Wishmaster (1997)

Wishmaster is a good example of 90's horror. But depending on how you choose to take that, it could also not be a good example of 90's horror. I feel that at some point in the 90's, every cultural thing took a shift sharply downward, including horror. But all of the things that didn't descend completely were still significantly different. With horror films, the style that had worked so well for so many years had suddenly became stale, and was no longer approached with heart and respect. Over time, it had became a game of money and not for the love of the genre. So whenever this point occurred and this particular style of horror was no longer viable, filmmakers searched for a certain direction to go in. So because of this, you had all kinds of horror films being made; some good, some bad. In my opinion, more bad than good. But Wishmaster was one of those films that I found to be really good, for what it was. It was made by an all-star team, with a particularly star-studded cast. Having been written by Hellraiser II, III and IV writer Peter Adkins, directed by horror legend Robert Kurtzman, produced by Pierre David, cinematography by Jacques Haitkin, music by Harry Manfredini and executive produced by Mr. Wes Craven. Starring Andrew Divoff as The Dginn, doing an absolutely fantastic job; Tammy Lauren as our protagonist, Alex, and a stream of horror legend cameos, including Robert Englund (A Nightmare on Elm Street), Kane Hodder (Friday The 13th), Tony Todd (Candyman), Chris Lemmon (Just Before Dawn), and Angus Scrimm and Reggie Bannister (Phantasm). Yes, this film had an excellent opportunity to be great, and it was. Sadly, though, it will probably never really get the attention and credit it deserves, unfortunately. Certain aspects of the film are rather silly, such as, again, the bad CGI effects, which is probably why it'll forever be one of those great films that will always be discredited for small things about it, like bad CGI. But that's really the only negative thing I found about the film. I don't think it deserves to be dismissed so easily because of this. Of course, within the horror community, it may just as well be looked highly upon. I don't know. But there are folks out there who are willing to completely shit all over a movie just because of one thing they didn't like about it, so that being said, I know there has to be people out there who refuse to like Wishmaster because of the very few scenes with bad CGI. It's certainly one of the best horror films of the 90's, I would say. I thoroughly enjoy it as a whole; nothing compared to my love of Leprechaun, but not many films can compare to my love of Leprechaun, so perhaps that's an unfair judgment. It certainly has its own intelligence and it's own charm that is absolutely undeniable, and is worth a chance. So if you haven't seen Wishmaster, Uncle Jesse strongly recommends that you do.

"Run, insect. Run and tell those you will, what you will. Tell them there is something loose in their city which feeds on wishes. But tell them quickly, while you still have a soul.."

J. L. Pilkins

Curse of Chucky (2013)

I hate to do this film so recently after doing Child's Play 2, but I've came to a point where I've been thinking a lot about it, and I feel I have some valid things to say. I will start by saying that this is a great resurgence to the series. Exactly what it needed: a sharp return to horror. Let's face it, Seed of Chucky was a ridiculous film, and I'm glad that they decided to turn the series around back to it's original horror roots. That was the absolute best thing they could've done. I will also say that Fiona Dourif, daughter of Brad Dourif, who has played Chucky since the original Child's Play, really sales this film. She makes it what it is. If they had cast any other actress as Nica, it would not have been what it was. I've always been a huge fan of Brad Dourif, not only for his work in horror films, but in all of his work. I feel like everyone has something natural about themselves that are meant to do in life, and for Brad Dourif, I feel like he is a natural actor and is meant to be an actor. He has phenomenal range, and an energy level that hardly any other actor has. He's a very intense actor, and I'm glad to see that Fiona has inherited all of his great acting abilities. Curse of Chucky has been the first film I've seen her in, and she certainly did not disappoint. I sincerely hope that she manages to have as successful and as broad of a career as her father. She is absolutely fantastic. And for being a spawn of Brad Dourif, while looking primarily like him, she's incredibly beautiful. Which makes me question my sexuality. On to the film, itself. Like most films, there are things that I liked and things that I didn't like. The things I didn't like primarily derived from the low budget aspect. I mean, that's fine. I love low budget, B horror films. But sometimes the budgetary concern has affects on the film in a way that doesn't necessarily jive with my particular taste. Curse of Chucky is one of those films. On the whole, I thought it was a great horror movie and great piece of cinema. But I would be lying if I said that I liked every bit of it, because frankly, I didn't. The majority of the things I didn't like had something to do with the special effects. I'm a firm supporter of practical effects. Perhaps it's my love of old, cheesy horror films with an excessive amount practical effects that give the film its charm, which makes me love them. And unfortunately, Curse of Chucky used more CGI effects than practical effects. There were instances of practical effects, but that were strongly overshadowed by CGI. It may just be me, but I feel that practical effects give the film a certain quality that nothing else can really capture. A charm, as I will say again. Very similar to the quality that stop motion animation gives to a film. Even if it's obviously fake, it still has a great cinematic beauty about it. It's still real. It's still very much there. Whereas, CGI effects are not there. They're invisible; they're hollow. It's literally nothing. So in my opinion, the practical effects strongly outweigh the CGI. Especially, if you have a smaller budget. I don't know exactly why this is, but I know that smaller budget equals worse CGI effects. So my advice to filmmakers would be that if you have a low budget film, use more practical effects, and if it's absolutely necessary for you to use CGI, do so as little as possible. Remember, obviously fake practical effects look better on camera that obviously fake CGI effects. But this aside, Curse of Chucky was an absolutely great sequel/reboot, depending on your stance of what it actually is. The acting was great, especially Fiona and Brad Dourif, but all others in the cast, as well; the writing was... decent, I'll say. It had its problems as well, but nothing terribly bad. The directing was great and the cinematography was surprisingly amazing. I was shocked at how great the cinematography was, and because I found it to be so great, I will mention who's responsible. Michael Marshall was the cinematographer on Curse of Chucky, and I'm somewhat upset that he won't ever get the credit for it. A lot of times, the director of a film will receive all the credit, when, in fact, a lot of other people deserve just as much credit. Don't get wrong, Don Mancini was a very suitable director. He had written every installment in the Child's Play/Chucky series and had directed the last two. Nobody is more fitting to direct a Chucky film than him. But others who worked on the film deserve credit. And I think that a fair amount of credit should go to Michael Marshall; he's a genius. I love the overall look of the film, as well as the camerawork--all thanks to Mr. Marshall. I will end by saying that the plot is poorly derived, yet excellently carried out. The idea of the whole film, although somewhat unlikely, considering the past two installments, is very weak, I feel. Mainly for the fact that it is unlikely when you take Bride of Chucky and Seed of Chucky into consideration. But in the attempt of rehabilitating series, it's a pretty damn good start. So it's all about perception. The film ends with Chucky being sent to Alice's (Summer H. Howell) grandmother's house, where the girl is staying following the events of the film, and then playing a healthy game of Hide The Soul. I think that's a very strong, fitting end. It's not happy. There is absolutely no resolve. Chucky wins. That's great. I am very satisfied with that ending. But before that, there's a scene with Tiffany (Jennifer Tilley) that is just pure bullshit that completely unwinds the whole rest of the film. It's goal seems to be just to give Tiffany her introduction into the film, and possibly show her role in the plot--a little cameo for the fans to enjoy. But nonetheless, it should never have been filmed. The real ending is after Inca is sent away to the mental hospital, Chucky makes his way to Alice and begins the ritualistic chant, and then fade to black. Credits roll. The end. That's the ending I wanted to see. Forcibly shoving Tiffany into a film that she had absolutely no business being at all was extremely insulting to the rest of the film. I do applaud their after credit sequence featuring Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) though. That was great and would've been an equally acceptable finale. Either Chucky wins or Chucky gets his head blown off by his original adversary in the first three Child's Play films. Just as long as you don't senselessly throw Tiffany into the mix, I'm fine. My short recap: Curse of Chucky is great.

"You know, you remind me a lot of Andy Barclay. He was a whiny little bitch just like you."

J. L. Pilkins 

Wes Craven's Shocker (1989)

Every now and then you will run across a film like Shocker that isn't cinematically good, but for some reason, you can't help but to love anyways. I feel a certain amount of confliction when trying to decide a basic opinion of the overall film, but fortunately, am easily able to conjure up my opinion with no time at all: I love it. Simple as that. But I am also very aware of the fact that it's not really a good film. What does that really mean, though? What is a "good" film? What makes a "good" film? Well, the simple answer to that is that there is no answer; the answer is infinite. Whatever you decide a good film is, that's what a good film film is. And for me and my personal opinion on what a good film is, very simply, is anything that genuinely entertains you. If it entertains you, then it's a good film. Because that's why films are made. That's why music is made. To entertain you. So if it entertains you, then is it really bad? Shocker is a fantastic example, because cinematically, it isn't even remotely good, but somehow it is. If you really wanna break it down and analyze it for what it is, it's a cluttered, misdirected, overly ambitious attempt at filmmaking. Of course, the great horror maestro Wes Craven wrote and directed the film, and if you know the origin of the film, you may know that he had wanted to start another horror series much like his classic A Nightmare on Elm Street, so I think in that regard, he may have tried a little too hard and the result was a very mixed up, overcrowded and not incredibly technically good film. But all the way down at the other end of the spectrum, you have the side that is fucking great and is totally badass that makes certain technical aspects of the film not matter anymore. Although it seems like Wes Craven tried to use multiple ideas and concepts that didn't exactly translate, it all still made for a great, fun ride. And that's why I love it, and why it's one of my favorite Wes Craven films. In addition, it has a great soundtrack, with Megadeth covering Alice Cooper's No More Mr. Nice Guy, which also acts as the film's mantra. And with The Dudes of Wrath, whose members included Kiss' Paul Stanley, producer/songwriter Desmond Child, Def Leppard's Vivian Campbell, session guitarist Guy Mann-Dude, Quiet Riot's Rudy Sarzo and Motley Crue's Tommy Lee, performing the title song, Shocker. Above all, I would probably recommend Shocker to those who haven't seen it before any other horror film, especially those of Wes Craven. It would also be an injustice of me to not mention the incredible acting in the film. Mitch Pillegi, who portrays the film's primary antagonist, Horace Pinker, does an absolutely amazing job of playing such a sick, sadistic bastard. Peter Berg, who plays Jonathan Parker and who is the protagonist of the film, also does a surprisingly great job. Shocker, upon its release, was a financial success, but a critical failure. Critics and fans alike found the film to be too reminiscent of Craven's earlier film A Nightmare on Elm Street in the relation of dreams holding a primary plot point. Which I agree with, but am not strongly affected by it. So although Shocker has its problems, Wes Craven failed to disappoint, as always.

"I was beatin' you real good when your mama tried to stop me with the gun that she brought into our happy home. You must've remembered it boy. Don't you remember the way she screamed? And how clever you were picking up that gun and shootin' me right through the fuckin' knee, you little little peckerhead! Oh, such a big gun, just blastin' at your dear old dad with murder in your eyes. Like father, like son, huh?"

J. L. Pilkins

Child's Play 2 (1990)

One of the greatest horror sequels of all time, Child's Play 2 was released on November 9th, 1990, exactly two years after the first film. And unlike the first film, Child's Play 2 naturally carried a lighter, more humorous tone. Child's Play had a much darker tone and was much more of a straightedge horror film, trading in the would-be humor for suspense. I would consider Child's Play 2 straight horror as well, but it has significantly more humor to it, and is decidedly the first in the series to feature Chucky as being witty, sarcastic and campy, as he is throughout the rest of the series, with the modest exception of Curse of Chucky. For me, it has the perfect mixture of horror and humor. That's a very tricky thing to balance, especially while maintaining the story as good as it does. I love everything about this film. The acting is incredible, the writing is incredible, the directing is incredible, and the cinematography is incredible. Almost every aspect of this film is great. Most times, I can pick one or two things out of a film that I don't like or that I could do without, but Child's Play 2 is one of very few that I can honestly say doesn't have one part that I don't like and not one part I would change. If I remember correctly, the first time I watched it was around 2004. I would've been nine. It was around the time that Seed of Chucky had came out, because I remember seeing a lot of TV spots about it and being excited as fuck. So I guess in celebration for the new Chucky movie, they showed a Child's Play marathon on SyFy--back when it was still SciFi--and I watched it. And as far as my memory is willing to serve, that is the first time I remember watching Child's Play 2. I remember strongly liking it then, but not being sure why I had liked it and certainly not having the level of admiration I have for it now. You know, I was a kid that loved horror movies. So when I saw a great horror movie, I automatically fell in love. No exception with Child's Play 2. And then sometime later on, maybe around 2007 or 2008, I had bought the Child's Play/Chucky box set, and I got the amazing privilege of discovering Child's Play 2 all over again. Because I had only watched it that one other time on TV, and frankly didn't remember much about it, so whenever I watched it again after I had officially owned it, it was like watching it for the first time, and I instantly fell in love. From beginning to end, it was everything that a young horror fan would love. And I did, and still do. It's undoubtedly my favorite Chucky film, by far. Without a shadow of a doubt, the best sequel.

"Goddamn women drivers!"

J. L. Pilkins

Prom Night (1980)

Prom Night is one of those films that are really, really good, but in a low budget, under the radar kind of way. I must admit, I didn't particularly like it when I first watched it, but also didn't give it a proper, fair chance either. It wasn't until a few years later, that I would sit down and really watch it for what it was. When I did, I found that I thoroughly enjoyed it and found it to be a pretty decent horror film. I find that I usually tend to gravitate more toward lower budget, B horror films more so than the more mainstream horror films. I mean, I grew up and was initially exposed to the mainstream horror films of the 70's and 80's, but now that I'm an adult, I prefer the lower budget, under the surface films of that time--films like Prom Night. Although, this was quite possibly a film made to cash in on the success of Halloween (1978), which had came out just two years before and was a tremendous success. But some of the best horror films of the 1980's were made to cash in on Halloween's success. Such as, most notably, Friday The 13th. It's not a big surprise that this would happen, though. Anytime production companies realize that a certain thing works and is successful, they will run that into the ground and bleed it dry until it's dead. And that's exactly what happened to horror films in the '80s. They didn't start to get stale really until the early '90s, and then they immediately dropped off into obscurity. And just like that, the state of horror was crippled. But Prom Night was at the early, high end of it, so it was still good. It still had heart and it still had character. I should mention that in addition to Halloween, Jamie Lee Curtis also starred in this Canadian slasher flick. It was highly financially successful and moderately popular in Canada, despite having negative critical response. In fact, it was Canada's highest-grossing horror film of 1980. I would definitely recommend Prom Night to those have not seen it. It's worth a watch or two.

"Killer's coming! Killer's gonna get you!"

J. L. Pilkins 

Re-Animator (1985)

Re-Animator is quite possibly the greatest horror film ever created. When deciding to do it next, I had to seriously contemplate whether or not I was going to label it as my favorite horror film. A part of me feels that it is, but a more dominant part feels that saying so is very ignorant. I do know that it's always been one of my favorites, but as you may come to realize, I say that quite often about various films. But in this particular case, its absolutely true. Throughout my life, there's been  a string of films that I have thought to be some of the greatest ever made and Re-Animator rightfully has a place among those. It really is one of the only films where I am at a complete loss of words over. There's no real way to describe how I feel about it. It's just a fantastic, gory, disgusting, badass movie. Jeffrey Combs, who plays Herbert West, does an overwhelmingly amazing job. Re-Animator made me forever a fan of his. The basic idea of the film, in case you haven't seen it, is a medical student named Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs) creates a reagent that reanimates the dead. He then begins conducting experiments on dead animals and corpses in his medical school's morgue, trying to prove that his reagent works and to further his study on reanimation. That, itself, is just badass. That's a badass story arc. It was based on H. P. Lovecraft's Herbert West--Reanimator, which was written as a parody to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in 1922. Although, after writing it, Lovecraft was unhappy with it, calling it "wretched". He wasn't passionate about the idea, only to have written it for thirty dollars. And sixty-three years later, it was adapted into a film that was both a critical and financial success, that has since gained a cult following, and just happens to be one of the greatest horror films ever created.

"Who's going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow.."

J. L. Pilkins

Friday The 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

The eighth film in the Friday The 13th series, Jason Takes Manhattan, was released to extreme negativity on July 29, 1989. I, myself, am a fan of the film, although am still able to understand some of the criticism behind it. There's many different reasons for the disappointing critical response that the film faced. Some believe that the series was already in decline, with the release of The New Blood (1988), which also gained highly negative responses from critics. Others disliked the idea of the majority of film taking place on a ship, rather than in Manhattan, where the primary focal point of the story arc was supposed to be. Whereas others disliked the idea of taking Jason Voorhees out of Camp Crystal Lake. Having grown up a huge fan of the series, I believe in leaving Jason where he belongs: the woods of Camp Crystal Lake. But if you are able to pull off a setting change and still make a good film, well then I'm all for it. And I believe Rob Hedden successfully did that with Jason Takes Manhattan. I will admit that the film has some goofy moments, most memorably being that Jason reverts back into a child after being flooded with toxic waste. And, of course, the young Jason making systematic appearances throughout the film, including a scene where he jumps out of a mirror and attempts to strangle our heroin, Rennie (Jensen Daggett). But these are all the things that make this film so great. It's not perfect, and that's why I love it. It certainly has its problems. It's cheesy, its goofy, its stupid and its fun. I love everything about it. For me, its one of the best in the series; definitely a favorite. It has since garnered a cult following, while maintaining its fair amount of criticism from fans and critics alike with most praise going to Kane Hodder, who portrayed Jason Voorhees in the film, as well as The New Blood, Jason Goes To Hell and Jason X, making him the only actor to portray the character more than once, with no surprise; he is the living embodiment of Jason Voorhees, himself. Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger, Doug Bradley is Pinhead, Brad Dourif is Chucky, Anthony Perkins is Norman Bates and Kane Hodder is Jason Voorhees. Despite my love and admiration for Jason Takes Manhattan, I absolutely understand the criticism that it receives. But that does not and will never change my opinion of it in the least. I still view it as being a great, classic 80's horror film, and I will always love it.

"Aw man! This place is aching for a video!"

J. L. Pilkins