Continuing on with the 90's and onto 1991. There is not really a whole lot to choose from in 1991 but there are some quality horror movies that were made. This year saw a few slashers, including Chucky taking another crack at Andy Barclay. Chucky didn't make my list with his 3rd installment but he is still one of my favorite slashers.
Jeff Fahey stars in Body Parts as a Doctor who loses his arm and gets a donor arm from a serial killer. This movie is loads of fun and I highly recommend checking this one out if you haven't already. I did not see this one till 2004 or so and don't really know why I waited that long.
This one probably isn't on alot of people's top 5 list of 1991 but I love this movie. I am a sucker for all of the Omen movies and this one is no different. It was a made for TV movie so it's probably not as great as it could be butAsia Vieira who plays Damien Thorne's offspring is creepy as fuck!
Wes Craven was at it again with this one and what a creepy little film it is. It's not so much scary as original and just a change of pace and a jolt to the horror industry that was needed after huge number of slasher films that just filled the 80's.
It's no secret that I am a Full Moon fan. It all started with Puppet Master and now here is the sequel, that isn't as popular by the way. I no way is this a really good movie but it is fun and I love those killer puppets. This was also the introduction of the puppet Torch.
Full Moon actually made 2 puppet master movies in 1991 but released them a year apart. Part III is the first Puppet Master movie I ever saw and it is the one that go me hooked. This one is a prequel to the original and is by far the best of the series. The role of Andre Toulon was taken over by Guy Rolfeand he delivered a fantastic performance.
As I look through the list of 1984, it was really not a big year for horror movies but 1984 was not boring at all. This is the year for some big horror blockbusters. Real classics that made the genre what it is today. Let's see what we got, shall we?
A Stephen King book turned to the big screen with a bunch of creepy fuckin kids who are out to kill all the adults in Gatlin. Oh yea,Linda Hamilton is in this one too!!
Love or hate this movie, it is one of the better Friday sequels. Certainly not the best but Ted White did an excellent job of playing the larger more destructive Jason and a young Corey Feldmanthat was pretty alright as well. While Kimberly Beck was no Amy Steel as a final girl she was a hell of a lot better than Dana Kimmell. As much as I like Part III I still have to admit Dana was pretty awful.
My absolute favorite movie to watch around the holiday season. This film really is a slasher film in every way. Unfortunately it was picketed by the PTA so bad that it only lasted a couple of weeks in the theaters and not getting a release on VHS till some time after.
Of course this was going to be #1 on the list. The first big hit released by New Line Cinema and another masterpiece in horror for Wes Craven. Introducing everyone to Freddy Krueger played by Roger Englundand his glove of blades.
Directed by suspense master , Wes Craven, Scream 4 is the newest installment in the acclaimed franchise that ushered in a new wave of horror in the 1990s. In Scream 4, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), now the author of a self-help book, returns home to Woodsboro on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox), who are now married, as well as her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts).
Unfortunately Sidney's appearance also brings about the return of Ghost
Face, putting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, along with Jill, her friends (Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin) and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we here at Twisted Central would like to give YOU a Scream 4 DVD signed by the one and only Wes Craven. Of course you'll have to do something for us in return.....
HOW TO ENTER:
Email us at contest@twistedcentral.com, with Wes Craven in the subject line, then write us a synopsis for Scream 5. Show us how YOU would take the series in a new direction.
THE RULES:
1. Your entry must be received no later than December 31, 2012. The winner will be notified via email on January 1, 2013.
2. The contest is open to U.S. residents ONLY!
3. Only one entry per person.
4. You must be at least 18 to enter.
Recovering from the Horrorhound Convention I just attended with the one and only Gore Whore, I decided to sit back and watch the documentary I purchased from Heather Lagenkamp's table. Finally meeting Heather was a great moment of the weekend for me. Since I purchased I am Nancy on Friday evening I have been biting at the bit to watch it. Horror fans and more specifically fans of the Nightmare series strap in for this one!
We start in a tattoo parlor with a man who is getting his Freddy tattoo filled in and added to it with Heather Lagenkamp observing and talking to him about the process of deciding on the tattoo and his passion for the Nightmare on Elm Street series. What about getting a tattoo of Nancy? This is just were it starts. From here the camera is following Heather around to conventions around the world with her signing autographs and also interviewing the fans. While she sees at the conventionsRobert England gets more attention and promotion than she does, she is determined to find Nancy memorabilia. There is a segment with Heather and Robert talking about the series and Nancy, and also Heather talking to Wes Craven on his take on the character Nancy. All through the autobiographical documentary there are also clips from the movies themselves depicting Nancy's strong will and her fights with Freddy.
I Am Nancy was very well put together from the clips that are shown from the movies to the interviews with the fans from around the world. Heather is so terrific in this with the fans and very friendly and approachable. There are a ton of merchandise and promotions for Freddy, but this is all about Nancy. What a great job to spotlight one of the most notable and strongest "final girl" in Horror movie history. I can't emphasize enough how well the segments in this film were put together. From the sound to the high quality of it as well. Heather's commentary is outstanding and after all she did play Nancy and knows the character the best.
I really enjoyed this film death. I did not want it to end, it could have been 2 hours longer and I still would have been in the same spot with my eyes glued to the television. I have always been a HUGE Nancy fan. Not only is she a fantastic final girl she is so much stronger and fearless than the rest and puts herself in the situation to destroy her night stalker not waiting for him to come to her. The character of Nancy really can be an inspiration for us all. I never thought of it like that before but after seeing this it all makes so much sense. Now when i see someone or even Heather tell somebody to "be Nancy", I will know exactly what that means. It is something that everyone can relate to. I am very glad to have the opportunity to purchase this film and view it. I have been a fan of the Nightmare series since I saw Part 3 (yes, I saw them out of order) when I was 7 years old. Nancy was always my favorite character in the series. I highly recommend this movie especially for Nightmare fans. Stay twisted everyone, and Be Nancy!
Film makers have been creating on screen carnage in the form of slasher films since the early 30's. Most notably would be Thirteen Women then growing progressively more intense into the 60's with Psycho. The 70's brought us Michael Myers in Halloween and Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger graced us with their presence in the 80's. Let's not leave out the 90's when Wes Craven introduced us to Ghost Face. My point is that horror film history is riddled with what some would call the greatest sub genre ever created. I mean what horror fan doesn't love a good slasher film? Which brings me to my next issue. Slasher films, along with zombie films are some of the most over done film topics in horror. Any budding film maker with a cheap camera will hit on either of those sub genres because it's "easy". What you end up with is an over abundance of DVD's that are worth nothing more than fuel for a bonfire.
In The Killing of Jacob Marr, a boy finds a mysterious object that transforms him into a killer. After he murders his parents, he escapes into the woods never to be found. Flash forward twenty years when five friends rent a cabin in the woods for a little getaway only to find it's fully stocked with food and the closets are full of clothes. This leads them to believe there is another group staying at the cabin. They decide to hang around for a whole and see if the others return which proves to be a deadly decision.
Normally when you run across a film with a budget of 15k, you'll end up with a fairly subpar cast. Directors on a tight budget will bring in friends or even family to round out the cast. That's not the case here. I was more than surprised at the level of talent in this one especially from the lead character Morgan White, who has the dreamiest eyes that can only be compared to those of Dermot Mulrooney or Chad Lindberg. He pulls off the sensitive, level headed, not so predictable hero with ease. Another one that caught my attention was his goofy, sarcastic, comedic counterpart Brandon Beilis.Both are fairly new to the acting scene and it's always great to see new talent that actually has talent. Alyssa Mann, Elizabeth Drake, Samantha Cooper, Chris Keating and Oleg Ossayenko round out the cast and I have to say, for an independent film, director Brad Rego made some great casting decisions which only helped propel his film forward.
Rego also wrote the film and I have to say, the dialogue is really very solid. It seemed to flow very easily and it was appropriate for the characters he was working with. He also did something that very few Indie film makers today do and that's creating smart characters. Yep, you heard me. He didn't belittle his audience with the same inept characters you typically find in a slasher film. One character even confronts the slasher and does a hell of a job giving him a taste of his own medicine. I know, I know, other characters in other films have tumbled with their would be killer in but this was different and it came off as very r-e-a-l-i-s-t-i-c (which seems to be the magic word in this review). The effects were very well done for the minimal budget they had and the camera work was fantastic with some great outdoor shots.
It's sad really that one independent film is compared with those before it and that legitimate film makers like Rego have to work extra hard to be taken seriously in the industry. Yes, it's easy to tell the flakes from the real deal but a lot of the "real deals" never get the chance to show what they can do because of the hacks that don't take making a film seriously. He also doesn't resort to cheesy jump scares to frighten his audience. I watched this one while I was on bed rest after surgery. Loaded on pain meds, I accidentally fell asleep (nothing to do with the film whatsoever) and woke up mad at myself because I had missed a good chunk of the film. BUT, what I saw before I drifted off into my drug induced slumber made me want to see all of it so... when I wasn't so high, I popped it back in and gave it another go. I would recommend this film to any fan of the slasher genre. It's leaps and bounds better than other Indie slashers. I look forward to seeing more from Rego and his team.
Scream 4 was made in 2011 but it was almost like taking a step back in time to the 1990’s. Full of nostalgia along with the usual cast of characters. Reprising their roles from the original 3 movies are Neve Campbell as Sydney Prescott, David Arquette as Dewey Riley (now the Sheriff), and Courtney Cox as Gail Weathers – Riley.
The storyline is drawn out nicely and somewhat predictable. I mean how much more could they really do with it, but they did a good job of bringing the old characters back and introducing new ones to relate to this generation. Young stars include Lucy Hale, Britt Robertson, Hayden Panettiere, and Erik Knudsen. Most of these actors and actresses are virtually unknown but so was Neve Campbell when the first Scream came out.
Sydney Prescott now an accomplished author comes back to the town she grew up for her book tour. Low and behold the murders start again. Dewey, now the Sherriff of Woodsboro and married to Gail Weathers (looking a little rough I might add) find themselves in the middle of it again. As far as the rest of the story goes, you already know it. The phone calls start along with the murders, Sydney and her relatives are terrorized by someone with a voice box and a ghost face costume.
Like I said earlier the storyline is good and predictable at times. Nonetheless still a fun movie to sit back and enjoy. Not too scary, but enjoyable
It goes without saying that the Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson changed the face of horror in the 90's. Gone were the traditional slashers like Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. It was a new era with new rules and Craven and Williamson used those rules to re-invent the horror experience. Together they entertained and shocked us with films that spanned the tail end of the 90's. Scream 3, considered by most fans to be the black sheep of the franchise, introduced us to writer Ehren Kruger who lacked Williamson's talent for blending horror and humor but still delivered a good story (IMO). I may catch some shit for that but as usual, I don't care. So, now that we're all caught up, let's take a look at the newest installment.
Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), now the author of a self-help book, returns home to Woodsboro on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox), who are now married, as well as her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her Aunt Kate (Mary McDonnell). Unfortunately, Sidney's appearance also brings about the return of Ghostface, putting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, along with Jill, her friends, and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger.
The opening sequence of every Scream has always had a "big name" celeb(s) that's tormented by a Ghostface phone call then ends up getting slaughtered in some form or another. Scream 4 seems to be the latest horror film to fall victim to the WB/ABC Family casting craze. Unless you watch shows like Pretty Little Liars, 90210 or Gossip Girls it's likely that the only recognizable face for you will be that of Anna Paquin(True Blood). Does this pose a problem... I guess not but it does go to show that most horror films are being geared toward teenagers these days. Scream 4 also reunites franchise veterans Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courtney Cox who are without a doubt, the glue that holds these films together. Unless every "hero" in a horror film is killed off, it makes no sense to me to try and replace them with someone else but I'll save that argument for a different blog. That said, the film is very well acted and the only problem I saw chemistry wise was between Arquette and Cox. I'm certain it has something to do with their impending divorce BUT they definitely didn't gel like usual. Plus they're married in this one so the love/hate relationship that brings so much to the previous films wasn't there. Culkin's character was the horror film buff in this installment and he was convincing at it. On the other side of the spectrum, I wasn't convinced that Panettiere's character was a horror lover. Yes, it's possible for a preppy teenage girl to love horror films but the fact that she could match wits with the geeky cinema club dude was a stretch for me.
Story wise, it's the same 'ole Scream. Ghostface stabs this one and then stabs that one and oh yeah, he/she stabs the other one too. Some viewers had a problem with the constant slice and dice but for me it's just the way of Ghostface and I didn't mind it at all. The cops are just as inept, if not more so, as they were in the first one. I don't know if Williamson wrote them that way or if it was Kruger's rewrite that did it but it was overkill in a major way. I enjoyed Sidney's new found empowerment. I liked that she was no longer the "victim" and was prepared at every turn to face her fear or conquer her demons, however you wanna say it. Her character was given a maturity that she didn't have before and it worked well. What I didn't like was the constant horror film references. Williamson always managed to write in a mention or two and again, I can't say if it was his doing or Kruger's, but overboard would be an accurate description. There was very clever and well written dialogue and it seemed as if the magic of the first one was back. At least until the second half. Everyone knows there was switch up with the writers and it was like Williamson wrote the first half and then Kruger came in and butchered the second half. Not sure who wrote what but the wit was there one minute and gone the next.
The motive for all this murder and mayhem was pretty clever, I thought, and if you stop and think about it, it makes sense. Now, can I say that I approve of the motive but I don't approve of the reveal? They kinda go hand in hand don't they? It's definitely a slippery slope. As everyone is getting killed, Ghostface towers over them but when it's revealed who the killer is, this person is 5'6" at best. It's inconsistent to say the least. The last 15 minutes or so could've been done away with leaving the audience with one hell of a cliff hanger. But alas, we're forced to watch a showdown that is predictable and forced. HOWEVER, it does give us the best line of the film and I'd love to give it to you but I'm not. You'll know it when you hear it.
Overall, I found Scream 4 enjoyable. Hell, I saw it twice... ok, I fell asleep the second time but I was tired! It's entertaining and if you're a Scream fan, you'll definitely like it. Despite it's flaws, it's a good addition to the franchise and a much, much, much better film than Craven's disasterous My Soul to Take. I'm curious if this is the final installment or just the first in a series of reboots. Only time will tell.
Sometimes I wonder if reviewing films has warped my ability to just sit and watch something without over analyzing or picking it apart in some form or another. What if I didn't have to pay attention to the cinematography or the score or the lines of dialogue? Would I then be able to just sit and watch and enjoy? I remember being young and going to the movies and mindlessly watching what's in front of me and not really caring if it was good or not as long as it entertained me. I look at most films today and all I can think is "What a bunch of shit." Have films really gotten that bad or have I just gotten too old to be able to appreciate it the same way? Then along comes My Soul to Take.
In Riverton there is a legend of a serial killer known as The Ripper who swore revenge on the seven children born the night he died. 16 years later, people are being murdered again. Has The Ripper been reincarnated as one of the seven teens, or did he survive the night he supposedly died, hiding in the forest waiting to exact his revenge? Only one of the kids knows the answer. Bug (Max Thieriot), one of the seven born that night, is plagued by terrifying visions of his murdered friends but is unable to tell if they are true or just a figment of his imagination. If he hopes to save his friends from The Ripper, he'll have to face an evil that won't stop until it finishes what it started.
Not a completely new concept but it's a good enough foundation to build on. Unfortunately Wes Craven, who I love by the way, (I'm sorry Wes) didn't succeed at constructing this one. The first 20 minutes or so set the bar pretty high. There was the reveal of a mild mannered family man to be a town's serial killer, The Ripper, who just wouldn't die with some good performances by Raul Esparza and Harris Yulin and a pretty intense showdown of good and evil. Then a not so great scene involving a ritual or right of passage where "The Riverton 7" get together on their birthdays to face The Ripper (in puppet form) and knock him down sending him back to his watery grave. After that there's a pretty decent Cravenesque bridge scene. All of which showcased the potential for this to be a classic Craven horror/thriller but unfortunately, that's about as good as it gets.
Among many other things, MSTT suffers from one of the most unlikeable casts I've seen in a horror in a long time. I didn't buy Nick Lashaway as the bully/jock of the group and the Fang (Emily Meade) character was so unbelievably ridiculous. I don't know about you but I never encountered anyone in high school who ran a criminal enterprise out of the girl's bathroom. It was hard enough to believe that these 20 somethings were teenagers but to throw things in a script just to fill time and confuse the viewer is inexcusable to me. Especially from someone who for almost 40 years has been passing out nightmares like they were candy. Not only are we asked to believe that Bug is this completely clueless, naive 16 year old but Craven also wants us to think that a bitch like Fang has never muttered a word to him about his past? And don't even get me started on the blind kid, Jerome (Denzel Whitaker), who not only treks through the dense woods all on his own but climbs into 2 story windows in the middle of the night. It's unfathomable that any of these "teenagers" would even talk to each other much less gather once a year and make nice. Craven has filled this script with not only plot holes big enough to drive a semi through but character holes as well. No one other than Bug is ever explored deep enough for you to give two shits whether they get maimed or murdered and some of them will leave you hoping they are.
This is Wes Craven’s first film since Red Eye in 2005, and his first as both a writer and director since New Nightmare in 1994. He brings in a few of his iconic touches but most of them you won't see unless you watch the bonus features. It's just so unfortunate that MSTT is nothing more than big budget entertainment for teens which I have no doubt they will find visually stimulating. Hell, I sat through it twice just so I could see what the reactions of my teens would be and of course they loved it. Why wouldn't they? What teen really cares about plot points and story structure? It's apparent that this was his target audience. Throw a bunch of semi-hot (sorry) teens on the screen and kill them off in not so glorious ways and you've got a film that the teenage crowd will line up to see. Too bad it was so bogged down with dialogue and insignificant information that most of them probably left scratching their heads.
I will be honest and admit that after a second viewing, I did "get it" a little better but still not enough make me a fan. Sorry Wes!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
