May is a young woman that leads a fairly interesting but yet non-eventful life.  She has a full-time job as a vet assistant, she goes home everyday to greet her best friend, of whom is a porcelain doll, and she spends most of her free time sowing her own clothes.  Does that draw you in?  No?!?…well, while May is very lovable, she is also PAINFULLY shy and more than just a little awkward.  In social settings she is a complete wreck, yet her fellow patrons excuse this and tend to see her as a very sweet and sensible young woman.  Bettis displays all of May’s traits brilliantly and never fails to make every conversational frame the most awkward and unnerving segments of the film.  To the films advantage, these segments are welcomed and at often times funny and entertaining.  These qualities are amounted by Bettis’s performance.  It will draw you in, guaranteed, and you will be biting your nails the whole way through.

The key to this film is how May’s friends and coworkers relate to her.  Some are turned on by her innocents, some think she’s a freak, and some feel she’s just too “weird”.  May also wants nothing more than for her piers to see her for who she really is.  Who does May think she REALLY is?  Or better yet, what kind of person  is she capable of becoming???

Throughout the film, it’s as if May is feeling love and friendship for the first time, and throughout most of her personal encounters with other wonderful characters, she reacts to her complete ignorance in the most frustrating and violent ways.  It soon becomes more than May can take, and that is exactly where the film turns into a common slasher, but only at a first glance.  While May seems to take part in a rather tiresome plot switch to slasherhood, our director, Lucky McKee, has an even grander trick up his sleeve.  It isn’t until the films final moments that the pieces literally fall into place.  What we’re left with is a horror film that is incredibly original as a slasher, a drama, and a dark comedy.  More importantly, it is highly entertaining and very thought provoking.

See this film.  It has climbed into the ways of my top ten.

As the curtain rises, fresh-faced Justin (Ward Roberts) is in the midst of preparing to summon a demon.  His beloved April (Sarah Lassez) has been mysteriously and violently accosted by a sinister hell-beast and he’s desperate to retrieve her from the depths of Hades.  She’s a strange, pretty girl with an obsession for the occult.  As a token of love, she’d given him a rare, ancient tome along with the strict warning to burn it should anything happen to her.  Justin does not heed her warning.  Using a spell from its pages, he raises a demon to find April for him.

The demonic creature is called Lo.  Lo (voiced by Jeremiah Birkett) is a sarcastic, hungry demon who does not appreciate being at Justin’s beck and call.  It soon becomes a battle of wills between the two– Justin adamant on rescuing April, and Lo, hell-bent on changing his mind. With the help of several motley creatures, a demonic joker in a Nazi uniform, an eerily calm waiter and even an undead lounge act, Lo replays key moments from Justin and April’s courtship as a reminder that not everything was as peachy as Justin liked to think.

By no means is Lo a traditional horror movie.  Some rather creepy creatures inhabit the screen, but there’s very little in the way of blood and violence.  The acting is a bit campy at times and the story a little corny.  But it works.  Watching Lo made me nostalgic for the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” series– and this is a positive thing.  The off-the-wall humor of Lo adds a light, weirdly fanciful feel to what otherwise would be a melodramatic, predictable plot.  For those with a significant other interested in horror movies, this is an excellent date movie.

Enter Hatchet. A short little slasher flick that’s about a small group of young Americans who are on vacation, wander off the beaten path, and start to get picked off one by one. What makes Hatchet different from all the other teen horror flicks is the sense of humor that it has in response to the same old tired stereotype characters and predicable plot twists that we see in too many American horror films.  It takes those characters and extends and exploits those stereotypes to a whole new extreme.

The plot of Hatchet is much of the same as what I’ve previously mentioned, and if anything, it tries so desperately to be incredibly straight forward in terms of your typical slasher film plot. You guessed it; a group of young Americans are on vacation, they get sidetracked from the fun, get lost in the middle of nowhere, and for some reason somebody or something wants to kill them. Hatchet can certainly be admired for making us laugh at it’s overly stereotypical characters, over the top killer lunatic, and humorous plot advancements, but in the end, Hatchet is still JUST THAT…another Hollywood Horror Film with very few tricks up its sleeve.

So if Hatchet won’t surprise you, it can most definitely make you grin. It does manage to be very clever. When most of our characters are still alive, their interactions and self conflicts can be amusing, to say the least. Adam Green, the films writer and director, simply takes material that is not at all original and tries to use his witty script to his only advantage. As a result, the characters will keep you interested in the film and you might even find yourself feeling a bit disappointed when some of your favorites get the axe…errr, i mean…hatchet.  You won’t necessarily miss them for the duration of the film, but you might find that the film was far more humorous  when all the characters where alive and well.

So this is a slasher, right? So it’s got some good kills, right? YES! If you think that you’ve seen it all (you’ve got some nerve!) then you are dead DEAD wrong. The killer in Hatchet is a HUGE man-beast that slays our main characters in the most satisfying and almost always humorous fashions. Nothing is incredibly realist here as far as blood and guts are concerned, but lets just say that due to all the buckets of gooey red stuff that were spilled, my jaw dropped in glorious wonderment on more than one occasion. If you are watching the film with a friend you will undoubtedly be saying “DID YOU SEE THAT???” after countless kill scenes. The funny thing is, of course he saw “that”,…i mean…he’s sitting in the seat RIGHT next to you. Dumbass! Still, you know what I mean.

Everything about this movie screams “Mystery Science Theater 3000″. The basic plot is a bit kooky, but has potential– two hillbilly gardeners Billy Buck (John Smihula) and Jacob (Adam Beske) move to the New Jersey ‘burbs where their lawn maintenance business is boming.  Soon, however, they grow tired of being treated like dirt by their rich yuppy clients.  This leads to a violent killing rampage as the two sadistically torture pretty, young, shallow suburbanites to death.  What will it take to stop these two deranged landscapers from drenching the entire town in blood and gore?

This movie has the feel of a subpar student film.  One gets the sense that Billy Buck is supposed to be almost sympathetic since his vengeful violence is aimed at upsetting the status quo of  greed and materialism.  He’s driven by a strong sense of injustice– the kind of injustice that can only be remedied by butchering young rich people, tearing off their faces and slowly disembowling them.  He looks like a WWE cast-off with black war-paint circling his eyes, bare-chested under denim overalls.  Being surrounded by materialistic, insipid yuppies is what drives Billy Buck to murder.  Jacob, on the other hand, kills because he enjoys it.  He’s more of a stereotypical masked lunatic with serious self-esteem issues.  The rest of the cast is essentially a string of bland, no-name actors, all generically attractive in a fluffy-haired 1980s model way. They all portray snobby, up-and-coming Wall Street bankers or doctor’s wives.  The acting is painfully stilted and hollow.  A tough psychologist (Maura Del Veccio) whose role is meant to be vital to the story, blends in so much with the other actresses that it’s tough to tell who’s who and why her character is important at all.

They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore skimps on some areas of production, yet it goes all out as far as blood and gore is concerned.  The special effects range from above average to downright ridiculous.  Violence to excess is the motto for director Nathan Schiff.  At first, seeing what’s obviously a dummy having an unconvincing mask being slowly pulled from its skull fits right in with the over-the-top dark humor of the rest of the movie.  But the longer that the endless torture scenes went on, the more uncomfortable I felt watching them.  Sure, the victims aren’t especially likeable. Yeah, they robotically deliver lines like, “It’s you I love, not just your body!” in scenes of seduction.  Yet evisceration seems like a steep price to pay for their transgressions.  The way the camera lingers almost lovingly on images of flesh being ripped apart, bleeding and then peeled away as the killers scoop out internal organs is disturbing.

I can see where the director was attempting to use this movie as a commentary on the culture of greed and capitalism that tainted the early-to-mid 1980s.  Somehow, though, amidst the overtly ridiculous plot contrivances and excessive torture-porn, the message gets drowned out.

Everything about this movie screams “Mystery Science Theater 3000″. The basic plot is a bit kooky, but has potential– two hillbilly gardeners Billy Buck (John Smihula) and Jacob (Adam Beske) move to the New Jersey ‘burbs where their lawn maintenance business is boming.  Soon, however, they grow tired of being treated like dirt by their rich yuppy clients.  This leads to a violent killing rampage as the two sadistically torture pretty, young, shallow suburbanites to death.  What will it take to stop these two deranged landscapers from drenching the entire town in blood and gore?

This movie has the feel of a subpar student film.  One gets the sense that Billy Buck is supposed to be almost sympathetic since his vengeful violence is aimed at upsetting the status quo of  greed and materialism.  He’s driven by a strong sense of injustice– the kind of injustice that can only be remedied by butchering young rich people, tearing off their faces and slowly disembowling them.  He looks like a WWE cast-off with black war-paint circling his eyes, bare-chested under denim overalls.  Being surrounded by materialistic, insipid yuppies is what drives Billy Buck to murder.  Jacob, on the other hand, kills because he enjoys it.  He’s more of a stereotypical masked lunatic with serious self-esteem issues.  The rest of the cast is essentially a string of bland, no-name actors, all generically attractive in a fluffy-haired 1980s model way. They all portray snobby, up-and-coming Wall Street bankers or doctor’s wives.  The acting is painfully stilted and hollow.  A tough psychologist (Maura Del Veccio) whose role is meant to be vital to the story, blends in so much with the other actresses that it’s tough to tell who’s who and why her character is important at all.

They Don’t Cut the Grass Anymore skimps on some areas of production, yet it goes all out as far as blood and gore is concerned.  The special effects range from above average to downright ridiculous.  Violence to excess is the motto for director Nathan Schiff.  At first, seeing what’s obviously a dummy having an unconvincing mask being slowly pulled from its skull fits right in with the over-the-top dark humor of the rest of the movie.  But the longer that the endless torture scenes went on, the more uncomfortable I felt watching them.  Sure, the victims aren’t especially likeable. Yeah, they robotically deliver lines like, “It’s you I love, not just your body!” in scenes of seduction.  Yet evisceration seems like a steep price to pay for their transgressions.  The way the camera lingers almost lovingly on images of flesh being ripped apart, bleeding and then peeled away as the killers scoop out internal organs is disturbing.

I can see where the director was attempting to use this movie as a commentary on the culture of greed and capitalism that tainted the early-to-mid 1980s.  Somehow, though, amidst the overtly ridiculous plot contrivances and excessive torture-porn, the message gets drowned out.

This is a slick-looking horror anthology in the style of Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt but chooses to focus solely on the traditions of Halloween (and what happens to those who don’t heed its customs). The cinematography is excellent and makes this film a treat for the eyes, and the young cast does a fantastic job of adding to the fun and scares that take place on this very special holiday.

Writer/director Michael Dougherty manages to capture the essence of Halloween with this film and he does it by sticking to the basics – costumed kids, jack-o’-lanterns and a few well-placed monsters. Repeat viewings will reveal cracks beneath the glossy surface, but this is a movie about the joys of Halloween so (as long as you’re not looking to get scared) it won’t disappoint.

All four stories take place in Warren Valley, Ohio, a town that takes Halloween very seriously (they host a huge annual parade), though we don’t know how serious until we’re introduced to its strange inhabitants. We have the junior-high teacher carrying on a family tradition, a group of kids who play a prank on a Halloween-obsessed outcast, four fearless young women looking for a good time and a grumpy old man just waiting to die.

Dougherty expertly weaves together these four tales and it all works very well but the non-linear format was a little confusing during my initial viewing. Using the town parade as a reference point helps separate the intertwining storylines, as does the introduction of Sam (the boy in the burlap mask) who is a recurring character. His purpose isn’t immediately clear but it soon becomes obvious and serves to ground the four stories, adding that extra bit of Halloween magic to this movie.

However, while this approach works well in furthering the narrative and bringing the town to life, I felt it also distracted the viewer from the quality of the four tales. The first time I saw this (a couple of weeks before Halloween) I loved everything about it but after watching it again recently, I realized that two of the stories are far superior, in my opinion. It’s not that the other two are terrible but they weren’t as good as I remembered and just didn’t have enough going on to keep me invested in the characters.

Of course, since this is a horror anthology, we usually have our personal favorite story, so this is a minor gripe against an otherwise fine Halloween film. There was one other thing that I didn’t like involving Sam but that would ruin the last part. Most importantly, though, this is a film that was made by someone who loves Halloween and horror movies, someone who’s probably a lot like you and me but has a knack for storytelling and a dark comedic sensibility – this is horror that doesn’t take itself too seriously but is still satisfyingly creepy.

This is a slick-looking horror anthology in the style of Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt but chooses to focus solely on the traditions of Halloween (and what happens to those who don’t heed its customs). The cinematography is excellent and makes this film a treat for the eyes, and the young cast does a fantastic job of adding to the fun and scares that take place on this very special holiday.

Writer/director Michael Dougherty manages to capture the essence of Halloween with this film and he does it by sticking to the basics – costumed kids, jack-o’-lanterns and a few well-placed monsters. Repeat viewings will reveal cracks beneath the glossy surface, but this is a movie about the joys of Halloween so (as long as you’re not looking to get scared) it won’t disappoint.

All four stories take place in Warren Valley, Ohio, a town that takes Halloween very seriously (they host a huge annual parade), though we don’t know how serious until we’re introduced to its strange inhabitants. We have the junior-high teacher carrying on a family tradition, a group of kids who play a prank on a Halloween-obsessed outcast, four fearless young women looking for a good time and a grumpy old man just waiting to die.

Dougherty expertly weaves together these four tales and it all works very well but the non-linear format was a little confusing during my initial viewing. Using the town parade as a reference point helps separate the intertwining storylines, as does the introduction of Sam (the boy in the burlap mask) who is a recurring character. His purpose isn’t immediately clear but it soon becomes obvious and serves to ground the four stories, adding that extra bit of Halloween magic to this movie.

However, while this approach works well in furthering the narrative and bringing the town to life, I felt it also distracted the viewer from the quality of the four tales. The first time I saw this (a couple of weeks before Halloween) I loved everything about it but after watching it again recently, I realized that two of the stories are far superior, in my opinion. It’s not that the other two are terrible but they weren’t as good as I remembered and just didn’t have enough going on to keep me invested in the characters.

Of course, since this is a horror anthology, we usually have our personal favorite story, so this is a minor gripe against an otherwise fine Halloween film. There was one other thing that I didn’t like involving Sam but that would ruin the last part. Most importantly, though, this is a film that was made by someone who loves Halloween and horror movies, someone who’s probably a lot like you and me but has a knack for storytelling and a dark comedic sensibility – this is horror that doesn’t take itself too seriously but is still satisfyingly creepy.

Which is why Tobe Hooper’s film adaptation of The Mangler comes as quite a surprise. No, it’s not scary, not even in the slightest and you won’t be woken up at night with nightmares of possessed laundry chasing you. Suffice to say, it doesn’t do for your dryer what Psycho did for showers, but it is quite entertaining nonetheless. And it’s probably the best possible adaptation given the source material. Most of the short story’s problems – beyond the premise itself – have been corrected, most importantly the ridiculous serious tone. In the film, there’s an acknowledgement of the premise’s silliness. The almost eager acceptance of kooky demon-possession theories by Officer John Hutton to explain the laundry’s malfunction in the story is replaced with initial skepticism and ridicule at the outrageousness of such an idea. In other words, he’s just as amused as we are. Even the tone seems to acknowledge how ridiculous the whole idea is, throwing in loads of over-the-top gore and Robert Englund hamming it up in double leg-braces and an eye-patch. Hooper has recognized the idiocy and adapted accordingly.

The movie sees Officer John Hutton, played by Ted Levine, investigating a series of deaths at the Blue Ribbon Laundry, where several women have been sucked into the industrial steam ironer, chewed up and folded out on the other side like a piece of clothing. What at first appears to be a series of baffling accidents turns out to be something more sinister, involving demonic possession, the owner of Blue Ribbon Laundry and a young girl.

As has been mentioned, The Mangler is never scary, but it is very interesting, a considerable feat for a film centered around an industrial machine grounded into a cement floor. There’s some great gore set-pieces involving the machine, but even when the gore falls to a standstill, the over-the-top characters keep it fun and lively. Levine’s officer is a prick who storms through the movie throwing curse-words left-and-right, his best friend is a kooky new-age hippie obsessed with the occult and the Laundromat owner is a senile cripple who never drops a decibel below a scream the entire film. It’s silly, highly theatrical and doesn’t get boring. It’s never scary, creepy or even very funny, but there are enough little oddities piled in to keep up ones interest. A steam-ironer-exorcism doesn’t feel as out of place here as it did in the story.

And beneath all the mayhem and hamming, there is actually something going on in this film. Several additions to the film, particularly a new ending, reveal a commentary on the corrosiveness of capitalism. By the end of this Laundromat-gone-evil flick, there’s more substance than not only the story and its cheap carnal thrills, but probably most other horror works of similar nature. It’s not the most nuanced commentary, but there are some interesting developments along the way and it seems to have flown over the heads of most who watched it.

The Mangler is typically regarded as one of the worst King adaptations. It certainly isn’t the best, but most of the criticism surrounding it stems from the ridiculous premise. Indeed, it is ridiculous and I’m not quite sure why this was made in the first place. However, Hooper has crafted the best possible film out of this silly idea, by not taking it to seriously and turning the focus from the inanity of evil laundry to something of more substance. I wouldn’t rush out to get The Mangler, but if you find an old VHS sitting around the house (as I did), it’s worth a watch.

The movie opens by introducing the freshly married Denise (Tracy Coogan) and Danny (Graham Sibley) as they joyfully skip away from the wedding chapel, eager to enter the honeymoon stage of their marriage.  The two lead actors have real chemistry.  Coogan’s performance is exuberant, at times downright giddy. This nicely complements the energy of Sibley as Danny– a more mellow, laid-back vegetarian surfer type.  Unfortunately, their blissful honeymoon is interrupted by an unwelcome, undead guest.

While relaxing on the beach, what should stagger out of the waves but an honest-to-goodness zombie. (You can’t have a movie called Zombie Honeymoon without one!)  Clad in a wetsuit, covered from head to toe in seaweed, the staggering zombie catches Danny unaware.  It lurches over, grabs him violently and spews a foul, viscous brown liquid into his face and mouth.  The precise nature of Danny’s death is left a bit vague.  Amidst the chaos, the zombie disappears, leaving a dying Danny and his hysterical wife on the beach.  Cut to the hospital:  Doctors make fervent resuscitation attempts and fail.  Just as Denise is about to resign herself to widowhood, the miraculous happens.  Danny’s eyelids flutter open and, much to everyone’s astonishment, he has recovered from his ten minute “death”.  The shocked doctor warns them that Danny will need time to readjust.  This turns out to be the understatement to end all understatements.

For the first day, Danny seems okay. He and Denise make vows to live for the present and celebrate his rebirth with lots of passionate, rough sex.  The only sign that anything is at all out of the ordinary is Danny’s flaking skin.  “Baby, you need a better sunscreen,” Denise chides him.

Danny’s condition rapidly deteriorates after that.  The former vegetarian goes on meat eating binges.  His memory is shaky and his skin takes on a deathly pale pallor.  When Denise finds him crouched in the bathtub gnawing on the entrails of a bloody corpse, the truth sinks in– this is not the man she married.  She’ll have to decide whether to stay with him through better or worse and whether their wedding vows still apply:  “‘Til death do us part.”

Zombie Honeymoon does not fit into a typical genre mold.  Zombie purists may be put off by the fact that the movie is really about only one zombie– who at first seems more like a simple cannibal– and the origins of his condition are extraordinarily vague.  In fact, Zombie Honeymoon is more about Denise and Danny’s relationship than the threat of brain-devouring undead causing carnage and mayhem.  There’s blood and gore galore, with a bit of female nudity sprinkled in for good measure.  It’s interesting that some of the more romantic and sexually charged scenes occur after Danny has been zombified but before either of them fully realize it.  Many zombie films focus on a large group of zombies as a monstrous enemy, yet tend to forget that zombies were people once, too.

Zombie Honeymoon may be low-budget, with some uneven acting and sound editing issues, but the meat of the story– how a couple deals with unexpected loss of humanity– is very novel indeed.  There’s also enough off-beat dark humor to classify Zombie Honeymoon as a dark comedy.  Classic lines include gems like: “I guess vegetarians don’t make very good cannibals, do they?”

Even fans of romance movies can find something to like in Zombie Honeymoon, assuming they aren’t too disturbed by the gratuitous gore.  Zombie Honeymoon truly does have something for everyone.

The film opens with two stereotypical pot heads, Chuck and Lloyd, heading off to their menial jobs as exterminators. On this particular day they cross paths with a nasty little creature that shares their love for Maryjane — in fact, it’s the only thing that keeps this “little *ucker” from killing everything in sight. Luckily, being the good stoners that they are, they have plenty of pot on hand, so their new friend just seems like one of the guys; he loves girls, booze, and he especially loves to party. This was by far the best part of the film for me. Between the clever banter of Chuck and Lloyd and the antics with “little *ucker* some moments had me in hysterics. But sadly the laughter didn’t last for long.

The very next night the boys are invited to a costume party, which presents them with the perfect opportunity to show off their new friend (hey, he’s already got a costume) and hook up with some ladies. This plan works out great until they run out of pot and “little *ucker” goes ballistic…turning the party into a bloodbath. Realizing what has happened, the two stoners are forced to step up and take on their new friend to try and save the day.

Unfortunately the film falls victim to its own ridiculousness and doesn’t finish near as strong as it starts. To be honest, once the film hit the party it started to lose me. All of the enjoyable, silly humor and surprisingly witty one-liners were replaced with potty humor and tasteless gags. If it weren’t for the carnage I would have completely lost interest right around the time “little *ucker’s” wang made an appearance.

This shift to lowbrow humor may be disappointing, but I still recommend this film to Troma fans and anyone else that can appreciate a little zaniness in their horror. Given Muscal’s background in visual effects the effects here are pretty darn good, and really the only saving grace towards the end. All things considered, I wouldn’t be surprised if this flick found its way into my DVD player again.