Pass the fish n' chips, it's "From Beyond the Grave"

Here's one style of horror flick in desperate need of a comeback. Anthology horror films used to be a fairly commonplace thing; during the '60s and '70s, the landscape was dotted with these little gems that contained several smaller stories within the framework of a larger one. Many of them came from Amicus Productions, the British studio responsible for this particular movie. And one of them - the 1972 film entitled "Tales From the Crypt" (no relation to the legendary TV series) - is an undisputed (in my own mind, anyway) classic, containing one segment where a widower wishes her undead husband back to life, not knowing that he'll come back to life f**king AS IS. Namely, dilapidated, decaying, and burning like hell from the formaldehyde. Money.

At any rate, "From Beyond the Grave" is definitely one of the better anthology horror movies to come down the pike. It may not be quite up to horror hall of fame status that the likes of "Creepshow" and "Tales From the Darkside" occupy, but it's definitely up there with the second wave ("Trick r Treat" from a couple years also fits this bill). For star power, it's also got three crusty dudes that are well known to fellow miscriants like myself who follow stuffy British horror films. More on that later.

Ladies and gentlemen, crusty dude British horror film luminary #1 - Peter Cushing, a.k.a. Grand Moff Tarkin from "Star Wars." Way back before Hugh Jackman was guest hosting Monday Night Raw and/or being the most Australian Australian guy since Paul Hogan, this guy was laying the smack down on Christopher Lee and roughing up countless hot women in a manner most awesome in several of the awesome Hammer studios Dracula and Frankenstein films. In this film, he's your star player in the movie's "framework" story that holds the rest of the movie together.

Yup, in this movie, Tarkin plays the proprietor of an antique shop. Each mini-story begins with a morally suspect character purchasing, stealing, or swindling something from the shop only to get their theoretical just desserts in the end. In between the segments, a shady character seems to be casing the establishment, which leads us to one jim dandy of an ending sequence. No spoiler alerts needed here - watch it for yourself and be surprised, dammit.

SEGMENT ONE - "The Gatecrasher"
Meet crusty dude British horror film luminary #2 - David Warner, perhaps best known as the gun-wielding assassin/thorn in Leo's side from "Titanic." Back in the day, he was a big time horror movie vet and had a major role in the original (read: good) "Omen" film. In this flick, he's a socialite of sorts who convinces Cushing that an antique mirror in his shop is a reproduction, and thus gets it for a much cheaper price. After taking it home, he performs a makeshift seance to impress his friends...and winds up with a devil/ghost friend who promptly orders him to bring fresh bodies home to feed on. As in, their "BLOOOOODDDDD!" (spelled because this is how the specter says the word) This segment is really creepy and effective, with a decent payoff and a great performance, as usual, from Warner. It may even be up to par with his effort in "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze."

SEGMENT TWO - "An Act of Kindness"
Ahhhh, here we go. Definitely the strongest chapter of this particular go-round. I REALLY felt for the main character in this one - a civil service manager named Christopher (Ian Bannen) who is weighed down by his shrew of a wife and his son, neither of whom respect him. While carousing the street, he meets fellow soldier Jim Underwood (played by crusty dude British horror film luminary #3 Donald Pleasence, who would later go on to star as the single greatest Van Helsing character since Van Helsing himself Peter Cushing in the "Halloween" series), and in an effort to impress his new friend steals a service medal from Cushing's shop. Underwood takes Christopher home to meet his daughter Emily (Angela Pleasence, amazingly enough Donald's real life-daughter and also a luminary of horror films, although not quite up to snuff with her father and Warner). Pretty much every male who watches this segment, despite Christopher's theft of the medal, has a strong reaction to this aspect of the segment, as in stark contrast to Christopher's conniving, critical wife, Emily dotes on him hand and foot and we find ourselves strangely rooting for Christopher. The ending of this story is an absolute masterpiece on so many levels - it's emotionally heartbreaking, genuinely scary, ironic, and marvelously laid out.

SEGMENT THREE - "The Elemental"
From here, the movie drops by a peg, although not by much. Reggie Warren (Ian Carmichael) goes into the shop and switches price tags on an expensive snuff box. While on the train ride home, a strange psychic woman (Margaret Leighton) informs Reggie that he has an "elemental" (old-school/new-age term for devil/demon) infecting his shoulder. Thinking nothing of it, he returns home to his wife (Nyree Dawn Porter). Acting ever-so-promptly, the unseen elemental goes to work tormenting the holy hell out of the family dog and choking the holy hell out of Mrs. Warren. This results in the segment's climactic seance/exorcism scene, and a perfectly telegraphed ending swerve. Not as strong as the first two segments, but well-played by Carmichael and Porter, and features some good (for the time) visual effects.

SEGMENT FOUR - "The Door"
A solid if unspectacular ending to the preceding segments. A writer (Ian Ogilvy - man, what is it with the British and the name Ian? There's THREE freakin' Ians in this movie!!) manages to purchase an ornate door at the Cursed Antique shop (TM). During this scene, Cushing leaves the till open, and after the purchase, he begins counting his money. Of course, any student of horror movies knows that said door must also be a gateway to hell, and you wouldn't be far off. After taking the door home to his wife (Lesley-Anne Down), he finds a strange world that exists beyond the door as well as the writings of an evil occultist who designed the door as a means to capture souls and live forever. During the course of the film, the strange hypnotic power of the door seems to spread, resulting in a final sequence in which the occultist holds the wife hostage in the otherworld. This one is notable for a neat ending twist in relation to the means by which Ogilvy purchased the door. Well-acted, but not especially scary.

As is the case with a lot of Amicus productions, there's a lot to admire in this flick. '70s horror is a completely different animal from pretty much every decade that came before or after it. The tone is VERY dark, and rare is the occasion in many '70s horror films (especially the religious-themed ones and British films) when a single hero character makes it out of the occurrences alive. In that respect, these stories all take on the E.C. Horror Comics morality tale approach to horror. Be a good person or else bad things will happen to you. A tried and true formula, and when used well (as it is here), it generally works. Director Kevin Connor does an excellent job with the atmosphere of the film, working in the trademark darkness and color contrast that defined '70s horror and getting the most out of his cheeseburger and fries budget (that makes fast food budget reference #3 in the last three weeks, so hooray for me).

Of course, this movie is worth seeing just for the names alone. Pleasence, Warner and Cushing are all legends in the storied history of the British horror film, with Pleasence being right up there on the Mount Rushmore of horror hero characters for his portrayal of Dr. Loomis in "Halloween." All are in top form here, and really, that's all the persuasion you need to give this movie a look-see. Definitely not perfect (as AFOREMENTIONED, the third segment isn't terribly interesting and is quite predictable while the fourth drags a bit), but the good definitely outweighs the bad. And the second segment with the father-and-daughter Pleasence duo and that ungodly wedding sequence? Legendary.

*** 1/2 out of ****. Highly recommended if you're a horror fan and/or have a short attention span and want shorter stories to keep track of, mildly recommended for the general public.

"Eyes of a Stranger" - a serial killer/sex pervert slasher film that WORKS, dammit!

You know, when popping this DVD in, I wasn't expecting much. The summary - a guy goes around killing and molesting women - sounded like a good way to kill a couple hours without paying too much attention to what was going on. Imagine my surprise when the flick turned out to be good. Indeed, "Eyes of a Stranger" is one of the true unappreciated gems of the early '80s slasher boom period. It's not purely a slice-n-dice gore flick, and it's not an out-and-out serial killer creepfest, it's some sort of bizarre meld of the two that works really well and somehow comes across as being realistic to boot. At least as realistic as a film about a lascivious dude who calls women on the phone before groping and killing them can be.

This movie is notable for one other thing - it's the only DVD I've seen whose sole selling point is the fact that JENNIFER JASON LEIGH (capitalized because it's mentioned no less than three times in the official back-of-the-box summary) is in it. Yup, the indie movie goddess who appears nude in countless arthouse flicks is in this movie, and according to the ever-accurate Wikipedia, it was her first film role. Who am I to doubt Wikipedia? It's a high-flyer of the highest order. Having seen Ms. Leigh in a grand total of two film roles ("Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "eXistenZ") and familiar with her reputation as a dedicated "method" actor, I've got to say that she does a damn good job with this movie as a very unorthodox slasher heroine. More on that later. But, hell, everybody does. This one's got a very different feel from a lot of the crap that I review, so get ready for scatterbrained theater.

This is yet another movie that wastes little time getting right to the point, but when you're an early '80s kinda-sorta slasher film with the budget of a Filet-o-Fish, I suppose there isn't much time to waste. A mad serial killer is on the loose in Miami, with the AFOREMENTIONED M.O. of calling his attractive female victims before the typical sexual assault/murder coup de grace. We immediately meet prominent local reporter Jane Harris (Lauren Tewes, who is excellent as a very likable non-teen, non-horny heroine). Jane is in charge of her little sister Tracy (ol' blue eyes herself Jennifer Jason), a perfectly normal teenage girl with the one tiny exception of being both deaf and blind.

On a couple occasions throughout the movie, we're given some vague semblance of a clue as to just why Tracy has lost all auditory and optical functions. These flashbacks either aren't fleshed out very well or they're intentionally left mysterious; something about Jane driving Tracy to school during their school days, leading to the little girl version of Tracy being abducted and thus traumatized into her condition. It plays out a lot better on film than the convoluted way I put it, believe me.

Anyway, the cute blonde above is your star victim of the movie - our first money sequence and our introduction to the psycho-killer. In a long, drawn-out and quite tense sequence, she is called, stalked, and terrified into calling her boyfriend over to her apartment. Eventually, we meet the killer, wearing a mask that looks eerily similar to Terry Funk's Chainsaw Charlie getup and brandishing a massive knife. After decapitating the boyfriend (spoiler alert), he really has some fun with the blonde, ripping off her blouse and fondling her massive breasts in an absolute masterpiece of a scene. Cinematic genius, even. All kidding aside, it's an admittedly hokey but far more realistic in tone approach to the slasher films that peppered the landscape at the time, and a pretty damn good way to kick off the horror aspect of this flick.

The majority of the screen time in this flick is given to Tewes' Jane character, which works out very well. Being familiar with her only for "The Love Boat," it's quite interesting to see that long-running series' Cruise Director in a very different type of role, and she seems up to the task. She is infinitely likable as a reporter who desperately wants the serial killer brought to justice, and is even given some solid emotional depth in the form of her guilt for Tracy's condition.

Roughly halfway through the film, a few coincidences occur in the parking ramp of Jane's apartment building where she becomes convinced that someone who lives in her adjoining building is the killer. This being a serial killer film, her instincts are of course correct. There's some fascinating stuff where Jane attempts to convince her oblivious boyfriend of the guilt of the creepy staring guy across the street that serves to pad out the length of the film masterfully, along with another murder scene where our lust killer indulges in some more fantasy. Of course, this is a big positive, because the special effects work on this film is done by this man.

Yup, I had no clue what to expect from this movie that I'd never heard of in my life before popping it in, but upon seeing "Makeup effects by Tom Savini" in the opening credits immediately knew I was in for a treat. For the uninitiated, Tom Savini is THE guy when it comes to horror movie makeup/gore work. If you're like me and you prefer a halfway decent practical effect to hokey CGI, Savini is God. His stuff looks like it actually might be real, as opposed to just looking like computer graphics, and his effects work on films such as "Dawn of the Dead" (O.G. 1978 version), "Friday the 13th" and "The Burning" is legendary. There aren't as many big set pieces here, but the murders in this flick are all memorable. That opening bit featuring the blonde with big tits? Lovingly recreated decapitation complete with a shot of the head in a fish tank. Greatness.

As Jane enters the Nancy Drew investigative reporter mode, the killer becomes wise and begins targeting the comely anchorwoman - as well as her comely blind-and-deaf sister. I should also point out that he deduces this mystery after Jane CALLS him at home to tell him that she "knows what he's up to," and not soon afterward said killer hears Jane on the news and easily figures out that the person who just called is the angelic-voiced woman on TV. D'oh!

Of course, I should also mention that John DiSanti, the man charged with playing the serial killer, does an absolutely fantastic job. I haven't seen this guy in any other films, but he's pitch perfect as a serial killer. For students of multiple murder lore, it's common knowledge that they're not the spectral boogeymen that they're portrayed to be in Hollywood films; they're often sniveling, cowardly men, and DiSanti fits this role to a tee. This guy is slimy, sleazy, and just downright evil, and the ending of this movie works perfectly due to our genuine dislike for him.

The final act of the film is the perfectly telegraphed but still thrilling battle of wits between DiSanti (who goes by the name Stanley Herbert in the movie - is there a more perfect name for a sadistic lust murderer?) and Leigh, who finds herself alone in the apartment with the psycho. And yeah, we get nipple shots from the barely legal Leigh in the process. Both actors do a fantastic job in this sequence; DiSanti looks like he utterly enjoys tormenting and assaulting the helpless impaired girl, while Leigh somehow manages to be convincing in managing to fight back against her attacker.

It's also very nice to see an '80s slasher film that doesn't have an open ending. Oh yeah, another spoiler alert.

After watching the film and doing a little bit of research into it, I was a little surprised to find out that this film comes from the same production company that helmed the early "Friday the 13th" films. One of the writers, Ron Kurz, would later write "Friday the 13th Part II" and effectively be the first man to write Jason Voorhees, psychotic killer as the main villain of a horror film. "Eyes of a Stranger" has a very different feel from the F13 series; for starters, director Ken Wiederhorn gives this movie a more polished appearance, no doubt the result of the 18 gazillion dollars that the original "Friday" flick had pulled in the prior year ("Eyes of a Stranger" was released in 1981, while F13 graced us with its presence in 1980).

Apart from the surface differences, though, the tone is different. As opposed to "the Pepsi generation gets mutilated" (Sean Cunningham's words to describe "Friday"), this is a much more adult-friendly flick, a mid-30s heroine and some solid melodrama written in to the usual lean horror movie plot to go along with the teenage-focused horror movie staples of gratuitous nudity and elaborate death scenes. As a result, it may not be quite the horror movie lynchpin that "Friday the 13th" is, but it's almost as good, and certainly worthy of much more than the "in and out of theaters in two weeks" treatment it received back in 1981.

*** 1/2 out of ****, highly recommended for slasher movie fans like myself and midly recommended for film fans at large.

Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend" - a tender saga of robots and vengeful basketballs

When thinking about some of the biggest colossal flubs in movie history, Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend" has to be near the top of the list. It gets trashed in pretty much every circle of the horror community, but I'm not sure that it's entirely deserving of the criticism. Having said that, yes, the concept is pretty out there. It was doomed at the box office the second that Craven decided to make a movie about a college-age robotics genius who resurrects his dead girlfriend utilizing a high-tech computer chip. Yes, folks, that's what this movie is about. This thing could have been the second coming of Carpenter's "Halloween" when it came to scripting and execution and failed with that premise.

Even better, this film is based on a NOVEL. Now, I haven't read said tome (and I'm far too lazy to look it up on Wikipedia), but it amazes me that Wes Craven chose this source material at this particular point in his career. He'd had successes in the past before this flick's 1986 release year; 1974's "Last House on the Left" was an exploitation film that somehow, some way became a mainstream smash, while 1980's "Swamp Thing" was a minor hit at the box office. Of course, in 1984, a little movie called "Nightmare on Elm Street" came out featuring a certain scarred dream stalker that effectively made Craven rich enough to buy his own solid gold island. So, two years later, with one sequel in the can and another soon to be made in the creation that would make him a veritable horror God...Craven gives us girl next door robo killer. The hell?

Having said all that, this is another flick that holds a great deal of nostalgic value for yours truly. It's one of the many, many films that was introduced to me via the Most Awesome Video Store Ever, so bonus points for that. Hell, it may have been the first movie that I remember renting on some long ago Saturday night. Back then, the flick scared the crap out of me, and after watching it for the first time in over twenty years, there's still some disturbing elements. The concept of corpse reanimation is always something that has frightened me, so regardless of how botched a movie with this theme is (and this is most certainly horrifically botched), it's not something I'll forget anytime soon.

Our star character is Paul Conway, the second kid from the left in the above picture (handy, huh?). He's played by Matthew Laborteaux, and considering some of the material that he has to work with, does a more than commendable job. Paul and his mother (Anne Twomey) have just moved to a new city due to Paul's burgeoning life aspirations. Namely, this kid is a friggin' science genius. See that robot in the above picture? That's his creation.

The robot, named BB (voiced by Charles "Roger Rabbit" Fleischer), is quite the impressive little number. Usually, in horror movies we're given a budget of a #5 McDonald's value meal, but this movie makes the most of its limited means, and BB is a pretty movable, talkable, learnable little tyke. And yes, I'm well aware that I invented two words in that previous sentence, so don't point it out. Paul's specialty is artificial intelligence, meaning that not only can BB assist in combat with the neighborhood toughs and help out with the household chores, he can learn.

Moving swimmingly along, Paul quickly makes two friends in his new neighborhood. Movie best friend "Tom" literally falls into the movie (seriously, the guy tips over on his bike into frame, and that's how Paul meets him - brilliant scripting, I tell ya). Meanwhile, his new neighbor is Samantha Pringle (Kristy Swanson, later known for her role as Buffy the Vampire Slayer), blonde hottie with an abusive father (Richard Marcus - and man what a phlegmy scream this guy has). The early portions of the movie give us the saccharine romance between Paul and Samantha, as well as the tug of war that goes on between the poor girl and her dickhead dad. There's also some nice "kids being kids" moments, such as the Halloween prank gone awry when our trio of oh-so-likable teens try to invade the house of the neighborhood witch (played by Anne Ramsey, and man, she is awesome in every "old c***" role she's had). The result? BB in a heap after being blown to bits by a shotgun.

Soon enough, tragedy strikes. After exchanging their first kiss, Samantha goes home to douchebag father, who promptly slaps her so hard that she falls down the stairs and breaks her neck...and then summarily gets off scott free with the authorities. Paul's answer? Recruit Tom as help, then go and steal Samantha's comatose body and bring her back home, at which point he inserts BB's old circuitry into her higher brain functions and reanimates her.
That picture above is Samantha/Kristy Swanson in her "robotic form," complete with oh-so-creepy vacant stare. To make it even more classic, she's also required to walk around for the remainder of the film in a very stilted, automatic motion, all the while grabbing things with a hand motion that is meant to look like BB's "claw grip" hand, but looks more like she's attempting to impersonate the "live long and prosper" Star Trek slogan. If you want some unintentional comedic gold, this movie's got a boatload of it.

The movie is fairly predictable from here on. In a way, this film is very similar to the Universal classic "Bride of Frankenstein," in which a genius inventor revives a dead woman, and discovers far too late that it's not right to tamper in God's domain, or something. Initially, Samantha appears to remember nothing of her previous life, but her old personality begins to shine through more and more when she sees her father skulking around with a big smarmy smile on his face. That's actually one aspect of this movie that works really well; you REALLY want this tool to get what he deserves, and when it happens, it's a stand up and cheer moment. It's also got a gory-as-f**k additional murder that comes completely out of left field and really works well.

Eventually, Samantha/BB becomes a raging kill-crazy hellbitch, leading to the thrilling conclusion. And by thrilling I mean not thrilling in the least. For some more unintentional comedy, we get an amazing scene where Kristy Swanson dives through a window (arms outstretched like Superman, no less) and tackles hapless Tom, before our oh-so-tender-and-tragic initial ending sequence. If you've seen a horror movie from the '80s, you know that one ending is never enough, so this immediately leads us to the SECOND ending, which is just rock stupid, makes no sense, and effectively euthanizes the movie in the most efficient manner imaginable.

Kristy doing her best Spock impersonation. It's so much more glorious in full motion, believe me.

To be sure, "Deadly Friend" is quite the train wreck. It effectively falls apart in the second half with one nonsensical thing after another happening peppered in between a couple very memorable kill scenes. How memorable? Type "Deadly Friend basketball" into Youtube and get ready to be wowed. The character of Paul goes from barely likable in the beginning of the movie to barely a character in the second half, trying to cover up all of his robotic girlfriend's crimes against the oblivious cops who can't seem to figure out that, holy hell, the guy that just ate the business end of a hot furnace just recently had his daughter's body disappear from the hospital, which might just have something to do with this horrific crime. This is one of those movies that requires some MAJOR suspension of disbelief. Right up there with "The Dark Knight," even.

Looking in between all of that, there are actually some things to commend in this movie. Swanson, for all the crap that she is asked to do, actually puts in a worthwhile performance, as does Richard Marcus as her interminable father and Ramsey as the old bat neighbor. The basketball sequence is nothing short of amazing (for bad reasons as well as good - if you watch this movie in a crowd setting, that scene is sure to be a howling laugh fest). It's slick, it has good production values, and it manages to not get TOO cheesy considering the source material and story that was used. For that, Craven has to be commended for getting the slightest amount of emotion and resonance out of this film.

** out of ****, with an extra 1/2* being tacked on for nostalgia purposes.

Horror Nerd REVIEW BONUS!! Ladies and gentlemen, "Phantasm"!!!

Well, here we go - the movie that I've waited damn near twenty years to see.

I can vividly remember the first time that I saw the box art for "Phantasm." The year was 1992. At that time, there were no fewer than four video huts in Horror Nerd Land (codename for the small town that Jon Lickness calls home). One of them was located inside a shopping mall, and...it...was...awesome. Whereas most video stores (then and now) feature actual VHS tapes/DVD's lining the shelves, this place had an insanely deep library of material that made this long practice impossible. No sir - you had to take a small 3 x 5 tag adorned with a miniature copy of the video cover up to the counter, and said counter monkey got your movie for you, no doubt traversing to some mystical gigantic VHS storehouse located deep within the bowels of said shopping mall in the process. At least that was the scene that played out in my childhood self's mind.

Well, in this video store, the nine-year-old and infinitely more agreeable Horror Nerd wandered the aisles, perusing the action section (which included two full rows of NINJA MOVIES - the awesomeness), getting bored, and eventually winding up at the endlessly terrifying but no doubt fascinating area of the store that had just recently captured his imagination. The old-school horror aisle. Even better, the early '90s was a magical time to be at this age and to be into scary flicks. The "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" flicks were still fresh on everyone's mind, and the Chucky films were getting regular airplay on TV. Sandwiched in between all those luminaries was a big, menacing guy standing in front of a giant ball [/sexual connotation], surrounded by holy hell creepy imagery and other assorted stuff designed to make children sprint home and curl up into the fetal position.

A long time passed. After the Most Awesome Video Store Ever closed its doors, none of the other fine video rental establishments in Everytown, Minnesota carried the damn thing. I kept waiting for the film to show up on TNT MonsterVision during my embarrassing (don't ask - it's painful) formative years. No luck. As the years went by and the semi-legendary treasure trove of horror goodies ballooned to Brobdingnagian proportions, for some reason or another, other things kept occupying my time and money. First slasher flicks. Then J-horror. Then Dario Argento. Then Hammer films. Then more J-horror.

Well, the seven stars have aligned and the crystal chalice has been placed at the altar of worship. Or something. So - ARE YOU READY FOR "PHANTASM"??!? This guy is. So - the million dollar question. Does it live up to the hype?

The short answer is yes, and then some. I'd heard quite a bit about "Phantasm" before watching it. It's one of the de facto bastions of geek culture, with the term 'cult classic' being slung its way in pretty much every arena that I've ever seen it discussed. It lives up to that billing. Is it a great high art film? No. Is it a really fun flick? Absolutely. There's nothing quite like "Phantasm" in the approximately 95,000 other horror films that have come my way over the years.

First of all, the protagonists. This is a movie that wastes little time getting its story (and I use that word in the absolute loosest definition) going. Our main character is Michael (A. Michael Baldwin) - plucky early teenager who has just had one of his close friends die under mysterious circumstances (namely while in mid-coitus, at which point the girl that he's banging turns into the creepy-looking guy seen in the above photo for a split second before he immediately turns up dead - did I say that this is some movie?). There's a decent emotional factor to the character of Mike, as both of the poor kid's parents have also died, leaving him under the care of his older brother Jody (Bill Thornbury).

And Jody - oh, Jody. Jody is a cool dude. Like, really cool dude. Really 1979 cool dude as seen through the eyes of Don Coscarelli, the guy who wrote and directed this movie. He plays guitar, he plays bitchin' songs, he wears cool threads, he curses like a sailor, and he likes to pick up girls at bars and bring them out to the creepy graveyard for middle of the night boinking sessions. All true, and all presented to us to see in glorious hi-res action.

Anyway, 24-year-old Jody forbids his younger brother to attend the funeral of Inconsequential Friend...but since he's a rambunctious movie kid, he disobeys the rules laid down by his groovy sibling and watches the proceedings through binoculars. Among the things he sees? The Tall Man (AFOREMENTIONED creepy guy in picture/main villain of the film) horking up the casket by himself and lugging it into a hearse.

As we enter the "analysis" portion of this review, first things first - if you like your horror movies to make sense, you'll be disappointed with this movie. "Phantasm" doesn't make a lick of sense, at least in the context of what I've seen. Supposedly, the three sequels make the proceedings in this introductory chapter more clear, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. At times, this movie reminded me a lot of Dario Argento's classic "Suspiria" - it's less about its story then it is about its atmosphere, but while that film was all about oppression, this movie is about darkness.

That's not to say that the movie has no plot. The middle and ending portions of this film focus on the dynamic between Jody and Michael as strange hallucinations involving the Tall Man and strange, mystical flying orbs begin haunting his every waking moment. Both actors do a great job with their respective parts, especially Baldwin as Michael. Having seen other horror movies with younger teens/children as a primary protagonist, I fully expected this kid to be wholly grating. To my surprise, he wasn't - in fact, he's pretty damn likable, and as he goes through the pains of getting his sensible brother to believe him when he says that the Tall Man is some sort of mystical helldemon with holy killing prowess, the audience is very much in his corner. Five gold stars for A. Michael Baldwin - you now rank just behind C. Thomas Howell in my "favorite actor with a letter for a first name" rolodex.

What's also quite unique about this movie is its mishmash of various film styles. There's horror, obviously, with its menacing villain and fine assortment of gore scenes. There's adventure, as the brothers make an endless series of trips to and from the Tall Man's lair, attempting to make out (and say the line, no less) what the hell is going on, all the while getting attacked by the acting-of-their-own-accord stabbing spheres and dealing with a veritable army of dwarven hooded henchmen. There's sci-fi...for pretty much all of the reasons described in the previous sentence. There's even some action sprinkled in, as our cool heroes engage in an honest-to-christ car chase sequence complete with shotgun blasts and explosions. Yup.

The final link on the chain of awesomeness (groan...even I know that's bad) is the guy that I've mentioned several times already - the Tall Man himself. He's played by a gentlemen named Angus Scrimm, who lends an ungodly, unnerving presence to the character somehow connected to the random deaths and supernatural hooligans going on in Phantasm. He's a little reminiscent of the way Freddy Krueger is portrayed in the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" film - he's a man of few words, but when he chooses to speak, he makes it count. Trust me, this dude will turn up in your thoughts at some inopportune times. Definitely right up there with Jason, Freddy, Kayako and some of the other great villainous horror movie icons.

*takes long breath, then exhales*

So here we are, right back where we began. Nineteen years from the date that I first saw and effectively heard of a little movie called "Phantasm" released back in 1979, and now it's a permanent part of my memory. It was well worth the wait. While Jody and Michael each say the phrase "What the hell is going on here?" approximately 17,689 times throughout the flick's running time, it's completely justified. First time viewers WILL spend their time watching this movie completely dumbfounded as to just what the hell is going on here. Even better, the ending doesn't do much to make things clearer. No matter. There's cool-ass good guys, badass bad guys, blood, guts, s**ts and giggles, and everything you could ever want rolled up in between.

**** out of ****, and my highest recommendation for horror fans everywhere.

Horror Nerd Cinema Bonus: "Fright Night"

Ever walk out of a theater completely and utterly at a loss of what to think about it? That's the feeling I'm getting with this particular movie. Right now, I'm just in that very bizarre place. You know the one. It's usually reserved for Takashi Miike flicks or pretty much every other Friday night having not slept in over 20 hours. If you're expecting coherent thoughts with this review, don't expect it - I've been running on empty for well over an hour now and might not even make it to the finish line.

"Fright Night" isn't a terrible movie. Not by a long shot. In fact, there's quite a bit to admire in the flick. The performances are absolutely spot-on, especially Colin Farrell's modern-day vampire Jerry Dandridge. After seeing this guy in two excellent roles this summer (the other being a similar dislikable prick - although maybe not QUITE as malevolent as he is here - in "Horrible Bosses"), it's safe to say that he's found a pretty nice career revitalization. With a more "serial" version of the character, Farrell is able to make quite an impression and even be intermittently scary as the classic "vampire out of water in suburbia" character, so huzzah for him.

If you've seen the 1985 original, you're more than familiar with the rest of the plot, but here goes for anyone who isn't hip to the scene (and add that phrase to the list of things that anyone reading this is permitted to shoot me for EVER typing again). Nice guy Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin, a decent enough actor but one that I hold some immature level of hate for as a couple people have actually told me that I look like the guy) and his insanely MILF-ish mom (Toni Collette, best known for "The Sixth Sense" but most appreciated by this reporter for her unbelievable nude scenes in many other fine motion pictures) live seemingly normal lives in a suburban neighborhood where every house looks the same and the streets are perfectly symmetrical. Things especially look up for Charley, as he has managed to leave his dorkish friend Evil Ed (McLovin' himself Christopher Mintz-Plasse) behind and attain an insanely hot girlfriend (Imogen Poots).

This is definitely a movie that wastes little time to get going. Within ten minutes of the opening credits, a mysterious string of disappearances in Charley's high school presents itself. Ed has ascertained that Charley's creepy new neighbor who is conspicuously never seen in the daylight hours is an honest-to-christ vampire, and convinces his former friend to snoop around one of their missing classmates' homes for clues. Not soon after, Ed is chased down by Jerry and quickly turned into a vampire, at which point he summarily disappears for the next 75 minutes of the film.

You know, there was a time in my life when I scoured the internet for all the latest news, buzz, clips and other spoilers for upcoming movie projects. It's not a practice that I partake in anymore, as it effectively killed the enjoyment of a lot of theater experiences. Thus, I had no clue what to expect from the Peter Vincent character in this update, and...it's alright. Don't get me wrong - David Tennant does just fine with the role, and making the character a vampire-obsessed magician seems like a clever idea on paper. For whatever reason, the character just doesn't pop like it's supposed to.

Which is really the problem that I have with the entire movie. It's competent. It's skillful. It's occasionally tense and well-performed. The final act is even one of the most surprisingly well-done finales I've seen in any horror flick in a long time. What it lacks, though, is the "it" factor that the truly immortal movies have (with the POSSIBLE exception of Farrell), that certain extra something that make audiences want to see a film in theaters more than once and buy a DVD. You know...like the 1985 original.

Admittedly, I can't claim to be any sort of expert on the old-school "Fright Night" film. It's been a long time since my last viewing; six years would be my best guess. But everything about that film has stuck with me to this day ever since my first experience with it on TNT MonsterVision. The completely goofy, off-the-wall version of Evil Ed. The geekier version of Charley Brewster, wonderfully played by William Ragsdale, infinitely more relatable and likable than Yelchin comes across in this film. And, of course, Roddy McDowell as the horror movie luminary version of Peter Vincent, deliverer of this classic line in the era when slasher flicks ruled the world: "Apparently your generation doesn't want to see vampire killers anymore, nor vampires either. All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins." This new iteration of an '80s classic doesn't feature that line, although it does recreate a couple others in nice nods to any fans of the 1985 film. The thing is, however, that the lines feel forced and out-of-place in this film, whereas they felt perfectly natural in the original.

In the summer of 1985, "Fright Night" became a surprisingly big hit, grossing more than any horror film that year with the exception of "Nightmare on Elm Street 2" (and being EASILY the superior of the two films in that regard) based on the strength of its goofy charm and its likable leads. And that brings me back to the missing "it" factor - "Fright Night 2011" features neither of those; there are attempts at humor, but they don't pop out of the screen, eliciting little more than a few pleasant chuckles from the theater audience that attended my screening, and the Yelchin-Poots pairing is nowhere near as likable or engaging as Ragsdale and Amanda Bearse were in the original.

Oh, and there's also a car chase scene where Collette tries to make a call to the police, but can't because of the "damn desert" and poor cell reception. God, I hate that plot device. Remember back in the good ol' days when screenwriters didn't have to explain how the cell phone that could be used to erase the problem couldn't be used? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Overall, I actually recommend checking this movie out in theaters. The effort that Farrell and Tenant put into their key parts are definitely worth seeing on the big screen, as well as the only occasionally cheesy but otherwise fine effects work and stylistic action sequences. If you're like me, though, and like some emotional investment along with your flash, don't expect to remember much about this remake two days later. ** 1/2 out of ****.

Scary movies. Like, really. Scary.

We live in an age where just about anything can become an internet fad. If you would have asked me ten years ago that freakin’ Rick Astley would be a pop culture phenomenon again, I would have laughed in your face. I don’t know if any of you have ever heard of the term “creepypasta” before, but suffice to say, it’s one of the best damn things to come out of internet culture. Even better, it’s most definitely not a fad, and has been around for as long as the internet has existed.

For the uninitiated, the word refers to retelling of a traditional paranormal scary story updated to modern times. As an added bonus (redundancy alert), they often take place within the realms of things that we’re VERY familiar with, and bring a lot of popular bastions of pop culture into their canon. As an example, one of the freakiest things I’ve ever read on one of the many creepypasta archive sites out there is a story called “Squidward’s Suicide” about an intern on "SpongeBob Squarepants" who is handed…quite the interesting tape to review. And I’ll just leave it there. If you’re curious as to how it turns out, google it and get ready for the nightmares.

The true purpose of any horror story is to scare an audience, and that’s most assuredly what a good portion of these stories do. Apparently, I’m not alone. Several of the message boards that I frequent have posted appreciation threads for this particular form of horror story, and while there are always a few Debbie Downers piping in with “omg these thingz are so gayz!!” comments, almost all of the conversation is of the very rare positive variety, an incredibly rare thing on the good ol’ interwebz in this day and age. Going by the strength in numbers principle, I’ve come to the sad realization that these internet stories written by amateur writers are scarier than a lot of modern horror films.

‘Cus nothing screams terror like this guy. Having said that, his voice can make grown men weep.

Way back when I reviewed a Japanese film called "Marebito" (and if you ever want to be scared out of your wits and simultaneously mindf**ked to oblivion, look no further than this flick), I wrote that people watch horror films for different reasons. Mine has always been the same – the enjoyment of being scared, because being scared makes you feel alive. At the time of that writing, it didn’t happen often. At least when it came to the domestic United States releases that everyone is familiar with. Now, in August of 2011, that feeling is damn near nonexistent.

The reasons for this are numerous. For starters, the horror film – and pop culture in general – have turned almost completely over to the Vince Russo booking philosophy of storytelling. Car crash rules the day, with “all payoff, no build” being the primary result of this mindset. Most often, this rears its ugly head in the much-maligned “sound scare stinger” method of attempting to get a rise out of an audience.

Take a firecracker. Light it. Sneak up behind someone and hold it over their ear. Watch said person jump. Now, was this person scared? In a way, yes. They were startled by the sudden loud noise. Their pulse quickened and their breathing picked up. In a minute, will the person even care that this occurred? Probably not. So it is with many modern “scary” flicks at the multiplex, which are short on likable characters and disturbing ideas, but very long on that sudden “GONG” musical stinger accompanied by something rushing in front of the screen ever so briefly.

Extrapolating the car crash theory even further, sometimes films go with the other sensory extreme – the visual equivalent of the sound scare, often manifested in copious amounts of gore with little rhyme or reason attached to it. This reporter witnessed the fifth chapter in the "Final Destination" series last weekend, with a lasek machine run amok, a sickening gymnastic stunt gone awry and a cringe-inducing acupuncture-related stunt being among the flick’s more impressive visual set pieces in the fifth-go-round for the “grim reaper coming to get you” film franchise. Was it a fun movie? Yes. Loads of it, in fact. But was it scary? No. Not in the least.

Ladies and gentlemen, the most sound scare-ific horror movie of all time – the Platinum Dunes-ified version of "Friday the 13th." Sitting in the theater, I counted no less than 17 of them.

Secondly – and this is partially due to the homogenization of film as a whole - many modern horror films just don’t spend a whole lot of time on mood and atmosphere, two things that cannot be emphasized enough when it comes to how effective a horror film is in regards to how much it gets under the viewer’s skin. I’m often asked what the scariest movie I’ve ever seen is. Invariably, it’s always "Suspiria," Dario Argento’s 1977 masterpiece about a young American ballet dancer at a prestigious German dance academy, and finding out that said academy is really a gateway to hell. Plot and script-wise, the flick is definitely no labyrinthine maze, but director Argento gives the school such a dark, foreboding air (coupled with a soul-destroying score by Italian rock band Goblin) that watching the film is a tense, gut-wrenching experience. In a good way, I promise.

Thirdly, I’m sure you’ve all heard my endless diatribes about the remake trend by this point, but here we go again – these are remakes. They’re remakes of something we’ve seen before, and seen done WELL, more often than not. Thus, we’re familiar with it, and we’re not surprised. Even when said remakes are done with plenty of reverence for the source material and shot and scripted skillfully, it’s difficult to have any sense of dread, because we know what’s coming. A good example of this is the TV movie version of Stephen King’s "Carrie" (and the upcoming RE-remake, which may possibly star Megan f**king Fox). We know what happens at the prom. We don’t care.

Sometimes, familiarity isn’t enough, either. Sometimes, the victim characters are also so g***amn annoying that it’s impossible to be scared. But that’s another rant for another week [/foreshadowing]

Take some lessons from creepypasta, supposed horror auteurs in la-la-land. Beauty in simplicity. Less is more. The things that scare us the most are often the simplest ideas given just the slightest touches of complication. Being shown a graphic suicide. The end of the world. Getting a new job and finding out that one of your co-workers is a psychopath (and not in the fun way). The teachers at your college/academy are really witches (and that would be the amazingly simple hook of "Suspiria," which if you’ll recall is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen). All base ideas, but all base ideas that have been fleshed out to perfection. Rather than being immediately forgotten after being blasted in a theater’s Dolby Digital 600 channel sound, these simple ideas crop up in your mind at all the worst moments. And make you feel alive.

Horror Nerd Cinema Bonus: "Final Destination 5"

No matter how many "Final Destination" films they eventually make, the series will always hold some level of nostalgia for me for one reason and one reason only: August 28, 2009. A DAY WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY for horror fans everywhere, as it was not only the release date for "The Final Destination" (Part IV in the series), but also the date that Rob Zombie's Unholy Sequel That Shall Not Be Named was unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace. For no other reason than to stick it to the Z Man, I drove 90 miles to the closest 3D theater showing the former film, and while nothing about that particular movie sticks out with me to this day, I remember it being a damn fun time in theaters but that it likely wouldn't hold up for home viewing.

Well, it's more of the same for "Final Destination 5." Lots of cool, flashy visuals and intricate death trap kill scenes, but a plot and characters that are wafer-thin and - advance forewarning - WILL struggle to hold your interest in the scenes where they're not barely skirting death with seventeen moving parts coming together to insure as gory of a death as possible. Hell, the characters in this bunch were so generic that I didn't even bother to learn their names, referring to them as "Kinda Slutty Girl," "Generic Blonde," "Generic Main Guy," and "Tom Cruise." And thank the heavens for that last guy. Seriously, the dude who portrays the hero's best friend looks, acts, and even TALKS like the couch jumper so much that it's downright uncanny, and every time he's on screen you'll be wildly amused. Hopefully. At least I was.

Anyway, plot wise, if you've seen even one "FD" film, you know how this one goes. Begin with a catastrophic event where group of characters we are introduced to horrifically dies, flash back to reveal that said catastrophe was a vision by main character, main character saves core group of friends' lives, death comes back in a whiplash effect claiming these lucky survivors for "cheating the system" and beating death. This time around, the opening is some pretty kickass awesome stuff - a collapsing bridge, made all the more horrific since I'm from Minnesota where the I-95 bridge in the Twin Cities collapsed a few years back, and I saw some of this very same stuff on the news. Yikes. On the whole, this first act money scene is also a tad less hokey than that racetrack trip of doom from the previous film, which always helps.

The characters for this go-round are all employees of a paper company on a weekend retreat. Their boss, by the way, is played by David Koechner, who is aces in everything he's in, from Saturday Night Live to Out Cold, and is the only cast member that I know by name other than Tony Todd, who does his usual bit as the foreboding Coroner to perfection. Who they are isn't important. As I said before, all the stuff that they do in between the death scenes is barely significant.

In other words, you know the reason that you go to "Final Destination" films - fantastically staged and awesomely gory death scenes. That's what sells the tickets, and it's a formula that's worked well for this series that continues to make loads of cash on relatively modest budgets. And this batch doesn't disappoint; not in the slightest. Three of the deaths are downright cringe-inducing, and and succeed in doing what the true purpose of any horror movie is. Namely, make the audience wince in advance. The gymnast scene is masterfully drug out, with a couple false finishes thrown in before the big finale, while the laser eye surgery bit is the first thing from a horror film I've seen in a LONG time to make me literally close my eyes and turn away.

These things, fellow horror fans, are what this movie is really all about. Since the movie works on its intended level, I'm giving it a positive review, although if you're looking for anything more than that, don't expect it. This flick is loads of fun in a theater, and that's really where you must see it, just like any film in this franchise. The home experience just doesn't do it justice.

*** out of ****.