Milo-Jeeder

In "Mystics in Bali", a woman named Catherine, who is visiting Indonesia, wants to investigate about a black magic cult known as "The Leák". Her boyfriend, a local man named Mahendra, arranges a meeting between her and a master of the Leák magic, who is simply known as "The Queen". Catherine gets to meet the evil witch, a creepy old woman who promises to train her in the dark arts. After being taught a few things by the Leák master, Catherine ends up paying a very high price, as she becomes the old witch's personal slave, who uses her to get young blood that she needs to keep herself alive and strong.

Well, let's see: "Mystics in Bali" may be a lot of things, but boring ain't one of them. This flick is definitely a wild ride and it is almost impossible to lose interest, even if you think the movie is dumb. While it's certainly cannot be taken seriously, it features some redeeming qualities and some mildly creepy moments (not necessarily scary, though), but, first, we'll talk about the awful.

One of the biggest problems that I had with "Mystics in Bali" is that the narrative clumsiness damages the movie considerably. There are a few poorly edited narrative ellipsis, which severely affects the connection between one situation and the other, to the point that, in some cases, it is difficult to tell whether a scene has ended or if it's still going on. For example, at one point, the two main characters, Cathy and Mahendra, head to the forest to meet with the witch for the first time. After having an exchange with her, we then see Cathy and Mahendra again, walking around in the same forest, wearing different clothes and through a dialog, we learn that they are expecting to see the witch for the second time, but this is shown in a very confusing way. While it is true that the characters have different clothes and explicitly say that a whole day has passed, the way this is shown gives the impression that there's a continuity error, rather than the idea that this is a different scene.

In addition to the clumsy narrative ellipsis, the characters also reference certain situations that happen off-screen, but these mentioned events are too important to be left out like that, which is something that made me feel somewhat alienated and confused. If I had to guess what the hell happened here, I would say that, perhaps, some scenes could not be shot due to budgetary reasons or maybe they were shot, but they weren't included in the final edit, because they did not come out as expected. For example: at some point, the two main characters are talking about how Cathy murdered some innocent people and whatnot. These types of narrative flaws are very frustrating and one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to story telling.

This is a horror flick that deals with shapeshifting creatures and witches and warlocks shooting magic energy at each other, which is challenging, to say the least. Considering the time and the modest budget, the CGI should have been avoided or, at least, used with a little bit of restraint ... but it wasn't the case here. Apparently, they absolutely felt the need to use CGI and it just came out truly awful, which is something that definitely adds up several points in the "unintentional hilarity" department. Be that as it may, after a while, I finally ended up accepting the fact that the awful CGI was just part of the charm (?) and, somehow, I sort of managed to reluctantly "forgive" it.

On the other hand, the practical effects are somewhat well made. A few scenes are done with such care and dedication, that they manage to look good, regardless of the budget. Specifically, a scene comes to mind in which Cathy and the Queen Leák turn into snakes. Yes, sure, the effects are not at the level of a big production, but something so difficult to do is achieved in a way that it is genuinely horrifying and disturbing.

"Mystics in Bali" features a large amount of "what the fudge?!" type of moments and, obviously, I cannot list them all, but I will mention the two that "stayed" with me.

At some point, our beloved main girl, Cathy, begins to vomit what turn out to be two mice. The boyfriend, Mahendra, who watches in horror as she is puking the two rodents, tries to calm her down, by telling her that she probably has an indigestion, as a result of having had an eating binge the night before. Uh ... buddy, throwing up two mice (not one, but TWO!) is not a sign of indigestion.

Second most random and bizarre moment is when the witch literally transforms into a humanoid pig type of creature, with big saggy boobs, while fighting with her old rival. It's just something that one doesn't forget so easily in an entire lifetime. This image will haunt me for good.

Bizarre as it is, "Mystics in Bali", as I said before, has its redeeming qualities: the main characters are very likeable and people who watch a lot of horror flicks may know very well that this isn't always achieved. Though the acting appears rather stiff, probably as a result of the dubbing, more than anything, both Mahendra and Catherine are characters that are easy to root for, which is something that I very much appreciate. As for our main baddie, the wicked witch of Bali, ridiculous and over-the-top as she is, she's also a very fun and creepy villain (and pulling off "creepy" and "ridiculous" at the same time is not easy).

Look, ridiculousness is just part of the charm here and I can assure you that regardless of what you think of it, "Mystics in Bali" is definitely not a flick that you'll easily forget. You decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. It is definitely a wild ride and bizarre things constantly happen, so, really, there's no room for surprises. While it's probably nobody's classic, it delivers for sure... and then some!

"Beyond Darkness", also branded as the fifth sequel to the "Evil Dead" franchise, has absolutely nothing to do with said franchise. It could be regarded, however, as part of a quadrilogy, along with "Ghosthouse" (1988), "Witchery" (1988) and "Killing Birds" (1988), all Filmirage productions that were also branded as sequels to "The Evil Dead". Though not connected plot-wise, these flicks offer a somewhat distinctive atmosphere and musical score that brings them together in a way that could link them as "sister movies".

Director Claudio Fragasso (here credited as Clyde Anderson), who directed a modest number of low budget horror productions under different aliases (including the infamous "Troll 2"), gives us a film that provides a restricted amount of sense and more than a couple of ridiculous moments for the sole purpose of shock value. In the end, however, "Beyond Darkness" sure is fun to watch and more respectable than I initially had hoped for. To enjoy a movie like this, you have to be able to get past the campy moments that are prominently featured in these particular Italian/American horror productions from the 80s (or early 90s, in this case).

In "Beyond Darkness", a family of four moves into a big house, which was given to them by the church, since the man of said family, Peter, is a reverend. As soon as they arrive, bizarre events begin to take place in the house. The children, Carole and Martin, begin to hear sounds and voices coming from a wall, which is, in fact, a portal that leads to a very sinister realm, inhabited by a group of witches that were once burned at the stake. The family members are pit against the forces of evil that dwell within the walls of their home, as the coven of witches want to take both Martin and Carole and offer them to their god.

This movie ticks all the boxes to be a fun "Good vs. Evil" type of horror flick and it succeeds in delivering all the cliches perfectly well. The lazy or inconsistent writing leaves a bunch of ambiguous details hanging and it is up to the viewer to find a rational explanation. Fragasso finds a way to combine elements of "The Exorcist" and "Poltergeist", while also providing the movie with its own distinctive nature. In spite of the lazy writing, the film doesn't feel like a major "what the fudge?" experience and, trust me, this is something very frequent in Italian-American horror productions from the 80s.

In the acting department, "Beyond Darkness" doesn't really disappoint. Gene LeBrock, as Father Peter is not a very interesting character, but he gets the job done. Mary Coulson, on the other hand, does an incredible work playing a deranged and sadistic killer and the leader of the witches. The rest of the main cast is completed with David Brandon, who plays Father George, a former priest and full-time alcoholic who is devoted to fight against the forces of evil. Brandon has a lot of experience in horror flicks, and especially with the Italian company Filmirage, usually playing intense and histrionic roles and in this particular case, both attributes are taken to the extreme, in a way that is consistent with his character.

The score by Carlo Maria Cordio, which is basically a rehash from "Witchery" (1988) and "Killing Birds" (1988), fits this movie perfectly, especially the dramatic pipe organ music that enhances the dark atmosphere considerably. Rehash or not, Cordio really is one talented composers and he has worked in several horror productions, providing strong and distinctive music that really intensifies the dramatic tone.

Ugh, believe it or not, but it sort of saddens me to write a vicious review, because, after watching "Scream" (1981) I actually feel that director Byron Quisenberry sure had his heart in the right place and he honestly tried, so it bothers me that most people, including myself, can't bring ourselves to stand up for his directorial debut. Unfortunately, this flick was a taxing experience, to say the least, and I'm afraid my niceness isn't strong enough to focus more on the good than the bad (and there's a lot of bad to focus on). It really is a shame, because "Scream" (1981) actually features an interesting location and, for the bad flick that it is, the atmosphere is strangely well developed. I mean, say what you want about this movie, but genre-wise it doesn't fail to achieve a horror tone. It actually had some hidden potential and it offers a sort of "western" approach to the horror genre, which I found, at least, somewhat innovative.

In "Scream", a large group of people on a camping tour decide to spend the night in a ghost town, where they are chased by an unseen killer that begins to murder them one by one. Not too complicated.

The reason why this movie doesn't work and I cannot give it a passing grade, no matter how hard I try, is because almost nothing appealing or mildly interesting happens during the entire 82 minutes of its running time and the fact that it totally lacks any kind of horror imagery. I honestly had a hard time sitting through this film, because of how painfully slow and dull it is. Most of the "scary" events are just heavily implied, rather than shown and most of the kills happen off-screen. This is particularly tragic, considering that there are twelve characters. TWELVE. I can only assume that budgetary problems may have been one of the main reasons why several things were implied, rather than shown, but expensive practical effects aren't even that necessary. What we cannot do without, though, is disturbing imagery or sequences that allow us to acknowledge this as a horror flick. There's plenty to do with a limited budget (think about found footage flicks, for example) and I do not find gore 100% necessary, but if this is marketed as a slasher, we need to see the killer in action, at least once. Believe it or not, we actually never see the killer at all. So, what do we have? A horror flick in which there's little action, no disturbing sequences, virtually no horror imagery, a series of kills that happen off-screen and a killer that we never get to see. This movie had no business being this tame.

Aside from the fact that the killer is an invisible force, he's just not an interesting character. Other than the fact that we get to know part of his story, which is pettily revealed by one of the characters, we don't really know what the hell he wants or why the hell he's so angry.

During 70% of the time, the characters just spend their time waiting to be saved, arguing and fighting with each other over stupid things and most of this happen while it's really dark, making it hard to actually see anything. I guess I could say that the climax does provide some mild tension, for which I give "Scream" some extra points, but that just doesn't cut it. See it for yourself and be the judge, but make sure you had had a good night sleep and plenty of coffee before embarking on this experience (you have been warned!). In my particular case, even though I cannot say that I enjoyed it, I actually don't regret watching it, because I like seeing horror rarities and, like I said before, the horror tone and atmosphere are somewhat well developed, which gave me a reason to actually sit through it. I will say this, though: for some reason, "Scream" (1981) sort of stayed with me and, one day, I would actually like to give it a second viewing, but... I really can't even understand why.

I wasn't expecting a lot from this, but it still managed to disappoint me a little bit. Slasher flicks are known for being very simple and unpretentious movies that mostly offer entertainment and gruesome kills, which "Prom Night IV" mostly fails to provide.

In "Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil", two young couples decide to go on a romantic double date, after skipping their prom, for which they head up to a big secluded house that belongs to one of the boys in the group. There, they are chased by an insane former priest, Father Jonas, who has recently escaped from where he was being kept for 30 years.

My biggest problem with "Prom Night IV" is that the butchery takes a long time to happen and this is a mistake in a slasher flick. Let's see, for the first ten minutes (or so), we see Father Jonas, the bad guy. He really is an interesting character, with his intense gaze and his over-the-top demeanor. Later, we are introduced to the young characters, who, clearly, are going to be stalked by the aforementioned killer. During the second half an hour, the youngsters go into the house for their romantic getaway, where we see them getting intimate and, eventually, realizing that someone is lurking around. The kills are excessively delayed and end up happening after more than 50 minutes have passed and that's just a lot of time. So, the way I see it, "Prom Night IV" is not even that fun, which is something that a slasher flick should always be. They can be stupid, but the carnage should begin early.

The only potentially interesting aspect of this movie was never fully developed and it was barely even displayed during the first minutes. At some point, Father Jonas, the killer, begins to mumble something, like, 'Don't touch him, not there, he's too young...', which clearly idicates that Jonas was abused as a child. It is also heavily implied that Father Jonas was a homosexual, considering that he kisses two men before attacking them. I can only assume that the priest was dealing with an inner conflict, since homosexuality is heavily disapproved by the Catholic church, which eventually resulted in a state of self-hatred and aversion towards sex, as a result of the abuse that he presumably endured as a child. Too bad this was only merely even hinted. At some point, another character explains that Father Jonas was evil because he was possessed, so, in the end, it is not exactly clear if he was deranged due to his traumas or if he was, in fact possessed. Perhaps both things? I don't think the writers even bothered with all these issues, to be honest. Father Jonas actually appears to look exactly the same age throughout the course of... 30 years! If we go by the idea that he was possessed, this could explain why he never aged (either that or he uses a very effective anti-aging treatment).

Though I personally found it a little bit slow, "Prom Night IV" is not really a mess. The truth is that this movie has a good production value and plot-wise, it actually ticks all the boxes of a slasher flick. As for the acting, it is pretty decent for the most part. Nicole de Boer and Joy Tanner are very likeable, especially the latter one, who plays an irreverent catholic school girl (who looked like she was in her twenties, but that's okay). Then, of course, we have the kills. The body count is perhaps a little bit too modest for a slasher and the kills are just plain, but they're there. In the end, "Prom Night IV" is just one of those movies that don't really stay with you in any way, but it would be unfair to label them as "unwatchable".

"Mirada de Cristal" perfectly captures the essence of Italian horror productions from the late 70s and 80s and this is something that I personally loved to see. It features all the elements that made those movies from that particular era so fun to watch: an uncomplicated plot with the right amount of mystery, fun characters, creative death scenes, a killer wearing a very distinctive mask, a bright color palette and great music.

While watching "Mirada de Cristal", I couldn't help but thinking of one of my favorite Italian horror flicks from the 80s, like Michele Soavi's "Deliria" (aka "Stage Fright"), especially with all those colorful lights, the flamboyant characters with diva attitudes and the creative death scenes. The characters are one of the many things I love about this flick: they are clearly supposed to be over the top and somewhat campy, so I also give credit to the actors for delivering their lines in a way that was very evocative of those flicks from the 80s. I especially enjoyed seeing the late Silvia Montanari and veteran actress Claudia Lapacó in a small role towards the very end. To be fair, though, most of the cast members were up to the task, not only the most famous ones.

Though the budget was modest (and it shows from time to time), directors Ezequiel Endelman and Leandro Montejano used it wisely enough for the most part. They tried to recreate the aesthetics of the dance academy from "Suspiria" (1977), which is not exactly easy to do with moderate budget, but somehow, they managed to get the job done (hell, we even get a brief glimpse of ornamental glass peacock!). I regret to say that, at times, the scenery looked perhaps a little bit too stiff and cartoonish. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I personally didn't care for it that much. That being said, I'll take artificial scenery over lousy CGI any day! For the most part, the scenery was great. The photography and the strident color scheme was very well done and it reminded me of Dario Argento's "Inferno" (1980), for the most part.

Throughout the entire film, the killer wears a patent leather trench coat, high heels and a creepy mask of a woman with heavy makeup and dead eyes. When chasing his/her victims, the killer walks as if he/she were on a catwalk, even going so far as to strike glamorous poses (how can anyone not enjoy the deliberate campiness of this?). The chase scenes are very well done, providing just the right amount of tension and without being unnecessarily prolonged. As for the kills, they are really creative and intentionally over the top (the one with the crystal bird was just perfect). As for the killer's identity reveal, well, it really wasn't very surprising, but, who cares? Most "old-school" slashers were predictable to a certain extent too, so I don't consider this a flaw.

I really enjoyed this movie and I think those who have watched more than a couple of Italian/American horror productions from the 80s will be able to acknowledge that both directors really have a tremendous passion for horror flicks and they put a lot of effort into this. They evidently cared about their film, nothing felt rushed, they took a lot of time and dedication to take care of even the tiniest details and it shows. When something is done with such devotion, it most likely ends up getting the recognition it deserves.

I am usually very "forgiving" when it comes to horror movies, to the point where I can acknowledge and value the general idea and overlook the narrative flaws. If the film as a whole is fun to watch, it has a well developed atmosphere and it features a decent amount of horror elements, I'm pretty much okay with it ... but the story has to make SOME sense, at least. Well, "The Black Cat" (or any of the many other titles that this movie has) is an example of a flick that is just frustrating to sit through. Director Luigi Cozzi may not entirely be at fault, perhaps the producers forcibly squeezed things into the movie for the sole purpose of shock value... or something. I have read many times that several directors end up unhappy with the final results of their films, because they were asked to add random creatures, murders or over-the-top sequences, even if they only add confusion to the story, just to make the film more marketable. I don't know the reasons behind this mess, but this is just a really confusing and convoluted film that had no business being that way, because it could have been told in a much simpler way. Actually, the first half an hour of the film is decent and it keeps it simple, but "The Black Cat" progressively becomes more and more random, to the point where inexplicable situations just happen constantly, and eventually, you just stop even trying to make any sense out of it (at least, I know I did). I can only assume that several random sequences and shots were probably added at the last minute because it was unused footage from a different film and they didn't want to let it go to waste. It's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with.

As for the photography, the director clearly took inspiration in Dario Argento's "Suspiria" and "Inferno" (both films are referenced here), but the strident color scheme ends up being a little bit over the top. Besides the artificial color palette, the use of CGI, which is very frequent during the second half of the film, cheapens the visuals considerably and it could have been a lot better without it.

A few creative deaths and stylish sequences don't save this film from being a big pile of randomness, so, skip this, unless you just want to have a good laugh. "The Black Cat" is just a frustrating experience and a waste of time.

I cannot understand how this flick got such a low rating on IMDb. Despite of its evident flaws, it provides a decent amount of entertainment, gruesome kills, a reasonable share of creepy moments, fitting music and most of the action takes place inside a creepy old mansion, inhabited by rotting zombies. Honestly, what more can you possibly expect in an Italian horror film from the 80s?

In "Killing Birds: Raptors" (which has little to do with killer birds, just so you know), a group of young university students get together for a research, in which they must find out the whereabouts of a rare breed of woodpecker. The students' expedition is cut short when they find a rotting corpse in an abandoned truck, and decide to find shelter in a creepy old house (of course!), which is inhabited by two horrendous creatures that lurk around the place. One of the students actually has a past that is connected to the house and the decaying creatures that are out to get them. However, until they find what the hell is going on, most of them will encounter a gruesome death.

"Killing Birds" is actually a film that is less convoluted and messy than some of its "equivalents" from that period, like "Ghosthouse" (1988) or "Witchery" (1988), among many others. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't get a fair amount of random ridiculousness and we won't have to sit there and watch a bunch of scenes that are solely there for shock value, even if they make zero sense or add nothing to the story. Italian horror flicks from the 80s are pretty random and you either have fun with that, and don't ask a lot of questions or you hate them, because of their lazy writing.

"Killing Birds: Raptors" is worth the watch to anyone who enjoys b-horror flicks from the 80s, that lean a little bit more to the absurd side. It features everything that one would expect from these unpretentious films and, believe it or not, it actually provides genuine moments of creepiness. Nothing that really stays with you, but imagery gruesome enough to satisfy horror fans that simply want to have fun, without expecting superb writing.

In "Sleepaway Camp", the story begins with a family (a man and his two kids) that is struck by a horrible accident, in which the father and one of the children die. Little Angela, the sole survivor of the gruesome event, is sent to live with her aunt Martha and her protective cousin, Ricky, who is about her age.

Many years later, we see Angela and Ricky as teenagers, heading up to a campsite during the summer, much to the girl's dismay, whose (pathological) shyness makes it really difficult for her to socialize. What initially appears to be an innocent summer camp for kids to have some fun and make friends, turns into a nightmare, as many people begin to get butchered by mysterious someone who lurks around in the shadows. While the owner of the campsite clumsily tries to find out what the heck is going on, the body count increases and it seems like the bullies are at a higher risk of suffering a gruesome death. In the end, everyone is shocked beyond belief when they find out that the quiet and mousy Angela was behind all the killings, but, as if this wasn't shocking enough, it turns out that Angela is not exactly a girl, she is actually Peter, the sole survivor of the aformentioned family tragedy that happened many years ago. It turns out that the poor Peter was forced to adopt a female identity because his delusional Aunt Martha didn't want to raise another boy in the family and she thought it would be fun to have a girl in the house. Yikes!

Aside from the really unexpected plot twist, one of the main reasons why I found "Sleepaway Camp" to be so disturbing is because it provides a subtext in which the kids appear as hopeless victims in a world ran by miserable, sick, lascivious, greedy and even plain evil adults, who prey on children and teenagers in order to achieve personal satisfaction and gains. Intentionally or not, Robert Hiltzik, who both wrote and directed the film, gives us a really dark take on reality, by showing the way adults relate to children and teenagers, since most of the adult characters are probably far more terrifying than the deranged Angela/Peter. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the film is somewhat depressing, as it is closer to reality than one would think and probably not something one expects to see in a slasher flick that, at first sight, doesn't intend to provide any message. This is one of the main reasons why "Sleepaway Camp" sort of stayed with me over the years.

First of all, we have Aunt Martha (played by Desiree Gould), a woman who forces a young boy, who has recently lost his family, to adopt a different gender, just because she already has a boy in the family and doesn't want another one! That's right, my friends, crazy Aunt Martha didn't hesitate to ruin a child's life, just because she thought it would be fun to have a girl in the family (perfectly normal, huh?). Then, we have Artie, the cook... ugh, this is perhaps one of the most disgusting characters I have seen in a horror flick. Artie is a perverted man, presumably in his thirties, who lusts after kids and who doesn't even bother hiding his sickening proclivities among his peers. When the horrible Artie tells everyone that he wants to get his hands on the helpless kids, one of his co-workers try to explain him that the kids are too young to even understand about sex, Artie claims that "There is no such thing as being too young". As if this wasn't disgusting enough, his statement doesn't cause any outrage among the other adults, who actually laugh when he says this. So, in the end, if Artie manages to get away with his behaviour, it's because the rest of the adults are aware of it and don't do anything to stop him. Disturbing, huh? Another character that is nominated in the category of "Rotten adults who deserve to be eaten alive by pigeons" is Mel (played by Mike Kellin), the owner of the campsite. Mel is a greedy old pervert who, even though he soon realizes that the kids are in danger because there's a killer on the lose, refuses to send them back home, because he doesn't want to lose money, something that eventually results in the death of many more kids. As if this wasn't enough, Mel also won't hesitate to beat up a teenage boy, simply because he assumes that he is behind all the killings. Oh, he also smokes cigars next to the kids (but it was the 80s, so that may not be entirely his fault). Last, but not least, we have Meg... okay, Meg appears to be around 18, so she is not 100% adult, but she's, in fact, one of the camp counselors, who abuses her so-called power to bully our poor Angie (oh, and she also sleeps with Mel, the aformentioned greedy old bastard... yikes!).

So, yes, "Sleepaway Camp" is a disturbing film, but the way I see it, Angela is one of the many elements that contribute to make it this way. In the end, one could argue that Angela is, to a certain extent, a victim as well.

Of course, this is a slasher from the 80s that was filmed with a very limited budget, so, even though the film mostly manages to stay on the "serious" side, the unintended hilarity finds a way to make an entrance. The campiness (no pun intended, but I love it, anyway) mostly comes from the over the top acting that, from time to time, feels more like a John Waters flick, rather than a serious horror flick. Besides this, some of the characters are so ridiculous and bizarre that, even during a serious and disturbing scene, I found myself laughing. The scene where old Mel finds his teenage sweetheart's dead body is comedy gold... seriously, I dare you not to laugh at this ridiculous acting.

If there's a slasher flick that came out during the slasher fever that took place in the 80s, that succeeded in not becoming another carbon copy of "Friday the 13th", that would be "Sleepaway Camp". The movie offers all the elements featured in the average slasher formula... and then some.

"Chronicle of the Raven" is one of those films that went unfairly unnoticed during the time of its release (was it even released?), leaving it buried in almost absolute oblivion, even though it could be appealing to many horror lovers. Though this film will not be making it into my list of all time favorites, I feel that it doesn't deserve the harsh reviews and the low rating that it got on IMDb.

In "Chronicle of the Raven" the story centers around a young American girl named Jennifer Cassi (Gina Phillips), who travels to Argentina, where part of her family lives, after being informed that her twin sister, named Johanna, has recently passed away under strange circumstances. After Johanna's death, Jennifer becomes the inheritor of the family mansion. Upon arriving, Jennifer is greeted by a housekeeper who does not speak a word of English and her "sweet" grandmother, the eccentric and devious Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway, looking regal, as usual). The old mansion is also inhabited by Jennifer's aunt, Emma (Hilda Bernard), who is sick, bedridden and shows a great difficulty to speak. It should be mentioned that Mary Ellen seems to be a little bit too young to be Jennifer's grandmother... is this the result of a poor casting choice or Mary Ellen goes to the best plastic surgeon in the world? Neither, actually. The age gap of 29 years between grandma and Jenny serves a purpose to the story (yes, I know it is biologically possible, but still...).

The relationship between Jenny and her grandmother is not exactly a very loving one (no wire hangers are at fault in this story, thankfully!) and though it is heavily implied that these two never really got along, the bad blood increases when Jennifer informs that she is determined to sell the mansion, since she is in desperate need of the money (and doesn't seem to like Argentina very much, either). On the other hand, granny is very adamant about staying there and she won't let it go without a fight .

Jennifer begins to have strange nightmares featuring ravens, which are very similar to some really macabre paintings that her sister had made. Jennifer dreams that these ravens pierce her insides and devours her internal organs (yikes!). She also begins to feel sick and her doctor informs her that she has a strange type of cancer that affected all the members of her family, in which the internal organs begin to consume themselves, which eventually resulted in their deaths.

"Chronicle of the Raven" is a film that doesn't rely on annoying and repetitive jump scares, extreme gore or strident music to develop a horror-like atmosphere. Though I can appreciate those things too, I believe that recent horror flicks occasionally rely too much on those things, taking those resources to an extreme and making them less effective. It is more challenging to provide a horror tone without all those "in your face" elements, because then, the duty of developing a horror atmosphere belongs to the story, the narrative style and the cinematography.

"Chronicle of the Raven" provides a lugubrious tone, sometimes a little bit too tame for its own good, with a photography that offers a subdued color palette and a lot of shadows to provide the mansion where most of the story takes place, a very gloomy nature. The modest budget of one million dollars forces the directors to handle the cinematography with extreme care, in order avoid something grotesque and campy and they succeed in doing so. De la Vega and Parés (the directors), who previously collaborated together on very low budget zombie films that weren't to be taken as seriously as this flick, managed to reinvent themselves with this delicate (even elegant) style. One of my main criticisms with it is that the climax isn't really that powerful. I mean, we do get a final revelation and the main character finds herself fighting against a main antagonist. However, just like I pointed out before, "Chronicle of the Raven" tries so hard to avoid unintentional hilarity, that the climax ends up lacking emotion as well. Another thing that I found a little bit baffling is the fact that some of the characters and their actions didn't make too much sense. One of the characters, for instance, a retired doctor named Darío Baredevil (played by Duilio Marzio) who quit his profession to become a gravedigger (um, okay) first appears in Jennifer's life as a potential buyer of the house, but he turns out to be out to help her because... reasons. I mean, I do understand that people are able to perform good deeds for the others, without any ulterior motives, but in a film, we need some explaining. Who is this man in Jennifer's life and how come he seems to have all the answers to what's happening with her?

All in all, while not being a memorable masterpiece, "Chronicle of the Raven" (also known as "Jennifer's Shadow") is a very respectable film, that manages to stay on the serious side for the most part, while offering some low-key moments of true horror.

Do you like seductive/cool vampires or vampires that are supposed to be scary? Whatever you prefer, "Subspecies" gives us both types and it works perfectly. On the one hand, we have Stefan, a vampire that is not at all intimidating and, on the contrary, is portrayed as sweet, loving, delicate and, as one would expect, very good looking. On the other hand, we have Radu... ah, the unapologetic, depraved Radu, with his beast-like features, the gigantic claws, drooling blood and craving for power throughout the entire film.

In "Subspecies", American college girls, Michelle and Lillian, travel to Romania to work on research about the history of the European country. When they get there, they're greeted by their local friend, Mara. After settling in, the girls meet a charming young man named Stefan, a zoologist who is staying in the same place as they are, and who looks like he's in a dark-wave band. The three college girls attract the attention of Radu, a grotesque vampire (Stefan's brother), who targets them, because he craves for young blood. Radu seems to be especially interested in Michelle, who will have to come face to face with the grotesque creature of the night.

The cinematography in "Subspecies" is very artistic, while not being too all over the place and distracting. The tastefully achieved contrast and vivid colors manage to stand out, even in dark scenes. The great photography, combined with the gloomy locations give a very visually satisfying final results. A vampire flick that was actually shot in Romania is not something that we get very frequently and one of the main reasons why people are delighted with "Subspecies" and its following sequels.

Plot-wise, "Subspecies" is very neat, it wraps up nicely, there are no lose ends and the story offers just the right amount of complexity for what is meant to be an entertaining and unpretentious flick. I like the fact that, at some point, the story dwells into the vampire mythology, portraying them in a way that brings them closer to the animal kingdom, rather than spiteful and organized creatures pushing some kind of convoluted and evil agenda to take over the human kind, by being seductive. Here, the vampires are nasty little creatures that kill because they need the blood and decide to make a deal with the mortals, choosing pragmatism over an unnecessary war, which makes Radu and his evil nature stand out from the rest of his kind. Vampires are not evil per se... Radu is! Not to say that the villagers aren't afraid of the vampires, because they still regard them as "ungodly", but at the same time, they manage to pull off a living arrangement with them, understanding, of course, that, from time to time, someone needs to die.

Anders Hove, who portrayed the infamous Radu in the four "Subspecies" installments, delivers his lines flawlessly, giving us a very fun villain that manages to be both creepy and somewhat humorous, too. Hove's facial expressions, even behind all that latex prosthetics and heavy make up, manage to stand out. The way he whispers his lines, the eyes wide open, the deranged smile and the blood constantly dripping from his fangs, make his portrayal very distinctive. The rest of the cast gets the job done, though. Laura Tate, the lead girl, does a fine job giving us a sweet and somewhat oblivious girl who falls for the good guy and finds herself at the mercy of the evil Radu.

The make up department fails more than once, particularly with the look of King Vladislas, which is so ridiculous that I just can't even begin to describe it. Angus Scrimm (from the "Phantasm" franchise) appears sporting a bizarre wig that makes him look more like someone's great aunt Beatrice, rather than an ancient vampire. And as if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Scrimm also appears to be wearing a really bright red lipstick, and a white foundation, as if he was doing a Robert Smith cosplay or something.

All in all, "Subspecies" is a very fun movie and I honestly didn't think I was going to enjoy it so much, but I think it's safe to say that it managed to claw its way into my all time favorites. Oh, and, by the way, the opening theme is simply epic and it's one of those little niceties that make the film special.

In "Aterrados", we see different supernatural events taking place in the suburbs of an unnamed Buenos Aires town. The first eerie events occur inside the house of a young couple, who find their home invaded by a strange invisible presence. One night, the woman is violently attacked by this supernatural force, resulting in her death, for which her husband is later hold accountable. In a different place, a young boy meets a gruesome death after being hit by a bus, only to rise from the dead and return to his home in a state of decomposition. Finally, a young man desperately seeks professional help after being harassed by a ghost-like creature that wanders around his house during the night. A police officer, a sheriff and two investigators of paranormal events step in to find out what the heck is going on with these cases, given that these strange events took place in different locations, but in the same block, which, clearly, cannot be a coincidence.

"Aterrados" is a film that gently makes the effort to give the audience a quality product and given the modest budget, this is very much appreciated. However, Demián Rugna, who both directed and wrote the film, fails to tie all the loose ends of what initially promises a somewhat polished story. While the second half provides a nice amount of gruesome imagery and some surprisingly decent special effects, the story falls short, by failing to provide solid answers to understand the paranormal events that take place in this particular area. The only explanation that we briefly get from one of the investigators is that water has something to do with this gruesome mess. Apparently, water contains microorganisms that connect the realms of the dead and the living. So, initially, only Walter's house is inhabited by supernatural entities and it is the source of all the tragic events that occur throughout the film (for example: the boy drinks water from an outdoor faucet, which eventually possesses him and the neighbor couple come in contact with the water, as a result of the home renovations done by Walter). Other than that, we don't really know what these supernatural entities are up to and we don't quite get an explanation regarding their nature. At some point, it is mentioned that these forces crave for blood, which provides them with a vampire-like quality, I suppose. Be that as it may, the explanations are unsatisfying. Is there a particular force, entity or presence responsible for everything that happened? Ghosts stories are usually annoyingly similar when it comes to give us a climax with an explanation regarding the supernatural events, but I would have gladly accepted a cliché over nothing. While some directors manage to get away with a convoluted story that doesn't tie all the lose ends, they provide a strong dream-like atmosphere that makes up for the messiness, which Rugna fails to provide in this particular film. In a film directed by Fulci, the stylish cinematography compensates the lack of a solid plot full of loose ends... Rugna cannot afford to do that, at least in this case.

Though I personally didn't care for it that much, "Aterrados" is not exactly a bad flick. It manages to stay away from any type of unintended hilarity and Rugna shows a lot of potential by creating genuinely disturbing moments of tension, which is crucial in a horror flick. The gruesome imagery, great photography and good camera work make this film worthy of, at least, a single watch (or maybe two, in case you want to make sure you didn't miss anything).

I think it's safe to assume that "Family Reunion" was produced with a very limited budget and the director, Michael Hawes, managed to use that budget carefully by creating a tastefully modest (perhaps too modest for its own good) supernatural atmosphere of ghosts and objects that move by themselves, cleverly avoiding badly done CGI or other atrocities. Without resorting to tacky visual or sound effects, this film manages to stay mostly on the serious side, except for a few delirious situations and some mildly bizarre dialogs.

In "Family Reunion", our main characters are the members of the Andrews family: Tom, the father; Kate, the mother; Erin and Billy, the children and, finally, grandpa Henry who tags along. The Andrews go on a trip to visit Kate's family for Christmas, but by Billy's request, Tom decides to make a stop at a ghost town called Sutterville. While they're there, the Andrews come across a policeman, who has just arrested a strange young man for vagrancy (weirdly enough, only Billy, the youngest member of the family, shows some outrage by the fact that arresting someone for vagrancy doesn't make too much sense). After this random encounter with the police, the Andrews decide to leave the place, but... craziness ensues, when the car begins to run by itself, taking the Andrews to the heart of Sutterville and leaving them stranded there (rudest vehicle ever). After this, the car battery dies, much to everyone's dismay, especially grandpa Henry, who seems to have an irrational aversion for Sutterville and channels his anxiety by smoking like a chimney.

Meanwhile, the young man who was arrested for vagrancy doesn't seem to be too concerned about the fact that they intend to keep him in a cell, as he constantly smirks and taunts the police officers. A lot of bizarre and gruesome situations occur around the young vagrant and as the police investigates his backgrounds, they come across strange information about his past that doesn't seem to make any sense. In the meantime, people begin to die in mysterious ways around the unidentified man.

As the Andrews try to find a way out of the oppressively quiet ghost town, they come across some of its bizarre residents, who seem to have something to say to the Andrews, but they don't really say anything outright. In the end, after a few nonsensical encounters with these locals, Tom will come across a dark secret from his past that connects his identity to Sutterville and some strange nightmares that he has been experiencing for years.

This toned-down horror flick is so subtle that it features no gore whatsoever, the body count is rather low and the few deaths that actually happen onscreen are so restrained, that "Family Reunion" could be easily endured even by the most faint-hearted. One of the most "brutal" deaths occurs when our bad guy strangles another character by using his powers, so the helpless victim acts like he is being suffocated by an invisible force, until he finally dies. Clearly, if this is the most violent death, one can easily understand the PG-rating. Besides this, there are basically no jump scares and the music, though creepy enough (in a "low budget production from the 80s" sort of way) isn't too invasive, either.

The acting is pretty artificial, which should be no surprise in a low budget horror flick, so it would be disappointing or, at least, out-of-place if the acting was outstanding. Most of the main cast members didn't act in other films besides "Family Reunion", except for Mel Novak, who isn't exactly an a-list actor, but did a lot of acting works and still remains active. Of course, even if the actors were amazingly skilled, they probably wouldn't be able to show it off in a film with dialogs like the ones we get here (and I am not criticizing, I am just pointing out a fact). Some of the best unintentionally funny interactions take place when Tom (Novak) begins to lose his temper and snaps at every single member of the family for every little thing. The humor mostly comes from the fact that, those of us who went on family vacations when we were kids, may remember our own parents losing their temper, just like Tom, after several hours inside a car with a bunch of loud kids fighting, yelling and asking "are we there yet?"... or maybe that's just my personal recollection.

Michael Hawes, the director, didn't do anything after "Family Reunion", and his only previous film is listed as "Terror in Sutterville", an Australian production, which I can only assume is somehow connected to "Family Reunion", given the fact that the word "Sutterville" is featured in the title. It's almost bizarre how unknown this film is, because even after a mildly extensive search on the Internet, I could only find a few reviews. I remember watching this flick during my teenage years, a time of my life where I'd binge watch obscure 80s horror flicks during the weekends. For some unknown reason, "Family Reunion" stayed with me for years, until I recently found it on the Internet. Watching it again after so many years made me realize that, just like I remembered, there really isn't anything special about it, but I was still glad to find it and it sure kept me entertained. Still, I am surprised by the fact that I even remember a flick that could be considered bland to a certain degree.

Though "Family Reunion" most likely will never get any recognition among horror fans, those who come across this flick will probably enjoy it, probably without wanting to watch it for a second time.

Here we have another flick that is advertised and branded as a sequel for another film, though it has no connections to it whatsoever. "Curse III: Blood Sacrifice" was originally titled "Panga", so I'll be referring to it with the latter title, because it seems more appropriate.

In "Panga", the story takes places in the 1950s, and our main character is Elizabeth Armstrong, a sweet American woman living in South Africa, with her husband, Geoff. Elizabeth, who is carrying a baby, seems to have a hard time adjusting to the way of life in South Africa, but she's a genuinely nice gal and she wants to support her hubby, who owns a sugar plantation, so she makes an effort to be positive and manages to get along with the residents just fine.

While out one afternoon, Elizabeth and her sister, Cindy (who is visiting for a while) witness a tribe's ritual, in which the natives attempt to sacrifice a goat. Horrified by this, Cindy interrupts the ritual and takes the goat, with the support of Elizabeth and her boyfriend, Robert. Things get really tense between the American bunch and the natives, and the language barrer clearly doesn't contribute. A witch doctor, who seems to be leading the ceremony, starts yelling at the confused American and puts a curse on all of them, which seems like silly hocus pocus, so they don't pay much attention to this. (Stupids!) After this event, those who were involved in the incident begin to get slashed by an unknown figure that carries some sort of machete. In the end, Elizabeth will find herself facing that entity that was summoned by the witch doctor, in order to punish them for disrespecting the ritual.

"Panga" provides a killer that stalks people with a machete, and said killer seems particularly interested in slashing the sex-crazed youngsters, as he/she/it goes after them first. Does it ring any bells? It should! This flick tries to capitalize on the success of slasher films that came out mostly during the eighties, but it also adds a few original details along the way, to stand out. For instance, our villain seems to be a supernatural entity that lives in the sea and is summoned by someone, rather than the average killer who (inexplicably) rises from the dead to slaughter obnoxious teenagers. Also, this story takes place in the 50s, where certain technological devices weren't available to make things easier for the poor bastards who are being chased by the blood-thirsty creature. On top of that, the events happen in a rural area of South Africa, with a really (really!) heavy storm throughout most of the film, which leaves our poor characters in an utter state of defenselessness. Finally, unlike most slasher flicks, in lieu of a main set of characters composed by randy kids, we get quite an eclectic bunch, which features: a sweet old lady, her granddaughter (who is around 10), an old man, a young American woman and her husband, two horny young adults and a local foreman, who supervises a sugar plantation. Heterogeneous characters is something that I very much appreciate in a genre, like horror, that mostly focuses on obnoxious teenagers or young adults.

The movie doesn't really offer an outstanding moment, but the final 20 minutes or so provide a fair amount of tension, with the main characters barricading themselves inside in a big house, in the middle of the country. We do get a final confrontation between the main character and the beast-like killer that stalks them, which is a little bit more on the campy side than anything else (the "less is more" concept would have worked well here). That being said, this film mostly stays on the serious side, while not necessarily being an example of artistic or subtle filmmaking. Though "Panga" isn't memorable by any means, it really is an entertaining and mildly creepy film for the most part and the fact that we have Christopher Lee playing a main character should give the film, at least, some recognition. Oh, well!

Clearly, the team behind "Friday the 13th" expected at least to make a reasonable profit out of it, but I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the making of this film even considered the possibility of it becoming the cult classic that it is today. Victor Miller, who wrote the story, openly admitted that he was riding off the success of Halloween (1978). The late actress Betsy Palmer even claimed that, after reading the script, she thought the story was trash (well... she actually used another word), but she took the job because she needed a new car. Little did she know when she took the role that her character would immortalize her as one of the biggest horror icons of all times.

Yes, it is evident that Victor Miller and Don Mancini capitalized on the success of Halloween (1978), but the truth is that "Friday the 13th" manages to stand out on its own, and in the end, other than being two slasher films about a killer who prowls around murdering teenagers; these two films don't really have that much in common. To this day, John Carpenter's "Halloween" is considered a more "serious" horror film (for the lack of a better word), while "Friday the 13th" remains a classic, but is still seen as a less underappreciated respectable flick. Why? Probably because, even though I absolutely love it, I will admit that "Friday the 13th" certainly has a campy nature (no pun intended). In my case, I don't mind the campiness, I actually enjoy it.

In "Friday the 13th", the story begins in 1958, in a summer camp named Camp Crystal Lake. We see two young camp counselors who are about to have sex, when someone appears out of nowhere and murders them both. We don't get to see who the killer is, since the murders are shown in a point-of-view shot, and the reason behind the murders is not yet explained either. The story then jumps to 1980 and it focuses on Alice, a young and sensible girl who, along with other kids of her age, is hired as a counselor by a man who attempts to reopen Camp Crystal Lake. Unfortunately, someone doesn't seem too thrilled about the reopening of the place, which will lead to a series of gruesome murders. Could it be the same person who killed those two counselors back in 1958? In the end, it is Alice who will have to come face to face with the killer and fight for her own life.

Spoilers ahead

Plot-wise, "Friday the 13th" may not be too remarkable, but it doesn't really need to be either. I could be wrong, but I believe this film first introduced the formula that consists on: a summer camp as a scenario, a pinch of mystery, plentiful gore, creative deaths and a gratifying reveal towards the last minutes. Just like this film attempted to ride off the success of a previous slasher, ironically, "Friday the 13th" itself ended up generating a bunch of (arguably) inferior clones as well. Of course, commercial success doesn't necessarily imply quality, but I do think "Friday the 13th" has a certain something that makes it appealing to a lot of people.

For the most part, the characters in this film seem somewhat generic and one dimensional, which is a common attribute in slasher films. There really isn't much of a character development, and we don't get to know them very well. Most of the victims are young boys and girls who seem to be in the camp to have a good time themselves, rather than working hard to make the children happy. Surely, these characters don't really deserve to die for being immature and silly, but at the same time, it is hard to feel too bad for them either. However, the first character that gets killed after the time-jump seems genuinely sweet and caring, so one obviously feels bad for her when she is brutally murdered, just for being naïve enough to trust a stranger. I think this death after the time-jump was a perfect move, because it sets the tone perfectly for what is going to happen later: a bunch of innocent young people will be brutally murdered without having done anything to deserve it.

The acting in "Friday the 13th" is mostly plain or, in some cases, over the top, which, along with the silly dialogs and lines, provides the film with an enjoyable campy nature. The late Betsy Palmer, who played the role of Mrs. Pamela Voorhees, was nominated for a Razzie Award, and while I love the character of Mrs. Voorhees and I felt bad to hear about Palmer's passing, I can understand why she was nominated. It's true, Betsy's portrayal of Jason's mother is over the top and it can appear as unintentionally funny during her delivery of some of her lines, but at the same time, I'm not sure if I can imagine the character being played differently at this point. Then we have Crazy Ralph, literally jumping out of a closet, telling the kids to leave, because they're doomed and that Camp Crystal Lake has a death curse. This character, aside from being called "Crazy" Ralph, (in case anyone didn't notice that he was crazy in the first place), is perhaps one of the campiest characters in the slasher subgenre, which earned him an iconic place in the franchise and even a small part in the first sequel.

"Friday the 13th" offers a nice variety of gory murders, with Tom Savini in charge of the makeup effects, which is an undeniable seal of quality. The legendary "axe in the face" death scene is perhaps one of the most memorable parts of the film for many fans. In this scene, Sean Cunningham and Tom Savini not only offer a morbidly satisfying and shocking on-screen death, we also get a lot of tension and suspense preceding the murder, which creates a feeling of panic and desperation.

The final confrontation between Alice, our final girl, and Mrs. Voorhees, Jason's vengeful mother is really extensive for a good cause, as it helps to build a lot of tension that culminates with a gruesome murder. To some extent, when Mrs. Voorhees suddenly appears out of nowhere and begins to tell the story of what happened to that "poor boy", it is easy to assume that she is responsible for the carnage, or at least, that she is involved to a certain degree. Up until this point, we had never seen her before throughout the entire film, so why is she popping out now? There are no other supporting characters left to blame for the murders and Mrs. Voorhees shows up the exact moment when things got really ugly? What could she be doing at Camp Crystal Lake in the middle of the night, other than murdering boys and girls? Of course, our final girl, even though she is not unintelligent, seems to be somewhat oblivious of what is really happening and this is what makes up want to scream "Get out of there!". Mrs. Voorhees is basically explaining the whole story to the audience, but at the same time, she is subtly revealing herself as the killer, before going into a weird trance, in which she starts talking as if she is possessed by Jason, her own son, who drowned at the lake (I always considered this like a switched version of Norman Bates and his mother).

As mentioned before, the acting in this final confrontation is not exactly brilliant and the audience ends up getting more than they probably needed to understand the story, since Mrs. Voorhees' monologue basically goes into detail of what happened, just to make sure we get it right (just like when they make sure that we understand that Ralph is a crazy old man, by calling him "Crazy Ralph"). Regardless of the over the top acting and the spoon-feeding to the audience, the confrontation is full of tension, and it is still considered one of the most memorable "killer reveal" moments in the history of horror for a good reason.

I can only assume that Linda Blair, David Hasselhoff and Hildegard Knef were not exactly at the peak of their careers when they agreed to act in a b-class Italian horror production with a cast of virtually unknown actors. When I think about great actors, David Hasselhoff doesn't really come to my mind, but delirious as it may sound, the Hoff actually does a decent job here and manages to stand out which, I guess, says a lot about the rest of the cast.

In "Witchery", a young woman named Leslie travels to a remote island to do some research for a book that she is writing, which is about the occult. Leslie's boyfriend, named Gary, travels with her to take some photos for the book. Another group of people also travel to the hotel, because they want to buy the place and turn it into a private club. Unbeknownst to everyone, the place is also inhabited by an old witch (Hildegard Knef), who used her powers to lure everyone into the old decaying building, in order to perform a ritual that requires their presence.

In lieu of a completely coherent story, "Witchery" provides a truckload of entertainment, it features some gruesome death scenes and moments that deserve an honorable mention. Some of the characters are randomly sent to another dimension, through a weird reddish vortex. We don't get an explanation about this realm, but we do get to see that the witch (also known as "the lady in black") seems to be the ruler of this place, filled with her weird servants. Are we supposed to simply assume that this realm is some kind of in-between territory between Hell and Earth? I'm not so sure, but I do know that those scenes are creepy enough (it should be mentioned, though, that place sort of looks like a barnyard).

Linda Blair finds herself playing a possessed girl again, but this time, her portrayal and the reasons behind it are rather cheesy, unlike the genuinely scary scenes from "The Exorcist". For some reason, while being possessed, Linda's hairstyle changes and it looks like she had just auditioned for a heavy metal music video or something.

I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants pure entertainment, gruesome deaths, a decent amount of ridiculousness that doesn't necessarily turn the movie into a comedy, some genuinely creepy moments and a plot that fails to provide enough logic.

In 1967, a man named Sam Baker finds his young daughter, Henrietta, hiding in the basement, after killing her cat with a pair of scissors. After punishing his daughter for what she did, Mr. Baker and his wife are brutally murdered by an unseen killer.

Twenty years later, an amateur radio operator named Paul picks up a signal of two people screaming, presumably before being attacked. Paul somehow manages to track down the location where these screaming occurred and heads down to this place, along with his girlfriend, Martha. The young couple break into the house and come across a group of four young squatters. One of them, Jim, owns a radio and his voice sounds exactly like the person that Paul heard screaming the night before. Eventually, all the occupants of the house come face to face with the evil that dwells between the walls, a dark energy that took over the place 20 years ago, when the Bakers were living there.

Plot-wise, "Ghosthouse" doesn't really get the job done, though it makes an effort to provide some sensibleness, from time to time, only to throw it all away later. As the story progresses, some situations seem to make no sense whatsoever, and we foolishly assume that those loose ends will be tied up in the end... but they don't. "Ghosthouse" sure is an example of a convoluted plot that ends with a bunch of unanswered questions and it is clear to me that certain scenes were added just to make the film more "commercially appealing", even though they make zero sense. Hey, who cares? A little bit of unjustified shock value won't hurt anyone, right? So what if the Grim Reaper makes a cameo appearance out of nowhere? Some things just don't make much sense, but they provide entertainment.

Those who are acquainted with Italian low budget horror productions may also expect something in which "Ghosthouse" excels: poorly written dialogs that are also horribly dubbed, which adds a few extra points of unintended hilarity, making the flick even more enjoyable in its campy nature.

This flick provides a nice amount of gore, with blood that is super red because... well, who the hell expects realistic looking blood anyway? There are a few cool death scenes, though the low budget can be clearly perceived. The strident soundtrack, composed by Piero Montanari is both creepy and cheesy as well. The opening theme and the lullaby are played several times throughout the film and it's the type of music that sort of "stays" with you afterwards (something that is very common with Italian horror productions).

Leaving aside the messiness of the plot, Umberto Lenzi is, in fact, a good director and he knows how to keep the audience entertained, even if the story is bad, the dialogs are silly and the actors are terrible. Just enjoy this film for what it is and don't try to make too much sense out of it, or you'll be in for a big disappointment. I recommend watching it as a double-feature with "Witchery" (1988), which was also branded as "Ghosthouse 2" and "La Casa 4", though it has nothing to do with either one of those franchises.

"Milo" is a film that undeniably has a lot of reasons not to take it seriously, and would make a lot of people dismiss it after the first 30 minutes. I belong to a small crowd of people who love this movie and accept it for what it is, leaving the flaws on the side. The budget is low, there is technical and directing sloppiness and there are a lot of script irregularities. All these things spell "bad movie" in capital letters, but in some way, "Milo" works well and not in a patronizing way. I find the story to be rather dark, as it features some genuinely disturbing scenes, and the villain is pretty distinctive and creepy.

The story begins with a group of little girls meeting a strange boy named Milo Jeeder. The girls go to Milo's house, which is also his father's office, a sinister gynecologist who performs clandestine abortions. The strange boy is playing "the doctor" with the girls and he inexplicably stabs one of them to death.

About 20 years later, one of the girls who survived the tragedy appears as an apathetic substitute teacher named Claire Mullins, who lives a very lonely life and her only "friend" is her goldfish pet (for real). Claire gets a wedding invitation from Ruth, one of her childhood friends, and she unwillingly returns to her hometown to assist the ceremony. When Claire arrives, she is informed that Ruth passed away in a car accident, but she stays in town anyway, where she gets to reconnect with her two childhood friends, Abby and Marian (sure, why the hell not?).

Though we find out that Milo supposedly drowned many years ago, Claire believes she has seen him on the street and still looking like a young boy. Abby and Marian assume that Claire is having hallucinations because she's back in her childhood town, but the truth is that Milo really is alive and out to get them. Hopeless and desperate, Claire tries to find someone who believes her, but everyone presumes that she is insane, and in the meantime, her friends start to vanish inexplicably.

My main concern with "Milo" is that there are some script irregularities that leave a bunch of things unclear, and it is evident that the lack of details to explain certain things are the result of lazy writing, rather than a deliberate attempt to leave some mystery for the benefit of the story. The idea behind "Milo" is very good, but the script is not very consistent, as there are a lot of things that don't make sense, mostly concerning the characters' nature, which are poorly written in many scenes. The dialogs are silly and artificial (which I can overlook in a slasher film), but the main problem is that the characters' actions are incomprehensible sometimes. For example: why does Milo suddenly decide to reappear after 20 years and start murdering his childhood acquaintances? Should we just assume that he is mad because one of them is getting married, which pushes him over the edge? How come the girls seem so well after their friend's death? I mean, first, we see Marian and Abby telling Claire that Ruth passed away and in the next scene, we see them laughing and remembering the old times? I didn't expect a tear-fest, but they seemed pretty okay with the idea of Ruth being dead, kind of like "Poor Ruth… but we might as well just make the best of this reunion, right? Let's have a few drinks!" I don't find this very coherent, especially because these girls are otherwise portrayed as caring and sensitive characters.

"Milo" features almost no gore, since most of the murders are very subtle, and some of them are even off-screen. I don't necessarily expect gore in every horror film as a rule, but "Milo" belongs to the slasher sub-genre and in films like this, some gore is required. The lack of gore is balanced by disturbing imagery, mostly featuring Milo and his father, in their dark house, in which we get to see an antique cabinet full of jars containing fetuses and stillborns, and an embalmed body in the basement.

The acting is mostly good. The late Vincent Schiavelli gave a solid performance as Milo's dad, partly because of his physique du rol, but also because of his intentional deadness in his mannerisms and the sinister look in his eyes. As for Jennifer Jostyn, I like her a lot and even though he acting is mostly okay, a little bit more energy and strength would have been fine. What I like the most about this film is basically the character of Milo, which is an interesting villain. The fact that he looks the same throughout a period of 20 years makes us wonder what is wrong with him and though we never really get an explanation, one can only imagine that Milo's lack of growth is due to the fact that he was brought back to life by his father after his alleged death, which somehow affected his normal development. Once again, this is another reason to complain about the weak script, because honestly this should have been clearer.

I admit it, "Milo" is a faulted film, but a very entertaining one and it seems like there are a lot of people who either take it for what it is and love it, and in the same way, there's a lot of people who latch on to the obvious oversights to oust the film. I try not to let the imperfections bother me and enjoy the movie for what it is: a slasher about a weird zombie child using a yellow raincoat (even if it's not raining), who wants to kill his childhood friends and keeps their embalmed bodies and dress them in wedding gowns. I certainly don't think it deserves the 4/10 rating that it got on IMDb.

I have already seen this classic formula in horror films, in which a group of young friends go on vacation to a far-away land, only to find their trip cut short by a series of fortuitous and gory events, followed by an imminent death. "Antropophagus" manages to stand out in its own way, by offering a genuinely frightening villain, extreme gruesome deaths and a perfect setting for the story. I have always thought that the locations of a horror film sometimes have a greater role than the central characters of the story. In this case, the scenario in which the action takes place in a European island, which is actually a beautiful place, but also a devastating scenario that creates a feeling of isolation and vulnerability.

In "Antropophagus", a group of travelers go on a trip to Greece and are joined by a young woman named Julie, who asks them for a ride to an island because she wants to meet some friends.

While the group explores the seemingly deserted island, they come across a rotten dead body, which obviously prompts them to rush back to the boat, only to find it adrift. Julie suggests taking shelter at her friends' house, and when they get there, they find the family's blind daughter in an utter state of panic. The teenage girl, named Henerietta, explains them that her family was killed some days ago by a lunatic. Later, the friends find out that most of the island residents were murdered by the same insane killer, a man named Nikos, who feasts on human flesh and is now out to get them.

I have seen hundreds of horror films and while I can see that certain horror villains, such as Michael Myers, are frightening and creepy looking, that's basically it; I can acknowledge their creepiness, while not necessarily being afraid of them. With this film, I was genuinely afraid of the antropophagus (performed by the surprisingly good-looking Luigi Montefiori). The cannibalistic villain appears as a gruesome beast-like creature with hideous scars all over his face, shredded clothes, a sinister smile and deranged eyes that give the impression that he is some kind of ravenous wild animal that is out to catch his prey. The antropophagus is definitely one of the most intimidating villains I have seen and his image is haunting. "Antropophagus" features some very effective chase sequences full of suspense, in which the killer goes after his human prey with ferociousness in his eyes and a very disturbing smile.

The gore is plentiful and intense, which made my stomach turn once or twice, while not necessarily making this film a torture show. I admit I am easily impressed by gore and I tend to dislike extreme brutality, even when it looks ridiculously fake. However, sometimes gore serves a purpose, when is not just there for the sake of seeing guts scattered all over the place. In some cases, like it happens with this film, the crudeness of the gore help to convey a feeling of vulnerability and even anxiety.

The lead actress is Tisa Farrow (Mia's less known sister) who gave her last performance in this film, in which she accurately provided all the basics that the audience normally expect on a lead girl from a classic horror movie: she's beautiful, but also angelic and innocent. Her character is likable and nice, but also capable of becoming a warrior towards the end and facing that horrible man that is out to get her. And speaking of the devil, the antropophagus himself is played by Italian actor Luigi Montefiori (who goes by the name of George Eastman in this film). I have never seen Montefiori in anything else, except "Antropophagus", but I honestly have to say that this is one of the scariest horror villains I have seen in basically 20 years as a horror fan. He was amazing as the beast-like killer.

To this day, "Antropophagus" remains as one of my favorite horror films, although in all honestly, I don't see it very often, because I actually find it scary and even depressing for moments (that's a good thing, since horror films are not supposed to cheer us up)

Although "The Evictors" could be considered as a little bit too soft to fit into the horror category, I acknowledge it as a very effective and overlooked psychological horror film. I think it is a character-driven film, in which past events acquire a lot of relevance to build the atmosphere.

In "The Evictors", the story takes place around the year 1942. A woman named Ruth Watkins and her husband Ben, move into a cozy house in Louisiana, in what seems to be an isolated village. Ruth feels very lonely, since her husband is away most of the time and the other women from town don't seem very friendly towards her, except for Ollie Gibson, an elderly woman in a wheelchair, who also happens to be the only neighbor in the area. One day, Ollie invites Ruth to her house for a pleasant evening with some coffee and cake. Well, the pleasant evening stops being so pleasant when Ollie reveals to Ruth that, before she and her husband moved into their home, there was a gruesome murder in it. Ruth becomes rather shocked by this and she's even more shocked when she finds out that between the 1920s and the 1930s, there was another series of murders, which were allegedly very brutal.

Horrified by the events that took place in her house, Ruth begins to suspect that the person who committed all those murders is still around and he is out to get her. To make things worse, her husband is hardly ever home and Ruth doesn't have anyone to help her, except for Ollie Gibson, who clearly isn't much of a protection anyway.

The story is simple, but it's filled with well developed intrigue. "The Evictors" is an unpretentious psychological horror film that mostly features Ruth's descent into a transitory state of paranoia and fear, which threatens to ruin her traditional, happy life. Ruth is a defenseless woman, who suddenly needs to rise up and face an outside force that threatens her very own life. Of course, before rising up, Ruth tries to get her husband to fight for her, but when she realizes that he is unavailable to do so, she comes around and ends up doing all the dirty work by herself. Let's keep in mind that this story takes place in the 1940s, a time where women weren't expected to fight back and it was unimaginable that a frail and delicate lady like Ruth would match a big, strong man in a confrontation. The fact that this film takes place in the 1940s serves the purpose of giving us a lead girl facing severe challenges, since during those days, women were only allowed to say and do so much. If anything, "nice women" were expected to stay home, be good to their husbands, cook for them and, of course, make babies. Well, in this case, Ruth seems pretty comfortable with this arrangement, when she is suddenly pushed out of her comfort zone and is forced to step up and fight. I think this is interesting, because we get to see how our lead girl is forced to drastically change from damsel in distress to warrior, throughout the course of film. Towards the end, we get to see an unexpected and far-fetched twist that evidences Ruth's repressed desires, which in this case is romantic lust towards another man. This gives us another reason to believe that Ruth has changed and she is no longer that fragile and subservient woman that we see at first. My main problem with the ending is that it goes out of its way to give us a surprise, when it is rather unnecessary and it comes off as an attempt to shock the audience just for the hell of it and it's not even all that shocking either. "The Evictors" uses the perfect setting, which is a big dark house, located in the middle of nowhere, where the pretty and delicate housewife spends her the time.

This film features no gore whatsoever. The PG rating is a clear indicator that "The Evictors" is free from gore or nudity and it manages to stay on the "innocent" side, while providing a bunch of on-screen murders. The lack of gore and gruesomeness can be a let down to certain horror lovers, but the movie makes up for this with well created suspense and great tension. One thing that bothers me about "The Evictors" is that for moments, it is seems that Charles B. Pierce went out of his way to fill an hour and thirty minutes with never ending sequences that help to build tension, but that could have easily have been shorter and just as effective. All in all, a very enjoyable low-key horror film, done with a lot of simplicity. It can be highly enjoyed if one isn't expecting brutality of any kind or in-your-face horror elements, such as: visible supernatural elements, a profuse body count, beast-like creatures or exaggerated horror music.

I have mixed feelings about this film. I like it and I've seen it around five or six times, but there's something about "Halloween" that I find dissatisfying.

Incorrectly regarded as the first slasher ever made, "Halloween" started a trend of low budget films about mysterious killers wearing a mask and murdering young people with no specific reasons. The truth is that "Halloween" changed horror movies for good and served as an influence for many horror films that came after. While "Black Christmas" came four years before this, and it is one of my favorite slashers, I think it is less known, because we never get to see the killer, while "Halloween" gives us a very frightening looking villain, capable of causing horror to the most experienced horror fans. Michael Myer's design is actually very modest: a white mask with black eyes, a blue overall and a big kitchen knife that make him very sinister, without having to appeal to something more brutal and explicit, like some of the slasher killers that came after him. Michael is a very well designed horror villain and he is probably one of my favorites too (keeping in mind that this isn't the only "Halloween" film). So what is it about "Halloween" that doesn't quite do it for me?

My main problem with "Halloween" is that I find it a little bit slow (there, I said it!) and I'm sure this is the main reason why other people dislike it as well, which automatically causes avid "Halloween" fans to accuse the detractors of only being capable of appreciating horror films with a lot of cheap-scares. I actually don't have a problem with slow films, but I feel like most of this film features the main character going on about her business, chatting with her silly friends about high school crushes and stuff, and we occasionally see Michael Myers appearing here and there. I do realize that this is intended to create a frightening atmosphere and it actually works well, but after a while, I find it a little bit tedious.

Those who want gory murders will have to skip this film. While I think gore is not always a requirement, I would normally expect the murders to have some kind of shock value and be disturbing, even if we don't get to see a single drop of blood (it can happen). Most of the murders are rather predictable and what we see on the screen isn't too disturbing or shocking, at least not by nowadays' standards. Fortunately, the music during the murders is so powerful and fear-provoking that it makes up for the lack of brutality. For the life of me, I can't understand how "Halloween" got an R-rating in so many countries. Not only there's barely any blood in it, but also, the nudity is very naïf and harmless.

Towards the last twenty minutes, "Halloween" displays a lot of suspense, mainly with Laurie Strode (the lead) being chased by the sinister Michael Myers. This part of the film is not only full of tension due to the fact that a merciless killer is out to get an innocent high school girl for no apparent reason, but also because two small kids are in danger and it's the lead girl's implied responsibility to protect them. The confrontation between Michael and Laurie is chilling, as the killer is apparently impossible to kill and Laurie, in all her nervousness, goes out of her way to make the worst possible choices when it comes to escaping the lunatic. While I find the night scenario and the dark in general to be fitting for a horror film about a mysterious killer, I find the excessive dark to also make it very difficult to fully appreciate what's going on at times.

The acting in "Halloween" is very solid, which is unlikely to find in slasher films, or at least the ones that came out during and after the eighties. The main three actresses are Jamie Lee Curtis (unknown back then), P. J. Soles and Nancy Loomis, while English actor Donald Pleasence plays Detective Sam Loomis. I have no complaints here, like I said, I found the acting to be rather convincing and spot-on. As for the characters, the lead is a mousy girl, named Laurie Strode, who mostly keeps to herself and behaves like a nice girl. Laurie's friend however, are nothing like her; Annie and Lynda (her two besties) are outgoing, popular and fun… and yes, they have sex, they drink alcohol and smoke. Now guess which ones get killed and which ones get to live for several more sequels? Laurie is a good lead and someone the audience would normally care about. She's a very mature girl, responsible, hard working, great with kids and even though she doesn't follow her friends' life choices, she doesn't judge them either, which makes her a perfectly likable lead, which is important in a horror movie, because we are supposed to like her and root for her.

"Halloween" holds up pretty well as a solid horror film that manages to avoid the campiness or the unintentionally funny moments, which is crucial if we are hoping to see a genuinely scary horror film. There are some well created moments filled with suspense and the emblematic music (composed by Carpenter himself) intensifies the feeling of uneasiness during the climax of the film. All in all, a good horror movie that is simply not one of my favorites.

In "Unhinged", three college friends named Terry, Nancy and Gloria go to a music festival in Pinewood, but during a dreadful storm, their car falls into a steep ravine and the girls are rescued by a man named Norman, who takes them to a nearby mansion. The owner of the place is a woman named Marion Penrose, who lives with her crippled mother. Marion advices the girls not to go out again during the storm, and offers them to stay for as long as they need.

For dinner, Marion introduces the girls to her mother, Mrs. Edith Penrose, who turns out to be a delusional, uptight harpy. Mrs. Penrose ruins dinner for everyone by making awkward comments, accusing Marion of being a tramp and going off on a rant on how awful men are, especially her ex-husband, who cheated on her. Later that night, Terry and Nancy talk about what a horrible time they're having and both agree that they want to leave as soon as possible. Also, Terry tells Nancy that she thinks there's someone lurking outside the house, watching them, but her friend doesn't believe her. Things keep getting more and more tense between Marion and her mother and Terri can't wait to get the hell out of there, not only because she knows that there is someone watching her, but also because she can't tolerate the weird mother-daughter relationship.

For some reason, "Unhinged" was banned in the UK, which is something that is proudly mentioned on the DVD cover. Honestly, I don't get it; the film isn't that violent. We see a few murders on screen and they are gory too, but it's nothing so vile that we need to look away from the screen. I am a horror fan, but I dislike extreme gore and I can honestly say that I wasn't freaked out by this at all. It is perfectly endurable and I can't understand why this film was banned at all. It can't be the nudity either, since it is something very innocent (we only see the girls showering). Could it be that the movie was banned due to the offensively bad acting instead? That I can believe!

"Unhinged" was filmed in Portland, Oregon and director Don Gronquist decided to cast Portland locals with little or no acting experience… and it becomes evident as we see the film. To my surprise, Virginia Settle, who plays Mrs. Edith Penrose, was actually a stage actress. Mrs. Settle is probably one of the highest points of this film due to her over-the-top acting that gives this film an undeniable campy nature. The way she yells and gesticulates, while she's accusing her daughter of being a whore is simply hilarious. The high-pitched voice, the eyes wide open and the whole refined and snobbish aristocrat stereotype makes Mrs. Penrose a very memorable character, but I would have never guessed that she was actually a trained actress. Perhaps the declamatory acting is part of her theatrical training. Janet Penner, who plays Marion Penrose was probably the more decent actress on this film and thank god for that, because even though Terry is the main character, she is pretty forgettable as a lead and the actress, Laurel Munson is very unskilled. Marion is a more interesting character; Penner gives a solid performance throughout the entire film and during the last minutes, she displays a lot more strength and histrionics, while managing to stay serious and avoiding the campiness. The ending is campy by itself, but Penner doesn't make it more bizarre. The two other girls were awful; Sara Ansley, who portrayed Nancy, was a model whom Gronquist had found through a talent agency and maybe she was an excellent model, but as an actress, she was terrible.

The filming locations are probably one of the best things about "Unhinged", since most of the action takes place at the Pittock Mansion, which is the perfect scenario for a horror film. The place is beautiful for sure, but it's also eerie and it gives a feeling of uneasiness, since the girls seem to be lost and trapped in that isolated location.

Throughout the entire film, we hear a weird synthesizer music that doesn't really fit for a horror movie that is supposed to be serious and creepy, but somehow, it works well in this film.

While this film doesn't really offer anything that special to the horror genre, I found the twist in the end to be rather interesting and fun. I have read other reviews stating that the twist was predictable and unoriginal, but I myself don't feel the same way and it's one of the reasons why I love this film so much. The thing about "Unhinged" is that, clearly, it is a less than perfect movie, but there's just something about it that makes a lot of people love it, without being able to explain why and I am one of those. I love this film and I regard it as one of my all time favorite slasher flicks, even though I also understand that it isn't all that great either.

In "American Gothic", the story revolves around Cynthia, a young woman mourning the death of her baby daughter, for which blames herself (and she really should!). Following her psychiatrist's advice, Cynthia and her husband, Jeff, go on a trip with some friends, but their trip is cut short when they find themselves stranded in a deserted island. During a walk around the woods, the group finds a wooden cottage and they decide to break in (of course they do!). While the guys and girls are snooping around the place, going through the drawers and even dancing the Charleston like complete imbeciles, the owners of the house arrive. The householders are an elderly couple who call themselves "Ma" and "Pa". Jeff apologizes for the intrusion, but Ma tells him not to worry and invites them to stay for as long as they need. Later, we find out that Ma and Pa have a "child" named Fanny, a middle-aged woman who thinks she's 11-years-old. Fanny has two brothers, who are also middle-aged and behave like children.

Up until this point, we assume that this is only a very peculiar family, but the truth is that Ma and Pa are religious fundamentalist who condemn and punish everything that is disapproved by the Bible, and they have trained their "children" to be that way too. As it is expected, the young friends and their modern lifestyle don't quite fit with the family's traditional values and it doesn't take long for the carnage to begin.

"American Gothic" is one of those films where it's very hard not to like the killers more than the victims. The family members are judgmental and self-righteous, which are two qualities that many people dislike, but it is also evident that they simply don't know any better as a consequence of living in seclusion and having been trained to strictly obey the Bible. At first, Ma and Pa actually seem to mean well, since they offer shelter without expecting anything in return. However, this so-called act of kindness could also be explained through the Bible, which they seem to follow unconditionally ("Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless"). It is uncertain whether Ma and Pa were being nice out of kindness or if they were only obeying the book, but regardless of their primary motives, they help the young friends nonetheless. On the other side, these ungrateful bastards show no respect, they laugh at the family's lifestyle, make fun of the obviously mentally ill "children" and expect the family to adjust to their lifestyle, so in the end, one sort of expects them to die horribly. Even though the modern audience would most likely relate to the young friends, at the same time, it is easy to understand why the family members were out to get them. It is evident that the family doesn't kill just to please the Lord, they also get pleasure from it but they are immune from prosecution due to insanity and still less offensive than the young group. The other reason to like the family of lunatics more than the young friends, is that the family members are actually funny and likable due to their hilarious insanity. Crazy characters tend to be more appealing, at least compared to these nasty and generic young characters. I wouldn't exclusively blame "American Gothic" for providing unlikeable victims, as this is a common thing in slasher films. Perhaps, in some cases, it is intentional and we are supposed to root for the bad guys or even take these films as a cautionary tale with some kind of moral, like in this case "Don't be a disrespectful jerk to those who have different values" or "don't barge in and expect the others to adjust to your own ways".

"American Gothic" provides a few funny moments and lines, which in some cases seem intentional and in other cases not. For instance: I think the family members, especially Fanny, are supposed to be somewhat humorous. I refuse to believe that these over-the-top characters were not deliberately written to provide a few laughs. The acting on the other hand, is one of the things that had me chuckling once or twice and I don't think this was supposed to happen. The beautiful Yvonne De Carlo plays the part of Ma and she does it very well. Rod Steiger on the other hand, mostly gave a solid performance, but I also found his acting to be over the top sometimes, which provides this film with a nice campy nature. Actress Janet Wright basically steals the show with her performance of Fanny, the daughter. Not only she manages to be deliberately funny, she also portrays a character that is somehow likable in a condescending way (sort of like a mental patient claiming to be Napoleon, maybe?).

As for the gore, there really isn't much and towards the last minutes, we get a lot of murders in a very short period of time, but it seems rushed and it is hard to appreciate them. I think this is a little bit disappointing, as gore and creative murders are usually expected in films like this. The low amount of gore doesn't ruin an otherwise entertaining film, but it sure gives the feeling that something is missing.

This film goes to a safe place by using the classic formula of a group of moronic friends becoming stranded in a deserted place and ending up dead. "American Gothic" goes out of its way to avoid being too generic and makes a noble effort to stand out, by offering a very colorful family of villains and it works pretty good, even if it's unintentionally funny for moments. We also get a far-fetch twist towards the end, which I won't spoil, but I will say that I found it a little bit unnecessary and rushed, although not enough to ruin a film that is mostly fun and respectable.

In "Dagon", Paul and his girlfriend, Barbara, go on a trip to Spain, but after suffering an accident with their boat, they end up stranded in a gloomy harbor port called Imboca. After a series of incidents, Paul becomes separated from his girlfriend, so he goes on a search all around the town to find her. For some reason, the villagers from Imboca are out to get Paul, but he manages to escape the angry horde. Through the story of a homeless guy named Ezequiel, Paul learns that several years ago, there was a fish shortage in the town of Imboca, which caused a lot of despair among the villagers. One day, an evil sailor introduced the townspeople to a new god called Dagon and forced them to abandon their catholic religion. Dagon eventually brought a lot of wealth to the town, but in return, he demanded live sacrifices and women to breed with him. Progressively, Imboca became a dark and isolated place, inhabited by fish-like creatures, which live to worship their beastly god. During Paul's search, he comes across a strange "girl" named Uxia, who is also the high priestess of the Order of Dagon and she seems to be in love with him. Paul decides to continue with his search, unaware of the fact that the townspeople, led by Uxia, want to offer Barbra as a sacrifice to Dagon.

Director Stuart Gordon offers a dark and even depressing atmosphere in this film that deals with the classic theme of innocent people stranded in a deserted place, where they meet a gruesome fate. While the story is simple, as it mostly features Paul escaping from the angry villagers, it manages to provide an hour and a half of genuine horror with dignity, avoiding never ending fillers that lead to nothing. In some way, I suppose "Dagon" may sound similar to a zombie flick, but in this case, it seems like the angry horde actually has something personal against Paul, which makes the whole thing more intriguing, since we don't get to know why, until the very end. Paul's quest becomes exciting, as we get to see the mysteries surrounding Imboca slowly unraveling.

My main satisfaction with this film is due to the perfect location, because I believe that the filming locations are very relevant in these types of horror films, where the setting usually works as another character that interacts with the rest. The fictional town of Imboca (which is actually called Combarro) makes the perfect horror scenery for this nightmare-like story; it looks frightening, even depressing, and it is always raining heavily throughout the entire film, which makes things even more difficult for the main character. Aside from the Combarro landscapes, we see a decaying hotel that seems to have been deserted for a long time, which gives a feeling of uneasiness and discomfort. Abandoned places always seem to provoke distress, because they give the feeling that they are cut out from the rest of society, the modern civilized word and its false securities. The Spanish architecture of the houses and mansions are somehow more unpolished and rustic than the architecture that we normally see in American horror films, and I find this rusticity to be also frightening, as it gives me the idea that the people from this place have some kind of a ferocious nature and aren't exactly tamed.

As for the bizarre villains, which in this case are mostly the townspeople, I thought this was a great achievement; the idea of merging humans and sea creatures as the main antagonists is perfect. These characters hardly ever talk, they mostly make strange noises, they walk around in a weird animalistic way, and most of them cover their pale fish-like faces with scarves and the rest of their bodies with black hooded raincoats. In a way, it reminded me of a zombie film, since these villagers move together in a horde without a mind, chasing the only humans in the town, because they want something from them. Of course, I have seen my share of zombie films and while I can enjoy them from time to time, I found these strange fish-like creatures to be more interesting and scary. The music in "Dagon", composed by Carl Cases is also very fitting. We mostly get to hear the same music throughout the entire film, in which a woman and a chorus of men chant a darkly appealing melody that helps to create a mystical and depressing atmosphere.

Of course, I don't think "Dagon" is the perfect film. My main problem with this film is the bad CGI; not only because it looks extremely cheap and amateurish, but also, because it is completely unnecessary. This film could have been much better without this horrible CGI, and while I cannot say that this ruined the movie for me, it cheapens it considerably. I have another criticism concerning the dialogs. Though "Dagon" mostly doesn't provide humor, unlike some of Gordon's previous horror films, I'm sure some of the dialogs in this film are supposed to be intentionally funny, and while I chuckled like it was intended, I find the humor to be out of place in a film like this.

Based on "The Shadow over Innsmouth", this film is mostly regarded by Lovecraft fans as a noble effort that actually remains true to the atmosphere and structure of his story. In any case, Dennis Paoli, who writes most of the scripts for Gordon, deserves recognition as well, since "Dagon" doesn't take everything directly from Lovecraft's story. The film deals with a few recurring Lovecraftian elements, such as the impossibility to escape fate, religion and non-human influences on humanity, among others.

I can't say that I'm surprised by the unpopularity of this film, but I think "Amok Train" is lots of fun and though a lot of people may disagree, I actually think it has a few genuinely eerie moments and it is worth watching. It should be mentioned, though, that the story has absolutely nothing to do with "Beyond the Door" (1974).

In "Amok Train", a group of American "teenagers" go on a school trip to a rural town in Serbia called Ufir, to witness an ancient ritual. Our main character in this story is one of these high-schoolers, a mousy girl named Beverly Putnic, who is of Serbian ancestry. One would expect her to be happy about visiting her ancestors' lands, but, in reality, she's not. You see, Beverly doesn't get along with her class mates, who constantly pick on her for being shy and because of the fact that she's still a virgin. Unbeknownst to all the young students, including Beverly herself, this trip to Serbia is actually all about her, because many years ago, a cult of Serbian satanists chose her to become the Devil's wife and now that she has a grown into a young woman, she is ready to meet her future husband. Though it is never explicitly revealed how this trip was organized, judging by the sinister look on the teacher's face, one could easily assume that she is in cahoots with the group of Serbian satanists, but I digress...

When the class mates arrive to Ufir, they are welcomed by a local man, known as Professor Andromolek, who is also the cult leader (which is evident, since he uses a silver cane, a black cape, and he has a Satan-like goatee). On the first night, when the class mates go to sleep to some cabins located in the middle of the woods, two locals (and cult members) set the cabins on fire, which results in the death of one of the students. The remaining ones manage to escape and ask the locals for help, only to receive hostile looks and indifference from them (no surprise, since they are all cult members). Sensing that there's something very wrong in Ufir, the youngsters escape the rural town, by jumping into a moving train, where all hell breaks loose.

I may be a part of a really, really small crowd here, but I actually like this film and not in a patronizing way. Sure, there are a lot of ridiculous parts, but I actually think director Jeff Kwitny builds up a very eerie atmosphere, by taking advantage of the Serbian landscapes, making them look frightening and intimidating (though also darkly appealing). The elderly actors who play the cult members look very threatening with their zombie-like attitude, their black clothes, the sinister look in their eyes and the fact that they always appear out of nowhere from the trees, giving the impression that they're all together up to something horrible. The death scenes are very creative; some of them look ridiculous due the lack of budget or maybe the lack of common sense, but overall, I found the deaths to be very original and enjoyable.

The characters are rather generic and one dimensional, but most of us who watch these types of b-horror productions don't even care about that, anyway. We have the shy and innocent girl, the handsome athlete, the nice guy, the dumb one, the beautiful, popular girl and the list goes on. Slovenian actress Savina Gersak appears to have fun playing one of the most enjoyable characters, a young thug named Sava, who joins the generic high-schoolers in their ill-fated train ride. Sava is not only a tough girl, she is also a thief and she refers to herself in the third person too! ("Don't mess with Sava", "Sava is a thief, not a murderer!"). Aside from Gersak, the acting is mostly plain, except, of course, for Swedish actor Bo Svenson and Argentinian actress Victoria Zinny, who only appears for a few minutes, anyway. It is obvious that the rest of the actors didn't have a lot of acting experience and that's forgivable, because they get the job done, anyway.

The film reaches its peak during the well awaited ritual, in which Beverly is offered to the Devil as his bride. By this point, it seems like poor Beverly is somehow willing to accept her destiny, and she even looks eager to finally meet her future hubby... or is she? I don't want to spoil the whole scene but I will say only one thing: we actually get to see the Devil for a brief moment and it's not bad at all! I have seen my decent share of b-horror movies from the 80s to say that the Devil's appearance actually looks surprisingly decent. I think it would have been better to keep him off-screen to make him more mysterious and intimidating, but apparently, director Jeff Kwitny didn't feel the same way and he took the risk of showing him. The whole ritual scene is over the top and bizarre, so there's no disappointment there, since it provides a combination of shock and unintended hilarity (seriously, what more can we ask for at this point?)

"Amok Train" deals with the premise of being stranded in a foreign land, where nobody can understand or help the characters, which is a trope that I tend to enjoy. There are several scenes where we only see the Serbian actors talking to each other and there are no subtitles, which alienates the audience too. I think the whole idea of being lost and helpless in a foreign country is terrifying, especially if the place is half as scary like the fictional town of Ufir that we see in this film.

"Amok Train" is definitely a fun ride and anyone who can appreciate b-horror movies from the 80s should be able to enjoy this film. I know I was pleasantly surprised myself.

Directed by Jerzy Kawalerowicz and inspired by the (presumably) real case of the "Loudun Possessions", the story of "Mother Joan of the Angels" is set on the seventeenth century, in a small village in Poland. There, a priest known as Jozef Suryn (Mieczyslaw Voit ) is sent to a convent, to help a group of nuns, who have been suffering from demonic possessions, especially Mother Joan (Lucyna Winnicka). As soon as Jozef meets Mother Joan, she threatens him with her diabolic voice and tells him that it won't be easy to cast the demons away and that she's not afraid of him. From that moment on, Father Jozef finds himself fighting and struggling to help the poor Mother Joan and cast the evil forces away.

This films offers the classic "good vs. evil" battle, by showing common places, such as the evil woman and the courageous man who fights against all odds, risking his own life, because he's so kind-hearted that he feels compelled to save the ill-fated woman. These archetypes are mostly shown in the two main characters (Jozef and Mother Joan), although these two are not the only ones. The rest of the nuns, for example, look eerie and unsettling throughout most of the film. There's something strangely disturbing about the nuns in this film, something about the way they move and the look in their eyes, which combines numbness and malevolence at the same time.

"Mother Joan of the Angels" is a film that probably doesn't have much of a scare value compared to the newer films, but I would like to think that anyone who has a little bit of patience and doesn't expect gore and explicit violence, will be able to appreciate it for what it is. This type of horror is not for everybody but there's a lot of things that make this film very dark and powerful. While the new audiences would probably disagree with me, I think this film is not as slow-paced as it looks, judging by the first minutes. As I mentioned before, the key is to have a little patience, allow the character development, until reaching the well-awaited climax.

Visually speaking, "Mother Joan of the Angels" is pretty much flawless. Thought there aren't any amazing special effects, the shots, the setting and the contrasting photography create a very dark atmosphere, which is reminiscent of a dream-like sequence. There's something strange about this film: on the one hand, it is unsettling and dark, but there's also something very soothing about it. I'm not sure if it's the beautiful landscapes, the fact that it is black and white, the long philosophical dialogs or maybe all of those things combined.

The acting is mostly perfect, especially the main actress, Lucyna Winnicka, who manages to convey the poor innocent woman and the evil woman at the same time, without looking campy. Her expressions, her body language, her voice and the way she moves is impressive. I am not easily scared, but I will say that I was very impressed with the scenes involving "evil" Mother Joan. As for the male lead, there's really nothing to complain, as he delivers a perfectly believable character, but simply not as memorable as his female counterpart. As a matter of fact, I was pleasantly surprised by how good were most of the actors, as I was expecting something overly histrionic and more campy.