Bleeding Green: The Five Best Friday the 13th Trailers

May 9, 1980.  For those of you unfamiliar with the significance of this date, it was on THIS DAY (shocking twist) some thirty-five years ago that the original Friday the 13th was released in theaters.  Based upon nothing more than his own bravery/stupidity and the insane amount of buzz that its advertising campaign had created, Frank Mancuso Sr. decided to take a big gamble and unleash the movie with the stunning Variety ad, unknown cast and whole heaping of gore nationwide, giving it the treatment that only blockbuster movies got before it.

How many sequels again?  It's safe to say that move paid off.

Yes, folks, Friday the 13th is 35 this week, and it all started as a huge gamble.  That's not to say that the gamble was not a CALCULATED one, however, as the wizards at Paramount had done a phenomenal job selling this movie prior to that release.  The magazine ad (bought by Sean Cunningham prior to filming) was only one part.  The rest, from the TV campaign to the theatrical trailer, all focused on one aspect of the movie's plot and beat it down our throats.  It was a device that had been hinted at in several previous horror films, but this was the one that took one very potent moral and decided to bring it to the forefront of slasher cinema.

This movie featured lots of kids having sex.  And you could bet your ass that the ones that did were about to get offed.

Whether or not you agree with that as the idea that the marketing crew was going for doesn't matter.  It's safe to say that it worked.  Again, how many sequels?  And we owe it all to a few ads and a big-time trailer. 

And that is what we're looking at this week - this holy week in horror history when the greatest slasher franchise of all time came to be.  We're looking at the first impression that many people had of not only this movie, but almost every movie ever in existence.  Well, from a certain date onward, anyway.  I'm not looking up when trailers first became a thing, because I don't get paid by the hour for these write-ups.

On with the countdown!

5.

This trailer is a textbook example of light and shade.  By this point, the series had established Jason's M.O. very well, and the opening shots remind us that he's dead.  But not really.  The voice gives us the awesome poster taglines...and then the trailer turns busy.  Moreso than any movie in the original eight films (and really, those are the ones that count), The Final Chapter is the one with the most money scenes, and the editing here really does a good job promising us that some hardcore stuff was about to happen without giving us all the grisly details.  Jason's Unlucky Day indeed.

4.

This one is a choice at least partially inspired by anticipation.  Folks, you have no clue just how much this movie was talked about in various online forums around the time I first DISCOVERED online forums.  On horror fans' wishlist since the mid-'80s, this trailer did not disappoint when it came to promising us the main event between the two biggest icons of the modern era.  It gives us virtually nothing in the way of plot, and that's just the way it should have been - that's Freddy and Jason up there on the screen together, and how it happens should be left for us to speculate. 

3.

The one that started it all.  I've spoken to a few horror fans that find this trailer irreparably cheesy.  They might have a point in some regards, but screw it, I'm still going with this one.  I love the "countdown" aspect of the whole thing, peppered with promised deaths to be seen in this forbidden movie (some of which didn't even turn out to be actual deaths).  It's also got plenty of teasing when it comes to that pesky premarital sex and this was one movie in question circa 1980 audiences were WAY into.  Like, to the tune of "biggest non-Empire box office gross of 1980" into.

2.

And now we get to my personal favorite trailers in the entire series.  Once again, it's time for some LESS IS MORE put on display.  There's virtually nothing to this trailer, outside of the iconic Frank Sinatra song, the reveal of Jason, and plenty of screaming teens - and it's absolutely perfect.  Jason's in New York, he's pissed, and s**t is about to go down.  Of course, what actually wound up HAPPENING in the movie (as it might as well have been called Jason Takes the Ship) doesn't even matter, because had I seen this in cinemas in 1989 I would have been ridiculously stoked.

1.

My personal favorite of all the F13 trailers is yet more LESS IS MORE.  Audiences had just sat through the guilty pleasure but technically awful New Beginning featuring a killer paramedic disguising himself as the boy in blue.  By and large, audiences just wanted Jason back.  Would this happen?  This trailer answered that question, complete with some admittedly VERY unnerving music, a rainstorm for added atmosphere, a lightning bolt, and that great shot of the casket popping out of the dirt.  It all works, it's all perfect, and it piques your curiosity to see more.  A+++.

Looking deep into the history of this series, it immediately becomes apparent that Paramount somewhat resented its successful franchise.  You would never guess it from looking at the trailers, as every single one of them (yes, even the ones not listed) seem to get the atmosphere, the fun and the basic moral storytelling that the series became famous for, all while remembering that moviemaking is a business and needs to sell tickets.  As Friday the 13th turns 35, the videos above are evidence of all of that.  Campfire scary stories are vital morality tales, they're marketable...oh yeah, and they can make loads of cash.

Happy 35th, Jason!!

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2006)

2005
Directed by Scott Derrickson
Starring Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Colm Feore and Jennifer Carpenter

How did this movie escape my radar until now?  If memory serves me correctly, I was in college in 2005, doing my best to concentrate on doing anything but going to class and spending a lot of that time catching almost every horror movie that hit the multiplexes.  I remember the buzz about The Exorcism of Emily Rose at the time.  More than a few people that I knew even TOLD me that I needed to see the movie.  Yet here we are ten years later and I'm watching it on a rainy Friday morning. 

That really is a shame.  This movie is pretty damn good; it's the kind of character-centric horror flick that I've come to appreciate like an aged wine over the years in the wake of so many movies these days that don't inspire an ounce of sympathy for anyone in it.  Anymore, almost ALL characters in a given horror movie are vaguely hateable high-school kids/twenty-somethings, or they're just oblivious parents in the "ghost movies" that dot the landscape.  They're not like the characters in this movie, three-dimensional people with MOTIVATIONS (gasp) and EMOTIONAL RESONANCE (more gasp).  It's that aspect of the movie that actually kept me awake during my zombie state after getting off work at the glorious time of 8:00 a.m. 

That, and I'm a sucker for religious-themed horror movies, particularly ones that boast intermittent creepy moments like this one does. 

The framing device for The Exorcism of Emily Rose is fairly unique among horror movies.  It starts with the death of the titular main character, a 19-year-old girl who believes herself to be possessed by demons.  This revelation is followed up by the second revelation that the Priest who performed a recent exorcism may be complicit in her death.  That's your setup, folks, as Father Moore (Wilkinson) finds himself locked behind bars with his own church pretty much disowning him so as to avoid the bad publicity that the death entails.  Considering that she died of self-inflicted wounds combined with severe malnutrition, it seems like a sound move on paper.

The movie's main character is lawyer Erin Bruener.  Played by Laura Linney, an Oscar nominee and certifiable hottie if you've ever seen the otherwise godawful film Maze, she's a lawyer who finds herself defending Moore with the promise of a partner spot.  I think you know where we're going from here, as the skeptical lawyer gradually finds herself believing more and more in the claims of possession.  It's a plot device that isn't noted for its minty freshness (Lick Ness Monster cliche favorite phrase there, kids), but I've rarely seen it played out with as much emotion as it is here.  The acting here by both Linney and Wilkinson is top notch.  The relationship that they create starts out rocky, but by the time Erin's closing argument is heard, we buy every ounce of the emotion.

And yes, folks, what we have in this movie is a courtroom procedural.  I actually enjoyed this aspect of the movie a great deal, although this is where we get the movie's one flaw.  The prosecuting attorney is pretty much a cartoon character, with Campbell Scott standing out as the weak link in the movie's fantastic cast.  That bit of bitching aside, this is where we get the story of Emily Rose told in flashbacks.  The entire history of her possession is laid out for us in this manner, with Scott delivering a douchy opening statement provided by his endless array of doctors who all testify to the belief that Emily was not possessed by demons but rather a victim of epilepsy.  Because that diagnosis is always spot on in these movies.  This is followed by Erin Bruener attempting to prove that Emily WAS possessed, with a key piece of audiotape evidence being the real shining star of this sequence.  It also provides us with some of our best shock material.

The horror of this movie comes in the form of snippets; we don't get the whole truth, and after watching two Exorcist prequels, it's a move that is much appreciated.  Jennifer Carpenter is simply fantastic Emily, a young college student who is the perfect picture of innocence before a group of no less than SIX hellspawns make it their mission to mess the hell out of her world invade her body.  According to the ever-accurate Wikipedia, she performed almost all of her bodily contortions herself.  Get this woman a special Takako Fuji mention in the international horror hall of fame.  With her suffering family looking on, this woman will unnerve you every time she appears onscreen from a certain point on.  When the courtroom drama makes its way up to the eventual exorcism, she's evil incarnate buried underneath that innocent shell.

Advance word of warning: this is a movie primarily concerned with spirituality, or lack thereof.  As such, it might turn off some viewers.  If it doesn't, however, I can't recommend a better way to spend a couple hours than with this flick.  Linney and Carpenter are both great, and Wilkinson manages to put tons of genuine soul into Father Moore to the point that by the time that verdict comes in you're holding your breath.  Correct use of the words "you're" and "your" FTW in that previous sentence.

*** 1/2 out of ****.  A great movie in a great horror subgenre, and Carpenter's performance is up there with the greats in any horror movie I've seen.  Check it out.

Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)

1990
Directed by Mick Garris
Starring Anthony Perkins, Henry Thomas, Olivia Hussey and C.C.H. Pounder

So we're up to this - the first Psycho movie I ever saw, accompanied by skits involving Gilbert Gottfried attempting to find a videotape of the original movie in his mother's house that made 12-year-old me cackle with delight.  Man, 1995 was a better, simpler time. 

Seeing this movie first, it's just occurred to me that I actually saw the events the way they unfolded in Norman Bates' life in - somewhat - chronological order, because what we've got here is a prequel.  I know, uh oh.  Well, there's no need for the 'uh oh' here, because this is the extremely rare example of a prequel that does NOT suck.  It isn't great, but it manages to tell its past story with a great deal of flair while also having a present-day story that sucks you in.  That final bit really is the key; a lot of movie series that delve into the past for an entry just start in ancient history and stay there.  Joseph Stefano takes a different approach here and it paid off with a movie that, while not as good as the series at its peak (and I'm not even counting the Hitchcock original - that one is untouchable), still has a lot going for it.  Especially in the acting department.  That should about do the "background" phase of this review - let's get to the show.

The script by Joseph Stefano (amazingly enough, the guy who penned the screenplay for the original film) has a pretty ingenious little setup.  Radio talk show host Fran Ambrose (C.C.H. Pounder) is doing a show on the subject of matricide.  It also brings back Dr. Richmond (Warren Frost), the psychologist from the original film who gives that long-winded explanation that pretty much every snooty film professor hates with a burning passion.  Well, wouldn't you know it, Norman Bates himself listens to the Fran Ambrose Show and calls in to recount his own personal experience with matricide.  As an added bonus, he also throws in the fact that he is about to kill somebody again.  More on that later.

While Norman hasn't given the show his identity yet, it becomes clear to Dr. Richmond as the story unfolds.  The young version of Norman is played by Henry Thomas of E.T. fame, and I give him seventeen stars compared to that dude who played the young Hannibal Lecter.  But the movie's real ace is Olivia Hussey.  Simultaneously mean to the max and strangely sexy as Norma Bates, we go through the whole gamut of madness with this character.  We see almost every key event that has only been hinted at during the series as mythology, starting with the funeral of Norman's father, various cruel jokes that mother plays on Norman, the introduction of the boyfriend that led to the murder...and the death of mother herself.  The stuff with Norma's new beau is particularly powerful, with these two essentially ganging up to embarrass Norman at every turn.  By the time that poisoned tea hits the stage, you REALLY want these two to get some comeuppance. 

These bits really are fascinating stuff.  They give life to images that we've concocted in our minds throughout the three previous movies, and they actually manage to do this in a way that doesn't feel annoying or disappointing. 

There are also a couple out-of-sequence bits from the past involving Norman's two original murders before that fateful evening that Marion Crane showed up at the Bates Motel.  In between all of this, we spend a LOT of time inside the creepy house, and I've got to hand it to the set designers here because they did a phenomenal job dressing up the inside of this building (built on the Universal Studios Theme Park lot, according to the ever-accurate Wikipedia).  Mazel Tov to the past section of the film, because it was quite simply phenomanally done.

What ISN'T so well done is the movie's present story.  Once again out on parole, Norman is married now - to his psychiatrist in the institution, no less.  It seems that she has gone against his wishes and gotten pregnant, and this is just simply unacceptable.  So unacceptable that she has to DIE.  I've never found the character of Connie Bates to be particularly likable, and the actress playing her doesn't do much more to make her stand out.  So much that I can't even be bothered to look at Wikipedia to learn her name.  All of this leads to a finale sequence in the modern-day version of the Bates Motel that starts off as a little eye-rolling but eventually redeems itself with a series of surprises.  And that ending?  Yikes.  Chilling stuff.

I was once involved in a debate with a fellow horror fan about the direct-to-TV/direct-to-video genre.  This guy made the claim that there has NEVER been such a thing as a non-theatrical horror film, and I vehemently disagree.  While they are pretty few and far between, they DO exist, and this is one of them, as Psycho IV bypassed theaters and saw the light of day on the Showtime Network.  Again, the acting is what makes this stick out, with Perkins again being game for his signature role and C.C.H. Pounder acing it as the radio show host.  But this really is a movie that belongs to Thomas and Hussey.  They have the most screen time, and they deliver all the goods when asked.  It's enough to bring the movie past its hokey third act and make it essential viewing for anyone who has followed this incredibly underrated series this far, and it's a fitting capper, as well, since everything that has come after is one of those newfangled, slick, overthought TV series that I have come to despise so much.  Not that I'm biased or anything.

*** out of ****.  One of the best DTV/DTTV horror films ever made, and it's worth watching just for the acting alone.  Check it out.

Psycho III (1986)

1986
Directed by Anthony Perkins
Starring Perkins, Diana Scarwid, Jeff Fahey and Roberta Maxwell

All personal biases aside, some of my favorite movies as a kid forgotten about, if someone had told me that Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho would have a series of sequels that would (a) keep the same damn main actor, and (b) actually manage to be pretty damn good in their own right, I would have said you're insane.  Alas, that's what we continue to get with the third film in the franchise, with Anthony Perkins himself stepping in the director's chair and a bit more focus on dark stuff and a cast of people who actually take the material that they're presented seriously.  This very easily could have been the high-end horror franchise of the '80s.

Unfortunately, Psycho III was a bit of a flop.  The second movie made its budget back seven times over, but this one struggled big time in that regard.  Maybe it was that four-year gap between sequels; this was at a time when horror moved at light speed, with the big franchises pumping out new theatrical installments sometimes within ten months of each other, but this movie was expected to be a BIG DEAL.  Hell, it even got a music video.  Youtube it.  FORTUNATELY, it's been released on DVD many times and can be appreciated today for its entertainment value and good performances, so let's get right to the aspect of these reviews that everyone just adores: the plot description.

This whole review is going to be very spoilerish when it comes to the ending of Psycho II, so readers take heed.  That movie ended with the kindly old Emma Spool revealing herself to be Norman's real mother, followed immediately by Norman whacking her over the head with a shovel and taking her upstairs to pick up right where he left off.  Appropriately enough, this movie picks up almost immediately where THAT left off.  What we've got in Psycho III is essentially an amped-up version of the first movie - the mystery aspect is gone, with frequent conversations between Norman and "Mother" peppered in between a few murder scenes, which, while graphic in nature, are again tame in comparison to the the many like-styled films of the era.

Once again, we've also got a movie that is very heavy on atmosphere.  The movie introduces us to its main anciliary character before we spend any time with Norman - disgraced nun Maureen Coyle, hitchhiking around the California desert after being kicked out of her convent in a suicide attempt gone horribly wrong.  Diana Scarwid is fantastic as Coyle.  Dare I say it, she's more empathetic than Janet Leigh in the original movie.  She has a skeevy meeting with wannabe rock star Duane Duke (the always enjoyable Jeff Fahey) while out on the road, and in one of those movie coincidences that you just love, Duke later shows up at the Bates Motel looking to answer the "Help Wanted" sign.

Maureen showing up at the hotel is the event that really kicks the movie into high gear.  We get something resembling a romance between Norman and Maureen; it's occasionally awkward but also occasionally believable, and if that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is.  During this section of the movie, we get some conversations between Norman and Mother that used to creep the holy hell out of me as a 12-year-old.  As you can imagine, Mother is none too thrilled about this new woman in Norman's life, and we get a couple "substitute" murders in the process - one of them being Juliette Cummins of Friday the 13th Part V relative fame. 

Our other principal character is reporter Tracy Venable (Roberta Maxwell), a somewhat dislikable shrew out to prove that Norman had something to do with the disappearance of Emma Spool.  The script by Charles Edward Pogue does a decent job balancing out all of these various chess pieces in varying degrees of success.  By and large, the acting isn't QUITE as strong this time around, with Maxwell standing out as the weak link in that core four, but it's a minor complaint.  We've got some good horror stuff this time around - my favorite bits are Cummins' murder, Norman's showdown with Duke and the bit where the hapless town sheriff pops ice cubes into his mouth, not noticing that they're covered with the blood of a recent victim. 

Oh, and the final twist is one of those shockers that really does hit you in the gut like ONLY a good horror movie can.  I'll just leave that up to the viewer to discover what that event is.

Overall, Psycho III is a pretty damn good movie.  The cast of characters this time around isn't quite as captivating as it was in the first two films, but it makes up for it with a bit more visceral quality in regards to the horror and the again superb performance by Anthony Perkins as Norman.  He also shows a deft hand as a director, and it's a shame he didn't get to helm more horror films. 

*** out of ****.  HIGHLY recommended for fans of the series and Norman Bates himself, and strongly recommended for horror fans at large.

Psycho II (1982)

1982
Directed by Richard Franklin
Starring Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Meg Tilly, Robert Loggia and Dennis Franz

Even more than the Friday the 13th franchise, the original Psycho and its sequels really did define my early horror fandom.  I remember reading about the first book back when Roger Ebert still did those massive yearly video companions, piquing my curiosity thumbing through that thing by reading about every slasher flick in the book.  Soon enough, USA Up All Night ran a marathon of the sequels, meaning that the Hitchcock original is actually the LAST movie in the series that I saw.  Sacrilege, I know. 

Released in 1982, the movie in question today has to be considered nothing short of a total success on every level.  It was made on a budget of $5 million and grossed almost seven times that much.  Having a creative team consisting entirely of Hitchcock geeks (director Richard Franklin and screenwriter Tom Holland, respectfully, two guys who are pretty highly regarded in horror circles) also had its perks, as critical and fan response were by and large extremely positive.  Just like the original movie, Psycho II has got this trademark suspenseful atmosphere.  Having a cast that seems to actively give a fuck about it also helps.  No further jabbering necessary.  Let's get to it!

Now, I will admit that the movie is based on a pretty far-flung crux.  Norman Bates (still played by Anthony Perkins, amazingly enough, and he continues to be just as phenomenal and sympathetic as he was in the original film) has just been released from a mental institution and is summarily welcomed back into the community that he left with open arms.  Yeah, I highly doubt it.  Once you get past that faux pas, however, the movie introduces us to more than a few memorable characters. 
First and foremost is Dr. Raymond.  He's played by Robert Loggia, one of my favorite character actors of all time, and this is the guy primarily responsible for getting Norman a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict and turning public support in his favor.  In one of the better "what a fantastic idea" ideas in horror history, Norman returns to the Bates Motel and the creaky old house on the hill, the former of which is now lorded over by excellent supporting character #2 - Warren Toomey, with Dennis Franz lending all of his usual sleazy charm to the role of a guy who has turned Norman's business into a swinger's hotel.  And then there is Mary Samuels (a name that is more than familiar to any hardcore fan of the original film), with the certifiably hot Meg Tilly as a young woman working in the diner with Norman who needs a place to stay.  'Cus what better place to stay than with an admitted murderer in a creepy old house?

Logistical qualms aside, this movie does a very admirable job recreating the feel and locations of the original.  There's no 30-minute red herring segment to start this film, and we spend a lot more time actually inside the Bates household this time.  Director Franklin does fantastic giving the few locations we saw in Hitchcock's movie a slight facelift, including the cellar and Mother's room, while also recreating some iconic stuff like that legendary high-angle shot from the top of the second-floor steps.  It's that atmosphere that gives this movie life when Mother begins to make her presence felt.
 
Psycho II is a very plot heavy movie, and I won't delve into everything that it has to offer.  The gist of it is this: With Mary in the house and a hotel to prepare for a re-opening, Norman begins actually seeing his mother again.  In between this, there are also some sporadic (and very tense) murder sequences, with the bit involving the teenage couple in the cellar robbing me of some sleep during my grade school years.  Said murders are also very blood-free, something that stood in stark contrast to the slasher flicks that were all the rage at the time.  While I'm a huge fan of the slasher genre, this move is definitely for the better here.  While none of the bodies or murders are discovered, Norman does confide in Dr. Raymond about the Mother sightings.  It seems that someone is trying to convince Norman that his mother is still alive, and the clever script by Holland establishes that the killer absolutely CANNOT be Norman.  Confused yet?  Thought so.

All that scatterbrained stuff above aside, Holland really did do a wonderful job balancing everything out here.  The relationship between Norman and Mary gets plenty of ink, and it manages to come across as totally believable that Mary would come to see this guy as a protector and a friend.  The various twists and turns that the movie throws our way also reveal themselves in a way that are both surprising and NOT annoying.  The ending twist also absolutely floored me as an 11-year-old, and I suspect would also be quite surprising to first-time viewers these days.  Oh, and the use of Vera Miles, co-star of the original movie?  Absolutely perfect.

*** 1/2 out of ****.  It's got one or two minor quibbles in the form of the opening setup, but it quickly gives way to a suspenseful, very entertaining little flick that actually IS worthy of the Hitchcock stamp.  Check this one out.

Demons (1985)

1985
Directed by Lamberto Bava
Starring Urbano Barberini, Natasha Hovey, Fiore Argento, Geretta Geretta and Michele Soavi

We're back to the well of Dario Argento this week.  Demons may not have been directed by the guy, but it has his influence all over it, as it's structured just like an Argento flick, it has the same kind of incomprehensible narrative, an the characters are by and large inconsequential compared to the atmosphere of sheer WTF-ness that the flick manages to achieve.  That's not to say that it's totally incomprehensible.  Lamberto Bava, son of the legendary Mario Bava and the other half of the Italian horror Legacy All-Stars along with Dario, was more than game when it came to the task of crafting a nice little creepy story here.  Unfortunately, I've got a whole decade's worth of bias built up when it came to my enjoyment of this movie that had been hyped up to me for what seemed like eons.

Man...I just really wish had seen this movie ten years ago, because for all intents and purposes, we're dealing with a zombie film.  It may be called Demons, and the plot may deal with some spooky Christian dark angels on the warpath, but they're zombies all the same regardless of what anyone says.  They feast on people and they infect other people like a virus, and that makes them the z-word in my book.  The word "zombie" is practically a dirty word with this reporter, as I'm so sick of the plot device that I still refuse to watch a single episode of Walking Dead no matter how many non-horror fans in my daily life wax about how awesome it is.  That unpleasantness out of the way, there actually is some stuff to admire with this flick, so let's get to it.

Characters?  Exposition?  Surely you're following the wrong guy if you're in the market for a movie connected to Dario Argento, because this is a movie with almost none of either.  Here's your setup: young college student Cheryl (Hovey) in Berlin is followed on the subway by a creepy-looking dude with a Kano-style metallic facial implant.  His mision: to get her to attend a screening of a horror film.  Because when humanoid clones of Metallo want you to go to a movie, of course, you jump at the opportunity.  Dragging her best friend Kathy (Paolo Cazza) along to the screening, they watch the opening chapters of the movie involving college students who wander into a mysterious crypt.  Cue evilness.

You see, a friendly prostitute (don't ask) cut herself on an ornate mask on the way in to the theater, and it's this cut that launches the plot of the movie forward.  Before the first act of the movie is over, she is transformed into a demon right before our very eyes (complete with some excellent pus photography - seriously, a good 23% of this movie's running time is dedicated to various disgusting body liquids).  You know how almost every zombie movie involves the transfer of the virus via bites?  Well, here, it's scratches.  Soon, Prostitute Demon has infected various other people within the theater, the denizens of which are mysteriously bricked inside.  So we've got the isolation aspect that it apes from countless zombie movies in addition to its basic villain setup.

More than any other aspect of the film, Demons is fantastic in one regard: it has amazing gore and makeup effects.  Argento was known as a guy who liked to push the envelope when it came to onscreen violence, and Bava downright puts his father to shame when ti comes to red stuff flying around in this flick.  There's more than one scene that will stick with you when it come sto sheer visceral power.  We also get some great '80s heavy metal underscoring the film, with "Save Our Souls" by Motley Crue being the real highlight.  And we've also got that trademark pre-Opera Argento atmosphere, even if the guy isn't sitting behind the chair himself.

But we've also got some weaknesses.  There is one segment in particular that drags to the point of suicide, as we're introduced to a group of punk rockers who had no connection to any of the characters in the theater.  We spend about ten minutes with them, watch them be jerks, do cocaine, argue with each other, expose the token female's breasts...you know, all quality stuff.  And then they're pretty much all killed off just to establish that the zombie (demon) infection has spread beyond the original location.  The acting range of these guys (and gal) takes us to a new low.  This part of the movie enters Friday V territory of "get this annoying face off the screen."  There's also a couple cool dudes inside the theater who made it their point to try to get with Cheryl and Kathy, with one of them inexplicably becoming the movie's main good guy by the end of the brisk 88-minute running time.  The lead guy, played by Urbano Barberini, looks cool with a sword.  That's about it when it comes to this guy.

And, for the second and third acts, it's a zombie film.

You can call me biased, and you're correct, but it severely hampered what I got out of Demons.  That's a shame, because there are sequences in the movie that are nothing short of classic.  The finale in particular, with a helicopter crashing into the theater, a tense scene involving trying to winch up to the roof, and a motorcycle sword massacre being the highlights.  The movie that the characters watch is also creepy in its own way, with mentions of the prophet Nostradamus and a nice modern Gothic feel heightening the air of mystery around just what the hell is going on.  So the movie is far from a total washout in that regard.  Unfortunately, I just can't call it the unrivaled classic that so many other online reviewers have heaped on it.

*** out of ****.  Overly familiar in this day and age of zombie apocalypse stories, but it's horrifying in enough aspects to be able to recommend if you can find it cheaper than I did.  And I paid $12.75 for the most recent DVD edition.