Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies

Year: 1999
Director: Jack Sholder
Writer: Jack Sholder
Genre: Horror: Fantasy

Because I felt I hadn't suffered enough I took the time to watch the second Wishmaster film. As it turns out, it's better than the first. For one, the massive over-reliance on CGI is mostly gone. There are some new gross gore scenes, and generally the movie just makes a bit more sense. I still didn't really like it but it was an improvement.

This time around the evil genie man gets sent to jail. With all the murder he was committing in the first movie it really only was a matter of time. It's in jail where he gets to grant the wishes of may convicts. They seem to take things in stride even if people are getting screwed up left and right. Just pass him a pack of cigarettes and it's about the same level of dealings that these guys were used to before.

Beyond that there's some sort of story going on with the lead woman but really it's the genie who is the star. His slick demeanor drives everyone nuts except the viewer. It's entertaining to watch him work his magic on unsuspecting victims.

Still, the movie seems to rely too much on the coolness of how wishes can be mistranslated rather than any true story. Sometimes it's fun when there's no real story to have to focus on but in the case of Wishmaster 2 I mostly fell asleep. It might be a good time for some people though.

Wishmaster

Year: 1997
Director: Robert Kurtzman
Writer: Peter Atkins
Genre: Horror: Fantasy

Wow. Have you ever wanted to see the epitome of 90s movie fads in one feature? If so, Wishmaster is for you. If you're instead looking for a serious look at "evil" genies then please proceed elsewhere. This movie is laughably bad.

I recognize that CGI was coming into its own during these years and people would use it gratuitously thinking it looked godly. These types of movies never age very well, but this one is particularly bad. CGI is so extremely overused it feels like a commercial for a digital arts college. Not only it is overused it seems to be the only thing the movie relies on. Serious plot? Who needs one when we've got these fancy graphics!

Despite the mass of CGI silliness there is still nice makeup and gore effects going on. Some are particularly gnarly (enough so that I still remember them). That's a plus, but beyond that the movie is pretty dumb. You've got a genie who grants wishes to people... but he's not very nice in the way he grants them. While the story could have blossomed into something legitimately neat it mostly seems an excuse to make cool things happen on screen.

If it weren't for some of the extreme gore this would be about as thought provoking as a children's movie. Well, I mean, the gore keeps it from being for children but beyond that it seems like it could be. Why do I say this? Well, for some reason whenever a weird murdery wish is granted it causes an explosion. Oh, so you've turned some guy into ice? He's gonna explode! Oh, you've re-animated a statue? Make it explode! There are at least 4 unexplained explosions which only seemed to be there because it was "cool".

So yeah, I'd advise against staying far away from this movie. It rubbed me in completely the wrong way and I don't wish this atrocity on anybody.

Here's a nice clip from the movie:

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II

Year: 1987
Director: Bruce Pittman
Writer: Ron Oliver
Genre: Horror: Possession

Prom Night is one of my favorite alternate-to-Carrie high school horror flicks. I really love Jamie Lee Curtis in that movie and overall it was a little too 70s/80s but that made it better. Because of my attachments to the original I was curious how I would or would not like Prom Night II. As it turns out, it's still a pretty fun movie although it's not really attached to the first.

In this film there is basically an alternate past made up where a young slutty high school girl gets burned to death by her scorned lover during the prom queen crowning. From then on her spirit has been contained in a costume trunk (horror movie logic!). Of course, some drab girl unwittingly opens it and gets herself possessed by this powerful personality. It's a neat little story and definitely fun to watch the character that was set up as meek become so completely wild.

I liked it a lot more than I expected myself to. Much like the remade Prom Night I can't place my finger on why these movies even share the same title. They are mostly singular entities not connected by any story. It must be due to the ability to market things best when they are from established franchises. Either way, don't look at this as a sequel but just as a cool teen horror flick.

Incredibly, the Prom Night series spawned two more features after this. I've not seen them yet but am hoping to pick up the double feature DVD soon. Although somehow it is easy to assume they won't be anywhere near the quality of this one...

Dracula 2000

Year: 2000
Director: Patrick Lussier
Writer: Joel Soisson, Patrick Lussier
Genre: Horror: Vampire

Dracula 2000 is right up there in cinematic worth aside Godzilla 2000. Seriously. The "2000" of the film is that it's a modern take on the whole Dracula tale. There's not a thing wrong with that in theory and it actually starts out kind of cool. We begin the movie in some crazy bank vault with a man who appears to be the grandson of Van Helsing or something of that sort. A troop of highly trained men crack into Van Helsing's safe one night (despite having no clue what's inside it). Apparently, anything worth that much security must be worth zillions of dollars. So they get in there and extract a coffin because they're certainly not going to leave empty-handed. I'm sure you can assume what the coffin contains.

From then on things descend quickly into silliness. Really, the best thing about the film is that we have a hunky Gerard Butler playing Dracula. Beyond that though the film is nearly pure teenage Hollywood drivel. That's not to say there are not things to like about it. For one, it is kind of cool how the characters were modernized. However, the film also seems to be plagued by the worst product placement ever. It seems that stuff was really vile in the late 90s/early 2000s. Virgin Records is pimped so damn much in the movie for no good reason you'd almost think this was a commercial.  Honestly, when Dracula gapes in astonishment at the store for 30 seconds you tend to notice.

If you're just looking for a very simplistic and flashy vampire romp it's not so bad. I doubt the movie was ever really intended to be taken seriously (like say, Bram Stoker's Dracula [1992]). Especially with a name like Dracula 2000 it seems targeted squarely at the kind of audience who goes gaga over graphical splendor and sirens. So, overall the movie wasn't for me.

Pinocchio's Revenge

Year: 1996
Director: Kevin Tenney
Writer: Kevin Tenney
Genre: Horror: Evil dolls

If you think about it, Pinnochio's Revenge is a really funny name. The movie has nothing to do with the "real" character of Pinnochio or anything. So the name is basically just for a doll which apparently is having his revenge. Weirdly enough, although there is a backstory in the movie it is never truly discussed. Because of that, we don't know exactly what he is getting revenge for anyway.

Let's talk about the movie though. We've got a single mother and her daughter. The mother is a lawyer and seems caught defending a lot of people who won't win in court. Her latest case deals with a purported child murderer who only stopped after he killed his own son. Also buried with the son was the Pinnochio doll.

So while working on this case the doll somehow makes it to her car and then into the hands of her daughter for her birthday. It all seems good and fine until bad things start happening. Why you would let your child play with a piece of evidence in a murder is beyond me, but apparently it wasn't a big enough deal. So yeah, basically there is something mysterious and bad about the toy. Or maybe there isn't. You've got to watch to find out!

Whenever I start to watch an evil doll/toy/puppet/whatever movie I worry that it'll be a rehash of Child's Play. Thankfully this is not the case. It kind of reminds me of the movie Magic which also featured a puppet in a creative manner. The movie isn't incredible by any stretch but it's decent. When you're low on puppet-related horror this should take of things.

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.

Poltergeist II: The Other Side

Year: 1986
Director: Brian Gibson
Writer: Michael Grais, Mark Victor
Genre: Horror: Haunting

Poltergeist is a classic modern horror film. While there are two more films in the canon, neither of them work out as well as the original. Because of that, it's hard to really judge Poltergeist II all on its own. It mostly stands as a "part 2" to the first, but the first movie never needed a second part.

In it, we see the family has moved to a new home. Things get stirred up almost immediately when some creepy old man makes contact with our young heroine. I don't recall him being anywhere in the original film so I feel like this was just a new way to bring the scariness to the film. Anyway, he's bad news and at least everyone recognizes him as such.

The movie feels kind of disjointed. Around the same time the creepy man appears there is also a wise Native American who comes to aid the family. His Native American heritage somehow makes him a very spirtiual man with knowledge the "white family" does not yet understand. Over the course of the film he teaches them and whatnot. It reminds me a lot of Walker Texas Ranger.

If you were a huge fan of the original movie I would not suggest watching Poltergeist II. There's really no need to (although there are a few wicked effects). However, I might recommend watching the 3rd film. I'll talk about that one next and to why it is a pretty good movie.