The Blob (Remake)

Year: 1988
Director: Chuck Russell
Writer: Theodore Simpson, Kay Linaker
Genre: Horror: Sci-fi

The Blob has always seemed like something that just isn't appealing to me. Despite never seeing the original or any of either film, they both just seemed super cornball. I mean, come on, you've got a big glob of slime terrorizing a town. What is meant to be truly scary about that? It just seems too funny. Although there's nothing wrong with funny horror based on weird living/non-living entities I just wasn't ready to watch.

Grabbing The Blob I wasn't sure what version I had but popped it in and started watching. As it turned out it was the remake and while it was excellent it may have forever tainted my future opinion of the original. I say this because the remake is so fun and has great effects that the original may just seem completely dull in comparison, which is really too bad. I guess I'll find out when giving it a watch.

Anyway, The Blob is a great, goofy film. It starts out with a meteor crashing in the forest. Aliens don't pop out or anything, but instead we see some weird pink goo bubbling in the rock. A homeless man pokes at it, gets it stuck on his hand, and is rushed to the hospital by the lead teens. Everyone watching the movie knows how bad this is, but the film lets it build up for a little bit... making you wonder just when something will happen. Once it does, though, boy it lets it out.

Like I mentioned earlier, the effects are fantastic. They are so perfect and if there is another remake in the future they will probably be ruined with computer graphics. What we see from this late 80s film is pure artistic skill of putting skeletal people inside a pink blob, which is somewhat translucent. It's super effective to watch a face slide into the front of the blob, or see the remains of people terrorized by it.

As far as acting and storytelling goes it was well done too. It all helped progress the ridiculous story forward and get you into the world. The way the organism was depicted made it seem actually fearsome as well, instead of as just some funny-looking goo. I wouldn't say it was actually menacing, but there were parts that were slightly nerve-wracking. Overall, it was a tremendously enjoyable film.

976-EVIL

Year: 1988
Director: Robert Englund
Writer: Brian Helgeland, Rhet Topham
Genre: Horror

Wow. This movie. I actually never knew Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) directed any movies. Now I think I see why. It's not that 976-EVIL is a bad movie but it leaves the impression on you that it is. There's just so much silliness to it that it's hard to take seriously as a film overall.

The story is basically this: There's this number you can call and it is supposed to tell you your HORRORscope. Haha, get it? Anyway, the phone line is actually much sinister as it promises people great powers. However, upon accepting such powers they must eventually either fall prey to it or revolt and get killed in the process.

The lead actor, Stephen Geoffreys, is most famous for his role as Evil Ed in Fright Night. I liked him more in Fright Night. He certainly gets a chance to go all-out in this film though, that's for sure. So there seems to be a good mix of skill put into this film but it's only average - although it's a "weird" average movie. There are however some pretty neat effects on display, as well as creative murders. You might get much more out of it than I did though, so maybe give it a chance if you haven't already.

Lady in White

Year: 1988
Director: Frank LaLoggia
Writer: Frank LaLoggia
Genre: Horror: Mystery

I came into Lady in White with little to no expectations and was pretty blown away. This means that I definitely recommend it. Either way, let's talk a little about what makes the film tick. It starts us off with a young boy in school who is hassled by a handful of bullies, as well as his brother. His life seems ultimately regular though. That is until the bullies lock him up in a school storeroom late at night where he is witness to a creepy fellow sifting around in there.

Then, the story branches out into separate but overlapping tales. There is the regular life of the boy that is changed due to that event. Then there is the repercussions of that event that get someone else wrapped up in a great deal of trouble. Then there is a ghost story happening too. Despite these very different tales all happening at the same time it never gets confusing and they are woven into one narrative quite skillfully.

The ghost story feels almost kiddish in many ways, but maybe that's due to the fact that children are the ones exploring it. If you get beyond that though it's obvious this isn't the kind of film you want to tuck your kids away with at night. It features a whole lot of more serious commentary. There is the cruelness of racism as well as some other seedy parts of humanity on display.

Overally Lady in White is a cinematic treat. I would recommend it to any moviegoer, not just horror fans. As it stands, the horror content is pretty soft anyway so that's not the focus. The focus is more mysterious and dramatic.

Fright Night Part 2

Year: 1988
Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
Writer: Tom Holland, Tim Metcalfe
Genre: Horror: Comedy, Vampire

Fright Night is an excellent movie. It may be supremely 80s but it's a ton of fun and a great take on vampires that I'd love to see again these days. Fright Night Part 2 attempts to continue the story of the first but mostly just falls apart.

In Part 2 we hear Charley Brewster recounting the events of the first film (in case you forgot?). After he finishes his tale we see that he's in an office and that his therapist has helped convince him none of that stuff ever occurred. There's no such thing as vampires!

Soon after we see that Charley also has a new flame. Why? Wasn't the huge climax of the first film not only defeating the vampires that moved in next door, but also saving his girlfriend from vampirism? What was the point of that if he was just going to toss her aside for some new girl? After I managed to get over that though a new thought crossed my mind. Did they rush to make this movie right after the first one? I asked this question because it feels like a big pile of nonsensical parts stuck into one somewhat cohesive whole.

There are multiple parts of the film where scenes change with no real explanation between them as to what occurred. There is a part where you see some characters in one scene, and then the next they are in jail. What, how did that even happen? There are a few points like that and it makes it feel like the director was in a hurry to pump this out after the success of the original. This isn't the case though as Part 2 was made a few years after the original, not immediately. You've got to wonder what was going on in production where they had to cut out scenes that explained what on earth was going on. Not only that, but this movie is supremely 80s. This is a plus or minus depending on who you are - to me it was a plus.

This is not to say the movie wasn't enjoyable. It still was pretty fun and I liked the new vampire crew a lot. My favorite in particular was Regina. The movie quickly escalates to the climactic showdown. While it's not as drawn out or cool as the first film it still is alright. Check it out if you got a kick out of the original Fright Night.

Return of the Killer Tomatoes!

Year: 1988
Director: John De Bello
Writer: Stephen F. Andrich, John De Bello
Genre: Horror: Comedy

I haven't seen the original Attack of the Killer Tomatoes in a long time. I remember it not impressing me much even though I was a middle schooler or so when I saw it. I knew the premise was utterly ridiculous but the film itself seemed only to drag on and on and be really stupid. Who knows if I'd feel the same way upon rewatching it, but that initially viewing has skewed me away from any more tomato-based cinema.

I don't know what it was that made me decide to check out the sequel. I guess I wanted to know how things worked out or if it was any better. As it turns out, I had a fair bit of fun with this movie although it is tremendously stupid. It's probably due to the huge amounts of stupid slopped on that it becomes such a fun film.

Although it starts off only being semi-wacky it continues to get crazier and crazier until the end where there is nothing left to do but laugh. It definitely pokes fun at films in general and I liked that. It certainly seemed more fresh then than it would if people were making fun of things like product placement today. Anyway, it's super dumb and that's the reason to watch it.

I like that the movie also makes fun of the 80s cinema landscape and promotion around films. Like, the main tomato of this movie is no longer a real one but a medium-sized fluffy plush guy. He's cute and the perfect way to attempt to sell merchandise from the film. Of course, I don't think there were ever any real FT plush guys produced, but I like that they poke fun at how horrible movies are with trying to string along new merchandise alongside them.

Return of the Killer Tomatoes! would probably make for a nice watch with friends. Just make sure you're not expecting anything serious when you press play.

Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers

Year: 1988
Director: Michael A. Simpson
Writer: Fritz Gordon, Robert Hiltzik
Genre: Horror: Slasher

Here we go again. I didn't really love the original Sleepaway Camp too much but the famous ending certainly stuck with me. Later I realized that there were sequels to the film and wondered what they brought to the table, if anything. So here I am, slowly watching through each of them.

I liked this movie a lot more than the first. The characters felt more alive to me (certainly more annoying). There's something about annoying characters though... You just know that they're going to get it and keep watching to see when and how. I felt myself really digging the killer too, which certainly isn't the normal passing of events when watching a horror film. Usually we're made to fear or despise the killer. In this case, it felt like she was simply taking out the garbage.

Something I didn't enjoy was the first few minutes of the film where they basically rehash what happened in the first. Honestly, I'm glad they explained it because it was quite contrived in the original. Either way, I didn't like that the characters were poking fun at the possibly trans status of the killer. It seemed odd though, since the characters suggested the mother of the killer simply dressed her boy up as a girl since he was 3. Even if that were the case, if he still felt he were fully a boy inside he wouldn't be happy about the dresses and stuff his mother forced him into. So, that seems an odd way of describing his growing life. I guess there's not really much that can be said though since certainly most people of the 80s probably had no clue about the existence of transgender people beyond their awkward and psychotic depictions in media (which, of course, this film continues).

Getting past that stuff though it was a cool movie. I'm happy that I watched it and can't wait to see the third. I've heard that the 3rd is done on even more of a shoestring budget than this one. Personally, I couldn't tell that this was a low-budget flick any more than all the other low-budget horror films I'm accustomed to watching. Since the original film's story is summed up in the sequel you probably don't even need to watch or re-watch the first to have fun with the sequel. However, if you were crazy about the first it's entirely possible this version might not do it for you, since it definitely changes the reasons for killing.

Poltergeist III

Year: 1988
Director: Gary Sherman
Writer: Gary Sherman, Brian Taggert
Genre: Horror: Haunting

Poltergeist III takes the road less traveled in sequel land. Instead of attempting to further string the same old story out it basically is a brand new film. In fact, the entire family of the original (minus Heather O'Rourke) is absent. She is living with her aunt and uncle for some undisclosed reason in a giant business building. As one might expect, the building becomes haunted due to the young girl having some sort of spiritual connection to the other side.

The film is interesting for the huge leaps of faith it took to create. Who would think it could be creepy to have a giant corporation skyscraper being scary? How does that work? The film handles it very well. Although it sounds hilarious on paper I became very drawn into the story. However, it still falls into a bit of Hollywood excess with some effects. The film could have done without these egregious attempts at "creativity" but whatever.

The creepy guy from the last film returns as he is harassing our heroine. Although, it's a new guy since the previous actor died. The whole Poltergeist curse thing seems mostly silly, but it is creepy to think about the fates of some of the actors in these films. This was Heather's last venture into the Poltergeist world as she died the year it premiered. In fact, I think you can tell that she is not entirely well throughout the film, which makes it a lot more of a depressing watch (if you think about it, anyway).

But then you realize what a strong actress she was. For such a young person she was able to pull out intense scenes and emotions that many adult stars cannot work out at all. Overall, the film is pretty good as long as you don't try judging it against Poltergeist. But since there are almost no connection points between them there's no need to compare anyway.

Night of the Demons

Year: 1988
Director: Kevin Tenney
Writer: Joe Augustyn
Genre: Horror: Demons

Night of the Demons is a pretty average horror feature. You've ogt your standard group of teens or twenty-somethings (you can never tell) who go out to a mansion. It's Halloween so they're having a party in an abandoned spooky house, of course! Things get weird when one of the girls becomes possessed... Although nobody realizes what is happening for a while.

This is basically one of those throwaway horror flicks for teens. There's nudity, gore, and all that stuff kids are supposed to be into. Because it's not very interesting I'm surprised to know that there was even a Night of the Demons 2 made. Then of course there was also a remake done in 2010 for some reason. The movie isn't all that creative though so why spend so much effort on it?

Some of the effects are kind of cool at least. I've never seen someone press a lipstick container into their breast, for example. Very odd. The ending is also rather odd in the horror canon. There are unlikely survivors, I guess I'll say. Not only that, but there is an interesting final joke to the story. It's not really a twist but just an overarching story bit that is tied up nicely. I had a laugh.

Pumpkinhead

Year: 1988
Director: Stan Winston
Writer: Mark Patrick Carducci
Genre: Horror: Monster

Despite the supremely cheesy name, this movie has a strange depth and life to it. I almost expected a goofy villain with a pumpkin for a head or something of the sort. When that turned out to not be the case I was surprised. Apparently, the film is based off a poem and so that's where the creature got the awkward name.

So Pumpkinhead has rural townsfolk living with a terrifying tale. For them, if a man is wronged then he can summon Pumpkinhead to take revenge (by killing whoever of course). It's been years since the last time Pumpkinhead came around but the townsfolk still have that knowledge firmly in their minds.

Cue a group of city kids coming to spend some time in a cabin there. They meet up with a man and his child at the gas station and try to put on their friendly faces. Unfortunately, an unforeseen accident occurs and they inadvertently kill his child. Feeling deeply wronged by the cityfolk, he goes on to exact revenge the only way he knows how - by calling upon Pumpkinhead. Oh no!

The characters are all pretty lively even if some of them die off really fast. It's nice to see that an attempt was made to give them character. I like the story and had no idea really how it would turn out until nearer to the end. It's still mostly predictable but worth watching due to the character interactions. It's also shot very nicely which sometimes is lacking in random horror films. It feels a lot like a fairy tale but the old kinds. Grim, violent tales not the happy Disneyesque things we have now. If you're into that sort of thing this is for you.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Year: 1988
Director: Tony Randel
Writer: Clive Barker, Peter Atkins
Genre: Horror

So here we are at the second Hellraiser film and it takes place after the first. The daughter Kristy has been sent to a mental institution because of her cenobite-related ramblings. For purposes of the plot, her doctor is madly interested in the occult and cenobites in particular. Hearing her story he believes her completely and in fact brings  someone back to life. Then everything goes crazy when he uses another patient of his, a young girl who likes puzzles, to solve the puzzle box and send everyone into their own vision of Hell.

It feels kind of cheesy to have everyone coming face to face with the cenobites already. It seems like a showdown in their territory is something that would typically come much later in a series. The main cenobites also seem horrendously underpowered which also completely dissolves any fear we had about them from the first movie.

Despite those negative points it is still a wholly watchable film. It's still fun and I like rooting for the two girls to make it out of the situation alive. There's a plot segment dealing with the history of cenobites but it doesn't really make sense. In fact, nothing much is every really mentioned aside from a handful of lines. It's weird but maybe they were setting us up for future films.

Honestly, there's not much to say about this one. Think of it as Hellraiser part 2 if you wish.

Alice

Year: 1988
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Writer: Jan Svankmajer
Genre: Fantasy

The story of how I became a Svankmajer fan is one that happened fully on chance. It came from reading some random thread on SomethingAwful and seeing someone with the strangest animated avatar. Someone asked them what on earth it was. The answer was it was the baby in the film Little Otik. As the image intrigued me so damn much, I went ahead and got a copy of the film and watched it straight away. It was great. It was a sort of fairy tale gone dark and weird (in a much different and "realer" way than Tim Burton's modern stuff). So, that's my backstory.

I didn't even know he made an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland until more recently. Obviously, it interested me but finally just got around to seeing it shortly ago. While it does contain his signature eccentricity, it doesn't come together as an all-together great piece. Firstly, the film draws on much too long and is very dull in many parts.

There was some definite charm and moments where I laughed out of sheer amazement, but these moments were few and far between. The story is about the same as the original from what I recall, but of course played out a bit odder. The caterpillar character for example is a sock with holes in it which he fills with marble eyes. he sits upon a wooden knob and hides in a desk drawer while sleeping. It's odd stuff.

What is most interesting is to see how what is now basically classified as a "children's story" can still be so warped. In the introductory monologue Alice states that this is a movie for children "perhaps?". All I know is it would be a rather horrific movie for a child. The visuals are much stranger than any Disney film and the animation technique of Svankmajer always borders on creepy. It might be worth a watch for Alice in Wonderland buffs, but otherwise you're not missing much.

Waxwork

Year: 1988
Director: Anthony Hickox
Writer: Anthony Hickox
Genre: Horror, Fantasy

Let me start off by saying that Waxwork is not a shining example of creative horror filmmaking. However, it still tries something a little bit different and it's better for it.

The basic premise is that a waxworks has suddenly shown up in a small town. A group of teens are invited to come to a private showing at midnight (always with these midnight celebrations). Of course they all go but teens start disappearing one by one. Without the police to turn to, the remaining teens take it upon themselves to figure out what happened.

The creative bit is that the man who owns the waxwork is not the one holding a knife and killing people. He lets his wax scenes do the work for him. The viewers are drawn in to examine the figures but find themselves walking into the scenes depicted and playing them out. Of course, all the scenes depict some scene where death is imminent.

It plays out pretty interestingly even if the climax turns silly. Of note though, it's very worth sticking around to see a man in a wheechair decked out to look like a battle tank. Also, Marquis de Sade is in a horror movie. That's gotta entice some viewers out there.

Dangerous Liaisons

Year: 1988
Director: Stephen Frears
Writer: Christopher Hampton, Choderlos de Laclos (novel)
Genre: Drama: Romance

Dangerous Liasions is an adaptation of a play, which is in turn an adaptation of a novel: Les Liasions Dangereueses. I've never read the book or seen the play but I'm pretty sure the film uses 100% of the sentences from it. The way each character talks is very elaborate and play-ish, although thankfully understandable.

There was another adaptation of the play/novel in the form of another film called Cruel Intentions. I did something I usually find unspeakable, which was to watch a more recent adaptation first. It came out in 1999. However, it was such a wholly different film (placed in the modern era) that these two films are wholly separate even if they have the same exact base.

While I very much enjoyed Cruel Intentions when I watched it after viewing Dangerous Liaisons I've com to find I prefer this version even more. Unlike the more recent adaptation, it feels much less like a Hollywood movie and like an ornate play. It's able to draw you in despite sometimes confounding ways of speech and that is quite the accomplishment. I'm not sure how a modern movie-going audience would take such a film if it came out tomorrow, but there is definitely an audience to like it.  


I really like this movie. The incestuous themes aren't as outwardly nasty as they are in Cruel Intentions, but that huge plot point is still very much alive here. It's played in a more Victorian fashion though, which makes it easier to distance oneself from it. Either way, it's a fine film. I'd love to watch it again and even side by side with other adaptations to see who really captures the spirit best. Finally, I'll need to read the book.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

Year: 1988
Director: Renny Harlin
Writer: Wes Craven, William Kotzwinkle, Brian Helgeland, Scott Pierce
Genre: Horror: Slasher

The Dream Master is one of apparently the last movie in the series that retains the number in the title. There's nothing wrong with them taking it out for future iterations, but I prefer it. Without numbers all these "dream" subtitles tend to blend together.

So, 4 starts off where 3 left off. At the end of 3 some kids were left alive and so here they are in this next movie alive and older. Despite Freddy being gone for a while Kristin keeps bringing her old team back into her dreams, much to their dismay. Of course, as soon as they begin to yell at her for it is when they probably need it the most. Freddy predictably comes back and gets straight to killing off the remaining kids.

Before Kristin dies, she gives her dream-pulling power to her friend Alice. The story from continues on into 5 and since I watched them together it's difficult for me to discern which cast of teens is from which movie. Regardless, what I do remember is this film was pretty cool. The moment Freddy put on sunglasses at a beach I busted out laughing. The kids feel like they die off a little too fast and in to large an amount, but the story is still extremely entertaining.

While this isn't the best one storywise, it is pretty intense with special effects. This movie seems when they started really going crazy with Freddy. Not only Freddy, but there are some horrible effects forced upon the teens. One girl has her body break apart as cockroach limbs spurt out. Another girl is forcefed by Freddy until her face is grotesquely swollen like a psychotic chipmunk. These might be from the 5th movie, but I'm thinking they happened here. The effects are still done very well and they're all very creative.

I wish more horror movies would capitalize on being silly and cool. I also wish they wouldn't try to force computer graphics on everything. I'm glad that sometimes movies rely on real effects these days, even if it's just a few.