abandonment, fear of the dark, claustrophobia, being completely lost in a hopeless situation... and that's all before they are attacked by mutant, cave-dwelling hominids. Marshall gives just enough time for strong character development, so that you care about what happens to the women, yet doesn't make you wait too long before things start going horribly wrong. He also paints a compelling back-story between the girls that makes for some intriguing and tense moments near the end of the movie. Several other cave-diving/spelunking movies have tried to do what The Descent did and didn't come close, so it's not just the suspenseful environment that carries the movie. It's really the strong character development and the cinematography that lift it above and beyond many other same-genre films.

The Bad: I'm not big on nitpicking. Most movies are going to be less than perfect. The Descent is no different. There really aren't any major problems with this movie, but if I had to pick one, it would be the ending. With the spoiler tag firmly attached, the ending of the movie goes through a dream sequence where you see the protagonist escape as the sole survivor... to the point where she gets in her car and drives away. The fact is that, yes, you realize it's all a dream and she wakes up, still in the cave. It's assumed by the ending that she dies there in the cave, but it's never really shown. Me personally, I hate dream sequences. It's an easy cop-out to show a lot of cool things and then renege on the consequences. Here, it's done a little bit backwards (i.e. instead of showing the consequence first then reneging), but it's still misleading for really no purpose that I can think of. You are meant to think she succeeded in escaping, alone, only to have that ripped away from you and realize the last 15 minutes of the movie never really happened. Not sure why Marshall elects to take that path. It doesn't really do anything but infuriate the viewer. Strange artistic choice, but if that's my worst beef with this film, I can still live with giving it a 9 out of 10.

The Claustrophobic: There is one scene in this movie that affects me more than any scene in any horror movie. The girls are still of the assumption that this is a lower class cave and that the paths have been well-traveled and reasonably safe. The cave, however, gets more and more narrow. Sarah, having been through significant recent trauma with the loss of her family, is a bit of an emotional wreck already. Finally, the cave comes to a small tunnel, barely big enough to squeeze and maneuver through. She is the last one through. She gets stuck and begins to panic. I get goosebumps simply writing about it. As her friend tries to coax her through, the rocks shift and the tunnel gets tighter. Immediately, her friend's demeanor turns from gentle coaxing to panic. "Move! Move! Sarah, you've got to move NOW!" Wow... that scene is just exhilarating. The thought of being trapped in complete darkness where you can't move forward or backward hundreds of feet below the surface of the planet does it for me.

2-Headed Shark Attack (2012 Video)

Dr. Drew says... 2 out of 10

[2/10 · 21 March 2014]

2-Headed Shark Attack (2012) - The Good, the Bad and the Dimensionally Challenged.

Synopsis: A group of students on an extended field trip of some sort are attacked by a 2-headed killer shark. Stranded at sea and confined to a sinking atoll, they have to find a way to kill the shark.

The Good: Obviously, I know what I am getting into when I watch a movie called "2-Headed Shark Attack" and that goes double for a movie of that name released by the infamous The Asylum production company. You are looking for camp value, nothing more. Still, there has to be a semblance of logic behind the script. What I was hoping to find was a silly romp mixed with a killer shark. What I found was some "it's so bad it's funny", but more of "it's so bad it's just bad". Honestly, there is very little reason to watch this movie. Sure, Brooke Hogan and Carmen Electra are in bikinis. Google it and save yourself 88 minutes. Honestly, I can think of a million actresses that I'd rather see in a bikini if that is what I was watching for... so it's not that aspect of it for me that is appealing. I'm looking for laughs (intentional and unintentional) and gore here. And if it's the campy "so bad it's funny" angle you are after like me, there is some of that. The problem is that it's more about how ridiculously the movie is pieced together and the logic of the characters versus bad acting and dialogue. Don't get me wrong, the acting and dialogue are atrocious, but it's more irritating than funny. There just isn't much about this movie that is good.

The Bad: Well, the whole movie is bad, but I'll single out a few main reasons why. First, yes... the acting is really bad and the dialogue is even worse. Once you realize Brooke Hogan is the BEST actress in the movie you are watching, you know you're in trouble. That's not the worst thing though. As awful as the dialogue and acting is, the characters are worse. They are all so whiny and annoying and unlikeable. There isn't a single character to like except maybe the nerdy kid. They all hate each other and they say and do really stupid things for the entirety of the movie. Next, the editing is absolutely atrocious. I guess even from this piece of trash, I expected something better. They go from one scene where they are in waist-deep water and then the shark attacks and they are in 20 ft of water... then back and forth. The directors take the audience for fools. Maybe they just thought the movie was going to be so bad they didn't care. Who knows. All I know is that over and over, logic is thrown out the window. The writers constantly put the characters in stupid situations and use the weakest of plot devices to further a story that makes no sense. For example, the atoll (not island... atoll - this is made very clear... it's an atoll) is collapsing and they are all running down a path. Two girls veer off down another path away from the group. One of the couple that sees them says, "They are going the wrong way!" To which the guy replies, "It's too late for them! Let's go!" What!? How about just yell, "Hey, stop! We're all going this way, so come back!". Nope, that would be logical and not get the directors to the kill shot. So the girls run to the end of that path, which leads to a dock... where they stupidly walk out on and... yeah, get eaten. All those ridiculous plot devices lead to the shark killing someone. It happens over and over and over in this brain-dead movie. It's insufferable. The director takes us all for idiots time and time again. I get it... it's a low production movie, but that doesn't excuse massive lapses in logic. Lastly, I'll mention the effects... which are all done using very poor CGI. There are very few practical effects and it's just ridiculously bad. The CGI shots are detrimental to the continuity and made it impossible to edit this movie in any natural way.

The Dimensionally Challenged: Okay, so by the end of the movie, I had one question left. Logically, the movie was a muddled masterpiece of disorganization... and I came to grips with that. What I couldn't figure out was how big the 2-headed shark actually was? One minute, people are getting attacked in waist deep water, the next they are saying they are safe because they are in shallow water. One minute, the shark is big enough to smash against and SINK an entire island - oh, forgive me... ATOLL - the next, he is small enough to swim onto the flooded atoll and fit inside a small hut. Sigh... What takes the cake is when one of the girls lights a t-shirt used as a wick leading to a gas can.... underwater. Yeah, I'll end this right here.

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) (2011)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 21 March 2014]

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) (2011) - The Good, the Bad and the Sweaty

Synopsis: A dull-witted, maniacal misfit named Martin becomes enamored with Tom Six's "The Human Centipede (First Sequence)" and decides that he is going to construct his own twelve-person version. What Martin is lacking is any medical experience... and sanity.

The Good: Tom Six knows how to push the right buttons, I'll give him that. I believe most will hate this movie because of the content, but I personally think this film is of very good quality from a cinematic standpoint. The decision to shoot in black and white is a good one as it captures the lack of human compassion and humanity very well. Martin's mind is bereft of color, so it is only fitting the film match his mood. The camera work is excellent as well. From a purely cinematic view, this is a very well constructed film and it looks exactly as Six wants it to... grimy and degraded. The film is all about the lowest common denominator and many just don't want to see that... and that is perfectly fine. But if you are standing there with a movie titled "The Human Centipede" in your hand and you don't think you are going to see something disgusting and controversial, I think you are misguided from the very start. Especially when you are viewing a sequel... because that means you already saw the first. What were you expecting? So for me, you have to take the film at face value. The old cliché "it is what it is" is certainly applicable here. This film delights in the character of Martin and pushes the boundaries of depravity and what the human mind can sink to when the right cocktail of abuse and mental illness is shaken and stirred. Never has an actor been so well cast as Laurence R. Harvey as Martin. The fish-eyed, potbellied Harvey is absolutely brilliant in his role. He not only disgusts you with his filthy, seething personality, but he effectively baits you into feeling sorry for his insipid life at times. He reminded me of a real-life Gollum. He is a villain, no doubt, but he is also a very stained and misguided person who has lost part of his humanity through experience. That can be a powerful mix if played right and Harvey succeeds.

The Bad: As with all shock-based horror, you feel a bit guilty after watching it. Is it just torture porn (a moniker I personally hate... because almost all horror is violent)? Is it time-worthy to watch something so dark and twisted? The film does what it sets out to do and that is make you feel like you need a shower. That is success in this particular niche of horror, but the question still remains on whether or not it's a tale that needs to be told. Do people really want to see this? Even though I liked the movie in general, I found myself asking if I really should have watched it and why I had a desire to watch it. I watched it with my wife and she was far more disgusted than I was and was morally convicted - even though she saw the first and was fair-warned that I had heard this one was worse. At the end, she swore she would never tell anyone she actually watched it. While I won't go that far, I understand her opinion. It's offensive, plain and simple. As for the acting and all that, I thought it was fine. The concept of the movie was well-thought out and well translated to film. The question still remains whether or not it ever should have been made in the first place. I would still answer yes, although I suspect I am in the minority and honestly, you can ask that same question of any horror film out there.

The Sweaty: This movie had my skin crawling more than any movie in recent memory. From the constantly sweating and out of breath Martin, to his dingy apartment and dank, dark warehouse, everything is just alive with squalor. It is meant to enhance the depravity of the character involved and be a visual symbol of the personal and mental torture he has endured. There are parts of the film that I found went a little too far, but as a whole, this film is about making you feel uncomfortable. It definitely does that. Everything in this movie reeks of decay and foulness. One look at Martin's sweat-soaked head did it for me. Okay, time to take another shower.....

13 Eerie (2013)

Dr. Drew says... 4 out of 10

[4/10 · 18 March 2014]

13 Eerie (2013): The Good, the Bad and Recycled Zombies

Synopsis: Six forensic science students go to an abandoned prison facility for field work. Little do they know that the facility was used to test hazardous chemicals on the death row inmates.

The Good: It's always best when you don't expect much from a movie. I've had this one in my collection for a while, but always passed it by because nothing really stuck out about it. The concept didn't seem all that appealing, none of the actors or actresses are well known (which isn't a big deal in horror), cover art was pretty "meh"... I just felt like the movie was going to let me down. Having finally watched it, I'll say that I was moderately impressed. Now don't get me wrong, I rated it a 4 of 10, so that has more to do with lowered expectations than anything else, but still, there were some things to like about this movie. Aside from one or two actors, I thought this was a bright spot for the movie. Typically, you have to suffer through the acting and focus on plot and gore, but this group did a nice job with the dialogue given. Speaking of gore, the effects crew on this movie did a pretty darn good job. The budget was $3MM CAD, which is higher than I expected, but I still felt there was the appropriate amount of gore for a zombie film and it was well done. None of that cheesy CGI gore either. Good old fashioned practical effects and there wasn't any skimping on the kill shots. This is a very watchable film, it just suffers from not being much different from a million others. Which takes us to the bad....

The Bad: While it wasn't really boring or a waste of time, there really wasn't anything to set it apart from other same-genre comparisons. We've seen it before and we've seen it done better. Even though toxic waste is the catalyst to the carnage, this is simply another zombie movie. Are there subtle differences? Sure. But at it's core, it's just another addition to the mind-numbing obsession with the zombie genre as of late. Honestly, it's hard to find any good zombie movies anymore because they are being churned out faster than we can digest them and the cookie-cutter mold is getting super stale. Maybe that's why I wasn't as hard on this film as I could be, because it was certainly watchable, low-budget horror. Those things are almost mutually exclusive in this day and age. Still, I am almost inclined to say "Nothing to see here, people. Move along."

The Recycled Zombies: One of my pet peeves is recycling something in a movie because of cheapness. It is just so distracting. I get that you only have so much money and sometimes you have to make due. On this movie, I was able to look past the set location, which is quite minimal and all within a very condensed location. It all kind of looks the same. They are either in the bus, in the woods or in one of a few shacks that all look the same. I can look past that. What was very hard to look past is the fact that I think they were recycling the zombies. I'm sure it was tough to get all the make-up effects looking great... and they did look pretty great, but when one of them dies, the next one that comes around looks strangely familiar. Maybe the ripped prison garb is slightly ripped in a different spot or the zombie is shirtless this time or whatever, but by the time they show up for the sixth or seventh time, you start to get wise to the charade. I feel cheapened as a viewer. Like, "Did you really think I wasn't going to notice that this is the same zombie that you just killed ten minutes ago?" There's not a worse crime as a director than taking your audience for a bunch of blind morons. I suppose there is a chance that I AM a blind moron and the zombies were just really similar, but I think I'll listen to my gut on this one.

6 Degrees of Hell (2012)

Dr. Drew says... 3 out of 10

[3/10 · 18 March 2014]

6 Degrees of Hell (2012): The Good, the Bad and the Feldster

Synopsis: As a tale told to a paranormal investigator through a police officer that experienced it, the movie follows the intertwined stories of an owner of a haunted house attraction, a psychic, a different paranormal investigator and demons possessing a multitude of people to try to break through to this world.

The Good: It's really hard to find good things about a movie when it's script and story is a convoluted mess. I mean, I think we all knew going into this movie that it was a second or third tier horror movie. After all, when top billing is Corey Feldman, the writing is on the wall. That said, there was some decent production value here. The haunted house attraction as a set piece was nice. The last 20 minutes or so of the movie taking place in the house had pretty decent make-up effects and captured a somewhat creepy atmosphere by mixing actors crucial to the "story" with people who were simply there for the attraction (also some form of actors, I'm sure). This film tries really, really hard and there was some part of me... way deep down, that felt bad for it. I wanted to like the movie. Sadly, it made no sense... which brings me to the Bad....

The Bad: It made no sense... lol. Simply put, this movie had far too much ambition and badly botched the execution. They threw every horror cliché at the wall and just hoped something stuck. You had possessions, implied ghost stories, zombies, possessed artifacts, killer dolls, satanism, haunted houses, clairvoyance and the list goes on and on. It's actually more ridiculous than I just made it seem, which is pretty darn bad. I've seen a LOT of bad horror movies. Cheap ones with no budget, all the way to major label releases and I've learned one thing along the way: don't try to do too much if you aren't sure you can execute the idea properly. I'd rather watch a one-trick pony do that one trick really well than a pony that can't do any of the six tricks it tries to perform. No budget? No worries. Just have a good, simple idea and execute that one idea. This movie? Good Lord. It tries to weave so many story lines and subplots that it just confuses itself. I found myself scratching my head thinking, "Did I miss something? Am I just not smart enough to follow along? Did I nod off and miss a major plot point?" By the end of it, I realized that it was just a mess and there was nothing I could do to salvage the wreck. I certainly wasn't going to watch it again to see if I could find some semblance of cohesion in it all. I think the idea is that all these random occurrences, visions, clues, etc. would all be tied up neat and tidy at the end. Guess what? They didn't. We got left with a bunch of random junk that makes us feel like we missed something, when in fact, it's simply that the director/writer outsmarted himself. It's something we find a lot in these small, independent films: arrogance. In addition, the acting was pretty poor (especially Mr. Feldman) and the dialogue was as expected... which is bad, in case you couldn't figure that out. In the end, small budget, poor directing and script, poor actors, poor execution and confusing story made for a poor and confusing viewing experience.

The Feldster: As other reviewers have stated, the top billing Corey Feldman gets is a bit of a sham. His part in this movie was likely filmed as an afterthought to try and drum up some marketing hype. He plays a paranormal investigator who is listening to the unfolding story being told by a police officer. He's got about 5-10 minutes of screen time. And given that part of the story is already about a paranormal investigator, it doesn't work as anything more than a shoved-in-your-face cameo of a has-been. It's just as well though. I don't know what happened in this guy's life between Stand By Me and now, but one thing is completely certain... he's lost his acting chops. What's that? Oh yeah, drugs. I guess that's what happened. It's a nice throw-back to see him though. I mean, on the bright side, we get to see what he's has been up to all these years, right? His hair is still in the early Nineties and he's switched over to fake cigarettes, so that's something, I guess...

Dark Mirror (2007)

Dr. Drew says... 4 out of 10

[4/10 · 12 February 2014]

Dark Mirror (2007): The Good, the Bad and the Reflective

Synopsis: A husband and wife, along with their young son, move into a new house that has a dark past. An old secret that lingers in the glass and mirrors of the house must be revealed before it is too late.

The Good: The story is a somewhat intriguing one, even if it is clumsily executed. The idea is that "entities" can get trapped within glass or mirrors. Okay, that's kind of a cool idea. Not completely original, but yeah... we can work with that. The additional concept added is that of the protagonist, being a fledgling photographer, inadvertently captures the entity in her camera lens when she (rather inexplicably) takes a photo of her bathroom mirror. (Not sure I ever figured out why she was taking a picture of her bathroom mirror.... high def selfie?) Despite the fact that the story dissolves from here for me, the concept is quite interesting. The woman realizes, all too late, that if she takes a photo of someone, they wind up dead. Somehow the flash releases(?) the entity and they die. A lot could have been done with this idea, but the director's script and execution burdens the movie's progress of the idea. Sadly, you are left with a good concept and nothing more.

The Bad: The movie is a slow burner, which can be good if the film is moving forward with solid character development. That, unfortunately, doesn't happen. The protagonist wife sees all the creepy stuff in the mirrors, while the husband is painted as the nauseatingly typical "it's all in your mind" horror stereotype. Even when shown things that cannot be explained and the Average Joe husband would say, "Wow, that is some abnormal junk right there", he shrugs it off and allows for the wife to become further "in this by herself". It's a tired device for allowing more of the overly used "OMG... I just saw a dark figure in the window" tricks. Used over and over in the movie for cheap "scares" that don't work, it exhausts the movie far too early and you are left caring little for the ending... you just want it to end. And it's too bad, because the ending is somewhat clever. The problem is that it takes far too long to set up the reasoning for all the happenings. See, the true story is that the house was owned by an artist who was passing his wife's paintings as his own and their deaths are the source of the evil entity. Nice little plot, however, they spend far too long on the protagonist figuring this all out that it ultimately loses any effect it may have had on the viewer. Kind of a shame. For me, this movie got bogged down by trying to do too much and even with so much to do, still found a way to be boring. That is a script issue and the reason it gets a "4" from me.

The Reflective: The word "reflective" is a bit of an oxymoron in the context of this movie, because while the film centers around reflections and windows and mirrors, the director never reflected on how boring and obtrusive his script was turning out. The tone of the whole movie just felt too much like something made for the Lifetime channel. The pacing was horrible and just when something interesting would happen, the director would slow it right back down. The problem has less to do with the idea (which should drive the movie) and more do with the direction, flow and execution of the idea. There was real promise at some point when this idea was being fleshed out, but the director ruined it by trying to turn this into something too cerebral for its own good. The result is a movie I'd obviously never watch again and in a few weeks, I will have forgotten entirely that I ever did watch it.

The Funhouse (1981)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 12 February 2014]

The Funhouse (1981): The Good, the Bad and the Carnies

Synopsis: Double-daters decide to head to the local carnival for a bit of stoned, mischievous fun. Making the unfortunate decision to sleep in the locked up funhouse, the four young lovers find out the gruesome truth behind the carnies running the show.

The Good: All-in-all, this is a pretty fun little movie. Is there any resonating quality or completely unique idea to be found here? No, not really. Still, it has a bit of a Scooby-Doo quality to it. Mischievous kids get stuck in a spooky funhouse and they are tip-toeing around with a masked killer on the loose. The only thing missing was Shaggy and Velma. The acting is typical for a film of this nature, but the dialogue isn't overly dreadful and the script is simple and unobtrusive for the most part. The movie doesn't try to be anything more than a romp in a creepy carnival. It also doesn't try to be any other movie. Is it a slasher film? Eh.. kinda? It doesn't feel derivative, for the most part, so you don't feel like you are watching Friday the 13th or Halloween - both made a short time before The Funhouse. It effectively uses the setting as the centerpiece and allows both the victims and the creepy carnival custodians to operate within that framework. Obviously, movies like this aren't a thing to take seriously and Hooper keeps the dialogue light and the tone remains Joker-esque in nature. This movie proves that horror movies can be both dark and fun at the same time.

The Bad: As the opening credits role, there is a montage of creepy automated puppets that are littered throughout the funhouse. It sets the stage for what you think is going to be a very creepy place. Sadly, the funhouse isn't really all that scary. It's a nice atmosphere for the story of the trapped kids and their would-be attackers, but the funhouse itself is a letdown. The other attractions on the carnival grounds like the (real) two-headed cow and cleft-palate cow are a more jarring sight than anything in the funhouse. The creepy puppets are just kind of in the background for most of the movie set in the funhouse and it feels like a wasted plot point. I also have to admit that the movie became much less scary (although it's not all that scary to begin with) after the deformed killer's true identity was revealed. There was something far creepier about not knowing who or what the Frankenstein-masked weirdo was and I felt that the reveal came too early in the film. The initial reveal is cool, but the end of the movie just wasn't as much fun because of this. It's like, "Well, I know how this ends now". And it ends just like you think it does.

The Carnies: This is a Tobe Hooper directed movie and if anything, Hooper can tell the story of a deranged family better than most. The are a few moments that feel a bit like we are back in a certain grimy, backwoods Texas house, but they are not so overbearing that they become too derivative. He loves his mute, grunting, drooling derelicts now, doesn't he? And you know what? So do we. He effectively piques our interest through a slow reveal of the killer, who initially dons a Frankenstein mask and gloves. Is he a kid? Is he just an emotionally adolescent adult? Is he deformed? Well, slowly you find out and it's worse than you think. Although you have time to think about the killer under the mask, like stated above, the reveal does happen a bit too early in the film and you are left with a "chase & slash" movie for the unoriginal final act. I can't fail to mention though, behind every crazy killer is a crazy parent... and the apple never falls far from the tree. Gotta love sadistic carnies!

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 11 October 2013]

Cannibal Holocaust (1980): The Good, the Bad and the Necessary?

Synopsis: A team of documentary filmmakers go missing deep in the Amazonian jungle in the search for legendary cannibal tribes never before captured on film. A rescue team is sent to try and ascertain their fate, only to find a gruesome discovery and the film left behind to tell the tale.

The Good: The idea is a brilliant one and it gives us one of, if not THE earliest found footage films. But let's skip to the chase here... the question is whether or not the idea works... and I would say the answer is mostly yes. Whenever cannibalism is the concept, the idea is to shock, because that's why the idea of cannibalism is so appalling. The idea that someone could eat human flesh is a primitive and rather nasty proposition. If you see a movie titled "Cannibal Holocaust" and you think you are not going to see gore that is meant to shock the senses, I am not sure what you are expecting. So if it's shock value they went for, then yes... they definitely did what they set out to do. While the film tiptoes the line of believability, I think the graphic scenes mostly do what they set out to do... which is shock the senses. I do have to admit though, I am a hunter, so some of the animal kills (which I believe to be 100% real) weren't nearly as effective to me as I am sure they were to others. There were certainly times where you could tell things were fake, but when they threw in REAL animal deaths, it made you wonder about the validity of the "found footage". That is an effective film, because it did what it set out to do.

The Bad: This is certainly a tale of two films. The first 40 minutes is about the attempt to find the missing filmmakers. It is not shot as found footage, so it is just meant to be a movie. Then, the last 50 minutes is some council of sorts watching the footage and trying to determine whether or not to publish it. So some of it works and some of it doesn't. The film's opening leads you to believe that it's all a documentary, so that's what I was expecting. So 15 minutes into the film, I was scratching my head a little that it didn't seem to be filmed documentary style. The beginning is a little slow moving and like I said, it takes a full 40 minutes to figure out what happened to the crew and find the lost footage. While there is some initial shock (tribal rape), the first part of the film is relatively tame and almost a bit boring. The non-tribal actors are not very good either, both in the film part or the found footage, which certain detracts from the "authenticity" aspect of the film. The crew just doesn't act natural enough. Speaking of the crew, they are my biggest beef with the film. So a noteworthy documentary crew goes to great lengths to film ancient tribes and their rituals and really they are just hacks that stage everything to make a buck? I don't buy it. Usually documentary film makers have a passion and love for what they do, which is why they usually don't make much money or become famous. They tell stories that mean something to them and that most of us would otherwise not see. So instead of filming with those values in mind, they torment, rape and burn the villages of the locals simply to get good footage? Bah... like I said, I don't buy it.

The Necessary?: The question I asked myself as I sat through this film was "is this a necessary thing to have to show?" I mean, certainly cannibalism has a past and possibly even a present in this world. It is fact that certain cultures have practiced cannibalism as a way of life or part of religious beliefs, so certainly there is a tale to tell. However, is it needing to be told under the guise of "horror" or "shock value"? It's a tough question, because most horror films are meant to shock your senses. I guess maybe the component that is different is that rape, torture, mutilation and cannibalism exists and the story is shown in a way where you are meant to believe it as real footage. This is why it is shocking to the viewers, even if they know the found footage isn't real. It's done well enough to be disturbing... especially given that there is enough real animal death footage to add to the "real footage" claim. It was certainly done to add authenticity and it works, right or wrong. Most will argue that real animals shouldn't have to die just so some sickos can enjoy being shocked watching a movie and I heartily agree. Still, there is a raw, disturbing feel to watching this because it affects you and that's what films are made to do (especially the rape scenes, which were hard for me to stomach, because there is no joy or entertainment value in it). There's no doubt you end the movie feeling like you saw something different. Regardless of whether you feel repulsed, angry, sad, cheap or even guilty after watching this movie, the fact that you felt strong emotion means the film worked and did what it set out to do. For that alone, the film is a success. Me personally, I didn't think it was overly disturbing aside from the rape scenes and the animal deaths were nothing I haven't seen in real life (although the monkey killing is quite disturbing). It's worth a watch if you can handle the content. Just know what you are watching before you hit play.

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

Dr. Drew says... 4 out of 10

[4/10 · 10 October 2013]

Sleepaway Camp (1983): The Good, the Bad and the Twist

Synopsis: A very shy and awkward young girl named Angela attends a summer camp with her cousin. Soon, the teasing ensues and campers start winding up dead. Gee, I wonder who it could be?

The Good: Honestly, it's kind of hard to find a lot of good qualities in this movie. It's not scary. It's not very disturbing. It's not funny. Oh wait, this is supposed to be my list of "good" qualities! Okay, so how about.... ummm.... yeah, I got nothing. It's not that the film is horrible, it just doesn't do anything new or different. It's just kind of there. I guess some of the make-up effects on the dearly departed weren't too bad. The dead kid in the boat was even a little disturbing, but the problem is that all the killing is done with shadow effect (killing occurs off-screen), so it kind of ruins the gore and after all... this is supposed to be a slasher film. That was a pretty poor list of good things.

The Bad: This will be easier. So we are at a youth camp of some sort where it looks like the kids are around 10-18 in age range. Pretty hard to tell what the camp is for, because they are always just hanging out and swimming... or playing baseball. Why they have the long, drawn out baseball scenes in this, I'll never know. Maybe to show the good guys from the bad? Either way... kids start dying. And not just dying, but being murdered in diabolical ways. Where are the angry parents? Where are all the police? And the camp is not only remaining open, murder after murder, but all the kids are still goofing around like nothing has happened? They even host a "movie night" after about the third kid is murdered. The only cop that shows up is a tad suspicious, but doesn't really do much. Musta been that super realistic mustache. The kids are all very unlikeable, foul-mouthed punks in redonkulous short shorts and various other 80's garb (especially the camp counselor that looks like Journey's Steve Perry on steroids). Angela, who is supposed to be the focus of this film, just stares... at everyone. Says nothing. It's like, "just do something!".. "say something!" Finally, after half the movie, she opens up her mouth and then her stilted dialogue becomes worse than the silence. Then you're like, "just stop talking!" All the kids are just whiny and fighting and it doesn't make much sense for the most part. Angela gets picked on and retaliates... that's about it. And there's other creepy, odd stuff like the pedophile cook and the teen camper asking out the 70 year old owner? Like, what is up with that? And he's excited about it? Get me outta here. I gave it 4 stars simply because it was good enough to view in it's entirety and it somehow made you care to see how it would end. There was enough there to want to find out.

The Twist: Okay, so since I put the spoiler tag on my review, I am going to spill the beans on the twist. So if you haven't seen it, maybe it's a good time to stop reading. The twist is that Angela is a boy. They reveal this by showing her freaked-out, standing over a freshly killed dude and stark naked. Then the movie ends. Uh, okay. They honestly spent about 5 minutes total on Angela's back-story, which from what I can gather is that her cousin's parents took her in after hers died(?) and they really wanted a girl, not a boy. So apparently, they made her live like a girl or something. Traumatic... sure. Enough to make you a total weirdo and start slaughtering other campers? Hm. I didn't buy it. Maybe if they had spent more time showing what had happened to her, err.. him, we could have seen her/him endure the torture that made her/him go crazy. Instead, she/he just comes off as an oddball the whole movie and killing for what just appears to be mild to moderate hazing and then BOOM, we are just "told" that all this torturous mind-screwing is really the reason why. Like I said, I didn't buy it and it's probably why I didn't let a lot of the other weaker plot points go, because the main twist didn't work for me... so the movie fell apart. Can't wait to watch the sequels... lol.

Nightmare Weekend (1986)

Dr. Drew says... 3 out of 10

[3/10 · 9 October 2013]

Nightmare Weekend (1986): The Good, The Bad and George

Synopsis: To take a stab at the real plot, I think it was about a woman that is trying to steal technology from a device used to change personalities in animals by making them eat weird silver balls and use that technology on humans. So they round up some unsuspecting (horny) females and bring them into a mansion for some reason, but it doesn't matter, because they get to test the technology on them. This has adverse effects as it turns humans into weirdo semi-zombies things.

The Good: This could be a really short paragraph. Um, let me think... it was so bad it was pretty funny? I was entertained by how awful it was? It was funny to see where Dale Midkiff and Andrea Thompson got their starts? Those are some pretty weak "good points", but I think that's all I've got coming to mind...

The Bad: The whole shebang. This movie is nuts. Just a massive incoherent mess. I really had trouble figuring out what was going on in this. Like I stated in the synopsis, not a lot of the storyline made much sense. I really have no idea why any of the characters did anything they did or said anything they said. The editing was atrocious... I mean, literally the single worst editing job I have ever seen. There was just random little 10 second scenes thrown in all over the place. One liners that just come completely out of left field and then are gone... never to be heard from again. Did I mention that I was dumbfounded by how bad the script and editing were? I see that one of the workers on the film said the script was submitted in French and translated. That's the only thing about this film that makes perfect sense. I think it would have been better to just leave it in French and forget about any subtitles. Just awful. But even more awful than the editing was the "love story". It just really has to be watched to be believed. I actually recommend this for that reason alone. Watch this movie if you want to learn how NOT to write "love dialogue" and how NOT to edit a movie together. I gave it the three stars because I was able to sit through it and got a good laugh at how bad many of the scenes were. I will probably end up watching this one more time in a few years just to reminisce about how awful this was.

George: So the most ridiculous part of an already overly ridiculous movie is that this massive computer has a user interface in the form of George. George isn't just a voice like Kitt on Knight Rider or HAL on 2001. Nope, George isn't like those "other" computer programs. George is in the form of a green hand puppet. Yup... you read that correctly. The user interface for this huge computer with cutting edge technology that will change the world is a hand puppet. And better yet (yes, it gets better...), ol' George is Jessica's (the protagonist, I think) "best friend". It must be because he gives her advice like "need more data" and "does not compute" and all those terms of endearment. He even tells her that she has a 66% chance to meet her dreamy Ken hitch-hiking... which she gleefully skips off to do. George is so loved that she hugs him and kisses him and tells him, "You are my best friend... what would my life me without you!". Yeah... so I'll end this there, because I don't want to get into how they turn personal objects into silver balls a-la Phantasm and make your personality change by eating them. Sigh. You just have to watch this for yourself to see if you can unlock the mysteries of Nightmare Weekend.

Wishmaster (1997)

Dr. Drew says... 5 out of 10

[5/10 · 9 October 2013]

Wishmaster (1997): The Good, the Bad and the Reminiscent

Synopsis: A long lost artifact that plays host to a Djinn (which is an ancient demon) is found and comes into the possession of a young appraiser. Mysterious events begin to unfold until the Djinn finally reveals his plan: to grant three wishes to the woman and release his kind from their realm to rule the Earth.

The Good: I really like the concept of this movie. The idea is a fascinating one, which is no surprise given Wes Craven has made a living out of coming up with good ideas. The idea of taking the old "genie in a bottle" myth and making it a fairytale told to cover up the existence of the Djinn is clever. The movie works well within the guidelines of that story. While the film is not at all scary, it has a number of really good, effective scenes... even by today's standards. The party scene near the end of the film is beautiful chaos and very well imagined by the director. Some of the effects are dated a bit, but it is disturbing nonetheless. The acting is adequate and the script isn't half bad. The actor who plays the Djinn in human form is actually more effective than the Djinn in demon form. Also, the "wish" format is intriguing. Part of the Djinn's devious nature is tricking people into making wishes they thought were going to give them treasure, etc. In essence, the Djinn does in fact grant the wish, he just does it in a way that brings pain and sacrifice to the wisher. It's a pretty clever mechanism and makes the film work.

The Bad: All the things I said about the originality of the idea aside, it could have been done better. I just felt that parts of the script (and possibly the budget) held up the idea that Craven created. The movie could have been a whole lot "bigger" in scope with the ramifications of a "Djinn invasion" not localized to one protagonist. It was like the only one aware of the Djinn and apocalypse heading for the planet was this one girl. I get that they tried to make her interesting... giving her a past that made her susceptible to weakness and ultimately, redemption. It just made the stakes too small for me. Craven has always done this though, so maybe it was more the limitations of the budget or quite possibly, it was that the idea is to be more single character-centered... like he did with Nightmare on Elm Street's Nancy. Most horror films do this though.

The Reminiscent: Speaking of Nightmare on Elm Street, I found a lot of similarities with Wishmaster to Craven's cornerstone franchise. The evil comes from a parallel or dream-like state. The protagonist is a young female. Much of the dialogue feels much like the early Elm Street movies. The evil is trying hard to bust through into our world and finds a way to manipulate those of us on "the outside". This movie even has an unmasked Robert Englund. Some of the originality is lost in this, because at times it feels a bit like a newer Elm Street movie with less of the cheese factor. I also feel like a lot was borrowed from the Hellraiser series as well. Even some of the imagery was similar - like a man hanging with his chest ripped open by chains and hooks. By the end of the film, I felt like I watched a decent movie that had maybe borrowed one too many scenes from other iconic horror movies.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Dr. Drew says... 10 out of 10

[10/10 · 27 September 2013]

The Cabin in the Woods (2012): The Good, the Bad and the Intelligent

Synopsis: Your typical "kids go to a creepy cabin in the woods and are terrorized by evil"? Nope. This horror/sci-fi gem follows a group of unsuspecting college students that are "willed" to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of fun. Little do they know they are about to be the undoing of the world... by surviving.

The Good: Oh man, what a great film. This is an instant classic and probably one of my all-time favorites. From the witty dialogue to the mega plot-twist, Whedon and Goddard leave it all on the line. I don't give "10 out of 10" very often, but this movie is very deserving. The genius blending of horror and sci-fi have never been done better (except maybe Aliens). The writers pay homage to every horror film out there (especially the Evil Dead series) and instead of ripping them off, it works flawlessly within the confines of the script. Once you start to get the "big reveal", you begin to understand the genius of this movie. When I first watched it, I really knew very little about it and the less you know, the better the movie will ultimately be. The true standouts from an acting point of view are Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins as the supervisors of the ritual. Their chemistry and banter is pure cinematic joy to watch. I sat there with a big 'ol smile on my face during all of their scenes. And the idea of the facility workers placing bets and turning a demonic ritual that could end the world into your run-of-the-mill office betting pool is sheer genius. There's just so much to like about this film.

The Bad: It's really hard to come up with anything that wouldn't be picking some serious nits. There are a few scenes here and there that fall into the "cheesy horror" type of dialogue trap and while most of it is intentional... some of it is not. Whedon might be held up on a pedestal by geeks worldwide, but his scripts aren't always perfect. He hits more than he misses though and while it's not a perfect movie, it's certainly perfect enough to look past any minor inconsistencies.

The Intelligent: This is just a well-thought out idea that is very well executed. It's originality is hard to come by in this day and age of the reboot and recycled. Most of the dialogue is as witty as you get and that is just another notch in the hype machine that is Joss Whedon... who steals Goddard's thunder a little here... because most assume that Whedon directed this movie. Either way, it's a brilliant film based solely on the concept. The fact that the actors are good, the script is amazing, the dialogue is sharp and fresh and that the idea is so imaginative and fascinating.... how could you NOT like this movie? Again, this is an instant classic for me and one that will get a yearly or bi-yearly view from me. Bravo!

They Don't Cut the Grass Anymore (1985)

Dr. Drew says... 2 out of 10

[2/10 · 26 September 2013]

They Don't Cut the Grass Anymore (1985): The Good, the Bad and the Mutilated

Synopsis: Two oddball hicks who make a living in the lawncare industry, take exception to the wealthy suburbanites for whom they work. The result is a lot of pent up hostility run amok and a penchant for mutilation.

The Good: Is there anything good with this film? Hm... let me think... I don't really think so. Oh wait! There's this awesome little song they do at the end. You have to hear it to believe it. Might as well fast forward there and save yourself some time. At least it's a good chuckle.

The Bad: All of it? Not sure how I came across this movie, but I did. Probably because I try to watch every horror movie I can get my hands on. So when this little gem's path crossed with mine, I threw caution to the wind and put it on. I should have listened to the wind. First of all... and I don't say this lightly, because I've seen a LOT of bad movies... the acting was THE worst I've ever seen. By a lot. It's very obvious Schiff made this when he was very young and simply had his friends do the acting. On a shoe-string budget, you do what you have to, but seriously? I know for a fact, I could do more with less. My friends, of whom NONE are actors, would look like Academy Award winning performers compared to these people. It's like Jersey Shore meets Cannibal Ferox. Just awful, awful, awful. The script is so bad... I just can't even begin to comprehend how you don't accidentally make something better than this. I could have had them recite my grocery list and it would have made more sense. The characters? I honestly think they were recycling the same actresses and passing them off as new ones. I can't be sure, because they all looked the same and I am NOT watching it again to prove my theory. And for all that is holy, can you not just go to the costume store and get some $20 Halloween costume for your maniac dudes? One guy simply has black rings around his eyes (and overalls... no shirt) and the other guy, Jacab (which I think is spelled wrong in Schiff's scrolling piece of paper as "rolling credits"... brilliant) is a mute who wears a mask of some sort and it's passed off as his real face. Just make him a masked murderer or get him some hillbilly teeth or something. Every choice was made so badly that I guarantee my 9 year old son and his friends could do better.

The Mutilated: Okay, so the only thing this movie has going for it is the excessively gory mutilation scenes. Are they worth watching this movie for? Unequivocally... no. Here's what you can do instead... find yourself a 300 year old human skull with no teeth and put a bunch of gooey crap and meat all over it. Make it look something like a face. Then spend the next 10 minutes peeling it off in a really disgusting way... like you are ripping someones face off. Then repeat it about 10 times in slightly different ways... just be sure to use the same skull. Not sure if some of the other things in here are intentional, like the use of blow-up dolls passed off as real people. I suspect it wasn't, but now I hear the director is trying to pass it off as "it was symbolism for us living in a plastic society...". Um, sure. Whatever you say, pal. I know there are some of you that will need to watch this because of your consuming desire to watch all horror movies, like me... but do so with caution: this isn't bad-good or bad-funny... it's bad-BAD! I rated it a 2 only because I understand how small the budget was and how young Schiff was when he made it.

Doghouse (2009)

Dr. Drew says... 5 out of 10

[5/10 · 26 September 2013]

Doghouse (2009): The Good, the Bad and the Nasty

Synopsis: A British film about a group of men having a "get-a-way" for a member of their pack that is getting a divorce. They rent a tour bus to take them to a remote town to drink away their troubles with hopes of encountering the opposite sex. What they find is undead, unholy and fully man-hating.

The Good: I thought that the cast of guys did about as well with this script as they could. You kinda liked (or hated) most of them because of their character... which is a good thing. You were rooting FOR them as a group, not against them. I can't tell you how many schlocky horror films I watch where I just want the characters to die some agonizing death just to be rid of them. Not here. You could tell they were a tight-knit group and it felt genuine... even when the scenes were of disagreements and hostility. Each character was unique and fit within the group. Nice job casting and it made the movie bearable.

The Bad: Unfortunately, there's a lot more bad than good. This whole thing has been done SO MANY times. There was nothing new aside from the "man-hating" aspect to it. So a virus turns ONLY the women into zombies and they in turn are now man-hating flesh eaters. Okay then. The only thing to make it more cheesy would be to involve the army... oh wait. Well, there goes the originality. There's a fair amount of gore and action, but it gets stale fast. I found myself checking Facebook a lot in the last half hour. Snooze. It's just one long chase scene with the same female zombies. Again, the dialogue between the guys is somewhat interesting and you ARE rooting for them at first, but you sort of lose your fervor for it after about an hour. You just end up not caring. And if I recall correctly, not caring while watching a movie is a bad thing.

The Nasty: I guess this town was made up of weird axe-wielding strippers and hairstylists who also specialized in S&M, hey? The zombies just came off a little odd. So you put chicks in sexy outfits and then make them nasty ugly and vomit black stuff and that's supposed to be enticing or appealing? Pass.

Suspiria (1977)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 26 September 2013]

Suspiria (1977): The Good, the Bad and the Colorful

Synopsis: Dario Argento's giallo of a young American who goes to Europe to attend a ballet boarding school. Little does she know the school has a dark secret. As events unfold, young Susan starts to realize and uncover the truth behind those in charge.

The Good: Argento, among a few others like Bava and Fulchi, are the "masters" of giallo and if you know what that is, your viewing pleasure will be enhanced. This isn't straight up horror, it's a murder-mystery-thriller with a penchant for some excessive blood and shock. For what it is, Argento does it well. The collaborative efforts from screen to sound are a work of art. The soundtrack, performed by the band Goblin, in essence, make the film, because it's really not scary at all. Those who coin phrases like, "the scariest film I've ever seen" are just silly. It's not scary. It's atmospheric. The widely applauded use of angles and color are as good as advertised. It's a very nice looking film. Moods are well-captured and yes, it is quite "arthouse" in form and thus, loved by film snobs worldwide. Am I a snob? No, but I do well to appreciate something new and different and well-captured and this is a film worth seeing for that alone.

The Bad: All that good stuff about cinematography and atmosphere aside, the script of this movie is a mess in places and incoherent in others. No one that is not taking a "snobbish" approach to this film can deny that there are just some flat out bad scenes in this movie. Stilted acting, wooden dialogue... it's all there. This is one of those movies that has received acclaim and now, it seems no one wants to backtrack and call it what it really is... a decent giallo that is far from a "work of art". Strictly speaking, the story just isn't a great one... not great enough to stand the test of time. Nor is it told in any way that is unique. The only unique and interesting quality is the way the movie is filmed. That sets it apart and makes it an Argento film. That is great and all, but it doesn't make it a cinematic classic in these eyes. The story is what is missing here. It's just very dull and slow-moving, but done in a nice-looking way. It's a sawdust cake that is beautifully frosted, but has nothing tasty at it's core.

The Colorful: As stated before, Argento's use of color in the film is truly brilliant. It creates mesmerizing atmosphere and it is unforgettable and makes the film unique and worth watching. The use of bright red blood is one of style and some reviews seem to not acknowledge that (i.e. "...and the blood was just so fake!"). Yeah... it's supposed to look that way. Coupled with a musical score that brought out the vibrant reds and greens, the look and feel are as good as any movie out there, horror or not. Too bad the content doesn't match.

Puppet Master (1989 Video)

Dr. Drew says... 6 out of 10

[6/10 · 26 September 2013]

Puppet Master (1989): The Good, the Bad and the Blind?

Synopsis: Story centering around a puppet maker from the 1930's with the power to breathe life into inanimate objects - in this case, his puppets. A group of colleagues, all with some sort of psychic powers of their own, try to track down secrets that the puppet maker left behind with the mindset of harnessing the ancient power of raising the dead.

The Good: Okay, so for starters, this is pretty cool concept for a movie. There is a lot of good back-story with the character of Andre Toulon (which has far too little screen time), the puppet maker with a gift of breathing life in his puppets... which he just happens to make look kinda creepy... and with weapons for hands and heads and stuff? Uh, okay... I guess so. Anyway, the fact that there is a lot of mysticism and psychic power type of stuff going on all over the place is enough to keep your attention. I actually wanted to know what was happening and how it was all going to unfold. For a cheesy puppet-kills-people movie, the story was intriguing enough to keep my attention until the end. There's a little bit of a "who-dunnit" type mystery aspect to this movie and I guess I wasn't expecting that. It was a nice touch to the script, which isn't awful.

The Bad: The acting is a bit over-the-top and not in a good way. I wouldn't call it "bad", just not great and it's distracting from the characters, because they are somewhat interesting... even if it is only from the standpoint that you want to know what their secret power is and how it relates to the overall story. Also, the puppets themselves almost become secondary to the story and at times, the writers almost forget about them... which is a bit odd. Are they good? Are they evil? It's almost like the writers couldn't figure it out. Maybe they are neither, I don't know. It was like, "Okay, I guess this is supposed to be a horror movie, so let's throw in a scene where one of the puppets does something nasty." They really seem to want to tell two stories, but don't blend them well enough to tell them both simultaneously, so it focuses more on the humans and what they are after - which is the ability, not the puppets, so the puppets become a side show instead of a centerpiece. The puppets themselves are not scary and the movie isn't overly gory, but they are kind of cool and unique to an extent, I guess.

The Blind?: Are all the people in this movie blind? It's funny how no one can actually SEE the puppets running around. There are far too many scenes shot from the view of the puppet (running around on the ground, etc) and no one sees them. It wouldn't be so distracting if they didn't take a "hey, look at the cool camera trick we are doing to make it look like you are the puppet running around" every five minutes. It takes some of the believability out of the movie (and yes, I know that's an oxymoron).

Evil Dead II (1987)

Dr. Drew says... 8 out of 10

[8/10 · 26 September 2013]

Evil Dead II (1987): The Good, the Bad and the Heroic

Synopsis: Classic "go to abandoned cabin in the woods and bad things happen" style of movie starring Bruce Campbell, who reprises his role as Ash Williams. Technically more of a reboot than a sequel, the movie follows Ash and his love interest back to the little cabin in the woods where another reading from "The Book of the Dead" makes things rather interesting for its new inhabitants.

The Good: Honestly, if you can't watch this movie and have a freakin' blast doing so.... I don't know what is wrong with you. For starters, don't take yourself or the movie so seriously... life, and this movie, are better that way. Raimi takes the concept of the original film and sort of reboots it (which can be a little confusing upon first view). It's basically the original Evil Dead on steroids. The result is a MORE over-the-top version of the original where Ash is now solely in control of the screen time, which is a marvelous thing. It's almost like Raimi and his writers are sitting in a room thinking, "How much ridiculously awesome stuff can we throw on the screen? Okay, yeah... let's do all of this!". It's brilliant. He leaves nothing on the table and the result is a wild, wacky movie with a frenetic pace. You just have no idea where he is going to take you next and it's a hoot. Also, the fact that he centers the movie around Bruce Campbell was a wise decision and ultimately makes it comparable to the original. If a different casting decision is made, this one is likely forgotten and Army of Darkness never happens.

The Bad: Well, the fact that it's basically a retelling of the original story (or maybe "re-imagined" is a better way of saying it) is a cop out of sorts. Most would think a sequel (thus the name of "Evil Dead II") would pick up where we all left off. But no, Raimi instead revisits old stomping grounds. If he had failed to come up with new ideas, this would be a big problem, but thankfully, the acting of Campbell and the wild imagination of Raimi save this movie and honestly, make it very comparable in quality to the original - which from me, is high praise for the sequel. Some of the effects are tad out of date, sure... but the fact that the film is a little more black comedy versus straight-up horror helps the film date a little better. The characters not named "Ash" are pretty boring as well. Or maybe it is just that they are overshadowed by Campbell's performance. Either way, this tends to bog down the later parts of the movie a bit.

The Heroic: Speaking of Campbell's performance... it is one of the all-time greats. In a vacuum of performances, Campbell's is truly Oscar-worthy, which many might think is a ridiculous thought. Still, I can't think of a single other "A-lister" that could do what he did and bring more value within the confines of what this movie is. In fact, Bruce Campbell IS the movie! Watching him slowly go insane is one of cinema's true pleasures. Campbell lays it all on the line and not for a minute does he disappoint. His catapult to cult status is no coincidence. It was well earned.

The Exorcist (1973)

Dr. Drew says.... 9 out of 10

[9/10 · 26 September 2013]

The Exorcist (1971): The Good, the Bad and the Unholy

Synopsis: The "original" tale of possession and exorcism with rich, religious undertones that set the world ablaze with it's audacity. A young girl is possessed by Satan himself and aided by two priests fighting demons of their own.

The Good: Even now, forty years later, the film is disturbing. That means something to an avid horror buff like myself. Deemed a classic or not, I call a spade a spade. If it's no longer gory or scary or disturbing in the here and now, I don't mince words. Too many films have lost their sparkle as the years have faded, but not The Exorcist. The film is as shocking and audacious as it was the year it came out. There have been far too many possession-style movies heaped into the market as of late and all will pale in comparison to the original. The idea was too brilliant: take a young, angelic girl and have her possessed by the devil himself and don't hold back on the shock factor. The result is chilling even by today's standards. Sure, the effects look a tad dated, but the core theme burns into minds like it's a new film and it affects you. That's the real trick... being affected. It's why we watch movies. This movie, regardless of how many times viewed, affects you. That is success in the horror genre.

The Bad: At times, the pacing is horribly slow. It is, in essence, dramatic horror, but there are far too many scenes that bog the movie down in dramatic dialogue. The movie could be just as effective if it was twenty minutes shorter. Despite the poor pacing in parts, there are also portions of the movie that feel rushed, like the onset of the possession. There are moments where the characters "tell" you that Regan is "getting" worse, but you are not shown, and it gives a bit of a "huh?" effect to the plot. These are minor gripes though and at times the slow moving parts allow for a more shocking affect when the possession scenes come.

The Unholy: To think a parent allowed their eleven year old daughter to act in this movie aside, Linda Blair's performance lends credence to the whole movie actually working. Had Regan's part been cast to an adult, the movie falls apart. It would have been a forgotten part of cinematic history like so many others. The chilling affect is only because you see a child doing very un-childlike things. The audience is fully disturbed by thinking of their own child behaving in such a way or using vulgar language. It's a shock to the senses. The angelic look and portrayal of Regan in the beginning of the film only adds depth to the stark contrast of the demon she becomes. Brilliantly conceived and brilliantly acted on Blair's part.