Day 142: Inferno

Inferno

Feelin' hot, hot, hot

One of the best parts of doing this blog is to discover new movies and see films I've wanted to see for a long time. It also gives me a chance to explore writers and directors that are well-known in the horror world, but whose works never make it on to television. One of these directors is Dario Argento. For years, I have heard people praise his work, but it was never readily available for me to watch. Now, thanks to the internet and streaming video, you're able to watch just about anything. I really enjoyed Argento's work on Masters of Horror: Pelts, but that was based on a short story and geared towards an American audience. Would I like Argento in his crazy prime?

Written and directed by Dario Argento, Inferno is a 1980 supernatural horror film and sequel to Suspiria. The movie is based in part on the concept of “Our Ladies of Sorrow” from the book Suspiria de Profundis. Rose Elliot, a young woman living in New York City, reads an old book written by Verelli called The Three Mothers which tells of three sisters who rule the world through sorrow, tears, and darkness. Each sister lives in a different house; one in New York, Freiburg, and Rome. Rose believes she is living in one of the houses and writes to her brother, Mark, who is studying Musicology in Rome. Mark's friend Sara reads the letter and goes to the library to read The Three Mothers. She is attacked by a deformed man who recognizes the book, but is able to escape. Back at her apartment, Sara and a man named Carlo are stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. Rose calls Mark, telling him she is afraid of what she has discovered. Two shadowy figures appear and brutally murder her. Mark travels to New York where he encounters a strange nurse caring for an old mute named Professor Arnold. He learns that Rose is missing and seeks out the man who sold her the book, Kazanian. He is of no help and is soon killed by lots of cats. Mark is able to discover from Rose's letter, a secret passageway underneath her floor where he discovers Professor Arnold. Who is this Professor and his nurse and what do they want with Mark?

"Where do you get your nails done?"

If my description sounds a bit off and confusing, you're not alone. Right off the bat, I was screwed because this is the second of the Three Sisters trilogy of Argento films. I had no idea, and there's really know way to know that unless you look it up. Inferno is watchable on it's own, but I have to assume that seeing Suspiria first would answer a lot of questions. Different is the best way to describe this movie. The story is very abstract, unlike most horror movies that come out today. During the entire movie, I kept saying to myself “What the hell is going on?” No amount of mind-altering substances can really help follow or explain just what is happening. The motivations for characters are questionable and some are introduced just to be killed. When it comes to an Argento movies, I know you're not supposed to understand everything, but I understood just about nothing and was left scratching my head. The violence is pretty good and the blood used had a thick, paint like texture to it. The scene where Kazanian was attacked was unintentionally hysterical. It pretty much looked like people off screen were tossing cats in his face.

Despite my general confusion, I kept watching because the movie is still captivating. The bright and specific colors used in the movie are staples for Argento and make for a rich viewing experience. Unlike Suspiria, which used the awesome synth music of Goblin, Inferno has a coke-fueled rock-opera composed by Keith Emerson. The music is particularly loud and doesn't really fit in with what's happening on screen. Where Goblin could create that vintage 70's-80's horror atmosphere, Emerson's music bludgeons you over the head with a copy of Xanadu. Another major complaint I had was that the movie appeared to be dubbed. I was following the actors mouths, and they were definitely speaking English, but the voices were off. Maybe this was just the version I watched, but if this was intentional, why?! Is it just to fuck with the audience even more? I can't really talk about the acting because of this problem, but it seemed fine.

"Gasp! That was my good knife!"

One of the biggest questions I ask myself whenever I review a movie is, “Was I entertained?” So did Inferno entertain me? In a word, no. I found the story so confusing and crazy that I couldn't really focus on what was happening. I spent most of the time going “What the fuck?” That's not to say the movie isn't good, because there are good things in it, it was just too much to handle. Inferno has good violence and is cinematically beautiful. I may have enjoyed it more if I had seen Suspiria, but you should be able to pick up a movie and be able to follow it, even if it is out of order. I understand that I don't get “it” and that's fine. To be clear, I don't hate Inferno and I do think you should watch it. You should just be prepared for a trip into the insane world of Dario Argento.

5/10

Day 141: Children of the Corn

Children of the Corn

Life is Peachy

Stephen King is one of the master's of horror. I don't think there is much debate on that. Stories like It, The Tommyknockers, Salem's Lot, Cujo, and Misery all have their place in the literary and horror world. Sometimes they are great, but sometimes they don't translate well on screen and we're left with good ideas and bad execution. It's not King's fault, some ideas are just better on the page than in motion. Would the same be said for Children of the Corn?

Children of the Corn is a 1984 horror movie based on the short story by Stephen King. It stars Peter Horton (2 Days In The Valley, Grey's Anatomy) as Burt and Linda Hamilton (Terminator, Dante's Peak) as his wife, Vicky. The movie begins with a flashback in the small Nebraska town of Gatlin as told from the point of view of a little boy named Job (Robby Kiger, The Monster Squad). The children of the town rise up and brutally murder all of the adults in town. Cut to three years later, where Burt and Linda are driving towards Seattle for Burt's new job in the medical field. They take the back roads in Nebraska and accidentally hit a young boy standing in the road. Burt inspects him and discovers that the boy had already been killed prior to the car accident. They end up in the supposedly deserted town of Gatlin, trying to find help or a working phone. They come across a little girl named Sara, Job's sister, who has the ability to draw pictures of future events. While Burt goes into to town looking for a working phone, Vicky stays with Sara, who draws a picture of Vicky being tortured in a corn field. Led by Malachi, the most violent of the young people, a group captures Vicky and brings her out to the corn field. The children are being led by a boy preacher by the name of Issac. He talks of sacrificing Vicky and Burt to He Who Walks Behind The Rows. An argument ensues, and Malachi overthrows Issac. Meanwhile, Burt walks into the town church to find a bizarre ritual in which a young man is celebrating his birthday by carving a pentagram in his chest. Burt flees, pursued by the town's children, and discovers that Vicky has gone missing. Aided by Job and Sara, Burt must find a way to free Vicky and stop the fanatical and homicidal children. Who or what is He Who Walks Behind the Rows and will Burt be able to stop it?

Jesus, this won't end well

Children of the Corn is a pretty original idea when it comes to the horror genre. Evil children have been used in earlier horror movies, such as in The Omen and Village of the Damned. The difference with those movies and this one is that the children in Children of the Corn are still human. They don't have supernatural powers or are possessed by demons. For all intensive purposes, they are normal kids. Normal kids that have been overwhelmed and corrupted with a religious fervor that has convinced them to kill all the adults in town. The overall theme of religion and fanaticism is pretty strong throughout the movie, which creates a fun and scary atmosphere.

I appreciate that the story takes place all in one day, but it feels like certain scenes are stretched out a bit too long. It takes some willing suspension of disbelief to accept that Burt and Vicky keep wandering around this clearly creepy town looking for a phone. There is a good amount of action with some blood, but I could have used more. I also would have liked the movie to go more in depth when it comes to the “cleansing” of the town's adults. We really only see this in the opening scene of the movie. A few flashbacks would have really upped the violence, which would have created an even more terrifying experience. In terms of He Who Walks Behind The Rows, he isn't alluded to enough in my opinion and when he is finally revealed, the effects are a bit laughable. The acting is good throughout and the direction is competent.

Originally, I was going to review the movie right after I finished watching it, but I'm glad I waited and let the movie sink in a bit more. On the surface, it's a fun horror movie with a lot of action. Upon further inspection, though, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Where did He Who Walks Behind The Rows come from? Why was he in Nebraska? How have these kids been able to survive for so long? Has no one else come through this town in three years, like a mailman or something? No one called a loved one and realized people were missing? I know I'm seeing this from 2012 eyes from a movie made in the early 80's, but still, it takes a lot to ignore some of these questions. 

Only an evil child would wear a hat like that

Overall, it's still an exciting and fun movie to watch. The kids are pretty creepy, which makes everything more believable. I've spent time in Iowa, so the entire movie reminded me of my less than pleasurable experience living among corn and religious people. Despite some plot problems, Children Of The Corn is worth your time.

7/10

Day 140: The Wolfman

The Wolfman

Na na na na na na na na, Wolfman!

I remember seeing previews for The Wolfman remake and thinking that it looked pretty cool. They had a good mixture of horror, action, and excitement. It didn't hurt that the cast included Anthony Hopkins, Benicio del Toro, and Hugo Weaving. When the movie came out, though, the reviews were not good and I decided not to see it in theaters. It was time to see if the reviews were right.

The Wolfman is a 2010 loose remake of the 1941 horror classic, The Wolf Man, starring Benicio del Toro (Sin City, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas) as Lawrence Talbot. In the late 1800's, Lawrence has received a letter from Gwen Coliffe (Emily Blunt, Wind Chill, The Adjustment Bureau), his brother Ben's fiancee, stating that Ben had been killed. Lawrence returns to his family's estate, which he hasn't seen in many years. He is also reunited with his estranged father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins, Silence of the Lambs, Amistad). Lawrence views Ben's body which has been horribly mutilated by some sort of beast. Among his personal items, Lawrence finds a medallion with three wolves on it, apparently purchased from gypsies that camp near the town. During a full moon, Lawrence speaks with a gypsy named Maleva to gain answers for his brother's death. At the same time, local townspeople come into the gypsy camp to claim their dancing bear, whom they believe is the cause for various animal attacks. A werewolf tears through the encampment, brutally killing people and biting Lawrence. Gwen cares for him and he makes a miraculous recovery. Inspector Abeline (Hugo Weaving, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings) visits the manor and implies that Lawrence is behind recent murders in the area. That night he turns, and kills local villagers trying to capture him. Lawrence is committed to the same asylum he was in when he was younger, due to seeing his mother's suicide. The doctor's believe his lycanthropy is psychological, but are proven very wrong when he turns into a werewolf and goes on a killing spree. It is revealed that Sir John is also a werewolf and had in fact, killed Lawrence's mother. Lawrence and his father have an all-out werewolf throw-down with Lawrence killing his father. Will Gwen be able to set Lawrence free from this horrible curse before it's too late?

This is my war face!

I have seen the original Wolf Man, but it has been so long that I really shouldn't try to compare the two that much. Why some say that there was no need to remake the original, I don't really have a problem with it. The remake certainly has of elements of the original, but goes off into it's own territory about halfway through. That's fine with me because the story needed an update in terms of today's audience which needs more action and sleeker production. I'm happy that the kept the general look of the original Wolf Man and didn't go for a straight werewolf look used in more recent werewolf-based movies like Underworld. They also keep the basic werewolf rules, following the full moon, silver bullets, and being released from the curse by a loved one. I'm not sure why they changed the name from The Wolf Man to the Wolfman. Maybe they made him Jewish. L'Chaim!

The story itself is decent, but it suffers from being uneven. One example of this is the character of Gwen. It felt like she was missing for about half the movie and her romance with Lawrence came out of nowhere. The movie also tries explain Lawrence's relationship with his father, but it barely scratches the surface and comes off more as filler. It's not particularly clear why Inspector Abeline suspects Lawrence of the murders, which comes off as convenient to the story and not logic or reason. There are some moments of horror and a few jolting moments of surprise, but nothing particularly scary. The movie makes up for the lack of horror with lots and lots of bloody action. There is a large amount of blood and gore for a mainstream movie. The Wolfman enough blood and guts for me to think they knocked over a butcher shop before filming certain scenes.

"Oh shit, I left the oven on!"

The acting throughout the movie is pretty good, but that's no surprise with this cast. Anthony Hopkins is pretty great in his domineering, sinister role as Sir John. We know we should be fearful of him, even if he's not a werewolf. Benicio del Toro does well as Lawrence, creating a sympathetic character for the audience to both root and mourn for. I could have used a bit more Hugo Weaving, who's mustache makes him look like a more dapper Lemmy from Motorhead. As I've said before, Emily Blunt's Gwen isn't in as much of the movie as you'd expect, but she is fine in her role. I'm still a bit annoyed from that terrible movie Wind Chill she was in, but she didn't annoy me here. The other big star in the movie is special effects. The transformation scenes look great and the makeup artists won a well-deserved Academy Award. Unfortunately, the movie relies too heavily on other computerized and blue-screen effects, making it look particularly fake in certain scenes. It would have been better to use the real night sky instead of a clearly fake moon. 

 

The Ace of Spades!

Despite a good amount of bad reviews, I didn't find The Wolfman to be particularly bad. It's not as good as the original, but it wasn't an abomination unworthy of the name. There are plenty of differences, but they do keep some of the heart from the original. The acting is very good and there is plenty of blood and violence. The story is uneven and could have gone much smoother for my liking. Overall, The Wolfman was an OK monster movie with some fun scenes. Is it worthy of the Wolf Man legacy? Maybe, maybe not, but it's still a decent watch.

6.5/10

Day 139: Tale Of The Mummy

Tale Of The Mummy

Mummy dearest

Despite doing over 100 horror movies reviews, I haven't watched a true mummy movie. Even though they fall under the classic monster movie category, I just never found mummies to be scary. Actually, that's not entirely true. I was terrified of the mummy exhibit at Museum of Natural History. Something about seeing corpses on display just didn't sit right with my younger self. When it comes to mummies on the big screen, though, they just don't do it for me. Maybe it's because they just look like a zombie wrapped in toilet paper. Maybe it's because the Brendan Fraiser Mummy trilogy was a fun adventure movie and not horror. Either way, it was time to give them a chance once again.

Tale of the Mummy is a 1998 horror movie starring Jason Scott Lee (The Jungle Book, Soldier) as Detective Riley. A group of archaeologists, led by Sir Richard Turkel, (Christopher Lee, Lord of the Rings, various Dracula movies) digging in Egypt discover the tomb of Talos, a powerful sorcerer/prince (I think, it's not really clear). They open the tomb, breaking the seal and unleashing a mystical wind, disintegrating their bodies. Half a century later, Sir Richard's log book ends up in the hands of his granddaughter Samantha (Louise Lombard, Hidalgo, CSI). Along with a team of archaeologists, Samantha excavates Talos's sarcophogus and puts it on display in London. A series of strange murders occurs throughout the city, with Detective Riley investigating. Each murder victim is found missing a specific body part. Riley teams up with Samantha and discovers that each missing body part was removed from Talos when he was mummified. Talos captures Samantha and it's up to Riley to stop him before the planets align and Talos is resurrected. But things are not what they seem.

"Damn am I dreamy!"

I have to commend the people involved with the movie for casting Jason Scott Lee in the lead role. It's not often you see someone of Hawaiian and Chinese descent in a lead role that isn't some sort of martial arts or historical movie. Kudos to them for going against the grain. They also wisely have Christopher Lee in the movie, though he's unfortunately in it for just a few minutes in the beginning. OK, now that I've gotten the compliments out of the way, I can get to the epic dressing-down that this movie deserves because holy fuck does it suck. This movie is a mess in every sense of the word. The story is half-assed, unclear, and flat-out boring. They tried to give a back story to Talos, but I couldn't follow and, frankly, I didn't care. There's a little side story with another archaeologist being played by Sean Pertwee (Soldier, The Mutant Chronicles) where he can see what Talos sees and then see what Sam sees and some other shit that doesn't really make sense or particularly affect the story.

Another major problem is the special effects. For a majority of the movie, Talos is a computerized mass of used toilet paper, floating through London and attacking people. Even for 1998, the effects used are embarrassingly bad. Remember the screen saver from Windows 95 that looks like a series of pipes going all over the place? That's what Talos looks like. It doesn't get much better when he gains an physical form which looks like a purple rubber alien suit. Didn't they realize that this looked at least a little stupid? The action is laughable and nothing in the movie is particularly scary or even exciting. The acting is fine, perhaps a little over-the-top at certain points, but it's one of the few bright spots in an otherwise black hole of entertainment.

Created in Final Cut Amateur

Mummies can be scary in the right hands. Unfortunately, the hands used to create Tale Of The Mummy must have been firmly jammed up someone's ass when they wrote this because it is incredibly shitty. The story is painfully bad, the special effects were bad even by 1998 standards. I read that there is actually a European version that is actually 20 minutes longer. Europeans already have enough to deal with with the collapse of the euro, they don't need to be tortured more by this terrible movie. Don't waste your time with Tale Of The Mummy.

2/10

Day 138: Trick 'r Treat

Trick 'r Treat

Give me something good to eat

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love Halloween. Maybe it's all the costumes and candy, but just that time of year is perfect. The weather is getting cooler, the days are getting shorter, football has started, and lots of horror is on TV. Some horror movies just use Halloween as background, just to set the scene or an excuse to have actors dress up in silly costumes. Other movies, though, fully immerse themselves in the holiday to create an atmosphere perfect for horror. It doesn't hurt when it's produced by Bryan Singer (X-Men, The Usual Suspects).

Trick 'r Treat is a 2007 horror anthology consisting of 4 stories: The Principal, The School Bus Massacre Revisited, Surprise Party, and Meet Sam. Unlike other horror anthologies like The Creepshow and Deadtime Stories, these stories all take place on one Halloween night in a small town. Each story is connected through various ways including the presence of a pint-sized trick-or-treater in an orange onesy and a burlap sack mask.

In The Principal, Dylan Baker (Spider-Man 2, Road To Perdition) plays the school principle, Steven Wilkins. He catches a young trick-or-treater stealing candy from his yard. He carves a pumpkin while talking to the boy and hands him some more candy. The candy contains poison and Wilkins buries him in the backyard. His neighbor, Mr. Kreeg (Brian Cox, X2: X-Men United, Red) yells at him to keep the noise down and is attacked off-screen by an unknown assailant. Wilkins' son Billy is home and almost catches his father burying the body. Billy continues to nag his father about carving a jack-o-lantern. What does Steven have in store for Billy?

Sorry, I just thought about something funny while I was burying this child

In The School Bus Massacre Revisited 4 kids have plans to scare another girl in their class, a savant named Rhonda. They tell her the story of the Halloween School Bus Massacre, where a school bus carrying mentally handicapped children, was driven off a cliff at the behest of their parents. The kids head to the spot where it supposedly occurred. They try to scare Rhonda by saying the children have come back from the dead, but all is not what it seems.

Surprise Party stars Anna Paquin (X-Men, True Blood) as Laurie, the insecure virgin. Dressed as Little Red Riding hood, she attends a Halloween party with her skanked-out sister and friends. They pick up a few guys and head to a bonfire in the woods. Meanwhile, a vampire has been claiming victims and is stalking Laurie. Have we already seen this vampire before and is Laurie really the one in danger?

When does Wolverine jump out?

The final story, Meet Sam, visits Mr. Kreeg, whom we saw being attacked in The Principal. Kreeg is in a life or death battle with the diminutive Sam. During the fight, Kreeg is able to rip off Sam's mask, revealing a disfigured jack-o-lantern skull face. Sam brutalizes Kreeg, but leaves before the killing blow. It is revealed the Kreeg was the bus driver from the Halloween School Bus Massacre. Even though Sam left, is Kreeg really safe?

This movie was flat-out awesome. The stories are all creative and interesting, not an easy task when trying to cram so many stories in a short amount of time. What's even more impressive is that they all connect in unexpected ways. The work very well for the most part, though I was a bit confused while watching, but all is eventually revealed. The writing is fluid and tight while the dialogue never feels unnatural or forced. I'm not sure if each individual story could stand to be a feature-length film, but they all compliment each other so well that it would be unnecessary to stretch each story out. While there's no outright fear induced by the movie, there are a few scenes that will make you feel uneasy, in a good way. 

Deadwood trained him well

There is lots of good action and violence with plenty of excitement to keep you on the edge of your seat. There is a decent amount of blood and gore, but nothing over the top. The movie really succeeds because of the great acting from all involved. Anna Paquin, Dylan Baker, and Brian Cox all play their parts perfectly which strengthen the already strong stories. Director and writer Michael Dougherty (X2 and Superman Returns) has a good eye for capturing the action without resorting to fast cuts and shaky cameras. If I have one complaint, it's that the movie is a bit too dark in certain scenes, but really, that's just nitpicking.

Trick 'r treat is a well-crafted horror movie through and through. The stories are interesting and are weaved into a creative and cohesive connection that is truly unexpected. The writing and direction are old solid, bolstered by great acting performances. There is a good amount of action and violence, enough to keep you entertained for the entire movie. Trick 'r Treat is a fun ride from start to finish and worth your while, no matter time of year you watch it.

9.5/10

Day 137: Masters of Horror: Valerie On The Stairs

Masters of Horror: Valerie On The Stairs

She's a fire hazard

It's been a little while since I've reviewed a Masters of Horror movie. I decided to go with one that was a little out of my wheelhouse in terms of horror. While I prefer zombies and action-centric horror, Valerie On The Stairs seemed pretty far removed from what I usually enjoy. Sometimes it is good to go against your preferences and try new things. You never know when you might find a new band or artist that you'll love. Or you'll find something that reminds you of why you avoid similar things.

Masters of Horror: Valerie On The Stairs is taken from an original screenstory by Cliver Barker (Hellraiser, The Midnight Meat Train), but was officially written by Mick Garris (Hocus Pocus, The Fly II). Rob Hanisey (Tyron Leitso, House Of The Dead, Bloodrayne II), is an unpublished writer down on his luck. He has long overdue bills and is recovering from a nasty breakup. He moves in to the Highberger House, a boarding house for unpublished writers. It's inhabited by a strange cast of characters such as Everett Neely (Christopher Lloyd, Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?), Patricia Dunbar (Suki Kaiser, The Virgin Suicides) and Bruce Sweetland (Jonathon Watton, Breach, Mutant X). Rob begins to see a beautiful young woman on the stairs in the house, begging him for help and warning him that someone is coming. Everyone thinks Rob is crazy except Bruce, who strikes up a friendship with him. Valerie continues to appear to Rob as well as the Beast (Tony Todd, Candyman) a large demon that is holding her prisoner. Rob speaks with Bruce about Valerie and sees that Bruce has a written a story called “Valerie On The Stairs”. Bruce is infuriated and kicks Rob out. Later, Bruce is visited by Valerie and The Beast literally rips out Bruce's spine. Rob discovers that the story was a collaborative effort between Bruce, Patricia, and Everett and their story has someone come to life. The Beast returns and kills Patricia in bloody fashion. Everett explains that writing the story became an addiction for them as it became darker and more violent. He explains that Rob needs to finish the story and put an end to the murders. Will Rob be able to stop The Beast, save Valerie, and finish the story?

Hugs!

I usually have a good grasp what movies are trying to go for in terms of underlying messages and themes. I can safely say that I have no idea what they were going for with Valerie On The Stairs. The story itself is fine with some good moments of bloody violence, interesting twists, and good pacing. I will say, though, that it was probably far scarier in the written word than on the screen. The story, though not entirely original, isn't the problem. The problem is with the underlying themes of love, and writing, and some other stuff that I couldn't figure out. The movie left me with way more questions than answers, and not in the good way. I mean, is this supposed to be a love story or some sort of depressing descent into madness or just writer's block? It doesn't help that the ending was bizarre, convoluted, and annoying. I'm still not sure if any of these events actually occurred or this was some sort of “story within a story” type deal. Either way, it wasn't good and was the puke cherry on this shit sundae.

The acting is pretty good throughout with Christopher Lloyd putting on an over-the-top-in-a-fun-way performance that only he could do. I wish he was in more movies because he is really fun to watch. Tyron Leitso does well in his role and Tony Todd is wonderful as always. It's a shame that their performances were used for a mediocre story. There isn't much action, but for the scenes that have it, they are pretty gorey. The direction is fine, though the flashbacks with Rob and his girlfriend feel slapped together. As I mentioned before, the ending is really weak and infuriating, bringing the rest of the movie down. There is a large-than-normal amount of nudity and sex for a Masters of Horror episode, so this one should probably be kept away from younger viewers. It's not quite Late Night Cinemax action, but it's not far off.

This never would have happened to Marty

Valerie On The Stairs does a lot of things right, but is overshadowed by a mediocre storing and a confused mess of themes and underlying messages. I am still not exactly sure what happens at the end and it puts into question everything else that happens in the movie. The acting is well done and the action is entertaining. It's just unfortunate that they could be put into a better story. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch Valerie On The Stairs, I just think it could have been a lot better. Who knows, maybe someone else “get's it” and will enjoy the story. If you do, please explain it to me.

4/10

Day 136: Dead & Buried

Dead & Buried

Well, not completely buried if we're being honest

I got stuck out in a downpour for about 5 minutes yesterday and today my throat feels like it came in contact with Kim Kardashian. I don't get sick all winter and now this. Thankfully it's just a sore throat for now. I can't even remember the last time I was sick. But what is healthy and sick? What if I've been sick this entire time and never knew it? What if being sick is really being healthy and we're all just slowly dying by drinking orange juice and getting exercise?! OK, that's a bit too much even for a horror fan, but it is a nice segue to my review of Dead & Buried.

Dead & Buried is a 1981 horror movie starring James Farentino (The Final Countdown, Dynasty) as Sheriff Dan Gillis. Dan works for the small New England town of Potter's Bluff. The film begins with a young photographer visiting the local beach and meeting a beautiful young women who seems interested in him. It's all a ploy as a mob of townspeople captures the photographer, ties him up, and sets him on fire, all in broad daylight. A serious of strange murders committed by mobs of townspeople occur throughout town and Dan, tries to get to the bottom of it. He has frequent discussions with the eccentric local mortician, William Dobbs (Jack Albertson, Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, The Poseidon Adventure). Dobbs describes what he does as art and speaks as if he is in love with his work. Dan also discovers that his wife has been studying black magic and voodoo, making him concerned for her well being and also raising the possibility that she is involved in the murders. She has also been spending time with Dobbs. The murders continue and it appears that people who have been killed are now turning up around town as very much alive. Dan's suspicion grows and he contacts the Providence, Rhode Island police department about Dobbs. It turns out Dobbs was the chief pathologist in Providence until being dismissed for conducting unauthorized autopsies and experiments on bodies from the county morgue. Has Dobbs found a way to bring back people from the dead and how will Dan stop him?

His hair was provided by a Ken doll

The story in this movie unfolds very much like an episode of the Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. You have a general idea of where things are going, but are still surprised when they actually happen. The ending in particular has a twist fit for a Rod Serling narration. While the story is interesting, entertainment is where the movie becomes hit or miss. There is some action and a bit of mystery, but the pacing is really off in some parts, leading to boredom and stagnation. I was annoyed that the movie introduced characters just to kill them. I understand that they wanted to convey the killing of outsiders, but if we know that's why the mob will do, it's not shocking or surprising.

The mob killing remind me somewhat of The Wicker Man and they have a good amount of gleeful violence not particularly common in 1981 mainstream movies. The psychological chess match between Dan and Dobbs is interesting, but you never get the sense that Dan is actually going to outwit Dobbs. It doesn't really make for a gripping story when your main character can't go toe-to-toe with the villain. The acting is pretty good throughout with James Farentino and Jack Albertson playing their parts well. There's even a young Robert Englund in the movie with a small role. This took place a few years before his iconic turn as Freddy Kruger and was a nice surprise. The creepiness of the film lies in knowing who the killers are right from the beginning and then watching Dan get closer to the answer. It's also where annoyance towards the character comes in and you just want to shout at him for being such a shitty detective. 

Hey, Netface! Why are you stuck in a net, Netface?

Dead & Buried has it's creative moments and might be better suited as a short story or a television episode. I wouldn't mind seeing it remade with some modern techniques and a slicker production, maybe for a Masters of Horror type show. The movie does have a few jolts and a general creepiness, but it's not particularly scary. The conclusion of the movie ends on a Twilight Zone-style down note, which was fun, if not a little expected. The acting is good, but the pacing is off, causing for a sluggish watch. Dead & Buried isn't a must see movie, but you don't have to avoid it either.

5.5/10