Alligator (1980)

Remember the urban legend about alligators running loose in the sewers? The legend goes that gators were taken home by overeager kids wanted them as pets, only to be flushed down the toilet when they became problematic. The gators ended up in the sewers, eating stray pets, bums and the occasional kid and causing general hysteria.

The 1980 film Alligator follows this same premise, but also throws in some nefarious corporation illegally doing cruel experiments on animals and dumping their growth-hormone packed corpses into the sewers. Well, this is all well and good for Mr. Gator (whose real name is Ramon) since he has a steady diet of pumped up puppies that cause him to reach 30 – 40 feet in length! Still, the hormones cause him to have an insatiable appetite, so soon he is roaming the streets of Chicago, looking for his next bite! Who is gonna stop him? How ‘bout a misogynistic cop with a receding hair line (Robert Forster) and a gator scientist (Robin Riker) who happens to be the same kid whose daddy ended up flushing the alligator all those years ago!

This entry into the “animals attack” subgenre is pretty entertaining, but it has some awful characters…they are so bad, in fact, that I was rooting for the alligator the whole time! First, it appears that EVERYONE in the film is misogynistic…NO ONE believes a woman can be…GASP!…SMART or a SCIENTIST! Every male character talks down to the lone female character (the alligator scientist) and she pretty much just takes it. The receding-hairline cop even tells her he isn’t gonna take her to dinner unless it’s guaranteed that she is gonna bone him…and when they finally gets to dinner he is a major ass (as if he wasn’t enough of one to begin with). The misogyny in this film is so annoying it pretty much becomes amusing after a while…and it’s just begging to have a drinking game created for every offensive remark made!

On the plus side, the film has an interesting anti-animal cruelty/anti-animal testing perspective. The corporation, CEO and flunky “scientist” that are abusing and killing animals in lab tests are looked upon as the villains (as they should be). I found it interesting that the film had such a strong animal rights message considering that the alligator is blown to smithereens at the end. However, I’ll take animal welfare messages where I can get them, and it appears that Alligator at least has some good points about the cruelty of animal testing as well as showing how unnecessary it is in most cases (in most cases, I’m not saying all, as this is a very sticky subject).

Also, I found it interesting that I was cheering for the alligator the whole way through. “Ramon” kinda became like a superhero during the film as he took down the bad guys (most satisfying scene: seeing the CEO of the corporation get smooshed!). I didn’t care about our supposed “hero”, the cop, or even the woman gator scientist. No, I just wanted to see Ramon slither away and live another day to take a bite out of crime! Sadly, he doesn’t survive…

For an “animals attack” film, I sure don’t recall that much blood…there’s one memorable scene at the beginning where an alligator wrangler (you know, those guys in the swamp who put on shows for crowds, opening gators’ mouths, wrestling them, etc.) gets his leg bitten off, but from there the gator manglings all kinda blur together. Even the satisfying scene where the CEO gets his due isn’t all that bloody. However, I will say that the alligator looks great! Or maybe I was too distracted by the misogynistic cracks to notice…Anywho, director Lewis Teague used both an animatronic, mechanical alligator (which often malfunctioned) as well as a regular sized alligator in miniature sets. Though sometimes it was obvious, I think it still looked great nonetheless!

Alligator is a pretty decent “animals attack” horror film. If you can get past the annoying characters, misogyny and lack of gore, definitely check it out. If you don’t think you’ll like it, check it out anyway and just make a drinking game out of all the misogyny that occurs!

Salud!

Available from Amazon!

The Killer Must Kill Again (1975)

Expecting another typical giallo, I was surprised to find how sadistic The Killer Must Kill Again really was. This is definitely not your standard Italian giallo, but something much more sinister and disturbing.

It begins with Giorgio (George Hilton) being nagged by his crazy, but rich, wife Norma (Tere Velázquez). Going out for a drive, Giorgio witnesses a serial killer (Michel Antoine) dumping a body, so he then blackmails the killer and hires him to kill his bitchy wife, making it look like a kidnapping so her rich daddy will pay the ransom.

Well, during the kidnapping/murder things go awry as two kids (Alessio Orano and Cristina Galbó) steal the serial killer’s car…with the body of Norma in the trunk. The serial killer then tracks the two kids down to a seaside town where he indulges in some sadistic revenge.

I wouldn’t call The Killer Must Kill Again a giallo, but rather a mean-spirited and violent crime thriller. First off, we know who the killer is all along, so we don’t have the standard giallo whodunit. Secondly, the killer is only after the two kids, so all other victims are people that get in his way. However, the film is just as suspenseful besides these facts and does a wonderful job at ratcheting up the tension while we anxiously wait for the killer to catch up to the two oblivious teens.

While we wait for the killer to arrive, we begin to feel closer to the two teens, making what subsequently happens to them (especially the innocent character that Cristina Galbó plays) all the more hard to watch. When the killer arrives, he finds the virginal girl all alone in an abandoned house (her loverboy is off getting busy with a slutty local, played by Femi Benussi, but annoyingly dubbed – almost to the point where I wanted her to hurry up and die). The killer brutally rapes her in a very uncomfortable and shocking scene that cuts back and forth between the chilling rape and her boyfriend getting it on with the other woman. You are simultaneously disgusted and titillated by the two different scenes, making for a very awkward viewing experience. Kudos to director Luigi Cozzi for making us feel such dissonance with this scene!

Besides the character development that makes us feel for the victims, I thought the actors also did a wonderful job. The real standout was Michel Antoine (aka Antoine Saint-John) as the killer. Not only were his cold, chiseled features scary, but his silent demeanor was also menacing. Without his stoic performance the film might have fallen apart, but he owned his role as a sociopath. The other actors were equally good, though George Hilton faded into the background when the killer/kids storyline took precedence. I especially liked Cristina Galbó as one of the kids – she brought such innocence to the role! I also thought the handsome Alessio Orano did a great job as the sleazeball boyfriend.

Though the likable kids suffer thoroughly at the hands of the killer, their outcome is not as expected. I also liked the tidy wrap-up at the end of Giorgio’s storyline, but after witnessing such disturbing violence I had hoped the ending would have a bit more resonance. While The Killer Must Kill Again has its fair share of nasty brutality (especially towards women), its ending was a bit too “happy” for me. It is a solid film, but probably one I’ll only watch once. Take that to mean what you will…

Available from Amazon!

Deadgirl (2009)

Deadgirl is a beautifully twisted, if not slightly flawed, exploration of how childhood innocence is so easily lost in our disillusioned world. It is easily one of the most disturbing films I’ve seen in recent memory and while it’s a more coming-of-age drama than straight-forward horror movie, this film still managed to shock and deeply perturb me.

High school burnouts Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez, who looks like a mix of Joaquin Phoenix and Johnny Depp) and J.T. (Noah Segan) cut school one hot day and decide to seek refuge in an old abandoned mental institution. After trashing the place and downing some beers, they set off to explore the dank basement where they are shocked to find a seemingly dead woman’s naked body chained to a gurney and wrapped in plastic. While Rickie decides to high-tail it out of there, J.T. has nefarious designs on the naked dead woman…except he soon figures out she isn’t dead and, more so, can’t be killed!

Rickie soon discovers that J.T. has made the dead girl into his own personal sex slave. Yet, Rickie can’t bring himself to turn his best friend in, not even after more and more people find out about the dead girl and join J.T. in his perverse necromance. As the situation spirals out of control and the line between right and wrong blur, Rickie must decide where his loyalties lie.

Deadgirl is definitely not a fun film to watch, but then again I just couldn’t tear my eyes away from the grotesqueries on display. That’s not to say that it is at all gory or bloody, but instead the shock aspect of the film comes from the seemingly moral ambivalence of all the characters. It seems that no one really cares that what they are doing is wrong, and even Rickie, one of the few remotely likable characters, seems only worried about the repercussions if they are caught by the police. This is where the real horror lies…that these teens don’t seem to have any moral compass and that the scenario seems so plausible in real life.

Though the film never explicitly shows the many rape scenes, we know exactly what is transpiring. The film never eroticizes the rape, instead making it a vile, degrading act to watch (though the characters treat it very nonchalantly). The dead girl (played bravely by Jenny Spain) is like a hunk of meat to the characters, just another thing they can use to satisfy their teenage libidos. I’m not sure if the writer Trent Haaga or directors Marcel Sarmiento and Gadi Harel intentionally wanted to make a statement about rape victims and their attackers, but J.T. and his cronies treat her like a rapist would treat his victim…they say “she’s not even human” and act like she is just a commodity to be used explicitly for their pleasure and then discarded. You end up cheering for the dead girl (the characters never even give her a name and we never find out her back story, making her appear even more like merely an object) but her rapists never seem to get the punishment they deserve.

Another theme the film explores is the “loss of innocence”, but more from Rickie’s and J.T.’s perspectives than from the dead girl’s. The characters go from rebels without a cause to perverse exploiters of human life rather quickly, and, as mentioned above, treat the dead girl as not even being human and repeatedly rape this “object”. Though “zombie” is never used to describe the dead girl, that is what she truly is and the film really turns the zombie genre on its head. Usually, the zombies are used as metaphors for our mindless consumer society, but in Deadgirl the living lead characters are the ones senselessly and coldly using up the “zombie” just as if she is another product. It says a lot about our society and how we as consumers voraciously devour any products we can get our grubby mitts on, without thought to consequences. Kudos to writer Trent Haaga for offering a new perspective and social commentary on the zombie genre. On the more distressing side, it also speaks of how ambivalent we as a society are towards rapists and the “boys will be boys” mentality.

On the visual side of things, directors Marcel Sarmiento and Gadi Harel do a fantastic job of capturing the angst and alienation of youth in the film (especially accompanied by the moody soundtrack that includes Iron and Wine, Radiohead and Animal Collective). The opening scenes and subsequent framing shots really depict what it feels like to be an outsider in high school. It is a poignant journey until the twisted horror of the dead girl is revealed. From then on most of the action takes place in the dark, dank belly of the abandoned mental hospital, which J.T. slowly converts to his new crash pad, complete with softly glowing Christmas lights and a Lazy-Boy. The gritty setting coupled with the despicable acts the boys perform on the dead girl really makes your stomach turn. The setting reminded me much of Jack Ketchum’s The Girl Next Door.
 
Despite a few shaky instances, the actors in the film did an amazing job. Noah Segan really made us hate his character of J.T. and Shiloh Fernandez made us alternate between hating and loving his character of Rickie. Other cast members did a terrific job as well, especially the dead girl herself, Jenny Spain, who we both felt sorry for and terrified by.

The film does have a few flaws, namely some slow pacing and failure to wrap up some loose ends. The film already has a pretty languid pace, but there are a few instances where the story really gets bogged down. I thought the subplot of Rickie’s mom’s boyfriend didn’t add anything to the story and could have been left out. Also, I really wanted to see some justice and prolonged torture befall J.T. and others for their part in making the dead girl their sex slave, but their fates were rather tame. The film’s grim ending was shocking (though you can see it coming), but it never followed up on what happened to some of the characters or the dead girl herself. Had the script and/or editing been tightened up, the pacing and storyline would have flowed much more smoothly, but still would have been no less perverse.

Deadgirl is a hard film to recommend. On the one hand, it is hard to watch, has its moments of misogyny and the rapists never quite get all they deserve, but on the other hand it is beautifully filmed and is just so damn disturbing! The moral ambivalence of the characters and the objectification of women speak to a greater extent of how we as a society have a nonchalant attitude not only towards the loss of innocence, but also towards rape. And that perhaps is the most frightening thing of all about Deadgirl.

Buy it on Amazon!

Women's Studies (2008)

Women’s Studies has long titillated with promises of a “feminist” horror film. I remember hearing about the indie production a year or so ago and eagerly anticipated its release. As a female horror fan who also wrote my college thesis examining The Texas Chain Saw Massacre through the feminist lens, sometimes I find it hard to find decent horror flicks that don’t malign their female characters. I want strong female characters that can take care of themselves in my horror films, but that is usually a rarity.

So, you can understand my excitement when I heard about the film Women’s Studies. When I finally received a screener, I was very hopeful that the film would present a witty and intelligent story told from a feminist perspective. What I wanted and what I received, though, are two very different things.

Instead of an insightful, woman-centric horror film I got a stereotypical, cliché-driven and dull horror movie with some pretty awful production values.

After months of interning for Senator Gayle Hamlin (Judith O’Dea in a pleasing cameo), Mary (Cindy Marie Martin) is driving back to college with her doctor-in-training boyfriend, Zack (James A. Radack), awkward friend Iris (Laura Bloechl) and best friend Beth (Melisa Breiner-Sanders). On the trip, Mary’s car is stolen from a roadside café. Luckily, a young woman named Judith (Tara Garwood) offers to put them up at her all-girls college, Ross-Prentiss Academy. Mary gladly accepts, but Beth is a little creeped out by Judith and her strange classmates. There’s Diane (Kelly Slagle), who’s tall, gaunt and only speaks French, the bitter and pregnant Sharon (Mundy Spears) and the bohemian Melissa (Tiffany James), who takes an extra-special liking to Iris.

As they wait for word from the police about their car, the foursome kick back at Ross-Prentiss. Mary starts hanging out with Judith, Zack finds one of the students to be overly friendly and Iris quickly falls in with the academy girls. Beth goes poking around where she shouldn’t and mouths off to Judith, a big no-no on this particular campus. She conveniently “disappears,” but Mary still insists on waiting around for word on her car. Things take a decidedly darker turn as Judith and the rest of the academy girls try to recruit Mary to make a stand against the patriarchal society…at whatever cost necessary.

You know, to call yourself a “feminist” film you first have to actually celebrate women. Instead, Women’s Studies decides to skewer women and represent all feminists as murderous, man-hating, goddess-worshiping lesbians. The heroine, Mary, wasn’t much better and came off a bit bland and thick-headed, though she did manage to kick some major ass towards the end. I will applaud the filmmakers for actually having a female-driven cast and not copiously featuring gratuitous female nudity, but the characters were as clichéd and stereotypical (perhaps even more so, because this film actually passes itself off as “feminist”) than any other horror movie.

Just as clichéd as the characters was the story, written by Lonnie Martin (who also directed), which was basically the same ho-hum plot of a group of people trapped in an isolated location with no cell phone service and no way out who are trying to survive some killer. I was hoping for more background on the school, like a visit into a classroom to see just what the women were being taught. Except, the entire campus was empty…what’s the school’s enrollment anyway…five students?? And the opening scene in the strip club really had no bearing on the rest of the story, either. There were lots of little niggling details like this that just drove me mad, on top of the fact that it wasn’t a feminist movie at all. The motivations of Judith and her followers were never explored as in-depth as I would have liked, especially their purpose for killing people, especially other women. Couldn’t they just let them go on their merry way? The story also dragged and had terrible pacing…there were scenes that should have been edited much more.

Along with the editing, there was some horrible direction and cinematography. In some of the shots, the framing was all off, so the camera was pointed at a wall for a few minutes while characters talked on the periphery of the shot. This was absolutely atrocious and amateur-looking. I will say that the outdoor cinematography was much better than any interior shots, which suffered from poor lighting as well as poor framing. The one scene that was shot with talent was the fight between Judith and Mary in the middle of the woods. It was pretty much the only exciting thing in the entire film!

What should have been more exciting were the kill scenes…but these too were pretty disappointing and unmemorable. The women used huge knives, which were pretty cool to look at but didn’t get much action.

As for the acting…well, it is a low-budget picture, so it wasn’t all bad. I think the main problem was that all the dialogue was dubbed in post-production, creating stale and fake-sounding emotions/reactions. The problem was probably the dialogue in the first place, but the actors tried to work around that. I thought Cindy Marie Martin as Mary and Tara Garwood as Judith were both excellent, but the other actors didn’t really get to do much. We never really got to know much about the Academy Girl’s characters, which is maybe because the writer doesn’t really understand women enough to write them as anything more than shallow, clichéd characters.

The last time I was so pissed off at a so-called “feminist” film was the misogynistic Teeth. I wouldn’t call Women’s Studies misogynistic, but it does misrepresent women and feminists. Even forgetting the whole “feminism” aspect of the film doesn’t change the fact that Women’s Studies is a chore to sit through. Its plodding story, ho-hum acting and bad production values make Women’s Studies one to skip!

Available on Amazon!

Teeth (2008)

The indie film Teeth, the darling of last year’s Sundance Festival, masquerades as a feminist film and has sadly been heralded as such, but the reality is that Teeth is a misogynistic film that tells the audience that the only way for a woman to have any power or control is for her to spread her legs and submit to men.

Dawn (Jess Weixler) is a virtuous high school student that preaches and practices abstinence. She is a motivational speaker for middle school kids, and despite the taunting cat-calls she receives at school, she stays true to her vow. That is, until she meets like-minded Tobey (Hale Appleman). The two fall for each other, but during an intense make-out session at the local swimming hole, Tobey forces Dawn into sex (while she’s half-way unconscious after bumping her head). Dawn’s genitalia fights back, taking a big bite outta Tobey’s penis. Dawn knows there is something very wrong with her body, and discovers she has “vagina dentata,” a myth that dates back to ancient civilizations. After numerous run-ins with other men who try and take advantage of her (only to have their members bitten clean off), Dawn realizes she can use her newfound teeth to her advantage…especially when it comes to her lecherous step-brother Brad (John Hensley).

Teeth was a very disappointing movie, especially since it had been branded such a great “feminist” horror film. It’s a pity that just about any movie with a female lead is automatically branded a “feminist” film because in Teeth its a grievous misnomer. It’s just about the most misogynistic horror film I’ve seen in a while.

Writer/director Mitchell Lichtenstein (whom I’ll refer to as LETCHenstein from now on) comes off as more of a lewd old man instead of a champion of woman’s liberation. He’s like the guy who says he supports your women’s lib group, but really says so just to bang all the hot chicks and brag about it to his buddies later. His female characters are of the Madonna/whore archtype, with little room in-between. Dawn is portrayed as naive and virginal in the beginning of the film (mostly for laughs at the character’s expense), but later begins turning into a bit of a slut. Yet, she is strongest at the beginning of the film – she knows who she is, what she stands for and she’s not about to let the bozo’s at school that taunt and tease her get in the way of what she knows is right…until she meets that “special boy,” of course. When Mr. Right comes along, we all know to drop whatever is important to us and ride off into the sunset with him, right? BULLSHIT, LETCHenstein!! Do you even know any women?? As for the other women characters in the film, they are underdeveloped or exploited, as is the case with Brad’s “girlfriend” (more like sex puppet) Kim, who submits herself over and over to his whims.

To be fair, the male characters aren’t written in the most flattering light either – most are rapists. Tobey forces Dawn to have sex at the beginning of the film, the gynecologist she visits sexually assaults her (and loses his fingers in the process), another boy places a bet that he can bang her and calls his friend while he’s having sex with Dawn (after he’s drugged her) to brag about it (bye bye penis) – oh, and all these scenes are played for laughs. Hmmm…last time I checked RAPE wasn’t funny, Mr. LETCHenstein. To make matters worse, sympathy is transferred from Dawn, you know, the rape victim, to her stupid attackers when they lose various body parts! If you need any more proof that this film is misogynist you need an eye exam.

For horror fans out there expecting a blood bath…you’ll also be disappointed. Except for 2 or 3 severed penises, it’s not at all gory. There’s maybe one shot of the bloody severed stub where the penis used to be, but horror fans have seen much worse. You can’t rely on gore in this film either…or scares for that matter.

The story itself is confused, convoluted and imbalanced. The horror of Dawn’s situation is reduced to gags and creates a very uncomfortable atmosphere. There are also weird bits of tragedy, like Dawn’s mom dying, which fit awkwardly into the overall story. The pacing is off and it takes FOREVER for something to happen and even longer for the next big penis-chomping to go down. I would usually applaud a film for taking the time to build up characters, but Teeth does no such thing, instead deciding to tiredly poke fun at religion and abstinence. YAWN!

The acting was just about the only good thing in Teeth. Jess Weixler pulls off Dawn’s many emotions convincingly, but it is John Hensley as her step-brother Brad that really shines. His foul-mouthed pillow-talk is uproarious and he steals every seen he is in (and even some he’s not, when he can just be heard in the background). He, like most characters in the film, is unlikable and we can’t wait to see his demise. Still, he is what saved this movie from being absolute trash.

Teeth, wrongly labeled “pro-woman,” is one of the most vile and misogynist pieces of cinema I’ve been unfortunate to witness. Or perhaps fortunately, because now I can warn you all of it’s deviant deception. I really cannot believe how many clueless critics heralded this as the best indie film out of Sundance…

Because, frankly, it BITES!

Available on Amazon!

Illegal Aliens (2007)

Why is that that when celebrities die, their Hollywood stock value goes through the roof and anyone who’s ever worked with them or known them tries to cash in posthumously? Had it not been for Anna Nicole Smith’s death recently, Illegal Aliens would have arrived at your $1.99 DVD bargain bin at Wal-Mart without fanfare, but instead it must now flood the shelves of your local DVD store.


Three aliens (Anna Nicole Smith, Lenise Soren, Gladys Jimenez) are sent to protect the world from whatever forces threaten to destroy it and take the forms of three hot babes. When not saving the world, they work as stunt coordinators in Hollywood. Everything seems fine and dandy, until fellow alien Rex lands on earth, takes over a woman’s buff bod (you remember wrestler Chyna?! She’s now Joanie Laurer) and begins building a mega-gravitron to crash the moon into the earth and snuff out all life as we know it. It’s up to the scantily clad “hot babes” to save the world from sure destruction.

It’s not hard to tell that this movie doesn’t take itself seriously and was meant to be a funny, bad B-movie. The bad news is that there isn’t anything funny about this movie! It is all bad, and not in the so-bad-it’s-good sense! As the movie limped on and I was forced to sit through increasingly horrible performances, bad jokes and horrible hokey dialogue, I thought I’d traveled to one of the worse circles of Hell. Yes, it was that painful.

Not only that, but I found some actions of the female characters and other characters’ reactions to female characters downright insulting. First of all, the whole storyline is a sci-fi nerd’s dream come true: three aliens take the forms of three hot women, save the world, have a “girl fight,” and make out with the nerdy scientific guy. Secondly, for “advanced” and “intelligent” life forms, the girls sure aren’t that bright – Smith plays her blonde-haired bimbo like a retarded 2-year old. Now, a full-grown woman acting like a baby (literally talking in a little girl’s voice, wearing little girl clothes and reasoning like a little girl) and playing it off like it’s “cute” or “hot” is insulting to me as a woman. What insults me most is that this is insinuating that men want a dumb, airheaded and obedient woman. The other two aliens aren’t as bad as Smith’s character (who was basically just playing herself anyway), especially the one who is in charge (played by Lenise Soren). Still, when the one in charge starts crushing on the cute scientist they rescue, she gets all googly-eyed and neglects her duties.

I cannot count how many other scenes irked me, but they sure are plentiful! The acting alone is annoying, from the previously mentioned performance by Smith to Laurer (aka Chyna) playing the screwball and painfully over-the-top evil alien Rex. Her facial contortions and frequent pitch changes in voice were freaky enough, but the dialogue she spewed out made me want to jab sharpened pencils in my ears.

The action sequences, on the other hand, were pretty well done…though most of them were intercut with stock footage. One sequence toward the end that was actually funny was an action sequence that used the most random of stock footage – people jumping out of buildings, cars burning, nuclear testing footage, etc. – for a huge explosion scene. Another action scene I actually enjoyed was when the girls are nearly attacked by a giant horde of spiders commanded by Rex. That definitely harkened back to 1950’s drive-in horror that featured giant bugs and monsters attacking the populace.

Though Illegal Aliens keeps its tongue firmly in cheek, this didn't make it any good or even funny. It lacks the charm of old B-movies, overuses fart jokes and kinda makes me wish Anna Nicole Smith was still alive so she could be properly chastised for her awful performance. To sum it up, if Charlie’s Angels met Plan 9 From Outer Space and had a deformed, ugly baby, that baby would be Illegal Aliens. Look for it at your local $1.99 bargain bin!

Available from Amazon!

Street Trash (1987)

Street Trash is a wonderfully offensive, trashy and gooey film that features people who melt into Technicolor puddles, a penis pick-up football game, bum fights, necrophilia, tons of great comedy and violence. It’s a hard-knock life…

A liquor store owner finds a case of old hooch in his basement. He decides to sell it for $1 a pop, the perfect price for the large homeless community that lives on skid row. Unfortunately, anyone who drinks the stuff immediately starts melting into blues, purples, greens, yellows and reds and their remains end up looking like crayons that were left too long in the sun. There are also several sub-plots involving two homeless brothers and the junk yard where they live, a girl who tries to help them out, a cop’s involvement in the suspicious death of a mob boss’ girlfriend and a particularly crazy and violent Vietnam vet who rules over the homeless class by sheer brutality.

I absolutely loved this movie! Its offensive comedy along with the great gore scenes won me over, even if it did feature some questionable acting and paper-thin plot. It is just a fun, entertaining ride through the mean streets of the ‘80s. It reminded me a lot of something Troma might make today, because no big budget film could get away with Street Trash’s decidedly un-PC viewpoints. Everyone is ragged on, from cops to the homeless and everyone in between.

One part that I did not enjoy was the portrayal of women in the film. Sure, pretty much everyone was portrayed in a bad light, but to me the women got the worst of it. First there’s the Vietnam vet’s companion, who is pretty much his slave and gets slapped around a whole lot. Then there is the mob boss’ girlfriend, who is drunk and gets taken to the junkyard to be raped, beaten and killed, only to be raped again. The only redeeming female character was perhaps the girl who works at the junk yard and tries to help the two homeless brothers. The exploitation of women in B-movies is nothing new, but it still rubs me the wrong way no matter how good the rest of the film is. Still, this was my only major complaint with the film.

The melting scenes are classic and the special effects are spectacular, especially considering the film’s low-budget. Two memorable scenes include one man who slowly melts into a toilet and another man who swells and then explodes in a shower of flesh and blood. Street Trash definitely delivers the goods in the “Ewwwww!” department.

For those interested, the social commentary of the film is also something to look into. The 1980’s were a prosperous time, but not for everyone. Government cutbacks on welfare and social programs left many people out in the street. This film reflects this and in turn shows us how bad it was for people who were forced to live on the street.

Street Trash is an amazing, one-of-a-kind gem of a film in the horror genre. It has many classic scenes and memorable lines that you’ll be repeating days (and most likely years) after viewing it. This B-movie may not be for anyone, but its cult status is cemented in cinematic history.

Available on Amazon!

Red Room (1999)

Gore? Gore? Where did all the gore go?!

Touted as a nasty, gory torture flick, I rushed out to watch Red Room only to be vastly disappointed with this strictly unentertaining, misogynistic film.

Straight outta Japan from director Daisuke Yamanouchi's twisted mind, Red Room is pretty nasty, but scenes of repeated and violent rape, annoying characters and a thin storyline had me reaching for the fast forward button multiple times. Four people, a 17 year old, a young woman and a married couple, play the King Game for a chance to win 10 million yen. They are locked in a dingy, red-lit room and made to play a card game where whomever pulls the king card gets to have the other players commit horrible acts upon one another. The object is to be the last person standing, therefore winning the 10 million. Things start innocently enough, with a girl being spun around and around in a chair for five minutes straight until she pukes. From there, things escalate and we get multiple violent rapes, including one where the man shoves a lightbulb into a woman's vagina until it breaks inside of her, a woman having to drink pee as one of the players pisses on her, the couple beating the stuffing out of each other, a penis being bitten off and tons more depravity.

Now, I like my depravity as much as the next horror fan, but I just couldn't enjoy myself during this flick. Shot on video, it already looks like an amateur porno, and that's what it felt like for the most part. The thin storyline and the exposition scenes involving the card game felt like they were just there to connect the scenes of rape and torture. It's just too much "shock for shock value," which I find incredibly cheap and just plain boring. Also, it was mostly a splatter flick, using lottsa blood, but kinda lacking in the gore department.

Many fans of the Guinea Pig films or other extreme Japanese cinema will enjoy this, however. If your interest was piqued by the synopsis, by all means check out the Unearthed release of Red Room, but don't say I didn't warn ya!

On Amazon!

Live Feed (2006)

Oh brother...another day and another poorly made torture flick. Live Feed, though supposedly written before the success of Hostel, plays like a cheap, sleazy and cheesy rip-off. This is a fine example of gore for gore's sake, with absolutely no intelligence or substance to its flimsy plot.

In the story we've all heard before, five tourists are visiting a foreign country, this time in China. They proceed to be the usual culturally incompetent Americans and piss off the locals. One meathead accidentally spills beer on a powerful crime boss and gets them all kicked out of a bar. They soon end up at a porno theater/brothel and end up doing lines in the bathroom, cheating on their respective girlfriends/boyfriends and getting down 'n' dirty (of course they are all turned on by filthy, cum-splattered establishments!). What they don't know is that they are all locked into their respective rooms that are wired with a live feed so the crime boss can watch them...watch them get butchered by his lackeys, that is! Blood runs free as the kids are gruesomely tortured and killed...

If you are looking for any kind of sympathy for the characters, look elsewhere...character development is nonexistent here. The characters are there to get slaughtered, nothing else. I couldn't have cared any less for the annoying characters, who are practically begging to be killed. The "acting" (if you must call it that) didn't help my disdain for the characters. Let me just say...it was painful to watch. The delivery was stilted, cheesy and unnatural and, boy, did they all look awkward in front of the camera. The acting was laughable and more cringe-worthy than all the gore put together. In defense of the actors, they didn't have much to work with as the dialogue was bloody awful! Seriously, a 12-year old could have done a better job writing more believable dialogue.

Now, the only reason to watch this movie would be the gore...you're not looking for brilliant acting or poetic dialogue. You're a gorehound and all you want is the pain and the blood, dammit! This movie is relatively brutal, but since there is no emotional attachment to the characters, therefore no suspense or tension, this led to ambivalence towards the death scenes. I just didn't care. And while it's always cool to see a pole shoved down a throat and snakes slipped down it so when you cut the stomach open the snakes spill out, it's just not enough. The rest of the gore scenes are done for shock value (and really, they aren't all that shocking) and nothing else. Gore for gore's sake. Don't get me wrong, I like my gore, but in this movie it's just a letdown and a real bore, even if it is brutal.

Another thing overused in the movie is the nudity. I'm no prude, but the shots of a stripper gyrating on a pole were just pointless and boring. Same thing goes for the rest of the film...all the T & A was in no way titillating, but just cheap-looking. Boys, the girls weren't even that attractive, so don't get all hot and bothered. These misogynistic shots of women, which not only include the strippers but also the tourists in plight (the women are subjected to the worst torture, while the men get off with pretty easy deaths) give the horror genre a bad name.

I wouldn't recommend Live Feed to anyone. It is just another, lesser and more boring/pointless version of many (better) films that have come before it, which seeks to shock the viewer instead of entertaining them. Gorehounds, while you may enjoy the torture scenes, this the rest of the movie is just not worth it and is a complete waste of time.

Order it on Amazon

A Blade in the Dark (1983)

A Blade in the Dark (La Casa con la Scala Nel Buio) is directed by Lamberto Bava, but displays little of his skill. It is slow-moving, predictable and fails to entertain.

A musician moves into a villa to write a score for an upcoming horror film. Meanwhile, a killer on the property brutally murders women and hides their bodies. The musician starts to suspect that a killer is on the loose and is hiding the bodies in the large house. More and more women who show up at the villa end up disappearing. Are these disappearances (and killings) related to the former tenant in the house? How is the film that he is working on connected to the strange disappearances?

I was so disappointed in this movie...I was expecting a fun ride but all I got was a trip on the SS Snoozeville. I couldn't care less about the characters, the acting was pretty iffy, the plot didn't go anywhere, the pacing was offensively slow, I figured out the killer by the middle of the film and the killer's motivations were sorely lacking and unbelievable. This film is chock full of unnecessary scenes that seem to exist solely to fill time. The pacing is slower than molasses and in serious need of a kick in the pants. There is no suspense and no tension. If you are a giallo fan like me, you will know who the killer is halfway through the film.

The kills aren't very memorable, though there are a few bloody bits; nothing we haven't seen before, though. There are a few great camera angles, such as the one used underwater in a pool. Unfortunately, this wasn't a kill scene.

Unless you are a collector, skip this borefest and rent one of the many better giallos...perhaps even a Mario Bava (Lamberto's father) film.

Order it on Amazon!

Farmlands (2006)

Farmlands is a no-budget indie movie from Vomit Films about a group of friends who go up against a misogynist killer. According to director Richie Vomit, it was filmed on a budget of about $40. It manages to be both hilarious and horrifying, and held my attention for its entire 72 minute length.

A group a twenty-somethings live in the middle of nowhere, in the farmlands of Iowa. To pass the time they mostly hang out, drink and talk the days away. One night, they all go hang out at their friend's house. She has also invited her co-worker, Johnny, a mysterious fella no one knows much about. He is muscled and tattooed and soon the girls are drooling over him. Chastity, the "loudmouth whore" of the group, gets turned down by Johnny when she suggests they wander off for some "alone time." Instead, Johnny's got his eye on Margie, the innocent-looking blond of the group.

We meet the rest of the group at the party too: the very obnoxious and loud fat boy (who reminded me of Franklin from TCM, not as whiny but just as annoying), the skinny, funny guy, the guy who is secretly in love with Margie, and the girls - Chastity as well as the host of the party and their friend (played by Heidi Vomit).

The day after the party, Margie and Johnny have their date, only to be rudely interrupted by the jealous Chastity, fat and skinny boy and Heidi's character. Margie and Johnny ditch them and retreat back to Johnny's house. Soon Margie's friends realize she has gone missing and they start searching for her but find much more than they bargained for.

Farmlands is gloriously low-budget, proving you don't have to spend much ($40!! $40!!) to make a good horror movie. From the opening credits with images of rotting corpses and the Iowa landscape, it had me hooked.

The characters were all pretty well established, but then again, the filmmakers used mainly friends so I'm sure their personalities were shining through. I could have used a bit more explanation to what was going on with Johnny's brother (?), who killed and then wore the deceased woman's breasts. He was definitely disturbing. The characters themselves did get to be annoying at times, especially the Franklin look-alike, but hey, it gave me all the more pleasure to watch him die!

The camera work, especially for an indie, was all up to par. There is continuity to all the shots, which I am a big stickler for. The film itself is very grainy and the camera's lens appears scratched, but this did not detract from my viewing pleasure. I loved the shots of the desolate locations - dirt back roads, isolated farmhouses and barns.

The comedic element of the movie was never over the top, but used realistically. The comedic element usually came from the colorful group of characters cracking jokes. It felt very realistic, like friends you have...which made it all the more horrifying when everyone started to die.

I did not like: the long, drawn-out party scenes, the porno that the kids were occasionally watching which hurt the pacing of the story (and its insertion made no sense), the sudden appearance of Johnny's homicidal "family" with no explanation given (I don't need a whole back story, but give me a little introduction as to who they are), the slow pacing in the middle of the story, the overlaid dialogue in which you couldn't hear what anyone was saying and various other caveats common to indie flicks.

Overall, though, I did enjoy it. The surprise ending caught me off-guard and it was a big "Oooooooh" moment for me (not that kind of moment, you sickos!). Indie filmmakers should watch this film to see what can be done on a $40 dollar budget - there's a lot to learn from the lovely people at Vomit Films. I can't wait to see what they'll do next!

Check them out on Myspace, Vomit Films or Farmlands, and tell them Fatally Yours sent you!

Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key (1972)

I love watching movies in Italian (screw dubbing!) because, for the most part, I can understand them (I am Italian and speak it). Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key is a not-too-gory giallo with one of the best titles in cinema.

A privileged but failed writer named Oliviero spends his days boozing it up with local lay-abouts and takes pleasure in tormenting his wife, both physically and emotionally. When his mistress is murdered, Oliviero is the main suspect, until being cleared by the police. More and more bodies pile up and his wife wonders if he really is the killer.

While the first half of the film is pretty slow and mainly features Oliviero slapping his wife around, the second half picks up with several interesting twists and surprises. It features the famous Edwige Fenech as Oliviero's niece. There's lots of nudity, including a lesbian scene between Fenech's character and Anita Strindberg's character of the wife and a sex scene between Fenech and Luigi Pistilli (Oliviero), which is usually expected in a giallo. A black cat named Satan plays heavily into the storyline, much like Edgar Allen Poe's "The Black Cat."

This was an enjoyable giallo, despite being heavy on misogyny (Oliverio toward his wife), but pretty easy on gore. It certainly isn't the best in the genre, but it's worth checking out for the ending.

Find it on Amazon!

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

What better way to spend a chilly Saturday night than to have some friends over for pizza, Pacifico and a viewing of Cannibal Holocaust? There is no better way, believe you me...

The movie begins with a report on an intrepid documentary film crew who entered the Amazonian jungle in search of cannibals. No one has heard from them in more than two months so noted anthropologist Professor Harold Monroe is sent to look for them. He finds them alright, mounted on some kind of altar with their camera equipment and their bones picked clean! He also finds two warring cannibal tribes, but succeeds in getting along with both, thus avoiding becoming dinner.

After he obtains the film crew's film footage, he hightails it back to New York City where he is invited to show his findings on television, because the public has a right to know what happened, dammit! From that point on, we are treated to the documentary crew's film footage (a la Blair Witch Project) and it ain't pretty. It seems the film crew would do anything to garner fame and success, even terrorizing peaceful Amazonian tribes to get dramatic footage. They stage some pretty grisly scenes for their precious documentary, blaming it on rival tribes in the footage. In the end though, the tribes show their stuff to prove you don't mess with cannibals!

This was definitely a brutal movie, more brutal than Cannibal Ferox. There are numerous animal deaths, including the stabbing of a muskrat, the shooting of a pig, and the chopping up and general disassembly of a turtle. These are all real, mind you, and not for the squeamish. The animal deaths are much more violent and explicit than in Ferox. Ye be warned...

Holocaust also has much more violence towards women. In a ritualistic tribal punishment, a woman is taken far from the village by one man, then raped, then raped with a sharp knife, then raped with a torture device that can be compared with a softball studded with nails. She is then bludgeoned to death. In another scene, the males of the film crew take turns raping a native while the others hold her down. Then, in perhaps the most iconic scene of this film, the woman is shoved onto a pole so that the pole extends out of her mouth.

The members of the film crew finally get their just desserts when they are surrounded by the cannibalistic tribe. One guy gets severely beaten, strung up, has his genitals chopped off, then gets hacked to bits. The lone woman of the crew is beaten and viciously raped by several members of the tribe. The rest of the crew is finished off in a spectacular bloodbath.

The end of the film leaves us with a question - who are the real savages here? The cannibals and their primitive way of life or the film crew and Western civilization? There is some social commentary here, and it does make one think...which is a good thing, darlings!

The film was directed by Ruggero Deodato and came out in 1980, a year before Cannibal Ferox appeared. It is an intense, grueling, disturbing film that feels very real at times. I highly recommend it to those that like to watch very controversial films, films with lots of "ewwwwww" moments, gorehounds and, of course, those that hold a special place in their hearts for cannibals.

Please be warned, though...it is an extremely graphic and serious film.

Buy it on Amazon!

Ted Bundy (2002)

Ted Bundy - Only amusing for the one line - "Act like you're dead!" - the rest of this movie is flat, dull and attempts to eroticize Bundy's killings. Lots of exploitative shots of women, which does nothing to raise the terror which should be felt during the killing scenes. A meandering mess of a movie.

Check it out on Amazon!

The New York Ripper (1982)

A killer is loose in New York, sexually mutilating beautiful women. The killer talks like Donald Duck, both to his victims and when taunting the police over the telephone. An older detective tries to solve the case before another woman is cut to ribbons.

This film was directed by Lucio Fulci, who also directed the films Don't Torture a Duckling and Zombie. While I enjoyed those films, I could not get into The New York Ripper. The violence was just too misogynistic for me. Plus, Fulci seemed to come up with the killing scenes first before applying the convoluted back story. There were many suspects, all of them seedy and mysterious characters. The psychologist who was helping the detective seemed like he could have done it, as could have the gigolo, the rich but lonely and kinky wife or the lone survivor of an attack by the Ripper. To quote Randy in Scream, "Everyone's a suspect!"

I wholeheartedly agree with Killing in Style's review of the film. It does appear that Fulci used the story as padding for the killing scenes. The highly violent, erotically charged and misogynistic killings definitely come first in the film, while the plot comes second and sort of fades into the background. Killing in Style points out:

...it could be compared with porn as it uses a similar parasitic approach: diverting a rather classic and well-coded cinema style to use it to its own advantage. When porn leverages any stereotypical scenaristic frame as a pretext to fit in as many porn scenes as possible, Fulci hijacks the early 80s American cop film codes and structure to stuff it with ultra-violent (and sometimes almost pornographic) sequences.

The "almost pornographic" death scenes make this a very uncomfortable film to watch. The camera caresses every angle of each character about to die, and continues to caress them as they are killed by the Ripper.

For everything I want to say about this movie, go to Killing in Style's excellent review of the film - he basically covers it all!

Order it on Amazon!

Visiting Hours (1982)

So, this time I did decide to participate in the Final Girl Film Club to watch the hospital horror movie Visiting Hours. I was enticed to watch because William Shatner was in it (he is mildly amusing to me) and it was set in a hospital (I hate hospitals - they freak me out). I was sorely disappointed in Shatner, the hospital setting and the movie in general.

It was a real snooze, and played out more as a thriller (though it didn't thrill me at all) than as a horror movie.

It begins with our heroine, Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant) conducting a TV interview on women's rights, abusive relationships and women's self defense. She defends an abused women who is on trial for killing her husband, though Ballin argues it was just self defense. This opening scene lets the viewers know that Ballin is a strong woman who stands up for women's rights.

After being told by her producer (William Shatner) that her segement won't air, Ballin is upset and heads home. Her house is a real pigsty and we follow her throughout while she has a series of fake scares (a loose parrot, water left running in the shower, etc.). There are many POV shots that mimic someone watching her (from inside a closet, for example), but most of them turn out to be fake. This gimmick is used all throughout the movie and it really started to get on my nerves.

Finally, the killer, who appears to be nude and wearing her jewelry, jumps at at her and slices her up a bit. She gets away and tries to escape via dumbwaiter (brilliant!) until the killer cuts the cord and she falls to the first floor. Then some guy comes running up the steps to her rescue and she gets carted off to the hospital.

Ok, did my DVD skip or something? Did I leave the room? I think I missed something from when she crashed to the first floor to someone rescuing her...can anyone clue me in?

At the hospital, we meet the kindly Nurse Sheila (Linda Purl) who takes care of Ballin in the hospital. She is intent on keeping Ballin safe. The rest of the film switches between showing us the killer (Michael Ironside) trying to get to Ballin and Ballin trying to keep away from the killer. This film focused a lot on the killer and his life. It may have shown and explained too much, for the killer wasn't scary to me, just pathetic in his hate for women. I really just wanted to rip his testicles clean off and shove them down his throat.

Mr. Killer terrorizes any women that get in his way. He enjoys torturing them a little bit before they die. He takes Poloroids of them as they are dying. He doesn't mind killing any men that get in his way, but (predictibly) he has a mommy complex and loves watching women suffer and die. It sounds sick (and it is), but not scary. He just ended up pissing me off and I loved watching him get his in the end.

I don't feel like going into the rest of the movie since it's basically just the killer sneaking in and out of the hospital trying to kill Ballin. This movie coulda-shoulda-woulda been a whole lot better if it focused more on the terror of being stuck in a hospital with a killer coming after you instead of focusing on the killer. Also, Shatner was sorely misused and his character was BORING. The hospital setting did convey a sense of isolation, but I think it could have been better utilized. It seems a waste of space to write anymore about it, so skip this movie unless you're perverted and like to see hate for women spread out on the screen.

Check it out on Amazon!