Hail to the King: Celebrating The 30th Anniversary of Army of Darkness

 

    All right, listen up. Who forgot to mention that it was the 30th anniversary of Army of Darkness? I had planned on talking about the film already. But now it seems even more appropriate to do so considering that. Well, I guess I should start from the beginning. If you haven't seen my thoughts on the other two Evil Dead installments, you can do so here and here.

    It was around the summer of 2000. Hey, I finally remembered when I received the first Evil Dead on VHS for Christmas. Talk about selective memory. My Dad and I had caught the first Evil Dead on Sci-Fi channel one afternoon. We enjoyed watching it even though I had it on VHS. It was interesting seeing a more bare bones version of the film considering back in this time Sci-Fi edited their films for content. It seems like nowadays they are able to get away with showing a lot more. It was just one of those fantastic days of leaving the TV on Sci-Fi for their movie marathons. At that point, we hadn't known anything about Army of Darkness and hadn't bothered checking the guide to see what was next. Imagine our surprise when the Universal Logo began and we saw Bruce Campbell on the screen again. 

    By that time, we had seen Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess. So we were well versed with Bruce Campbell's acting. Heck, I was first to point him out in Evil Dead. So when we saw that he was in this film, we both were ready to check it out. The opening was a bit confusing though as at that time we hadn't seen Evil Dead 2 nor did we know that it existed. So it just felt like something had happened that we hadn't seen on screen at the end of the first Evil Dead. Funny enough that later that October I'd come across a VHS of Evil Dead 2 and help change that. 

    I remember on that first watch I wasn't sure what Army of Darkness was trying to do. It was a dramatic shift in tone from the first Evil Dead to this. But that didn't stop us from missing anything. Thinking back on it now, it honestly gave a very grindhouse feel to the film. I loved it though. There was so much slapstick in the film that you couldn't help but appreciate it. Bruce Campbell's performance as Ash is absolutely fantastic. He's a pompous ass that pretends to be so sure of himself amongst the 'primitive screwheads'. Yet when the times get tough, his first instinct is still to run. 

    Army of Darkness was a complete riot. It instantly became a favorite of mine. I appreciated the hell out of the effects that were done by KnB in it. A lot of them still hold up so extremely well too. They aren't afraid of stepping over the edge into slapstick. That was something that felt so fresh and unique when compared to other films. It was just allowing itself to be downright fun. Ash gets the hell beat out of him by skeleton hands in a graveyard? Hell yeah. He has to fight a bunch of mini hims? That ended up becoming one of my favorite segments. Just when I thought that Ash couldn't be more of a goof, he goes and misspeaks the words that wise man told him to remember. "Klatu Verata Nik--. Definitely an N-word." It's pure gold and at that time was my favorite installment. 

    Then in 2003, I remember hearing that Army of Darkness would be released on DVD. I had seen the previous DVDs on the shelves of the Theatrical cut and then the Director's Cut. But for the life of me, I couldn't push myself to picking them up. I waited. Then I finally picked up The Boomstick Edition, it was something that was a pretty fantastic release. I mean it had commentary and some behind the scenes. It was exactly what I had hoped it would be. A extremely nice upgrade from the VHS. It sat on my DVD shelf alongside the Book of the Dead Editions of Evil Dead 1 and 2, which those surprisingly held up very nicely over the years. 

    I still hadn't fully understood what was up with the film. It felt like there were still some things missing from the film. Everything I had seen on that Sci-Fi channel airing wasn't in either of these two versions of the film. I still found myself loving the film even more. It still was something fun to throw on and find something new. Eventually, I began to understand exactly what was going on. There had been a third cut of Army of Darkness that was never released at that point - the TV cut. I had seen an unofficial fanedit that attempted to provide the three different cuts on one DVD. It was a solid job and interesting to watch. But the quality still wasn't the greatest. 

    Then Shout! Factory released what many consider to be the definitive way of watching Army of Darkness - their Collector's Edition. Now, this was a set that seems to be pretty outstanding. It provides all three different versions of the film - so that you can watch whatever version you'd like. It had fantastic special features for the film as well. And many consider the transfer on that to be outstanding. Unfortunately for me and my collection, it's a set that is still managing to elude me. I haven't been able to find it. I'm hoping some day I'll be able to add it to the collection. Till then, I have the Primitive Screwhead 'Cashgrab' Edition that was released by Universal Pictures. 

    Over the years, I still find myself returning to Army of Darkness. I know that when it's time to introduce my son to the Evil Dead franchise, it'll be with Army of Darkness.  It's a film that is just so damn enjoyable and in my opinion, a perfect film. It knows exactly what it is. It never falters or questions itself. It's a tribute to Ray Harryhausen with its fantastic final battle between Ash, The Primitives, Henry the Red and Evil Ash and his Army of the Dead. It's a tribute to the Three Stooges with its many hilarious gags. And its about a man finally coming into his own to save others. Honestly a pretty solid lead-in to Ash Vs. Evil Dead. 

Rating: 5 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Come Stay At The Yankee Pedlar Inn: The Innkeepers (2012)

 

    Hello everyone. Ti West is a director that I'm not exactly one hundred percent sure of. I haven't really seen much of his work. I think part of it is because he's a director that has gone a bit under the radar. It feels like he hasn't been able to get some good luck just yet. Hopefully that'll change next month when his new film, X, is released. That's a film that I'm a bit interested in seeing because I feel like it's going to be absolutely off the wall. I watched the first trailer for it and it looked fantastic. 

    When I sat down to look through West's films, I first came across House of the Devil. House of the Devil is very much a throwback to 70s horror. I remember when I first seen it I didn't like it. I hadn't seen many 70s horror films at the time. So I had a hard time understanding exactly what they were going for with the film. Now, I dig the film a bit. And then I came across Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever. I had to let out a big sigh. I won't dive into my thoughts on that one just yet but stay tuned. Maybe we'll get a Cabin Fever retrospective. 

    All of this then brought me to The Innkeepers. I remember seeing the film when it first came out. Then I realized that it was hitting its ten year anniversary - what the hell? Where did the time go? It's absolutely mindboggling at how quickly time went by. 

    Now when I first watched this film, I was completely unaware that The Yankee Pedlar Inn was an actual hotel. I thought it was something that had just been made for the film. Through taking some time to research it, holy crap. Now there will be some that believe in ghosts and some that will roll their eyes at the whole possibility. After moving into our current house, I'm tending to gravitate more towards believing. Lots of weird things happen round here for sure. Knowing that the hotel is real, it adds a whole new layer to the film. It grounds the film and story being told in such a fantastic way. Hell, I'd rank this up higher than the original Conjuring. 

    For those that haven't heard of The Innkeepers, the synopsis is as follows: "After over one hundred years of service, The Yankee Pedlar Inn is shutting its doors for good. The last remaining employees -Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) – are determined to uncover proof of what many believe to be one of New England’s most haunted hotels. As the Inn’s final days draw near, odd guests check in as the pair of minimum wage “ghost hunters” begin to experience strange and alarming events that may ultimately cause them to be mere footnotes in the hotel’s long unexplained history." 

    One of the large reasons that the film works so incredibly well for me is its cast. This film really rests on Pat Healy and Sara Paxton's performances as we spend almost the entire film with them. There's definitely a solid friendship that can be seen between the two of them. And with Luke, there is the fact that maybe he wishes for more than just friends. There are a few others here and there who all deliver great performances as well. But ultimately, this is Luke and Claire's story. Another reason it works so well is because this is a solid old fashioned ghost story. Revisiting this now, it still feels like a breath of fresh air. It takes its time to build up an atmosphere before delivering the spooks. It doesn't just go all willy nilly with jump scares in your face for the sake of it like other films have done. When there are spooks, there's a reason for them. I found myself just a little unnerved by the creeping atmosphere and whenever the shots begin to linger. It's all handled so very well. 

    I feel like when this film was released it wasn't as talked about as it should have been. It feels very much like an underrated film. If you've come across it over the years and decided eh, it may not be for me. Do yourself a favor and give it a shot. You'll get one of the, in my opinion, best ghost stories in years. It still has left me in chills and looking over my shoulder every now and again in my house. I cannot recommend this enough as I found it very effective. 

Rating: 5 out of 5. 

It can be found over on The Roku Channel, Amazon Prime, Tubi, and Peacock to stream.

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. 

The Films of Mike Flanagan: Oculus (2013)

 

    Hello everyone, it's February and I wanted to do a new segment. If this is successful and people enjoy it, the plan is to go each month with taking a director's work and highlighting their films. If everyone wants to recommend directors, that would be cool. But for this month, welcome to what I am calling "Flanagan February". 

    Mike Flanagan is a very interesting director. Looking over on his iMDB, he directed a few smaller movies from 2000-2003 (Makebelieve, Still Life, and Ghosts of Hamilton Street). All three of these films tended to dip into Drama. We all know that Flanagan delivers a very distinct style with his horror work that also delves into drama. So, it's interesting seeing him dip his toe into things with the early films. But that's not why we're here today. 

    Today, we are here to start our journey with Flanagan's Horror work. Again, I mention his distinct style that is just so damn good. It's extremely easy to see why his stuff works so well. At this point, I would definitely consider Flanagan to be part of the modern era of the "Masters of Horror" in Hollywood. I have seen quite a few of his more recent works in the genre. So it's nice going back to see those earlier works. 

    His first horror film was Absentia. It was released in 2011. I haven't had the pleasure of checking it out yet. But you can be sure that I'll rectify that quickly. It's available over on Tubi, if you are interested in checking it out. Maybe at some point I'll figure out how to host a Watch Party over on Twitter. 

    After Absentia's release, Flanagan returned in 2013 with his second horror film, Oculus. Oculus was based off of a short that Flanagan had made in 2006 - Oculus: Chapter 3 - The Man With The Plan. It's an interesting short. As soon as I knew that I wish to start putting this series together, I tracked it down to give it a view. It's a short that shows so much incredible promise of a young director. It proudly shows its talent on its sleeve. 

    Now the film version of Oculus, it expands on the themes and the story itself in such a massive way. The interesting thing is when Oculus was first released, I missed it. I don't remember what was going on at that point in my life. But it missed my attention. I ended up coming back to it when I went to the local Dollar Tree and lo and behold, it was sitting there on the shelf. Immediately I knew it was a Mike Flanagan film and snatched it up because for me when I know it's one of his films - I know that I will be entertained. 

    The synopsis for the film follows "A woman tries to exonerate her brother, who was convicted of murder, by proving that the crime was committed by a supernatural phenomenon.". One of the things that I have to applaud is the way it expands the story. It gives the film a heart by grounding it in what is ultimately a family's story. And the way that it is told is in such a unique, interesting, and beautiful way. One of the big things that I noticed was the film doesn't follow a standard structure. It allows itself to move between two parallel stories with such ease. And the symmetry of what happens in the past and how it informs the present day story is very interesting. Especially considering that at the heart of the family's problem is a Cursed Mirror. So, it just drives the themes home even further by reflecting the past onto the present. 

    When I started the film, I didn't fully realize just how many well known actors are in it. It was literally something that was ahead of its time in terms of the casting. We have Karen Gillan in her first American role as Kaylie. Of course, we know her as Amy Pond from Doctor Who or the fact that she'd go on to become Nebula in the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Guardians of the Galaxy. She is amazing in this film. Then we have Brenton Thwaites as Kaylie's brother, Tim. Now, I have gone on to know Thwaites as Dick Grayson from HBO Max's Titans. In this film, he is fantastic. It's fun looking back knowing that he'd go on to become a bit of a big name. And honestly, I love Titans and a large reason is due to Thwaites' performance. Katee Sackhoff and Rory Cochrane play Kaylie and Tim's parents in the past portion in the story. These two actors play off of each other really well. I also noticed James Lafferty, who plays Kaylie's fiancée - Michael. At this point, I know Lafferty from that little show he did called One Tree Hill. On that show, I thought he delivered a lot of good performances. However in the little bit he's in this film, he's fantastic. It had me wishing to see more of him. And then I noticed someone that's gone on to become a bit of a staple in Flanagan's films, Kate Siegel. The first time I had seen Siegel was in a film that I'll be covering down the road, Hush. (If you haven't checked out Hush, go check it out. No, when you get a chance - check it out. Netflix. Yeah, you. The one that's reading this right now.) 

    I wasn't sure what I was expecting this film to be. I knew it was Flanagan. At this point for me, always delivers. But I loved it. It was something that I wasn't expecting at all. A huge breath of fresh air. From the first moment, the film managed to draw me in. I was wanting to see where things were going to go next. And there were quite a few times where I was completely blind sided. That's something I love so much when a story will just rip the rug out from underneath you. And Oculus did that in spades. For the most part, it felt a little bit like a thriller and not a horror piece. Especially with the way that the two stories are moving with one another. And it ultimately delivered an ending that left me speechless. It is such an ending that I never saw coming at all. I applaud the ending because it's so strong and bold. But it also wraps things up in an interesting way. 

    If you wish to check out Oculus, it's available on The Roku Channel, Hulu, and Starz. I'd definitely recommend it, especially if you are looking for more of Flanagan's work. 

Rating: 4 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. 

If you liked this, please leave a comment or recommend this to a friend.

The Saw Is Family: Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

    Welcome back to The Saw Is Family. So far in this look back, we have managed to cover just a small tip of this franchise. With the first film, it had managed to find its success and gone on to become such a classic. However with Part 2, it missed its mark at the time. Personally, I chalk it up to being a little ahead of its time. Audiences just weren't prepared for it yet. And there's the small fact that a lot of people were probably expecting something a bit closer to that first installment. 

    It would take a few years, but Leatherface would eventually find his way back to the big screen. This time it would be with a whole new company. While they were new to Leatherface, they weren't new to the horror genre. I mean there's a reason why they're called "The House That Freddy Built" - New Line Cinema. 

    But herein lies the issue, new company holding the chainsaw means there's many chances for mistakes. Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III definitely had its fair share of issues during its production. For one, New Line was gearing everything up for production on the film but one thing - a director. They had also made sure to have KnB Studios on the project for the effects. They eventually approached Jeff Burr after their first choice (Peter Jackson) hadn't panned out to direct. Ironically, New Line would go on to fire Jeff Burr before production was set to begin. With no one else accepted the job, New Line rehired Burr. Sure signs of production troubles. 

    The synopsis of the film is as follows: "A couple encounters a perverted gas station attendant who threatens them with a shotgun. They take a deserted path in Texas to seek help, but only meet up with a cannibalistic clan interested in helping themselves to fresh meat.". New Line was fully set on this being its own installment apart from the previous films. I mean what other direction did they have to go on? At the end of Part 2, the family is basically wiped out by Stretch and Lefty. Roughly, this is a sequel in name only. It also harkens back to a more serious tone akin to the first installment. 

    While I was watching this film earlier today, I just kept thinking to myself 'What had happened to the film?'. This watch was with the Unrated version. I appreciate that it's trying to craft a new story. I appreciate that it even has a new 'family' that Leatherface works alongside. But as much as I would like to say that it's good. It's okay. It just screams of its troubled production. It screams that the studio had no idea what to do with it. They had the Texas Chainsaw license, but didn't fully understand what that meant. Therefore, Leatherface becomes a shallow thug shell of his former self. He's just someone that goes around with his chainsaw terrorizing people. I mean Yeah, Leatherface did that in the first two films. But he also used his hammer quite a bit. He wasn't always so reliant on that damn chainsaw. Plus even in the Unrated cut, the film feels tame. Understandably that's a shame considering the original script had more gore in it. If they had made the original script today, I'm not sure they would have cut back on the gore. They wouldn't have had to. But hey, it was the 90s and horror was going through its cycle. 

    Two things the film does have going for it though is Ken Foree and Viggo Mortensen. Both of these actors do great job in this. Ken Foree is a bit of a tough action hero. Viggo Mortensen - well, he does a superb job at playing crazy.

    Outside of those two, the film just feels like a pale imitator of the Texas Chainsaw name. I'm not trying to come down on it too hard. But it just feels like there could have been a lot more done with it - perhaps if the studio hadn't wanted to rush it out to the theater. The commentary for the film was an interesting listen as well as the Behind the Scenes documentary. Those two things did help give a better insight as to what happened with Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Rating: 3 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

The Saw Is Family: Texas Chainsaw Massacre '74 (1974)

    

    Welcome everyone to our first installment of The Saw Is Family: The Texas Chainsaw Retrospective. This is something I have been pretty excited about. In the span of this latest run of this blog, I have covered quite a few franchises so far: Puppet Master, Leprechaun, Child's Play and Scream in their entireties. We have dipped our toes in with Halloween, Friday the 13th, and the Elm Street remake. But while all those franchises were something that I had grown up with, Texas Chainsaw is one that's separate from the rest. 

    My first time watching the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre wasn't till at least 2006. It was something that I hadn't grown up with. My first installment of this franchise that I had seen was the 2003 remake. And that first watch of it was an interesting one as I just didn't really gel with it. It was probably because at the time I wasn't prepared for the film. And after watching the original Amityville Horror for the first time, I wasn't exactly ready to give the original Texas Chainsaw a try. But I remember that 2 disc set that they released for the film. I finally was able to sit down and give the film a watch. 

    Texas Chainsaw Massacre '74 is something that is incredibly interesting. It's a film that when it was originally released was pitched to be 'based on a true story'. Yeah, we know a lot of films claim to be 'based on a true story' when in reality - they not. While Leatherface and Texas Chainsaw didn't happen, it was still inspired by the story of Ed Gein. Ed Gein was also the inspiration for Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs and Norman Bates in Psycho. It's incredibly interesting that these three horror icons are inspired by one man. Each of them manage to find some aspect of inspiration from that story. 

    When I had first watched Chainsaw '74, it was something that I was well aware of. I had been told repeatedly that I had to watch it. "It'll give you chills.", some of my friends had claimed. While that didn't happen, I did find myself incredibly intrigued by the film. While we are shown the events of the film through the view of Sally and her friends, the film is about Leatherface's family and their interactions with them. I was incredibly annoyed by Franklin, which I'm assuming is something that was supposed to be the case. He's someone that typically we would care for, but he's just a downright jerk to Sally and the rest of her friends. At some points, it's just downright sufferable. So, it just helped us root for Leatherface when the time came for poor Franklin. 

    I love Tobe Hooper's approach to showing us the family and making them so distinct and unique from one another . He gives each of them their own moment to shine - the Hitchhiker scene in the van, Leatherface's Hammer Time entrance into the film, Grandpa's masterful attempt to swing that hammer or that pitch perfect family dinner scene with Drayton. All of these moments are incredible and have gone on to become such iconic moments. 

    The way that the camera is used in this film doesn't necessarily make it feel like a film. It feels more of something like a documentary. When this first released, I could see this lending credence that this 'happened'. Especially as they were marketing this to be the most terrifying film at the time. 

    The pacing of this film is something that is also very interesting. Hooper took the time to introduce and develop the characters. Some may consider it to be a bit of a slow pace. But I have to say that it's much appreciated. Sally and Franklin receive a lot of the development in the film. Sally's friends however are a bit one note especially during the hitchhiker scene. How long did it have to take before the one driving knew what the hell was going on in the back? Everyone was playing it small and quiet. I guess I get it because they don't want to instigate Nubbins into doing anything further drastic. But he went on a little too long, in my opinion. Franklin's a jackass that starts off relatively light, but after encountering Nubbins it caused him to take a dark turn. He started looking at everyone differently to the point where he was completely crass. 

    The whole reason for this 'trip' for Sally and her friends being they are going to investigate the 'suspected vandalization' of her Grandfather's grave. Within the first few minutes of the film, we quickly solve that mystery. It was dug up, but it didn't look like he had been vandalized. After that had been solved, I would have been out of there. Instead, they decide to check out Grandfather's old house. And it's very apparent that nobody has been there for years. It's dilapidated and run down. Heck, the local 'watering hole' out back has all but dried up. There's also the small fact that there isn't many places to get some gas for their van. But outside of all that, it feels like it was a small reason to have them run into Leatherface and his family. 

    Now this may seem like I'm trashing the film, but I am not trying to. I really enjoy the film. It's a very original and distinct horror film. There's a reason that it was one of the first horror films to arrive on the scene. And when it did, it hit in a bit of a big way. Hooper has done many films over the span of his career. However, I don't think many of them come close to what he was able to achieve with Texas Chainsaw Massacre '74. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Subscribe to receive updates sent to your e-mail for the blog.

What's Your Favorite Scary Movie?: Scream (1996)

 

    Hello everyone, I have a very serious question for you all. What’s your favorite scary movie? This was the question that had defined an era in the horror genre when it was asked. But back in 1996, who would have imagined that would have been the case? Certainly not many in Hollywood. When it was first beginning production, Scary Movie was something that not many could have foreseen going the distance and breaking all the odds. It just felt like another horror film. However, Kevin Williamson did something that not many could do back then. He turned the mirror of the horror genre back onto itself.

   Wes Craven originally even went as far as passing on the project. At that point, he was literally ready to be done with the horror genre. I mean honestly who could blame him at that point. He was a legend at that point with the films he had made. Last House on the Left. Hills Have Eyes. Those two films alone launched Craven’s career. But it was his work with Nightmare On Elm Street that catapulted him even further. Now it’s been well known that there was a kid at a convention that Craven attended had helped push him back to the genre that he was very fond of. “You need to get back to making something kick-ass.”. Well, I hope that that kid was very proud of how much of an impact those words would have on Craven.

    Before you knew it, we had Craven on board directing the film from Williamson’s script. It was something totally different than what a lot of us were used to at that point. We were used to typical horror films that were gore for gore sake but lacked a punch. Or they were a bit of a mindless fluff with no story to them. Honestly, the early 90s weren’t very kind for us horror lovers. I mean the genre was on a bit of a decline at that point. So people weren’t taking many risks with it – thus direct-to-videos were a huge thing. It was a bit of a rut. Thankfully, Craven and Williamson were able to work together to craft something special.

    For me, Scream is a very interesting film. At the time, I was 8. I had seen a lot of horror films at that point. Earlier I had mentioned times where my sister’s friend would come over with huge plastic bags full of horror VHS tapes. And my parents’ were cool with it. They knew that as long as I knew the movies were just movies, I’d be okay. So I had seen countless films. I was well versed in the Elm Street series – The Dream Master and Wes Craven’s New Nightmare being two of my favorites in that series. Friday the 13ths were ones that I hadn’t necessarily dove into just yet, outside of the showings on the Sci-Fi channel. Happy Birthday To Me, April Fool’s Day, and The Shining were a few of the examples that I would get to watch during those snowed in days. Sadly though, I wasn’t fond of The Shining. At 8 years old, who could honestly say that I fully understood what was going on with its story? Not me.

    I remember asking my Dad one day, “Why is Sam going with Mom? Why can’t I go?”. He just shrugged and responded with that it was for last minute Christmas shopping. At that point, I probably just went and played Super Mario All-Stars on Super Nintendo or Gargoyles on the SEGA Genesis. But later that night, they had returned from ‘shopping’. I overheard my Mom telling my Dad that the movie they had gone to see was so scary. I was very upset because I wasn’t able to go to the movies. At that point, I loved movies. I loved going to the theater and just watching the stories unfold. It was like a major event to me. To hear that there was a movie that I couldn’t go to see, well it sucked.

    A few months passed, I didn’t pay much attention to it. I had gotten over the fact that I had gotten left behind. We were looking through the movies on pay-per-view and my sister came across Scream. Immediately, she got up and ran out of the room to talk to my parents. I was left just a bit confused as to what was going on. Okay, cool – she wants to watch a movie. Yeah, I get that it was a bit of a big deal back then to rent a movie on pay-per-view. The three of them return to the room and they buy the movie. It was an all-day movie rental and the next showing was in an hour and a half. My parents had decided that we would all sit and watch it on the next showing. I think I had just rolled my eyes like it didn’t matter. It hadn’t hit me yet that this was the same movie that they had watched just months previously.

    Well the next hour and a half waiting, it felt like forever. I think at that point – my sister and I played some Mario to help pass the time. That was something I fondly remember us doing quite a bit. It was usually Super Mario 3. That was kind of our jam. It was just one of those things that we managed to bond over. Looking back on it - horror movies, watching Buffy, and Mario 3 were kind of the only things we did together. You see, there’s a 7 year age difference between my sister and I. I am the youngest. Unfortunately with the way things unfolded for our family, we drifted apart.

    Then we sat together in our living room as the opening title flashed on screen. The next hour and forty minutes seemed to fly by. I wasn’t sure what the reaction my family was waiting for from me bout the movie. I guess they were expecting the movie to completely terrify me like it managed to do with my Mom and sister. However, that was far from what I thought about the movie.

    Scream was a hit with me. It was something different. I may have been 8 years old, but could tell this was new. It took everything that I had loved about horror movies and brought it back in such a unique way. It wasn’t afraid to poke fun at itself. Yeah, the movie may seem scary. But honestly, I feel like all of the horror movies I had watched up to that point had made me ready for it. It was very clear that Scream was a love letter to the genre that Williamson had loved so much. And it had hit at a time when the public and myself were ready for something new.

    In the months after watching Scream, I had managed to talk my Grandma into watching it with me. I have mentioned her before. This is the same Grandma that loved Halloween. She wasn’t sure if I was ready to watch Scream. I reminded her that I had seen it quite a few times already. Quickly, Scream hit with her as well. She loves it so much. Over the years, we even managed to watch it countless times together.

    Recently, I revisited it. I wanted to see if it held up. It had been quite a few years since watching it last. I think the last time I watched it was when Scream 4 was getting ready to be released. A month or so ago, I picked up the Blu ray set of the first three movies. Yeah, this is the same set that has the two spectacular documentaries about the films – Still Screaming and Scream: The Inside Story. If you have a chance of picking it up, I highly recommend it.

    Scream still holds up so well. I still find myself enraptured with the story and the characters. To this day, I have tried to figure out who was where when X happened. And to this day, I still haven’t figured it out. It delivers on everything I love about the genre. The characters are all so memorable as well. The casting on the film was absolutely perfect. And still I love the opening with Drew Barrymore. It’s the biggest love letter to the franchise as it managed to encapsulate everything Hitchcock had masterfully done with Janet Leigh and the opening in Psycho.

    Many films over the years have tried to capture the lightning in a bottle that Scream had. And honestly, a lot of them have failed. There is absolutely no way to to recapture that. Scream is the film of a generation and masterfully defined horror for what came next. There is a reason it works so well and stood the test of time. It is a beautiful masterpiece of a film that is essential and is one of Craven’s finest works.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter. You can also subscribe to receive email updates when new content drops.

Night of the Reviews: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Hello everyone, I hope everyone is having a solid week so far. Whose ready for our next series of retrospectives? I been tossing around a few different ideas for a while now. But decided that it was time to start diving into the Romero films. 

Thus Romero Reviews was born. But as nice as it was, I kept thinking that if I'm going to cover the originals - I might as well go all in. So, Night of the Living Reviews has been born. During the course of this series, I will be covering all of the Romero zombie films as well as the remakes and reboots. I'm sure there are still some that I won't be covering, but I'll try my best. 

And so here we are to kick things off and do it right. Join me as I dive into Romero's original classic, Night of the Living Dead. 

Night of the Living Dead was released in 1968. It was a film that was ahead of the curve. Over the years, it has continued to thrive as it's finds newer audiences. It's definitely one that is solidly a part of film history. 

One of the interesting things is how it treats it's characters. Every one is equal and on the same standing as one another. Yeah, Harry is a total douche that cuts down Ben every chance he's get. But honestly that's something that is a part of every day. Romero knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to turn the mirror back onto the audience. To help highlight the world we live in. And that's something that makes this film feel relatable so much. 

Night was something that wasn't happening in the far future. This was something that was happening in the present and now. Of course, no one would have much in terms of weapons or whatnot. Who would think Oh yeah, it's the end of the world and now we have to defend ourselves against ourselves? That is another thing that just shows how powerful this film is. 

If you haven't seen the film yet, Night of the Living Dead centers around a group of people defending themselves at a farm house against a horde of flesh eaters. At this point, they were referred to as ghouls or corpses. The word zombie wouldn't be established till much later. It's a very simple story. It's honestly so simple of a story that it has been remade or reimagined countless times. However, none of those attempts can ever capture what made the original so iconic and memorable. I mean the 1990 Savini helmed remake is honestly the best attempt as recreating the original. 

The one thing that tended to strain on me is the character of Barbara. I get that it's a character that has been through a lot and is pretty traumatized. However for most of the film, she is locked into frightened terrified mode. It honestly felt a bit one note and shallow. We are not even given the time to know more about the character. I understand that there will be some that will consider that a hot take. 

One of the biggest points of Night of the Living Dead is it's casting in Ben. This is Duane Jones one hundred percent. He delivers such a fantastic performance. Honestly if the character of Ben didn't work, this film wouldn't work. He is the heart of the film. 

For me, this is my favorite of the Romero Dead saga. This was the first film I was introduced to. The opening of the film was included on a old VHS tape called Creepy Classics hosted by Vincent Price. That was a fantastic introduction for me to horror. It included other trailers and clips from other films. But the opening of Night of the Living Dead was the part I remembered so much. It's such an iconic beginning with Barbara and Johnny visiting their parent's grave. Lumbering in the background is that tall scraggly ghoul. 

After that opening and Barbara making it to safety, I hadn't seen the rest of the film for the longest time. When I had seen it, it was only parts as I always turned it on when it was a way into the film. It wasn't till around 2007 or 2008 when Diary of the Dead released alongside a remaster of Night that I had seen the rest of the film. It definitely lived up to the expectation that I had. 

This was Romero's first and for me, one of his best. This is a classic that has stood the test of time. It shows some gore to it, but nothing too over the top. By today's standards, it's a pretty tame film. But it's the message and characters that helped the film reach the success it has seen. 

Come check back as I'll be looking at the Argento Cut of Dawn of the Dead. 

Rating: 4.25 out of 5.

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter.

The Night Busta Was There: Halloween Resurrection

After H20 seemingly brought the franchise to a close, Dimension proved that they still had more to come. They had placed a loophole in Jamie Lee Curtis contract where it said she couldn't kill Michael. Even though the ending seemed very definitive, they managed to write the ol' switcheroo with a paramedic so that Michael still lived. 

The whole reasoning for Michael still being alive felt cheap. It felt lacking the gravitas that was in the H20 ending. While interesting having Laurie at the asylum, it made some semblance of sense. It's a nice touch that she has a raggedy ann doll as that was a callback to the original film. However the fact that they kill Laurie Strode off is a severe problem. It was such a terrible way to go out on. And the fact that it was Rick Rosenthal who helmed this installment was a let down. 

Now Rick Rosenthal was the one that directed the much loved Halloween II. I'm guessing Dimension and the Weinsteins were hoping that it would be able to capture that lightning in a bottle that made the second installment so well liked. Well, unfortunately that was not meant to be. 

Resurrection is the one that a lot of fans immediately hate. Again, it's a cheap cash in at that point. They just wanted to push a sequel out but because Jamie Lee Curtis didn't want to be in it, they had to figure out what to do. "Hey, let's make a film that calls upon that found footage type of film. It was success before. Let's see if throw Michael in it, if it'll work.". 

No. No it does not work. One of the huge reasons it doesn't work is because it fails to commit to the found footage approach. Yeah, there are many times when we see what the characters see. But it's just mishandled and rushed. So it ultimately led to a bit of a cheap gimmick feeling with it. Now don't get me wrong, the found footage approach doesn't work. However on the DVD release, there is a ton of footage that was shot by the actors. It was one of the big highlights of the DVD because it was pretty interesting. However it was still very early on and the found footage craze wouldn't resurface till Blumhouse hit with Paranormal Activity. Imagine what could have been if they would have doubled down on the interactive element of the footage. That could have been impressive. 

This is also the film that brought Busta Rhymes into the franchise. "Trick or Treat mutha" before kicking Michael back into some wires seemingly ending our villain. Well, honestly villain is a strong one for Michael in this installment. Yeah, he kills Laurie. But outside of that, he's defending his childhood home. These new characters are trespassing on his property. That seems to me like they the bad guys. Looking it through that lens, it makes the film a little better. For the most part, the characters are okay but ultimately a bit forgettable. They just seem like generic stereotypes to fill the body count and runtime. 

There's a reason why after Resurrection, they went to Rob Zombie to reboot it. Resurrection is a forgettable slasher that tries to tap into 'found footage' to absymal results in the theatrical. That DVD feature with all the footage is least kinda neat. There's probably some people that only watch it that way. 

Rating: 1.5 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter

Inside The Thorn Trilogy: Halloween 6 Producer's Cut

Welcome back everyone. Here we are with the last chapter of The Thorn Trilogy. So far, it's been quite a journey. We had The Return of Michael Myers in 4. It was very much a back to basics approach for the franchise. Then they followed it up with The Revenge of Michael Myers. This was a bit of a mess of a film. I understand that there are people that like it. But my biggest complaint is Tina and the humor in the film. Honestly, it wouldn't feel out of place in a Friday the 13th film. 

As much as I'd like to just forget it, I can't. It has some things that would factor into the next film. But it was because of the disappointment with 5 that led to the franchise being stuck in limbo six years. Akkad wanted 6 to have a good story behind it. One that would be respectful of the franchise and not like 5.  Unfortunately the film would then be made by Miramax and Dimension. And that meant the Weinsteins had a hand in things. 

Now, Halloween 6 is a very interesting film. The film was made and then the studio got to see an early cut of it. They hated it. It didn't fit what they were expecting from a Halloween movie. There was also some test screenings that didn't have much good things to say about that flick. So instead of going with their gut, the studio - well The Weinsteins wanted to double down on their investment with this franchise. Thus, reshots were completed and a different flavor was added to make the theatrical cut of Halloween 6. Got it?

Okay, so here's a note I'd like to make. Here on out when I'm referring to the theatrical cut, it'll be called The Weinstein Cut. I also had a couple moments where I was trying to figure out if I should appeal to one cut or the other. Should I review both of them? Well, ultimately I decided that I would be covering The Producers Cut. I have seen The Weinstein Cut. But it just doesn't sit right with me. The Weinstein Cut also doubles down on the slasher formula. 

The interesting thing about either Halloween 6 is that neither cut gets picked up again in the franchise. After Halloween 6, they chose to make Halloween H20 which ignored the continuity of The Thorn Trilogy. So either ending could be considered an ending for this trilogy. It just depends on the viewer. Personally, I will take the Producers Cut ending over The Weinstein Cut anyday. 

The story of The Curse of Myers goes like this:

Six years ago, Michael Myers terrorized the town of Haddonfield, Illinois. He and his niece, Jamie Lloyd, have disappeared. Jamie was kidnapped by a bunch of evil druids who protect Michael Myers. And now, six years later, Jamie has escaped after giving birth to a child. She runs to Haddonfield to get Dr. Loomis to help her again. Meanwhile, the family that adopted Laurie Strode is living in the Myers house and are being stalked by Myers. It's the curse of thorn that Michael is possessed by that makes him kill his family. And it's up to Tommy Doyle and Dr. Loomis, to stop them all.

How does the film hold up? 

Honestly, I enjoy this film a lot. It's a lot better than Halloween 5 for sure. It does ask us to take some liberties with the lore. Actually, Halloween 6 asks a lot to be done with the lore. Now it may seem like it comes out of nowhere. It actually doesn't come out of nowhere. The whole mythology with the evil of Michael being tied into Samhain. That actually is something that is touched on the original Halloween novelization. In fact, the original Halloween novelization gives us more insight with young Michael and him hearing voices. It ties into there being a history of males in Michael's family having outbursts or fits of violence. That's something that ties in 100 percent to The Producer's Cut. Knowing those things from the original, it helps elevate the material. 

Now, I understand the whole Cult of Thorn is a big hot topic. But come on, we had to explain who the Man in Black is. It makes sense that this whole occultism was a natural evolution of that lingering storyline. 

The Producer's Cut and The Weinstein Cut definitely differ in their handling of the material. The Producer's Cut is a bit more closer to the tone of the original. It feels very much a better continuation than The Weinstein Cut. It's a bit more cerebral. It's a bit more old school horror in a sense. There's a lot of tension as well. There's also a bit of a touch of Rosemary's Baby in it. Whereas The Weinstein Cut is very much doubling down on the 90s horror athestic. The precedent being that less focus on the cult and more on the blood, gore and kills. However, the film kind of loses itself if it's just trying to focus more on the kills. Lots of flash with its style. 

The Producer's Cut also had more of Loomis. It was the version that was shot first. And as we all know, Donald Pleasance passed away before there was reshoots. So, they were a bit limited with the footage available. It honestly was a bit of a shame that Pleasance passed. Because I can guarantee that he would have fought tooth and nail with them against the reshoots. He loved his character and embodied it so much. This was his farewell and The Weinstein Cut definitely fumbles it so much. The ending in the Producer's Cut is both a very fitting yet tragic way of having the character go out: becoming Michael's keeper. 

We have The Strodes returning in this film. Well, Laurie's adopted cousins. It's a nice touch that definitely expands the world established in these films. It's interesting seeing that The Strode Realty business was still around. Kara is definitely a very Laurie-like character. Young Danny is also very much familiar as he feels like a young Michael. Honestly the icing on the cake is that they live in the old Myers House. It makes sense that Laurie's adopted father would never be able to sell the house after the events of the original film. 

The Producer's Cut just oozes the feeling of the original film. It's colors are a bit muted and cold. The Weinstein Cut made sure to make things feel warmer. Which that definitely is the anti-Halloween feeling. Just another example of the studio not understanding the franchise. 

The handling of Jamie is something that is much better in The Producer's Cut. In The Weinstein Cut, they were quick to establish Jamie then two seconds later kill her off. It's a big disservice to fans of the franchise to just fridge a beloved character so quickly. I mean she doesn't necessarily survive in The Producer's Cut. But she makes it to the halfway mark before The Man in Black kills her off. It's a bit more tragic. 

Jamie's baby. That's something that could become a large hot topic. In the Weinstein Cut, it's not really established who the father is. She just has a baby because The Thorn Cult was messing with science and such. It's really messy. In the Producer's Cut, there's a flashback to the event where Jamie is impregnated and Michael happens to be there during the ceremony. It's very much a Rosemary's Baby scene. So more of less, it could be suggested that it's Michael's baby. Or it could be one of the random cultists. So again, it's something that could be a massive hot take. 

Honestly, the whole Cult of Thorn is something that is much more fleshed out in The Producer's Cut. It actually has a purpose. It's there to pass the evil of Michael to a new generation. Nothing with science and experimenting crap. Just simple occultism. 

The Man In Black. It was a bit of a throwaway character in Halloween 5. It was there to just be a reason for Michael to escape in the end. This film takes that and establishes so much. It calls back to the original film with its reveal of it being Doctor Wynn. With this revelation, it establishes that the Man In Black is Michael's keeper. It ultimately makes Doctor Wynn the Anti-Loomis. That's something that would be used in Halloween 2018 with the character of Doctor Sartain. 

I know this whole thing may sound a bit all over the place. Halloween 6 is just a film that has a lot going on. It goes even further with there being two versions of it. Personally, I love The Producer's Cut more than the Weinstein Cut. It just hits the right notes more with feeling part of the franchise's established world and lore. Is it the best in the franchise? No. Is it better than 5? Considering that with 5, they wrote themselves into a corner. The Producer's Cut is honestly probably the best way that they could have ended this trilogy of films. Yeah, it was hoping to be able to go on with it's ending. But after this, we got Halloween H20. 

Rating: 3.5 out of 5. (Better than 5, unfortunately best could be done with the circumstances given. Producer's Cut over the Weinstein Cut.)

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter.

Into The Thorn Trilogy Part 1: Halloween 4 (1988)

After the release of Halloween II, there wasn't much left that could happen with Michael. I mean it's pretty cut and dry what happened at the end of II, Michael was blinded then blown the hell up. And Loomis also went down in a blaze of glory. 

At this point when they went on to Halloween III, it was time to do something new. It would be an attempt to bring a more anthological approach to this film series. Each film could finally be it's own story. Many would flock to it and see how awesome it would be. 

Oh...wait...this just in. When Halloween III released, it was a bomb. People went to the film and came away disappointed that there was no Michael and upset that this was different. No, certainly people wouldn't be that upset. Oh, they were. Huh. Eventually Halloween III has found it's audience nowadays. But back then, it led to the film series being thrown into a hiatus for a while.

Then in 1988 for the ten year anniversary, Michael returned to the big screen with Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. It was something to be excited about for sure. Here, we were going to discover just how exactly Michael had survived the events of Halloween II. Oh, Michael was in a ten year coma and recovering from some pretty serious burns in custody. And Loomis walked away with a burn on the hand and a little bit of a gnarly face scar. Okay. It makes sense to me. 

Now, I am not going to rag on Halloween 4...much. If I do, it's because the film deserves it. Also there will be SPOILERS. This is a film from 1988. If you think there will not be spoilers, then I apologize for disappointing with this retrospective. 

Back on track, Halloween 4 had a lot to do. It had to reintroduce Michael and Haddonfield to the world. In one sense, it honestly served the same purpose that Halloween 2018 did. There are some people that just generally don't like Halloween 4. I can understand their reasons. I respect their reasons. 

However, Halloween 4 is a pretty solid flick. It just oozes the fall atmosphere. It's even more evident with its opening titles. It's so good. If you don't believe me, go YouTube it and you'll see. The original Halloween felt like it took place around then. But it was missing that atmosphere that the spooky season has. 

In my opinion, Halloween 4 is also much better than Halloween II. Yes, we have a child in the film. It's interesting that they decided to tackle this approach as it also feels very The Final Chapter-ish. I appreciate that they tried to least tie Jamie to Laurie. Danielle Harris does a solid job with her performance. Again, some may consider it to be annoying or bad. But come on, it's a child dealing with Michael. Ellie Cornell also delivers a great performance as Jamie's adopted sister, Rachel. Rachel feels a bit like Laurie. She's got a tool of a boyfriend (is it Grady?) that she discovers cheating on her. How much of a tool is this guy. I mean he'd rather hook up with the Sheriff's daughter because she's a bit more outgoing with what she's interested in. That's pretty low considering how much Rachel has on her plate to begin with. She's practically raising Jamie as I have a hard time remembering that we see her parents outside the ending. Then there's Dr. Loomis. At this point, we all know how great Donald Pleasance is. It's not surprising that he does a solid job in this installment as he's basically retreading some familiar ground from the original film. Then there's the rest of the cast for the people of Haddonfield. Everyone does an okay job. It's interesting seeing a mob coming after Michael. I'm sure we will never see anything like this again...

Ultimately, the story of Halloween 4 is a bit back to basics. That's not a bad thing at all. It actually helps the film with its pacing. And after the bombing and response to Halloween III, it's understandable that was the direction they decided to go in. Go with what works and if it ain't broke, why fix it. This is an approach that would ultimately be utilized in the subsequent sequels. However by the time it reached Resurrection, it was old hat and had jumped the shark faster than you could say Busta Rhymes.

The colors of this film are so good. There's an amber shine to the days. At night, it's the cold blues. It's so representative with the feeling of fall and Halloween. There was some of this in the original film. However it seems to be amplified in 4 compared to the original. 

And this is all because the director Dwight H. Little did extensive research on the history of Halloween. The film just oozes the love that he has for the holiday. Especially during that title sequence where there's so much imagery that honestly makes this the definitive title sequence for me. 

An interesting thing that I learned while researching this film was the writer's strike of 1988. Alan B. McElroy had to spare no time and write the film quickly. He managed to complete that initial draft in eleven days beating out the beginning of the Writer's Strike. This was also the first film that Michael Myers is credited with his name instead of The Shape.

It was also the first time that the Myers house was not used. 

Now I wanted to dive into something that may be a bit questionable. I wanted to discuss the elephant in the room. The Man in Black. The next two films featured the infamous Man in Black. It largely became known that these three films would become the infamous Thorn trilogy. I honestly wish that they would have had some foresight to introduce him in this film. It didn't have to be much. It could have just been something very small to set up that he's out there. It would have actually made 4's ending make a lot of sense with Jamie in the clown costume and scissors. It was because The Thorn cult had an influence with it. But that's getting ahead of myself.

The kills in Halloween 4 are good. There's some interesting ones. I know the ones that I always remember are Michael putting his thumb through the doctor's head and the other being Michael pinning a girl to the wall with a shotgun. Other than those, the film is a bit back to basics with its kills. Michael stabs or slashes his way through town. 

This back to basics approach that I keep referencing even goes down to the structure. First act - establish Michael escaping and being pursued by Loomis, Jamie and Rachel's life in Haddonfield. Second act - Loomis travelling, Michael hunting, drama with Rachel and Jamie's life. Third act - Michael pursuing Rachel and Jamie while Loomis attempts to stop him. It's very much the structure of the original Halloween. There is some aspects that are definitely an improvement. First off, it makes sense that the townspeople of Haddonfield wouldn't stand by. They would want to defend their town and such. So the featuring of mobs is pretty nice addition. It even results in a cool chase scene with Michael on top of a truck while Jamie and Rachel are inside the cab of it. Their poor driver meeting his maker. 

Ultimately, I feel like this was a fine addition to the franchise. It was the reboot the fans were asking for after Halloween III. It sets things up really well and delivers on tension. I personally enjoy it more than Halloween II and will always watch it more. This is also an essential view for those cool fall days that we love during the spooky season.

Rating: 4.25 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter.

Be My Witness - Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

After the success of Candyman, the studio was quick to want to see a sequel. They asked Bernard Rose if he would be interested in returning. He ended up putting a pitch together for a Candyman set in the 1800s London. And that Candyman was the reason behind Jack the Ripper. The studio wasn't happy with that approach and decided that they would look elsewhere. 

Eventually, it all came to Bill Condon to direct. It was written by Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger. Honestly, this wasn't a loss to the film but a strength. 

Farewell to the Flesh relocates the story of the Candyman to New Orleans. This allowed the film to differentiate itself from the first film and not just rehash it. It also brought a very different take as we leave Chicago for southern gothic territory. That is definitely one of the things that I love so much. It's steeped deeply in southern gothic atmosphere. Which makes this such a perfect film for that Halloween time watch. 

We are taken on a journey of Annie (Kelly Rowan) as she finds herself pulled into the story of the Candyman by her brother (William O'Leary), Ethan. Ethan had been out the night before and what a wild night it was. He drank and then accosted Phillip Purcell (Michael Culkin), who returns from the first film - the dinner scene with Helen and Trevor. Then Ethan found himself arrested after Phillip was found murdered.

However, this family is far deeper down the rabbit hole than they realize. It's safe to say that eventually it's uncovered that this family are related to Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd) and his love, Caroline. This dark secret ended up costing their father his life. 

This film is a bit of a rollercoaster. It follows somewhat of a slasher pattern, moreso than the first film. The gore in this film has been amped up compared to the first. However, some may see this as a bad film. I can understand why that is so. For me, this is kind of a comfort movie for me. Growing up, I got to watch horror films at early age. Well, out of all the Candyman films - this was the one I watched so much. 

Upon revisiting the film this time, I found myself still enraptured by the story. It's solid. And a very large part of that is the cast.Tony Todd delivers another great performance. This time, he definitely had more to work with. We are able to dive deeper into Robitaille's tragic story. Even so far as witnessing those events. Kelly Rowan is great as Annie. She is very likeable in this role. Especially as the layers peel back and she finally discovers who her family is. 

There are some people that have said that this feels like a rehash of the first film. I will have to disagree on that. Yes, Annie's circumstances and luck in this film lead her to follow a parallel trajectory as Helen did in the first film. The fact that there is that family connection to Candyman. That helps a lot to set it a apart. And honestly it doesn't feel as awkward as the daughter reveal did in Freddy's Dead. The change in location also helps reflect what kind of film this is. Old southern gothic tale compared to the first film's urban legend feel. 

In the end, I do recommend this film. It adds another layer to the lore of this franchise. It respects the Candyman character itself. A quick cash grab this is not. If you want a good followup to the first film, you honestly can't go wrong with this one. However, stay away from the third film. 

Rating: 4 out of 5. 

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter.

Say His Name...If You Dare: Candyman (1992)

Helen Lyle is a student who decides to write a thesis about local legends and myths. She visits a part of the town, where she learns about the legend of the Candyman, a one-armed man who appears when you say his name five times, in front of a mirror. 

Of course, Helen doesn't believe all this stuff, but the people of the area are really afraid. When she ignores their warnings and begins her investigation in the places that he is rumored to appear, a series of horrible murders begins. Could the legend be true?

This is the story of 1992's Candyman. It was written and directed by Bernard Rose. The big thing to take away is that it was adapted from "The Forbidden" from Clive Barker. It starred Virginia Madsen, Xander Berkeley and Tony Todd. 

I remember when this film first came out. I was four years old. My mother was still around and was big into horror films. She wanted to watch it with my Dad. Of course, I got to watch but was told to close my eyes when something gorey or spooky happened. So it was a very tame version of the film for me. 

However, the thing that struck me the most was Tony Todd. His performance is so incredible in this film. Whenever he's on the screen, he just emits such a presence that it's understandable why this film has become a cult classic. Being so young at the time, I also thought he was in the film a lot more than he actually is. This is also a testament to what an incredible actor Tony Todd is that he creates so much in the amount of time he was in the film.

Virginia Madsen's performance is equally amazing in this film. She's so sure of herself and what she's doing is the right thing. However, the deeper she goes into the hive - it's becoming clear that she's so selfish. She's not trying to help anybody out but make a name for herself. And that's something that Candyman takes advantage of. But the beautiful thing is that the crazier life gets, the more she begins to care for others. To the point where she sacrifices herself to save baby Anthony.  It really is a huge arc as we see everything in the film from Helen's perspective. 

Then we have Xander Berkeley. The man was so good on the show 24. Here, he delivers such a performance that just exudes douchebagness. If douchebag was a disease, this performance proves there's no cure. He goes so far to just make Helen think she's going crazy. And when she needs his help, he turns on her and hands her over freely. It's very clear that he's just trying to use her. And justice is definitely served at the end of the film. 

There are a few moments in this film where it has a very dreamlike quality. One of them being the discovery of the lair. Should we call it that? Candyman's home.  Another is when Helen is locked away in the Doctor's office, the imagery that happens in this scene. It is so visually striking and comes out of left field that it left me wondering if this was truly happening or if it was in Helen's mind. 

There is some gore in this film. It is nothing too over the top. Seriously nothing like we would see in today's film scape. However, that works to the film's strength. It allows the film to reach audiences that it may not otherwise. It definitely can appeal to those that are new comers to the horror genre. 

Ultimately this film is wonderfully tragic. It could also be a fairy tale. A ghost story. It is clear why it has withstood the test of time. 

Check out where the legend began before seeing the new film.

Come on, say it with me...

Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter

Tiny Terrors Day 8: Leprechaun 3 and Leprechaun 4

Hello everyone, welcome back to Tiny Terrors. For those tuning in, we are on Day 8. We have managed to pass the halfway mark of this series now. I would say that is a pretty big feat. 

Today, let's take a look at Leprechaun 3 and 4. Shall we?

Leprechaun 3 was the first installment of the Leprechaun franchise to be released straight to video. It was released in 1995. At this point in time, Leprechaun was doing very well. People had enjoyed the first two films. And Warwick Davis was a much bigger name as well. 

The Leprechaun arrives at a Las Vegas pawn shop after having been turned into a statue via a medallion. The pawn shop owner removes the medallion freeing the Leprechaun. He's quick to express his 'gratitude' by way of axe. The Leprechaun then sets out on the town. He's seeking out a gold wish coin that was taken from him. It's been passing from person to person. A college boy, Scott, is caught up in all of this along with his girlfriend, Tammy. 

Okay. So I remember when this was released asking my Dad if could rent it on pay per view. He just said sure. But I can remember he didn't watch it with me. However, upon this rewatch - it had me wondering what was my Dad thinking. 

I know I ragged on Leprechaun 2 a little bit. It was a bit slow paced. It felt corny. It felt like a quick script over. Which yes, there was all that. 

This film however felt fast paced. It didn't lag really. Warwick Davis was able to fully embrace and go balls to the wall crazy with his performance. And he does so with a smile on his face. I mean, come on. This is probably my favorite performance in the franchise. 

The fun thing about this film is that we had Caroline Williams from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It was fun seeing her in this. She plays a magician assistant, if I recall correctly. She just has a harsh view on how she looks. Which doesn't help that the Magician is a total douchebag. So, I would consider her death to be the big one of the film. It's definitely the most memorable and the biggest standout. She just wanted to look nice. That was her wish. However, Leprechaun twists like Wishmaster would do kills her by exploding her. 

It's interesting this film. I've seen it a few times. However when it comes to the acting, it's clear that outside of the Leprechaun is a bit of window dressing if you will. These are Warwick's films. So, yeah...outside of him and Caroline there wasn't much more memorable in terms of performances. 

I feel like covering that big death. Everything else seemed a bit less. Like this one was the big standout and everything else was like eh.

Overall, this is a fun film. It's a bit of a popcorn horror film. I would say that this franchise fits that category. It's a nice watch whenever need something to just throw on. 

Rating: 3 out of 5. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Further we go into the Leprechaun franchise. Let's go into Leprechaun 4.

So, they needed to shake things up. Leprechaun had gone to the country side in the first film. Then he went to Las Vegas in the last film. Where else could he go next?

At this point, I honestly feel like they had the white board from Cabin In The Woods and were throwing darts at it. Like, oh we did Vegas. Now we gotta do Space. Or people like Alien - so let's do a film like Alien but instead put the Leprechaun in it.

Joking aside, how does this film fare? 

This film is hugely disappointing. It's just an abomination of a film. It's a stupid concept. I understand that this potentially could be a hot take. And I apologize if I may offend. But it's a stupid concept. 

This could have been a quick cash grab for a film. That honestly would explain things so much. But okay, I'm gonna try and sum things up.

On a distant planet in the hear 2096, the Leprechaun has been courting a Princess. (Massive respect here, we have our guy finally finding a girl. Good for him.) However, both of them are planning to try to kill the other to consummate their marriage. 

Space Marines (cause we gotta have those. It's not space without them) arrive. One of them attempts to steal gold..but killed by a Leprechaun lightsaber (oh my goodness). The Leprechaun is killed by a grenade. However, his spirit hides in one of the marine's penis and poses as gonorrhea. I kid you not. This is what happens. How artsy of them. 

Marines return to the spaceship with the Princess. The Cyborg Captain sees the Princess blood has regenerative abilities and yeah, he's like I gotta get me that. The Leprechaun explodes out the marine's penis during a scene with a female marine after the marine is aroused. (Viagra get that shit outta here. Ya need more green.)

Marines hunt on the ship while Leprechaun outsmarts them. Shit happens and goes down. The Cyborg Pilot turns into a scorpion spider hybrid at one point. Oh my goodness.

The Princess literally distracts the Marines at one point by flashing them. Should I keep going? Okay, well the Leprechaun ends up exploding on the main ship while a pair of Marines escape in a pod..they witness the Leprechaun's giant hand flipping them off.

Yeah....

That's basically what happens in this film. At this point, I will say that this is a poor film. It's very balls to the wall in slapstick. It feels like a parody of scifi movies and the Leprechaun movies. They certainly crossed the line with their cheesiness. Outside of the exploding penis, there wasn't many memorable deaths. And outside of Warwick, there wasn't many memorable acting performances. 

Rating: 2 out of 5. At this point, this felt like a jump the shark moment with the franchise. It's easy to see the ship starting to sink. 

Come back on Friday for more goodness here at The Blue!

Follow BlazinBlue's Horror Review on Facebook and Twitter