S.A.B. Reviews

Osmosis Jones (2001)

It grows on you like a fungus...in a good way.

[8/10 · 24 October 2002]

I was appalled and disgusted at the blunt humor this movie offered when I first saw it in the theater, only because of its shock value. I mean they don't leave any of the bodily humor to your imagination. However, when I bought the movie for my sister-in-law for Christmas as a joke, I actually enjoyed it thoroughly when we sat and watched it again. There is so much underlying humor in this movie for adults, you cant miss the genius in it. Well Bodily Humor genius that is.

If you can get through the zit popping, puking and other disgusting characteristics of Bill Murray's character and pay attention to David Hyde Pierce and Chris Rock's back and forth then you are bound to leave the movie having had several good belly laughs.

While this subtly shockingly, gruesome humor is new to me, I must agree with Bill Murray's character at the end of the movie...

"Out with the old, and in with the new"

Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990–2000)

Great for ALL ages!!

[17 March 2002]

I watched this show from day 1. Saturday nights fourth show on that nickelodean line up. I was 14. I still love this show and recommend it to anyone of any age. It is a funny, creative and sometimes creepy. While it may scare the younger meager crowds it is entertaining and decent, what every tv show should be, especially the ones aimed at kids. It left me wanting to be apart of "the Midnight Society" and everyone else I knew too. So....turn off the lights and enjoy.

American Nightmare (1983)

A Canadian Giallo?

[5/10 · 6 August 2000]

While the 1981 slasher film AMERICAN NIGHTMARE is not a classic by any means, it stands out from most of its contemporaries. This is because it seems to be much more influenced by the Italian "giallo" films (mystery-thrillers featuring flashy gore sequences) than by the teen-oriented slasher films which were produced in great numbers in Canada and the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s. If you're simply looking for dumb teens getting killed off by masked madmen, you should stay away from AMERICAN NIGHTMARE. The film's plot concerns musician Eric Blake (Lawrence Day), who is trying to find his runaway sister who has disappeared into the sleazy world of stripping and prostitution in Toronto. At the same time a slasher is on the loose, targeting those involved in Toronto's sex industry in a twisted scheme to rid the world of "moral degenerates."

This film was obviously made on a very low budget, and that limits its ability to look like a giallo. It is poorly filmed and dimly lit in most scenes. While the gore scenes are competently done, they lack the visual style that is the hallmark of the giallo. Simply stated, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE lacks the vivid colors and visual flair that are typically found in the best giallo films by directors such as Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci.

At the same time, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE is not worthless either. The film has a serious, grim tone, which I think is appropriate given the unpleasantness of the material. The acting is competently done. The low budget and on-location filming in Toronto also gives the film a gritty, realistic feel. Also, despite the fact that this film is extremely obscure, there are some notable cast members. Veteran character actor Michael Ironside, seen most recently in THE PERFECT STORM, portrays a detective investigating the murders in one of his earlier film roles. And oddly enough, this is the feature film debut of Alexandra Paul, who at barely age 18 appears nude in the film, in what surely is not one of her prouder moments.

This film is worth a look for fans of slasher films, but it must be noted that it is very hard to find. I believe the film is best viewed as a mild companion piece to Fulci's superior THE NEW YORK RIPPER.

** out of ****

He Knows You're Alone (1980)

Barely Adequate HALLOWEEN Clone

[5/10 · 29 July 2000]

Anyone who doubts how influential John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN was to the countless slasher films that followed soon thereafter should take a look at 1980's HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE. Perhaps more than any other slasher film, HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE tries to be a carbon copy of the 1978 slasher classic. The plot of HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE revolves around a psychopath who is murdering young brides-to-be. The killer soon focuses on bride-to-be Amy Jensen (Caitlin O'Heaney), who is conflicted over whether to go through with her marriage or get back together with her old flame Marvin (Don Scardino).

No matter how hard it tries to be, this film is no HALLOWEEN. The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies. Why does the killer target Amy Jensen? Why aren't most of the killer's victims brides-to-be? Those are a few of the many questions that are never answered in the film. Like HALLOWEEN, the film contains little graphic gore, but director Armand Mastroianni is no John Carpenter when it comes to building up suspense. And who can forget the film's score: it is such a carbon copy of Carpenter's from HALLOWEEN that I'm surprised no legal action was taken by Carpenter against the makers of the film.

Nevertheless, HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE is not as bad as many HALLOWEEN clones. The acting is acceptable for this type of film, and the chemistry between O'Heaney and Scardino in the lead roles is quite good. There are also a few good, original scenes, most notably the opening scene set in a movie theater which was blatantly plagiarized in SCREAM 2. The film also "boasts" the feature film debut of Tom Hanks.

Overall, HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE is watchable, but nothing worth going out of your way to see.

** out of ****

Don't Go in the House (1979)

Ineptitude Sinks Good Concept

[2/10 · 23 July 2000]

Some of the most painful films to watch are those which are plainly sincere, but completely inept. The ultra-low-budget horror flick DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE fits this description more than any other film I have ever seen. The film's plot concerns incinerator worker Donald Kohler (Dan Grimaldi), who was brutally burned by his mother as punishment as a child. After his mother unexpectedly dies, Donald begins bringing women back to his home and burning them alive, in a twisted scheme of revenge against his deceased mother.

I believe that this film intended to be a grim shocker, showing how the effects of past child abuse have driven a seemingly normal man over the edge. However, ineptitude in almost every possible department make this film extremely difficult to watch. The acting is generally quite poor, though Grimaldi does have his moments as the psychotic Donald. Director Joseph Ellison fails to build any dramatic tension or suspense, which is a necessity for any film with such unpleasant material as this. And more than anything else, this film suffers from absolutely atrocious editing. While the death of Donald's first victim is shown in excruciating detail, in a truly shocking scene, his other killings are shown completely offscreen. Additionally, a scene showing Donald shopping for disco clothes seems to go on forever, without having any relevance to the plot. About the only thing the film has going for it is a decent score, and a generally creepy atmosphere.

Because of this ineptitude, the film is very difficult to watch. It fails to ring true as a psychological suspenser. The shock and sleaze value is diminished by the fact that only one killing is shown in graphic detail. And most importantly, the fact that the cast and director seem to be taking the film seriously and trying their best makes the film mostly devoid of unintentional humor (unlike the 1981 schlockfest PIECES). As a result, DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE is virtually unwatchable, as it fails to entertain on any level.

* out of ****

The Prowler (1981)

Lackluster Slasher With Good Special Effects

[5/10 · 22 July 2000]

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, so-called "slasher" films were at their height in popularity, and were seemingly being produced by the dozens. Many of these films featured gory killings and little else, and were quickly forgotten. The 1981 film THE PROWLER is a good example of this slasher craze that dominated the horror film genre from roughly 1979 to 1982. The film's plot is simple: a World War II vet who killed his ex-girlfriend and her lover in 1945 has suddenly began killing again 35 years later, dressed in complete military regalia and using instruments such as a pitchfork and a machete.

Like many of its contemporaries, THE PROWLER has little going for it besides gore. The direction by Joseph Zito lacks energy and style, except for the use of authentic World War II newsreel footage at the beginning of the film. The hole-filled plot moves along at a snail's pace, as almost nothing interesting happens between the killings. Veteran actors Farley Granger and Lawrence Tierney, who could have lifted the film above most of its contemporaries in terms of acting, are given precious little to do.

The main saving grace of THE PROWLER is the special effects work by gore maestro Tom Savini. The killings are extremely gruesome and well-done, on par with Savini's superb work in 1980's MANIAC. The version of THE PROWLER I viewed was the the out-of-print U.S. video version, which seems to leave the gore scenes in the film completely intact, unlike some European versions of the film.

All in all, THE PROWLER is watchable but uninspired fare for fans of slasher cinema.

** out of ****

Scream 3 (2000)

You've Seen It All Before

[5/10 · 12 February 2000]

The original SCREAM may have been smart and suspenseful, with neat references to the slasher films of the early 1980s, but it is quite obvious that this latest installment is just another stupid, though mildly entertaining, teeny-kill flick tailor-made for the non-discriminating 16-year-old. The plot of SCREAM 3 concerns Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and the other survivors of the first two films, who end up in Hollywood on the set of STAB 3, a film based on the events of SCREAM 2. Not surprisingly, they are stalked by a mysterious killer.

This is barely a horror film. Much of it plays like an inept black comedy such as TEACHING MRS. TINGLE, complete with annoying cardboard-cutout characters spewing out mindless dialogue. Campbell (in the few scenes she's in) and Patrick Dempsey take their roles seriously, and they turn in good performances. The other cast members play it strictly for laughs and give uninspired performances. As dumb as the film is, it is fairly watchable. The stalk-and-slash sequences are fairly well-directed by old pro Wes Craven, and there are some fun cameo appearances. However, if you've seen SCREAM or the slasher films of the early 1980s that it parodied, there isn't anything here that you haven't seen before.

** out of ****

Summer of Sam (1999)

Sleazy Exploitation Masquerading as Social Commentary

[4/10 · 19 December 1999]

Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .

SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.

Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.

*1/2 out of ****

The Final Terror (1983)

Utterly Forgettable

[4/10 · 19 December 1999]

The 1981 horror film THE FINAL TERROR looks as if it were written and produced immediately following the surprise box office success of 1980's FRIDAY THE 13TH. Much like FRIDAY THE 13TH, THE FINAL TERROR involves a group of particularly annoying young people who are stalked by a mysterious killer deep in the backwoods, where they have set up camp. However, this film has very little of the graphic gore that made FRIDAY THE 13TH so memorable, while at the same time the plot and direction are not any better.

While the acting isn't bad, it is far from inspired and there is very little chemistry between the characters. For example, some of the campers have British accents while others have Southern accents, while the film is supposed to take place in northern California! At the same time, the acting is competent enough to prevent the film from qualification as "horror cheese."

Other than some good atmospheric cinematography, the only reason to see this film is to see all of the future talent involved. Director Andrew Davis would later direct THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, while cast members Daryl Hannah and Rachel Ward would go on to be Hollywood stars. Otherwise, horror fans and non-horror fans alike should skip this bore of a film.

*1/2 out of ****

The New York Ripper (1982)

Sleazily Effective Thriller

[8/10 · 5 December 1999]

The late Italian director Lucio Fulci remains a controversial figure among horror film fans. Some view him merely as a hack exploitation director, who unsuccessfully tried to mimic the ideas and techniques of skilled horror directors such as Dario Argento and George Romero. Others view him as a directorial genius with his own distinctive style. Upon viewing my first Fulci film, THE NEW YORK RIPPER, I am inclined to believe that Fulci has not been given as much credit as he deserves.

THE NEW YORK RIPPER is a good example of an Italian "giallo" film, which blends the graphic gore sequences typically found in "slasher" films with the police investigations typically found in crime dramas. The film's plot is simple: a psychopath who talks like a duck is killing beautiful young women in New York City in vicious ways. Burned-out Lieutenant Fred Williams (Jack Hedley) is assigned to investigate the case, and soon gets taunting calls from the killer. At the same time, the one woman to survive the killer's attack, track star Fay Majors (Almanta Keller), finds that her life remains in peril.

THE NEW YORK RIPPER is unapologetically sleazy. The gore effects are very well done, and will make even the most hardened fans of gore wince at their brutality. There is also plenty of sex, which is quite explicit even by today's standards. In short, THE NEW YORK RIPPER is tasteless. But that doesn't mean it's bad. The film is well paced and there is hardly a dull moment. The murder mystery aspect of the film will keep you guessing until the film's climax. Fulci also delivers stylish direction and the film has some nice atmospheric shots of New York City.

One of the main criticisms of THE NEW YORK RIPPER is that it is brutally misogynistic. On the surface, this appears to be true. The killer's victims are almost all sexually promiscuous young women, who are killed in a brutal, sexual manner. However, in my opinion, the film is not so much anti-woman as it is anti-humanity. Fulci's New York City, much like Martin Scorsese's in TAXI DRIVER, is a seemingly inescapable hell, filled with perverts, sex shows, prostitutes, and "42nd Street gigolos." It should also be noted that the film's one strong and sympathetic character is a woman, Fay Majors.

Also, it is often said that THE NEW YORK RIPPER is Fulci's ripoff of the 1980 film MANIAC (also one of my favorites). This is simply not true: their only similarity is that they concern a psycho killer on the loose in New York City. MANIAC is a character study horror film, while THE NEW YORK RIPPER is a mystery thriller, much like Brian DePalma's DRESSED TO KILL(1980).

Lastly, I must say that the recently released, uncut, widescreen version of THE NEW YORK RIPPER is a major improvement over the old video version. While the dubbing remains shoddy in some parts, this new edition looks beautiful in its widescreen format. Additionally, the old edition chopped up some scenes which contained crucial clues about the killer's identity. With these scenes now intact, the killer's identity is not as totally out of left field as some critics have charged.

*** out of ****

Nightmare (1981)

They Don't Make Them Like This Anymore!

[6/10 · 14 November 1999]

The 1981 splatter film NIGHTMARE hearkens back to a long-passed time in American horror cinema when "slasher" flicks were not only excessively gory, but also deeply disturbing in their underlying themes. These films not only outraged elitist film critics and general audiences, but also worried many horror film enthusiasts who felt that such films had "gone too far" in their uncompromising brutality. While a few of these films, most notably William Lustig's masterful MANIAC (1980), have attained cult status and been rereleased to DVD and VHS, most of these films have fallen out of print and into obscurity. Unfortunately, this is the case with NIGHTMARE, one of the better examples of the visceral, uncompromising horror films of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Admittedly, this film does not start off very well. The first 30 minutes or so are pretty sloppy and hard to follow, largely because of choppy editing. However, once the film's story gets on track, what follows is a truly disturbing and horrific splatter film. Director Romano Scavolini, obviously working with a very low budget, nevertheless delivers some genuine suspense and adds touches of style (though he can't touch Dario Argento). The acting by the cast of unknowns is also surprisingly good. While the music during the opening and closing credits is pretty lousy, the score during the rest of the film is terrific, effectively creating an atmosphere of dread and fear. Of course, there's also the unforgettable gore effects by Tom Savini, displayed most spectacularly at the film's finale.

It goes without question that NIGHTMARE is definitely not for all tastes. Non-horror fans should stay far, far away. Additionally, I must note that more than any film I have ever seen, this film should not be viewed by children or impressionable young adults. However, hardcore fans of horror should definitely give this example of a bygone era a look. Watch this with some teeny-bopper flick like I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and see which film leaves a longer lasting impression.

**1/2 out of ****

Don't Answer the Phone! (1980)

One of the Worst Films of All Time

[1/10 · 18 September 1999]

I wasn't planning to dignify this film with a review, but when I saw that 1980's DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE was about to be rereleased on VHS and DVD, I felt compelled to speak out. For if there's any film that isn't begging for a rerelease, it's got to be this one. In a nutshell, this film's "plot" revolves around mentally deranged Vietnam veteran and porno photographer Kirk Smith (Nicholas Worth), who likes to ritualistically torture, rape, and strangle to death hapless young women. For some odd reason, he becomes obsessed with radio psychiatrist Dr. Lindsay Gale (Flo Gerrish), and he soon starts knocking off her patients until he comes to her.

Although it is classified as a horror film, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should not be compared to FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN. There is no real suspense to speak of, few scares, and very little gore. Don't be fooled by the title: the classic slasher movie theme of phone stalking plays almost no role in the film. What this film is heavy on is misogyny and sexual sadism. For that reason, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should be classed in with "horror" films such as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and NEVER PICK UP A STRANGER, films which unfairly discredited the horror genre as a whole with their emphasis on the torture and degradation of female characters.

Very rarely, a film without any redeeming qualities whatsoever comes along. This is one of them. The acting by all in this film is absolutely atrocious, with Gerrish particularly uninspiring as the movie's "heroine." As if the plot and acting weren't awful enough, this film is saddled with a horrendous, porno-grade score, which is well below average even for low-budget schlock like this. At the same time, this isn't a "so bad it's good" movie, because its nasty themes (torture, rape, misogyny) are just not things that should be laughed at. The only good thing that can come with this film's rerelease is that many more people will see it and give it the vote (1) that it deserves, so that it can join the list where it so rightfully belongs, the IMDb Bottom 100.

If you're looking for a much better executed film with similar themes, try 1981's EYES OF A STRANGER.

No * out of ****

Maniac (1980)

A Stunning Performance by Spinell

[8/10 · 14 August 1999]

The 1980 horror film MANIAC is a cult classic, one of the most gruesome films of its time. Universally trashed by elitist film critics, MANIAC is the story of Frank Zito (Joe Spinell), a psychopath who randomly murders women, scalps them, and then uses their scalps to dress up his mannequins. Apparently, he does this because his now-deceased mother abused him as a child. He believes that he can preserve her memory through his mannequins, which can never abandon him like his mother did.

The late Spinell (who also co-produced and co-wrote the script) gives a standout performance as Frank, comparable to Tony Curtis' portrayal of Albert DeSalvo in THE BOSTON STRANGLER. Spinell was an excellent actor who appeared in some of the best and biggest films of the 1970s, such as THE GODFATHER, ROCKY, and TAXI DRIVER. Unfortunately, he was relegated to supporting roles in such films. His strong acting ability lifts MANIAC far above the average "slasher" flick. MANIAC also boasts good direction, as William Lustig gives a chilling representation of Frank's miserable life in his filming of Frank's claustrophobic apartment. And of course, MANIAC boasts some of Tom Savini's most gruesome special effects. However, MANIAC is not without flaws, the most obvious flaw being the ridiculous actions taken by the two police officers at the end of the movie, which weakens an otherwise solid film.

It must be noted that MANIAC is definitely not a film for all tastes. Non-horror fans and fans of "fluff" horror such as SCREAM will probably find little to like about this film. It is unrelentingly dark and negative, without "heroes" and happy endings. However, fans of gore and fans of character study thrillers such as HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER and PEEPING TOM should definitely give MANIAC a look.

*** out of ****