In their initial meeting about the film, director William Lustig instructed actress and the film’s protagonist Caroline Munro to “watch Halloween. . .this is how movies are being made now.”  Such a directorial instruction leaves little doubt to the film’s intentions and design.  And yet Maniac offers something quite different than its Halloween predecessor.

This 1980 slasher/splatter film is follows the life of Frank Zito (Joe Spinell) who is a lonely landlord and demented psychopathic killer.  His small apartment is furnished with mannequins who are adorned with real human hair from Zito’s female victims.  We learn that Frank has a serious problem with women and is unable to be around a female too long without going into a rage and killing her.  After the death, he scalps his victim and take their hair back to his place as a token of his accomplishment.  As the film progresses, we learn that Frank was physically abused by his prostitute mother and he is unable to ultimately discern between her face and the face of his victims.  In a rather chilling climatic scene, Frank hallucinates and believes all the mannequins in his apartment are coming to life to kill him.  The police find him dead the next morning.

On the surface, Maniac seems like a cheap, cheesy, typical 80’s slasher flick.  I suppose in some ways it lives up to that assessment.  But there is more to this movie than meets the eye.  First Joe Spinell delivers a weighty and memorable performance as Frank Zito.  The American-Italian demeanor works perfectly for this troubled soul who lives in the heart of New York City.  There are a couple of memorable scenes where Frank is describing his troubled childhood and they come across as sincere and truly motivational.  Unlike Halloween, we not only get to see what causes Frank to kill, but we grasp a sense of the darkest of human conditions; not being loved.  When Frank meets Anna (Caroline Munro) we see a different side of the serial killer and have momentary hope that things will change.  Those hopes are crushed as we watch Frank slip deeper and deeper into his psychosis.

The movie is also memorable for its gore.  One scene in particular portrays what is perhaps one of the most realistic and graphic deaths I have seen in horror.  It is the infamous “disco boy” death where a young Tom Savini gets his head blown off inside a car.  Frank jumps on the hood, points a shotgun through the windshield, and pulls the trigger.  It really has to be seen to be believed, the realism is simply incredible.

Although Maniac has moments of slowly moving along with the story, the psychological element of Frank mixed with some beautiful gore effects makes this a slasher film worth viewing.  I have heard rumors of a remake (big surprise) and will be interested to see how the actor who plays Frank (perhaps Elijah Wood?) deals with the delicate character of Frank Zito.

Hobo With A Shotgun is a Canadian horror exploitation film directed by Jason Eisener.  The film was originally a fake trailer to promote the release of Quentin Tarantino’s Grindhouse, but due to popularity was transformed into a full-length picture.  The movie stars film legend Rutger Hauer.

The central theme of Hobo With A Shotgun is anything but original.  A small town called “Hope Town” is run by a greedy, sadistic villian known as “The Drake” and his two severely demented sons, Ivan and Slick.  I must admit to chuckling when I realized I had just partly described the plot to Roadhouse.  Anyway, the film opens with Slick and Ivan brutally killing The Drake’s brother to set an example to the town folk, who idly stand by and watch the carnage as if they were zombies who could care less.  After the decapitation of the brother, the towns people just slowly go back to their lives as if nothing had ever happened.  The hobo finally has enough when he witnesses Slick attempt to sexually assault and kill a girl in an arcade, prompting him to attack Slick and save the girl.  The hobo drags Slick to the local police station and demands to speak with the Sheriff.  Unfortunately, the Sheriff and the police are corrupt and eating out of The Drake’s hand.  The hobo is knifed and thrown out on the street.

Soon, the hobo meets up with Abby, the girl he saved from the hands of Slick, and she nurses him back to health in her small apartment.  The two become friends and decide to start a new life in a different city.  The can’t leave town fast enough, however, because Ivan and Slick show up to finish off Abby.  They severely injure Abby, but the hobo is able to save her and kill Slick.  What remains is a final showdown between the hobo, The Drake, and the town people who decide they have finally had enough.  The hobo sacrifices his life so that no one else will get hurt, taking down The Drake with him.  There is hope in Hope Town.

Hobo With A Shotgun has a very positive reputation among horror fans.  After hearing so much praise for the film, I was eager to experience this “instant classic” for myself.  I must admit to being somewhat disappointed.  The exploitation genre is a difficult one to master.  One the one hand, one must recognize that making broad and over-the-top statements about the underlying issue is a necessary component of exploitation.  On the other hand, a successful exploitation film understands how those sensationalist images adds to the story being presented and doesn’t turn on itself by simply seeking to shock the audience without any ongoing connection.  Anyone can put together a bunch of violent, gross scenes.  It takes talent to make them tell a compelling story.   At the end of the day, Hobo With A Shotgun is just too much violence with not enough story.  The story isn’t meant to be believable, but still yet, this story is really, really unbelievable.  There are still fun moments and interesting deaths, but overall I found myself somewhat bored with the “how crazy can we go” violence and mayhem.  Probably worth a viewing just for Hauer’s performance, but doesn’t live up to the hype.

I love slasher films.  The last few years have delivered a series of above average slasher flicks that, hopefully, will continue to spawn good, low-budget, old-school horror.  The Hills Run Red directed by Dave Parker would be on that list of good slasher movies.  Dave Parker is a relative unknown, especially as a director, but if this movie isn’t a home run, it is at least a triple.

The premise involves a movie called The Hills Run Red, an old slasher flick made in the hey-day of slasher-mania, the early 80’s, that has become the stuff of legend.  No one has ever seen the full length movie.  All that remains of the film is a teaser-trailer (done incredibly well) and a bunch of rumors about dead cast members and a missing director, named Concannon, who has not been seen since the movie was made.  One die-hard horror fan named Tyler is determined to track down the missing movie and lay to rest once and for the mystery behind the infamous The Hills Run Red.  After convincing two of his friends (one of whom becomes his ex-girlfriend) to join him on his documentary crusade, Tyler finds the daughter of Concannon in order to help him get moving in the right direction.  Concannon’s daughter, Alexa, was very young but present during much of the filming back in the 80’s.  She agrees to tag along.

You might can guess what happens.  They end up at the filming locations and, to their horror, the movie is real!  The serial killer named Babyface, a self-deformed monster who wears a baby mask, turns out to be Alexa’s son, not to mention Concannon’s son.  Yep, we have some good-ol’ back woods incest going on here, not to mention the “luring” of the friends into the danger by Alexa.  Come to find out, the reason no one has seen The Hills Run Red is because it is still being filmed, with actual victims!  From there, the carnage goes off the charts.

The final 30 minutes of The Hills Run Red are, unfortunately, the weakest of the movie.  Even though we get to experience the blood-soaked saga of Babyface up close and personal, much of the action seems forced, as if director Dave Parker had to keep thinking of ways to get the victims into torturous situations.  The “turning” of Alexa on her friends did not come as a big surprise and the final thrust of the film seems to fall a bit short.  But I didn’t care.  The set up of the movie was wonderful and engaging.  By the time we get to the hardcore stuff, I was more than willing to overlook some of the deficiencies and enjoy the gore for what it was.  At times, Babyface is downright hilarious.  He literally pulls an Indiana Jones move at one point – an eventual victim starts waving flares at Babyface deep in the woods and screaming “COME ON!  LET’S GO!”  Instead of using his brute strength by killing the victim with an ax, Babyface simply whips out a gun and blows the guy away.  That moment was worthy of 3 times being rewound.

The film may be trying to say something about our obsessions getting the better of us, but I doubt it.  This is fun, scary at moments, gory at moments, and worth the time to watch.  If you are a slasher fan, then The Hills Run Red should be on your list.

Click Here to Purchase The Hills Run Red

Is Cabin Fever a horror movie?  Of course it is; who can deny the graphic and grotesque deterioration of the human body  that lands Eli Roth’s film safely in the sub-category of body horror.  But still we must ask, why?  What makes Cabin Fever different than, let’s say, the 1995 movie Outbreak starring Dennis Hoffman and Morgan Freeman.   Both films concern a deadly outbreak of an unknown virus that rapidly and morbidly disintegrates human flesh.  Whereas most “body horror” films have a clear “evil” persona to them, such as The Fly, or the Cronos device, the alien in The Thing, or even the deranged Dr. Heiter in The Human Centipede, the villain in Cabin Fever is the disease itself (and, of course, the inability of the friends to get along).  No one is coming back from the dead to hunt humans.  No one is masterminding the spread of the disease.  No single character personifies the disastrous results of contracting the virus.  It is simply a survival story of 5 friends in the woods.

Perhaps one answer is that we should re-think whether or not a film like Outbreak is actually a horror movie.  My colleague and team member, Danny, has some ideas as to what constitutes a true horror film, specifically related to body horror, and his review of Black Swan seems to indicate his willingness to place films under the horror category that might not normally be labeled as such.

But it is Roth’s direction and inclusion of vivid imagery amongst a rather normal story that pushes Cabin Fever firmly into the world of horror.  The fact alone that “5 friends venture in the woods for a weekend getaway” is about as cliched horror as you can get.  And Roth would have no problem with me saying as much.  From the outset of Cabin Fever, writer and director Eli Roth was determined to make an “80’s horror film” that steered away from much of the PG-13 garbage that was taking the box-office by storm at the time.  Compromising on violence, over-the-top images, and nudity (although there is not much) was simply not going to happen and the final result is a horror movie that is much more enjoyable that it really should be.

Roth heavily borrows from legendary directors.  The influence of Sam Raimi, John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, and Wes Craven is unmistakable.  The movie attempts to be comedic throughout, but does not capture the same kind of iconic comedy-horror for which the Evil Dead series is so famous.  It could be argued that Cabin Fever also exists as a satire of the 80’s universe of campy horror, but again it doesn’t push that envelope.  It seems that this film is just a fun, gruesome, at times ridiculous horror movie about bad things that happen in the woods.  Perfect!

What I don’t understand is why Roth was so heavily applauded by his colleagues and some reviewers as the next great thing to happen to horror.  Perhaps Roth still will be a major force at the end of his career, but I have a hard time filing that conclusion away from this film.  His 2005 film Hostel was met with mixed reviews, currently holding a 59% rating on RottenTomatoes.com.

So, if you enjoy body horror, funny lines, cliched “go into the woods” setting, and a lot of fun, then I highly recommend Cabin Fever.  But don’t be expecting the next thought-provoking, mind-numbing horror flick.  It just aint that.

Click Here to purchase Cabin Fever

Dead Meat is an Irish horror film (Ireland makes horror films?) distributed in America by Fangoria/Gorezone distribution.  The movie is, essentially, a zombie movie about a heavily mutated strand of mad cow disease that begins turning human beings into mad, flesh eating cannibals.  I will say upfront that I enjoyed Dead Meat and was impressed with some very unique imagery in the midst of what is certainly a worn out sub-genre.   Yet, the film could have been so much more.

The story begins with a major nod to George Romero as a young couple, Helena and Martin, are in their car and literally run into a guy on the side of the road.  Come to find out, the guy has decaying skin and seems to be dead.  Before Helena and Martin can get the gentleman to a hospital, he comes alive and begins gnawing on Martin’s neck, leaving Helena to run off seeing help by herself.  She makes her way to a cottage where soon afterward, Martin attacks her, now in zombie mode himself.  She cleverly dispatches of Martin by attaching a vacuum tube to his eye and turning on the machine.  Fun.

Helena runs for her life and ends up bumping into Desmond, the shovel toting gravedigger (actually, he bumps into her and saves her from being run over by a car).  Desmond is one of the coolest characters I have seen in a while, making unbelievable use of a shovel and carving himself out almost as a superhero.  Together, the two try to find a way out of the danger, bumping into more and more zombies.  Finally, after a brief visit to Desmond’s home, they run into two more unaffected humans, Cathal and Francie.  Although reluctant at first, Cathal eventually gives Helena and Desmond a lift in their car (and a little girl named Lisa, but we won’t worry about her.  She doesn’t last long).  After their car gets stuck in the mud, they are forced to fend off all kinds of threats, including a cow!  The movie ends with Cathal and Desmond succumbing to the massive onslaught of zombies when they try to take cover in some old ruins.  Helena survives when a group of “zombie hunters” shows up.  She is placed in the back of a truck and crammed in with dozens of other survivors.  A wooden door is shut and the screams of the living, now trapped as if they were dead, are heard from inside as the truck starts down the road.

This movie almost needed to be sub-titled.  Obviously, set in Ireland, the characters are speaking English, but the accent is so strong that I had to strain to make out the dialogue.  The film perfectly captures the essence of what a stranded day in the middle of Ireland might look like, offering beautiful views of the Irish country side and portraying the varying shades of brown that we would expect for that geographic location.  This coupled with the staggering, quick movements of the walking dead create an eerie combination.  Dead Meat is simply a survival film, where the action starts immediately and does not relent until the end of the movie.  There are some great visual kills and the gore is plentiful.  Plus, McMahon offers some twists to the typical zombie themes, providing some neat ideas that I had never seen.  For example, at one point Helena and Desmond are terrified to see they are surrounded by zombies.  Yet, the undead never move in for the kill.  They realize that this particular group of zombie are asleep (standing up) and if they are quite enough, Helena and Desmond can simply walk past them unharmed.  Then, there is the incredible kill scene while the group is trapped in the car.  It is so wonderful that I dare not give it away here.

I also like how Dead Meat provides a solid and very believable source to the zombie infestation.  It is not a stretch at all to think that an outbreak of mad cow disease, which is not unusual in Ireland, could have devastating effects on humans.  Whereas most zombie films just ignore the cause of the infestation, Dead Meat tackles it head on, which is refreshing.

The film is certainly not without its problems.  First, the editing is mediocre at best.  Continuity is a problem with Dead Meat and it brings down the overall quality of the film just a notch.  Most of these issues seemed to be somewhat manageable in the editing room.  The action sequences would be great – great – great – then “ooh, that looked awful.”  Helena, at the beginning especially, seems to just be somewhat out of sorts that her boyfriend is now a rabid zombie trying to kill her.  The reactionary elements in Dead Meat may be the weakest part of the film.  Also, the soundtrack is sketchy, leaving the already difficult accents even more difficult to understand.

I enjoyed this film.  Coming in at only 1 hour 17 minutes, it is a quick and easy watch and worth every second of it.  If you like zombie and gore, then take a look.

Click Here to purchase Dead Meat

Hatchet 2 begins the action immediately where the first film ended with Marybeth (Danielle Harris) in the boat being attacked by Victor Crowley.  She manages to escape by being helped out of the water by Jack Cracker and is taken to his cabin in the midst of the swamp.  While there, Marybeth begins to learn more about the lurid history of Victor Crowley and how her family played a pivotal role in his death.  After being kicked out of Jack Cracker’s cabin (after he learns who she really is), she makes her way to Reverend Zombie’s voodoo shop (portrayed by Tony Todd) where she demands to learn the full truth of her past and Victor Crowley.   Come to find out, Marybeth’s father was one of the three kids who set fire to the cabin when Victor was a boy that ultimately brought about his death.  Marybeth is determined to go back to the swamp and bring her father and brother back so she can bury them and, if necessary, kill Victor Crowley once and for all.  She pleads with Zombie to help her and after a moment of hesitation, he agrees.  However, he first makes Marybeth bring along her uncle and also convenes a group of hunters and guides for the trip.

Well, from this point on Hatchet 2 delivers what you would expect.  A bunch of people being killed in the swamp by a ticked off bad guy.  We eventually learn that Marybeth’s uncle and one of the hunters named Trent were the other two kids who set fire to Crowley’s place.  Zombie believes that if Victor kills all three of his murderers, he will have his revenge and will disappear.  He believes his plan worked perfectly after watching “Uncle Bob” meet his demise.  However, once Marybeth catches on to Zombie’s intentions, she enlightens him to the truth; Uncle Bob was actually just a friend – her real uncle died when she was 12 from leukemia.  Uh oh.  That means Victor is still alive and finally comes after Zombie himself.  The film ends with Marybeth using Victor’s own hatchet against him, slashing him at least 20 times and then sealing the deal with a shotgun blast to the face.

I walked away from Hatchet 2 feeling much the say way I did about the original film; this was fun, gory, campy, and totally predictable.  I mentioned in my review of Hatchet that Adam Green was not necessarily trying to break new ground with his movie but was attempting to take a tried and true formula and do it well.  I feel the same way about Hatchet 2.  It is nice to see Danielle Harris of Halloween fame take over the role of Marybeth and amazingly, much of her mannerisms and tone still reflect the scared little “Jamie” from Halloween 4 and 5. Having said that, Tamara Feldman, who portrayed Marybeth in the original film, did a better job with the character than did Danielle Harris.  Harris is a horror legend because of her involvement in the Halloween franchise, but she is not a very good actor and leaves the film feeling very amateurish.

Concerning the direction offered by Adam Green, I just can’t figure this guy out.  He has moments of beauty where all the actors and the action seem to be in the  perfect place, followed by several minutes of sloppiness that scream “movie college” quality.  He continues to pay homage to classic movies of old, perhaps the most obvious being the very ending.  As Marybeth is chopping away at Victor, she repeats “die” several times, linking the ending of Hatchet 2 to the classic Corey Feldman ending of Friday the 13th part 4.

The gore is bountiful and executed well, with perhaps the best kill scene in the movie coming at the very beginning with the death of Jack Cracker.  His intestines are ripped from his body and as he tries to crawl away, he is pulled back by his innards.  Then, Victor wraps his intestines around his throat and chokes him until Cracker’s head explodes.

But it is the story itself that falls away and never comes back.  The mythology of Crowley is repeated time and again throughout the film, even with a pointless summation by Zombie at the end to make sure we all “get it.”  It seems that Adam Green wanted to take his story a bit more seriously this time around and whereas the original movie was a jolly mixture of laughs and gore, Hatchet 2 doesn’t know if it wants to be funny or serious.  Unfortunately, Green opted for the latter a bit too much and we are left longing for the overall feel of the original.

I was disappointed in this second installment.  Green initially said he was going to make 4 Hatchet movies.  After the release of this installment, he retracted his statement.  It could very well be that we have not seen the last of Victor Crowley, but we might have seen the last of him being directed by Adam Green.

Click Here to purchase Hatchet 2

Horror legend Stephen King was quoted saying, “I have seen the future of horror and his name is Clive Barker.”  Offering a rather different interpretation, famed film critic Roger Egbert retorted, “Maybe Stephen King was thinking of a different Clive Barker.”  I find the name alone of Clive Barker to be one of the most interesting in the horror industry.  I think most horror fans would be surprised to know that Barker has only directed 6 films.  He has written and produced many more, but several of those, especially from a producer standpoint, was more for name recognition than it was anything else; we wonder how much influence Barker has actually had with many of the films his name is attached to.  Even those he has written and directed, the only two that really come across as “legendary” from an all perspective view is Hellraiser and Candyman.  I don’t find Lord of Illusions or Night Breed to be talked about near as much as the other former two films.  Still yet, regardless of the merit, the name Clive Barker carries with it a powerful punch and a heavy factor playing into his legacy is the fan reaction to one film:  Hellraiser.

The movie, starring Andrew Robinson as Larry (who is very good, but unfortunately was the police captain in Stallone’s Cobra, the all-time cheesiest movie ever made, and I have trouble getting those images out of my mind) and Clare Higgins as Julia, is about a married couple who moves into a house that has a rather unfortunate history in its attic.  Larry’s brother Frank, who was having an affair with Julia, took the love of sadomasochism a bit too far after stumbling upon a puzzle box that, once solved, would open the door to another world (hell?) and summon the arrival of the cenobites, the most famous of which being Pinhead (a name that was attached to him by fans of the film, he is never called Pinhead in the movie).  The cenobites ultimately torture and kill Frank, dragging him into their cenobite world forever.  However, when Larry and Julia move into the house, Larry cuts his hand and drips blood on the attic floor.  That blood is “soaked up” by Frank and partly resurrects him.  The more blood Frank receives, the more human he becomes.  This is where Julia enters the picture.  Upon learning that Frank is still alive, even in a horrendous, disgusting body, she is once again captivated by his strong will and agrees to lure men to the attic so Frank can feast on them, bringing him closer to the world of the living.  The conflict arises when the cenobites learn of Frank’s escape, thanks to the tattle-telling of Larry’s daughter, from their grasp and decide they want him back.  The rest of the film centers around that pursuit.

Hellraiser is a movie all about obsession.  Human nature as it is, a little of a good thing just isn’t enough.  We demand more and more until the good thing become our worst enemy.  This is why the cenobites rightly say about themselves, “angels to some, demons to others.”  That, of course, reminds me of the great Metallica song “My Friend of Misery” with the all-too-true lyrics, “one man’s fun is another’s hell.”  Barker does a convincing job of trying to provide a window, even if a small one, for the viewer to partly understand the attraction of the sadomasochist lifestyle and how Frank wound up in a horrific setting.  That, I think, is what Barker should be most applauded for with this film.  Despite the gore and over the top torture scenes, I am still left with a bit of a strange attraction for what Frank was privy to.  I am always appreciative of a director who can shows us the most ruthless of acts and still leave us a bit sympathetic with the antagonist.  I get that from Hellraiser.

Although the special effects hold up pretty well (until the very end where they become nearly unwatchable), the movie does have some “what was Barker thinking” moments, the most absurd being a ridiculous looking creature who chases Larry’s daughter through a hospital wall.  This creature unfortunately reappears at the end of the film and leaves a bit of a distaste.  I also was a bit put out by the ease at which Julia meets her end at the hands of Frank.  After spending the entire movie luring guys for Frank’s resurrection, he nonchalantly puts a switch blade into her tummy, as if this was just another peripheral character.

Fan reaction to Hellraiser was strong, creating a slew of sequels (7 to date with an 8th coming) and a remake (big shock) that is to be released in 2012.  I think it is a must-view for horror fans simply because it is Clive Barker’s essential movie and has had lasting impact on the horror genre.  Don’t believe the hype though – the film is not quite as good as its reputation would lead you to believe.

Click Here to purchase Hellraiser.

With a box that boasts that it is from the writers of Saw IV, V, and VI, The Collector pretty well announces who its target audience is.  I knew going in that I wasn’t likely part of that target group, but, even though “torture porn” isn’t my favorite sub-genre, I can usually get enough thrills from a well-made example to make it worth a rental (or, in this case, a used DVD purchase).  For about forty-five minutes, The Collector delivered enough of those thrills to keep me interested.  Unfortunately, things go pretty far downhill in the last half of the movie.

The Collector is primarily the story of Arkin, a locksmith, safe-cracker, and ex-con who, in a desperate attempt to help his ex-wife pay off a loan shark, accelerates a scheduled burglary.  In the first of what will become many coincidences, that night also happens to be the night that “The Collector,” a vicious killer and Rube Goldberg enthusiast, has picked to capture and torture the family that lives there.

When Arkin arrives, he finds himself trapped in a house that has been booby-trapped with the most elaborate, physics-defying, and deadly traps ever seen outside a Dungeons and Dragons adventure.  Many of the traps truly are ridiculous and require incredibly specific things to happen before they would actually work.  Still, they all work just fine, except for the one that the plot needs not to work.  That one, which at one point activates on the villain, is a simple pulley and needs only gravity and the collective pokiness of a chandelier made out of blades in order to work.  It, of course, does no damage to the bad guy.

From the first moments in the home, The Collector establishes a pretty depressing structure.  Arkin discovers a family member, tries to rescue them, and, often through no fault of his own, gets them killed in the process (via the elaborate traps).  When he heads back in to the home near the end of the movie to rescue the young girl he had bonded with over a tea party during one of the film’s two unnecessary prologues, I couldn’t help but think that she might be better off on her own.

As silly as the film is, it has its moments.  The creepy opening features a “what’s in the steamer trunk?” moment that reminded me of one of the best moments in Audition.  Arkin is played well by Josh Stewart, who shows no sign that he knows how ridiculous the film’s plot is.  The gore is vast and well-done.  I’m sure special effects guys love working on films like this.  Where else can you show off your ability to make it look like a man is chained to the wall using fish hooks?  The editing and cinematography are likewise excellent.  Still, none of these high points make up for the giant pile of absurdity that is the plot.

As silly as things eventually got in The Collector, it became impossible for me to continue to invest any real emotion in the film.  When the “surprise” ending finally came around, I could not have been less surprised or more disinterested.

So, is The Collector beneath any recommendation?  Maybe the answer is, yes.  But, I suppose the kills themselves are enough to interest those that mainly watch horror for the gore.  Also, anyone who has the ability to suspend his or her disbelief no matter how ridiculous a movie is could maybe find some interest in Arkin’s plight.  As for me, I don’t regret watching the film, but I won’t be lining up to rent the inevitable, The Collector II.

Click Here to buy The Collector

Tombs of the Blind Dead is a Spanish horror movie directed by the legendary Amando de Ossorio and is part of his famous “Blind Dead” collection of which there are four films:  Tombs of the Blind Dead, Return of the Blind Dead, Ship of Zombies, and Night of the Seagulls.  Created on a shoestring budget with limited to no budget for special effects, Tombs of the Blind Dead cemented Ossorio as a brilliant director with a creative spirit.

The movie is about a group of three friends, two of which are female and have a relationship that goes back several years to college, who discover that a love triangle can literally be a deadly thing.  When Virginia White realizes that the guy she is crushing on has a flirtatious attitude toward her best friend, Betty, she decides to take drastic measures.  During a train ride to a local vacation spot where the three were going to enjoy some relaxation, Virginia suddenly jumps off the train with her sleeping bag.  Betty and Roger watch from the moving train as their friend makes her way through a field toward an old, abandoned monastery.  Unfortunately for Virginia, this is the monastery where 13th century Templars were on a quest to secure eternal life by drinking blood from virgin women and offering them as sacrifices.  Put to death for their actions and hung from trees so that birds could pluck their eyes out, the Templars were nevertheless able to secure their immortality by returning from the grave every night at the ringing of the monastery bells.  From there, the story moves from Virginia’s death at the hands of the undead to the ensuing investigation and increased carnage.

Watching this film was a real treat for several reasons.  First, Ossorio’s creativity shines in the movie as he provides some clever working of the camera I have not seen in any other zombie/undead film.  For example, because the Templars had their eyes plucked out during their punishment, they are only able to move in on their prey by sound.  One victim picks up on this weakness of the zombies and stops dead in her tracks.  The ploy is working and the Templars lose her for a moment.  But then the soundtrack slowly builds on the sound of the poor girl’s heartbeat.  She is scared to death and the racing of her heart is enough for the Templars to once again pick up the scent.  To add punch to the scene, Ossorio moves his camera slowly into the heart area of the victim’s chest as the soundtrack continues to increase in volume.  It was a beautiful scene.  The setting of the monastery is also effective and comes across, to some degree, similar to the look of Dracula’s castle in Hammer’s Horror of Dracula.  Finally, Ossorio does quite well with what limited resources he has to work with.  Although the film is certainly not a gore-fest, it does provide a nice array of gruesome death and torture scenes.

Of course, a film like this has plenty of flaws.  The acting is brutal to watch as is much of the dialogue.  The love triangle plot at the beginning was pretty lame and for some reason they threw in a strange flashback to a lesbian encounter between Virginia and Betty during their college years which was completely pointless.  Some of actions taken by the victims toward the end of the film defy any logic whatsoever.  Add to that a incredibly awful subtitled film, 1/3 of which was not readable because it blended in with the film, and you have plenty to overlook while watching.

But, it really is pretty easy to overlook.  I finished the movie and was impressed with what I had seen.  I look forward to checking out the remaining three films in the series.

Click Here to purchase Tombs of the Blind Dead

Pelts is one of the two entries by legendary Italian director Dario Argento (Suspiria) featured in the Masters of Horror series put on by Showtime television.  Running under an hour in length, these short-films feel a bit more like a Twilight Zone on steroids than an actual feature film.  They are a blast to watch when you don’t quite have time to sit down for a full 90 minutes.

Jake Feldman (Meatloaf) is a fur trader who is obsessed with an exotic stripper named Shanna.  After being denied his sexual advances time and again, he decides the way to her heart is to locate the greatest furs in the world and create the perfect coat.  He finally finds those furs after Jeb Jameson (John Saxon) stumbles across the all-time greatest catch of raccoons in what appears to be some kind of magical section of wilderness.  As he and his son are toting their treasure from the field, they are given an eerie prophecy by a local resident that the critters will have their revenge.  And boy, do they ever.

As best as I can tell, whenever anyone is touching the furs or is even near them, they end up going completely insane.  Jeb’s son crushes in his dad’s face with a baseball bat for no reason, followed by plunging his own face into one of the animal traps.  When Jake arrives at the scene to collect his furs, he is so impressed with them that he essentially overlooks the carnage at hand and gets to work making the best fur coat of all time.  Which he eventually gives to Shanna.  Unfortunately by this time, he has gone mad and decides there might just be a better coat than those luxurious furs; his own skin!  So, Jake makes incisions into his own body and “pulls off” his chest to proudly hand over to Shanna, who is rather disgusted by the gesture (big shock).  The film ends with Jake falling down an elevator shaft and Shanna dying due to blood loss.

This movie, apparently driven in part by Argento’s love for animals, has some visually effective and stunning scenes, which is not surprising considering it is Argento behind the camera.  As is typical for many Argento films, the lack of solid acting and narrative is more than made up by the stylish array of intense and bloody sequences.  Although fun to see Meatloaf in this role, he doesn’t really live up to the performance at hand.  The best role by far in the film is portrayed by John Saxon as the unfortunate fur trapper, and due to his untimely demise at the hand of his son, it is a brief role.  Still yet, it is easy to see how fast and deep the well of obsession can run and Pelts reminds us that the world of the grotesque is not too far removed from the common, ordinary, struggling life of the workingman.

This is a must see for the name Argento alone.  Take a look.