Reviews

Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.

Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?

A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.

I am a little bit agitated about this movie. I really liked it, but I found myself angry at the filmmakers more than I normally would toward the filmmakers of a really terrible movie I watched. Why, you ask? Well, it is because this film was on its merry way of becoming a superb movie, worthy of a Zanatos score of 9 or 10, but they botched up the job. I will explain in a second, but first let me give an appropriate synopsis.

Two military officers respond to a call for help at a top secret mining operation in Antarctica that the United States government is conducting. The officers, weapons in hand, are dropped near the base and walk the rest of the way. When they arrive, they find that only two people are still left, a medical doctor and a tech engineer. A third member of the base's crew, someone closely associated with one of the two military officers, has apparently started killing off the rest of the crew. Strangely enough, he is also able to summon them back from the dead to do his bidding in preparation for a heinous ritual.

I was happily enjoying the thrills of this movie for a long time, but then the botch-job occurred. Without giving away too much, I will try to explain...but you might want to skip this paragraph to avoid me spoiling anything for you. Anyhow, for those who chose to continue reading, the first botch up was that they killed the wrong female character, giving the poor female character the lead. She was terribly weak in both performance and character (Chase Masterson was so much better). It seemed to unintentionally suggest that women were very inferior. Consider the scene where the two leads, being chased by the undead, step out in the Antarctic cold, and the Faith Ford character immediately has to be carried a few steps by the male lead. Even after they are indoors, he is carrying her because she is acting like she is unconscious. It was just the wrong thing to do, making women in general look helpless, which they are not. The second botch-job was the love theme. Movie makers constantly insist on the ideal ending by letting two characters fall in love. I'm sorry, but there was not only no chemistry for such a thing here, and falling in love under these circumstances is just impossible. This movie could have been spectacular had they left the falling-in-love theme out (and they could have easily written it so with the same results), and, especially, if the doctor and female military officer roles had been switched.

I remind you, though, that I did enjoy this movie. "Sometimes They Come Back...For More" did have thrills and was fun to watch. I guess I just sound so bitter because I know the filmmakers had the opportunity to make a great movie, but settled for a good one. Most films with a budget like this one's can't come close to making that claim, which is why it saddens me that this one missed out on being great. However, I still recommend fans of such films as "The Thing," and "Evil Dead" to check this one out. Zanatos's score: 7 out of 10.

I must say, I was truly amazed by this movie. I've been puzzled as to why on Earth I bother watching all the Disney Channel movies. After such disappointments like "Can of Worms," "Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century," and the awful "Smart House," to name a few, I didn't think Disney could make a decent TV movie. But here it is! This movie really is genius. Instead of going from cheap comedy and typical overblown plots, Disney made something that is nice and, most importantly, can make this stone-faced critic laugh a lot.

Thirteen-year-old Charlie Boyle is a hockey-loving whiz kid so smart that he has been offered the chance to go to college early, to study, experiment, and even teach. naturally, he has a hard time fitting in with the college students, especially his hockey player roommate, who is in the physics class Charlie teaches. One day, he meets a girl and falls instantly in love, but, always being seen as a nerd and not having much success in the past with such matters, he pretends to be a trouble-maker and enrolls at the junior high the girl attends. Thus begins the fun as Charlie must constantly switch from one identity to the next so his lie is not discovered.

So how did Disney do it? How did they make something funny? Well, the cast is great, especially young Trevor Morgan as Charlie, who has some very clever and quick lines. A script that doesn't fall into embarrassing, unfunny, cliched situations for another, which is so typical for this type of Disney movie. Then again, maybe it was a science experiment they tried with a completely accidental result. If so, then hooray for science! Zanatos's score: 9/10!

I really can't believe this one. This made me want to shove my head in the nearest toilet and drown myself. I didn't, because then I knew I would die in the same place this movie belongs! When I saw this was a Troma picture, I should have stopped the tape right there. But, alas, I pressed on, and lost 100 minutes of my life that could have been used to do something better, and anything would have been better, trust me.

The one or two people who have read any of my previous reviews would know that I usually take a moment to describe a plot at this time, but "The Chosen One" has a plot which is beyond description. Actually, I think the film-makers made things up as they went along. Nothing made sense! Of course, that went well with the worst actors and actresses you'll ever see! What disturbs me most is that someone actually got paid to make this mess. The producers probably flew over the cuckoo's nest, because this bird-brained "Raven" should be locked in an atrium forever. Zanatos's score: 1/10...but I would rate it lower if I could. Ugh.

Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:

A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.

I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!

I was very pleased when I saw this film. I rented it thinking it would be a cheesy, unlikable horror film, but it is a lot better than that. I'd say it is a gem in its own right.

Made in 1988 but not released on video until 1993, Dream Demon is about an English bride-to-be who begins to have terrible, horrifying dreams. Not sure why she is experiencing them, and not able to find help from those close to her, she confides her trouble to an American woman (played by Kathleen Wilhoite, who is a very underrated actress) visiting London, who seems to be connected to the dreams in some way. It is then that the dreams turn more serious, as anyone unfortunate enough to be around the bride-to-be when she falls asleep can be pulled into the dream itself!

From the opening scene (I was caught by surprise there, a rarity for me) this movie grasps you. It is a clear and rare case of a movie that could have been done extremely poorly done very well thanks to fine performances by the two female leads and a director who knew what to do when others would flop. It isn't an edge-of-your-seat horror film, but it is freaky and well-done; worth checking out. Zanatos's score: 7 out of 10.

This is one of the neatest movies I've seen in a long time. It is creative, fast-paced, fun, freaky, and surprising all at once. What more could I ask for in a film? Here's the rundown: (it's been awhile since I've seen it, so a few minor details might be off)

Stephen McHattie plays a doctor who is on the trail of a creature left over from prehistoric times: a giant rodent-like beast whose blood has the magical power to heal. The creature lives in tunnels it digs underground in cemeteries, and McHattie has finally tracked the last of its kind to one in a small town. Unfortunately for him, the creature is also being trailed by a crazed FBI agent (played by the always wonderful Brion James) who wants to kill the creature because it killed his partner.

Not much else to say about the plot without giving away surprises, other than that the climax inside the creatures tunnels are some of the coolest scenes I've watched. They create suspense and make you giggle while you shiver. And it is a prime example of how you don't need a super huge budget to make a super movie. Horror fans, this is a must-see! Zanatos's score: 9 out of 10!

I found "The Curse of Inferno" to be one of Pauly Shore's best films. I like most of his previous films (I disliked "Jury Duty" and hated "Biodome"), and this one deserves special attention. Unlike the others, it isn't reaching in all directions for a big laugh every time you turn around.

Two small town guys who dream of being pilots in the Caribbean need $80,000 to open shop. They decide to rob a little bank. As they do, they find that the bank has a lot more money than it should (money is being laundered by rich businessman Ned Beatty and banker Stephen Tobolowsky). To make matters worse, two more robbers show up, causing the original two to botch the job by hiding the loot in the bank itself in order to escape. While plotting on how to retrieve the money, one of the robbers (Shore) meets and falls in love with a new police deputy (Janine Turner). That's when the businessman finds out Shore was involved with the robbery, and puts the pressure on him.

As I said, "The Curse of Inferno" doesn't try to be funny all the time. When it does try, it succeeds. I left it feeling pretty good, and that is a rarity. Zanatos' score: 8 out of 10. Check it out.

The first two-thirds of this movie are so neat and so funny, that it is such a shame when the final third is so downright stupid and remedial. It is about a boy, who feels like an outcast at home and school, that he tries to summon aliens using his satellite dish to take him away from Earth. After a lightning incident, aliens finally do hear him, and some of them come to try and take the boy away after he has had second thoughts about leaving. Some of these aliens (especially the lawyer alien) are very hilarious. But then the writing screws up when the boy his friends team up with the school bully to face an evil zoo-keeper alien. This bully-befriending and cliched evil alien make me wonder if we changed writers within the movie. That feeling ruins "Can Of Worms." Zanatos's score: 5 out of 10

I saw "Starquest II" under the title "Galactic Odyssey." It stinks under any title. Having nothing to do with the original, this Roger Corman release is another in a long line of films that steals scenes from "Battle Beyond the Stars," some other movie I couldn't identify, and makes very little sense. Here's a rundown of what I understood:

Various individuals from Earth awake on a spaceship, having few memories of their lives. Wandering around the ship, they come across three people who claim to not know what is going on. In reality, these beings are aliens from a dying race. They have surgically implanted something into some of the humans. Their plan is for the humans to fornicate (yup, it must be a Roger Corman movie) so that their race will continue. But, as expected, there is a mutiny among the aliens, and people being to die off. Blah, blah, blah...

It is hard to figure out what in the world Robert Englund is doing in this movie. He can do so much better. There is nothing in this movie worthy of praise. Start your own "star quest" and look for a movie that actually shines just a little bit. Zanatos's score: 1 out of 10.

As I was watching "Blue Monkey," I realized that, although the budget was small, I was still having a good time! Low budget movies that can do that are the best ones.

It is about a small hospital that gets itself some big trouble. A patient who has contracted a serious case of gangrene is brought in and, unknown to the staff, the gangrene is thanks to a strange insect that used the patient to deposit eggs in. When they do find out about it, they catch it and call in an insect specialist, but, before he can arrive, the larva is accidentally mutated to an enormous size and changes into a giant insect that looks like a preying mantis. It runs loose in the hospital, killing people for it to use as hosts for its eggs, and only three brave people---a cop, a doctor, the insect specialist---are willing to stop it.

This movie is just fun to watch (especially Don Lake as the specialist, who steals ever scene he is in). A must for fans of movies like "The Thing." Zanatos's score: 8 out of 10. Check it out!

My sister, her boyfriend, and myself were wandering around the horror section one evening. We were having trouble picking something because there was little not one of us had seen already. Then, jokingly, my sister pointed at "Truth Or Dare?" That point was one of the greatest mistakes in her life. This movie is one of the worst I have ever seen. It is practically plotless and pointless. Okay, okay, so the budget was low. I admire good work when the budget is low...but no good work is here.

In this movie, an overworked man comes home early one day and finds that his loving wife is cheating on him. He quickly proceeds to go insane, and dreams up a woman who plays a game of Truth or Dare with him. He tries to kill his wife, but is stopped and is locked up in a mental hospital. There, he somehow gets some weapons (a knife, grenade) and plays a game of....guess what?...with some inmates. In the process, he cuts up his face. From that point on, he doesn't speak and wears an iron mask. My guess is that the actor playing the part asked for his entire salary to be bumped from one dollar to two, and he got fired, so they used his stunt man in a mask for the rest of the film! Well, he breaks out (surprise, surprise) and goes on a pointless killing spree (surprise, surprise), and goes after his wife again (wow, didn't see that coming). Meanwhile, we are subjected to the bothersome, bumbling cops who are tracking him.

This movie is by far one of the worst slasher movies you'll find, right next to "Don't Go Into The Woods." And this is coming from a fan of slasher flicks! So if you are playing a game of Truth or Dare, and someone dares you to watch "Truth Or Dare," then my truthful advice to you is to dare them to play a game of Spin the Bottle, and forget about watching this unwatchable garbage. And that is the truth. Zanatos' score: 1 out of 10.

"The Killing Grounds" has to be one of the few movies where you will dislike every single character. Fortunately, unlike some movies...like the awful "Skin Deep," you aren't supposed to like them.

A group of criminals steal a huge load of gold bars and plan on flying it over the US-Mexican border. Two of them are undercover cops, and they plan on cheating the others by keeping the gold after one of them flies it over the border. The plane crashes in the woods of the American Southwest, killing open of the cops and the plane's pilot.

Overall, the beginning of "The Killing Grounds" could have been better, and that could have made it into an exceptional movie instead of a mediocre one. Still, it wouldn't be a waste of your time to see this movie, since there are so many other movies like it out there that are really bad. Zanatos' score: ### out of ##### (or a 6 on this site's scale). Check it out.

I was truly mesmerized when I saw Microcosmos. Never before had I seen a documentary with such brilliance. The film makers use special lenses and cameras to bring up-close shots of insects and other tiny little creatures. The most memorable moments involve beautiful scenes involving ladybugs, caterpillars, and snails.

There were a few things more that made this better than any documentary you will see on the Discovery Channel. First, a normal documentary on little creatures would show an abundance of spiders. This had one brief moment where a spider was catching grasshoppers. There was a second spider that somehow lived underwater(!) that they showed. That was an amazing moment. Second, a normal documentary would have an irritating narrator explaining everything under the sun to the audience. This one only has the narrator in the very beginning and the very end.

I am a person who never watches a movie twice, but I was so moved by Microcosmos, that I did this time. Actually, I saw it in two consecutive days. It is definitely worth everyone's time. Zanatos' score: ##### out of ##### (or a ten, on this page). Check it out.