Rating: ***** (five out of five)
Year: 2014

Plot: Somewhat appealing and somewhat off-putting widow can barely put up with her fatherless son. While the kid *can* be cute, he spends most of his adolescent days creating weapons of mass destruction to fight boogeymen. While it probably started off as cute-noying, after reading a surprisingly terrifying children’s book at bedtime, his out lashings become downright lethal. As disturbing vignettes in the book start to manifest themselves in real life, you must ask yourself: is this mother suffering the effects of prolonged sleep withdrawal and shitty-son-ishness, or is this shit really happening?

Review: The initial setup of the movie is very believable. The mother is so incredibly sympathetic. It is hard to imagine the burden of not only moving on after your husband’s death, but when you throw in the fact that you’re responsible for keeping his disturbed spawn alive… my gods the stress! The kid is actually pretty sympathetic as well… you can’t not be fucked up when your dad died the day you were born, can you? He understandably gets a lo-o-o-ot of slack for his behaviors, which keep on spiraling from weird to super-creepy, so the horror starts off at a very human level. When you throw in that demonically emotionally eviscerating reading of the book, shit is intensely dark and frightening.

As the scenes from the book start to take form and the child swims further into the deep end of insanity, my terror mounted exponentially. I’ve seen hundreds of horror movies. This was the first time in quite a while that I’ve felt genuinely scared. Once the demon begins to possess, the fear starts to subside (the known fear is always less scary than the unknown fear). That being said, the climax is still incredibly engaging. The ‘open-to-interpretation’ ending will be a great conversation starter for friends who’ve both seen the movie.

The horror genre (and especially this haunted house sub genre) is replete with repletion. Literally thousands of people have tried to tell some form of this story in some form, across the spectrum from the light parody to the truly depraved version. It’s all been done. And yet, somehow The Babadook found a way to retell this folktale in a way that is unique relatable, unpredictable, and genuinely spooky. This would be a great watch for horror dabblers, but a phenomenal watch for the connoisseurs.

Rating: ***.5 (3.5 out of five)
Year: 2012

Plot: Two allied forces buddies go on a secret mission to a small island occupied by the germans. Their initial task is to simply sabotage an artillery bunker, but when they hear the tortured moans of some woman, the siren song takes them into the bowels of the installation. Inside they find lots of death. And a succubus.

Review: The tone and production design of the film make for a desolate, intimate, and unique experience. The small number of ctors and sets give the movie the feel that it started as a play. I imagine that the movie’s shooting location (New Zealand) forced the interesting decisions to cast no germans or Americans in a WWII film. The plot is strong, as are the suspense and effects. Unfortunately, the best actor in the film is quickly eliminated from it. For me the movie peaked early (when the soldiers first decide to enter the bunker). That being said, it’s definitely worth watching to the end because you’ll spend most of your time having no fucking idea what’s going to happen next. This is a rarity in the genre.

Rating: *** ( 3 out of 5)
Year: 1992

Plot: From acclaimed horror Guru Clive Barker comes a modern twist on the urban legend genre. Set in Chicago’s Cabrini-Green housing projects, he brings you the tale of a well-to-do bouncy blond whose thesis project takes her to the belly of the twetieth century beast. Perhaps she can escape the ghetto with a mere beating, but how will she fare against a supernatural, baritone negro with a hook for a hand and a belly full of bees?

Review: Candyman was released right on the heels of the Rodney King beating and the subsequent riots. The country’s racial tensions had never been higher, and this movie capitalizes on that anxiety without crossing the line into racism. One of the devices that works best in this movie is Candyman’s ability to make it appear as if his victims were actually killed by the woman whom he is stalking. Barker’s story writing succeeds in part because it’s just so damn weird. The movie goes in directions that the viewer really doesn’t expect. Perhaps it goes too far towards the end, but the flick’s flat-out weirdness increases the suspense. You think to yourself, “What’s this movie going to do to me next?”

Rating: ***.5 ( 3 and a half out of 5)
Year: 1980

Plot: Icabod Crane comes to the teensy, snowy town of Sleepy Hollow to try out the job of schoolmaster. He discovers that the last 3 or 4 schoolmasters had all ‘gone strange’, but this fact doesn’t sway his empiricist’s attitude towards the town’s odd goings-on. He fancies Katrina Van Tassel, but Brom Bones is going to do everything in his power to prevent their union.

Review: This low-budget, made-for-tv version far surpasses Burton’s blockbuster. Jeff Goldblum is perfectly cast as the gangly, eccentric Icabod. Dick Butkus hams it up as the villain; it’s bad, but works well for the part. Despite a virtually non-existent budget, the writing is decent, some scenes are rather spooky, and the viewer is treated to fuller, more complex version of the story than he or she might be accustomed to.

Rating: ** ( 2 out of 5)
Year: 1979

Plot: A long haired kid who thinks that he’s cooler than he really is needs to convince his near retarded brother that the local mortuary is home to a bad “tall man” who can weave the fabric of reality into a hell dimension of his own making. He succeeds. Their plan? Go in there with shotguns.

Synopsis: There are a few things that make this film watchable. They spent money on the mortuary set, and it shows through in its creepiness. Some of the special effects and sound design show ingenuity. And that’s about it. Since Don Corcarelli wrote, produced, and directed this, he didn’t have a voice of sanity around to scream, “HOW ABOUT A MODICUM OF BELIEVABILITY!?” The script barely qualifies as human speech. The decisions made by the main characters are simply unintelligible. There are no ‘rules’ by which the bad guy operates, and there are plot holes big enough to drive an ice-cream truck through. Having said all that, the movie is worth a watch. The badness of the movie borders on cute, and will certainly evoke an incredulous chuckle or two.

Rating: ****.5 ( 4 and a half out of 5)
Year: 1982

Plot: Daddy is a premiere real estate salesmen for Cuesta Verde development; so good, in fact, that he and his family get to live in one of the units. Problem is, when the community was built, the devs didn’t think it necessary to respect the dead people in the cemetery by not building houses on top of them. The ghoulies are pissed, and are salivating at the opportunity to take out their hostilities on the home’s current residents.

Review: Do you remember the good ol’ days when mom and dad smoked pot before going to bed, t.v. stations played the national anthem at the end of the day’s broadcast, and Stephen Speilburg had skill and integrity? Seems like a long time ago. Speilburg and director Tobe Hooper manage to take this 15 cent plot line and turn it into one of the most dynamic, intriguing, and terrifying horror flicks of all time. The completeness of the family’s backstory and the genuine nature of their interactions bring you in close to the action, giving you reason to care whether or not they are pulled into a hell dimension. With ahead-of-its-time special effects and a really creepy ghost hunter, you’ll find yourself holding your breath time and again. Craig T. Nelson also brings some acting chops that he must have left on the set before going on to star in “Coach”.

Rating: “Phtbtbtbt!”
Year: 1994

Plot: Some random girl (Annie) has dreams and visions. A paper doll psychiatrist hypnotizes her with his inanity and she relives some new murders and the majority of the original film.

Review: You know the saying ‘you’re not even a has-been, you’re a never was!’? Well, this is a not even ‘straight-to-video’, but a ‘never-even-went-to-video’. Video tape yourself watching Boogeyman 1 and, apparently, you can make it in Hollywood… I write this as I’m watching it. That’s how uninterested I am. Most bad movies are at least good for a laugh, but sitting through this just makes me angry. It’s like forcing myself to watch the end of a game where my Bucs are down 49-0 at the end of the third quarter. An underestimation of the percentage of this film that is comprised of stock footage of the original “Boogeyman” would be 50. Much of it with either a play by play of the pictures on the screen or simply crappy music overlays. Another 30% of the film is a single 2 minute sequence played repeatedly and in slow motion. Some scenes are inexplicably in sepia-tone. Quizzical jump-cuts, inaudible conversation, and voiceovers abound. Seriously, this is quite possibly the worst movie I’ve ever seen.

Rating: ***.5 ( 3 and a half out of 5)
Year: 1980

Review: Creepy. Weird. Bizarre. The movie opens on this horrifying milieu of pre-teen, incestuous voyeurism and and bondage. As any young lady with a head on her shoulders would do, the little daughter stabs daddy to death. It’s the kind of unsettling thing that makes the viewer think, “Jesus Christ! Where is this going next?” It’s a good thing too, because the next half hour is slow enough to be just boring without that added edgyness. Keep your guard up though! You’ll have to navigate through a HEAVILY EMPHASIZED mirrors theme, a killer glass slippers, a haunted eye-patch, and an exorcism. Good watch – gritty and nostalgic.

Rating: **** (4 out of 5)
Year: 1989

Review: Another director of note starts off our second movie of the month: Robert Englund (aka Freddy Kreuger). I really wish that I had watched this the previous night; just what I was in the mood for! Its 1988 release date gives it that grainy nostalgic feeling with which movies from other decades simply can’t compare. The satanic powers of the horro-hotline are never really explained, but I think it was better that way. The kid who is the ostensible protagonist is a borderline sex-offender who would have been a trench coat mafia member in the 90s. The fact that he’s the one we’re routing for makes for an entirely disturbing viewing experience.

a tumescent Nipples