The Mothman Prophecies

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: After his wife dies, John Klein, a reporter for the Washington Post, is drawn towards a town in West Virginia where he begins to unravel a strange web of supernatural sightings involving a "mothman" who seems to be unleashing prophecies of deaths upon the town's population.



Scariness factor: Meh. It has its moments, and my cat managed to freak me out after because I was clearly a LITTLE bit jumpy, but overall, it won't blow your mind.

Gross-Out Factor: PG.



Complaints: The interspersing of mothman imagery throughout got tedious. Not EVERY goddamn red light looks like creepy eyes, people. Other than that, I just am kind of underwhelmed by this movie. The ideas are creepy, especially the end of the film, but the way they're handled is as generic as possible. There's no unique style to the directing, no creative element to the creepiness, no mind-blowing acting, nothing.



High Points: The end scene is pretty good, though again, not mind-blowing. And knowing that this is supposedly based on true events lends an element of creepiness to the whole tale.

Overall: I saw this in the theater when it first came out, and I remember being underwhelmed by it then. But I figured I'd give it a second chance since it's been close to 10 years. But nope: still underwhelmed.

Grade: C

From Hell

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Someone is killing prostitutes in London, and his name is Jack the Ripper.

Scariness factor: Moody. But not scary.



Gross-Out Factor: I think some throats are slit. And you might see innards. But other than that, nothing is really strongly standing out to me.

Complaints: Two words: Heather. Graham. No wait. Six words: Heather. Graham. With. A. Cockney. Accent. *shuddering* I don't like Heather Graham. She's cute. But she plays Rollergirl in like EVERY movie she's in. She doesn't exactly have range. I think the only roles I've ever really liked her in are Boogie Nights and when she was on Scrubs. Other than that, UGH. So yeah: #1 complaint. #2 complaint: This movie just leaves me pretty much indifferent in every which way. I don't hate it. But I don't love it. There's nothing particularly noteworthy or remarkable about it. And the big reveal at the end? Wah wah wahhhhh. Lame.

High Points: Johnny Depp's good in pretty much everything. And the mood is nice at times.



Overall: Meh. Don't love it. Don't hate it. Could live without ever having seen it.

Grade: C

Friday the 13, Part 2

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A new camp, adjacent to Camp Crystal Lake of the original Friday the 13th, is prepping to open. Will THESE camp counselors make it out alive?

Scariness factor: I dunno. It's a sequel. I think that may be my response to pretty much everything about this movie actually.

Gross-Out Factor: Nasty, but fun/1980s nasty.



Complaints: It's a sequel. So basically it's just a rehash of the original. And I basically don't make it a habit to watch sequels for that very reason. But Friday the 13th is one of the few series where the actual infamous horror villain isn't the antagonist in the original. So I wanted to finally meet the hockey-masked villain. And yet: still no hockey mask, dammit.

High Points: The special fx were fun in that 1980s-type way.



Overall: Meh. Take it or leave it.

Grade: C

Shutter

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A recently married couple is on their honeymoon when they get in a car accident, seemingly running down a woman in the street. The husband is a photographer, and after this series of events, ghost-images start inexplicably showing up on all the pics he and his wife take. Who is the spirit and why is she bothering them?

Scariness factor: Not mind-blowing, but there IS a creepy-ass scene where the husband is trapped in a dark room with the camera-flash going off over and over, only to illuminate someone moving around the room and advancing on him.

Gross-Out Factor: Really quite minimal. Hence the PG-13 rating.



Complaints: This movie had a LOT of gaps in logic. Small things, but things that DROVE ME NUTS nonetheless. And right now I can't think of even one of them, go figure. And yet throughout the whole movie I was like, What?? WHAT??! One example, (which isn't so much an example of gaps in logic as it is of just dumb writing) was *SPOILER ALERT: after the husband endures the trauma of having two of his friends die, one right in front of him, he and his wife are sleeping in bed, and he wakes up from what appears to be a horrible nightmare. His wife's response: (paraphrased) "What? What is it, honey? What's the matter?" My response watching it: "Jesus, you dumb broad. He just had two friends die, and you both are being haunted by a ghost. Um, what do you THINK might be causing him to have nightmares??? How have you even managed to fall asleep in the FIRST place?????" /END SPOILER Also, the ending was a little bit anticlimactic.

High Points: I enjoyed it more than I thought I would (not meaning to imply that you would recommend something shitty Bijoux--I mostly just am not a fan of slick modern Hollywood horror flicks and/or flicks with folks from things like Dawson's Creek in them, heh heh). The scene I mentioned above. Well-done and creepy. I also really like the notion of spirit photography. It always fascinated me when I was little, so it had THAT going for it as well. I also was impressed by the resolve of the wife at the end of the movie--I'm glad they didn't let her slip into a weak, wishy-washy female character.



Overall: Although I wasn't blown away, it DID have a few creepy moments in it. If nothing else, it's good fluff for a rainy afternoon.

Grade: C+

The Toxic Avenger

I have been remiss with regard to posting recent horror movie reviews. I've been busy, and though I've been watching movies, I haven't felt compelled to review. Today though, I hope to play a wee bit of catch-up. Otherwise I fear that Bijoux will kick my ass. =)


--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A nerdy mop-boy at the local health-club has a prank pulled on him by obnoxious jocks that causes him to fall into a nearby vat of toxic waste. He mutates into the Toxic Avenger, taking on the bullies of the town as payback. And when he has a few minutes to spare amidst all the avenging, he romances himself a blind woman.

Scariness factor:Camp, folks. So nil.

Gross-Out Factor: There's a lot of scenes of skulls and stuff getting crushed. But they're moreso fun and campy than gross.



Complaints: This movie has ridiculously over-the-top acting, annoying characters, and complete silliness in it. I mean, it's camp. So that's to be expected. But I found myself fluctuating between finding it really quite funny and finding it really FUCKING ANNOYING. It kinda felt like it was trying too hard. So yeah. That'd be my major complaint. I've never called a movie out for being TOO campy, but if I was going to, this'd be the one. That and I SERIOUSLY could not handle the mop-boy prior to his morph into the Toxic Avenger. I know he was SUPPOSED to be annoying, but MOTHER OF GOD was he annoying.

High Points: This movie is pretty fun and silly. The acting is ridiculously over-the-top. And it's horribly 1980's, from hairdos, to clothing, to music. It's also built itself up a huge cult-following, so there's something to be said for that.



Overall: I dunno. I heart campy films, but I found myself thinking that my life wouldn't be any less fulfilling had I not ever seen this one.

Grade: C+

The Invasion

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: In Washington, a strange epidemic seems to be spreading--perfectly sane people are becoming convinced that their friends/lovers are no longer themselves. What is happening to them? And can it be stopped?

Scariness factor: So-so.

Gross-Out Factor: Crap--I can't remember. I don't think so though. I mean, it's PG-13.



Complaints: How many more times can they remake Invasion of the Body Snatchers without it just seeming kind of ridiculous? I mean, this movie wasn't BAD. But it wasn't particularly GOOD. And, I'm sorry to say, nothing beats the creepy screams and RIDICULOUSLY creepy ending of the 1978 version (see youtube clip below--warning though: it does ruin the end of the film, so only watch if you've already seen it).

High Points: I can't really think of any. I mean, it was creepy. And white-knuckle-inducing on OCCASION. But not consistently.



Overall: Take it or leave it. Squeaky-clean Hollywood horror.


This is the end of the movie, so don't watch it if you
don't want the biggest spoiler of them all

Grade: C

Shuang Tong (Double Vision)

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: People are being killed in ways that seem impossible: a man drowns in his office with not a drop of water nearby, a woman perishes from horrific burns, despite there not being a flame in sight. When investigators begin to delve deeper into the murders, they discover that perhaps someone with a desire for immortality is behind these strange events.

Scariness factor: Not so much.

Gross-Out Factor: There's some knife-slitting going on during a few sections of the movie.



Complaints: Ack. Two movies in a row with David Morse in them. Why is it that just LOOKING at him irritates me SO VERY VERY MUCH? Again: as with Disturbia, he was perfectly fine in this movie. So I don't know why I loathe him so much. Other than that, I was mostly just indifferent to this movie. It wasn't anything special, but it wasn't anything terrible either. It was just ok.

High Points: The double-pupil eyeball effect was really pretty creeps. I dug it. Other than that: indifference.



Overall: Yeah, I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it. But then again, I wouldn't discourage you from seeing it either. It was tepid. That's the long and short of it.

Grade: C

Diary of the Dead

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A bunch of college students are making a film out in the woods when news comes through that the dead are returning back to life. The filmmaker involved in the student film can't resist taking advantage of the strange events by documenting them with his camera.

Scariness factor: Eh. Nothing special.

Gross-Out Factor: Medium. Either that or I'm just finally getting immune to it.



Complaints: Ok yeah. The whole "happening to be filming something when bad horror-movie shit goes down that you catch, coincidentally, on film" motif has gotten old old old. Mostly because NOBODY manages to do it well. Diary of the Dead was, alas, no exception. Here's my problem: I hate the self-consciousness of it. Just fucking do it. Don't keep having characters explain why it is that the stupid idiot supposedly "filming" continues to film through the whole course of the events that take place. Just do it. Otherwise I end up wanting to punch you in the throat every five minutes. Now granted, Romero's movie was a commentary ON media, so I understand that these weren't just the average "justification of why the main character would be filming instead of helping a friend who's getting killed"-type moments. But even so, the commentary in this movie was RIDICULOUSLY heavy-handed, especially for Romero. I mean, sweet jesus, the characters explain like 1500 times throughout the movie that it all IS a commentary on the media. And to me, well, don't keep TELLING me that. Just SHOW me for god's sake. Let the events speak to it instead of getting paranoid that no one's gonna get it and inserting in a bunch of characters and narration to heavy-handedly explain it to me.

High Points: It's got zombies in it.



Overall: Yeah, I dunno. It was too clumsy of a commentary on the media, and the self-consciousness of the documentary-style got old really quickly. (I mean, who REALLY REALLY would choose to keep filming instead of helping out a friend getting attacked. I mean, REALLY??) Chalk it up as a take-it-or-leave-it film.

Grade: C

The Hitcher (2007)

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A couple of college kids head out on a road-trip for spring break. Along the way they make the mistake of offering a ride to a man whose car has broken down. When they realize that he is psychotic, they manage to get rid of him. But not for long.

Scariness factor: It's a bit white-knuckly in parts.



Gross-Out Factor: One of the more climactic scenes is pretty nasty. Other than that, it's mostly just shoot 'em ups and neck-slittings.

Complaints: Too slick. Like all the remakes of today, they just aren't quite so rough around the edges as the originals. They're a bit more glossied up (including the shitty music). And they just don't feel quite so gritty. The original was definitely better, though it wasn't one of my absolute favorite movies either really. And I prefer Rutger Hauer to the dude who plays the bad guy here. He's not BAD, and creepy in his own respect. But not QUITE so creepy. That and there weren't as many good car-chase scenes.

High Points: There's a good cop-car chase-scene midway through that sucked me into it. But that was about it. And the climactic/shocking moment towards the end of the movie was pretty sweet and caught me off guard. (Apparently I am senile because I don't remember this scene ending the same way at all in the original, which maybe was a good thing since it DID shock me.) It did keep my attention though for the 90 minutes. And I didn't want to go on a stabbing-spree like after I saw the Halloween remake.



Overall: Not particularly good. Not particularly bad.

Grade: C

Dracula (1992)

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Jonathan Harker is a lawyer sent to Europe to take over the job of a previous lawyer who has gone mad. Upon arriving in Europe, he quickly finds out why. He is imprisoned by Dracula, the man whose services he is under. Dracula in turn realizes that Harker's wife is his own lost-love returned and begins to take steps to get her back.

Scariness factor: It has its spooky moments.



Gross-Out Factor: Chopped off heads. Many of them.

Complaints: I *adored* this movie in high school. I was a bit smitten with the whole vampire-mystique, and I still find it tremendously sexy. However, watching this again, it seems so very DATED to me. Perhaps this is because Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder are in it, and it makes me feel like I'm back in the days of Bill & Ted and Reality Bites, but I'm not quite sure. Nonetheless, it just seemed a bit silly to me at points. Presumably Francis Ford Coppola was trying to capture some of the mood of older Dracula/vampire movies with silly things like eyes in the sky or shadows moving around unaccompanied by their masters. But it just felt SILLY most of the time. Which was disappointing to me. Plus: seriously: Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves are just SO not good in this movie. Watching Keanu Reeves is like watching a cardboard cut-out of himself PLAYING himself. And Winona Ryder is like watching every other character she's played, but this time wearing big floofy dresses and talking with a weird accent. I *will* say that I may be a bit harder on this movie than I normally would be, simply because I held this movie so close to my heart in high school and it just didn't live up to what I remember, so take that as you will. (I still suspect I will have some of you yell at me for rating it so low.)

High Points: Gary Oldman. Bless his heart. I adore the man, and with good reason. He is one of the only actors in this movie that makes it believable. He is sexy. And creepy. And hideous. And he's actually able to pull off the "aging face-makeup" that they used on him to make him look ancient. (On the other hand, they thought, for some reason, that just putting some wholly artificial gray in Keanu Reeves' hair would age him--instead it just makes him look like an even BIGGER jack-ass.) Oldman also manages to pull off a fake Transylvanian accent, which kept making me think, "Yeah, I buy it." He is the only thing in this movie that feels like it's aged well and hasn't become representative of the '90s. Oh, and there ARE some sexy vampiric moments, so that was nice. But I don't know if it made up for Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder.



Overall: Watch it. Don't watch it. Do as you will.

Grade: C+

Kingdom of the Spiders

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Livestock starts turning up dead in a small town, with no indication of what's killing them. After some scientific investigations, it's concluded that spider venom is the cause of their deaths. As Shatner and his goons look further into the puzzling source, they stumble across hundreds of enormous spider-hills. Shortly after, the spiders begin to attack humans. Shatner must save them all.

Scariness factor: *snark*

Gross-Out Factor: You DO get to see a hand blown off with a gun which was pretty sweet. But other than that, fairly low-key.

Complaints: Even campy movies can be bad. In this case, Kingdom of the Spiders was a bit too slow for its own good. Even if the point of watching the movie is to make fun of it, you still want it to move quickly. This film did not. Also a bit disconcerting about this movie was the fact that I think it may have been filmed before animal-protection laws, so I think a lot of the spiders (which appeared to be tarantulas) were actually getting smashed. All of us watching it were a bit appalled by that fact.

High Points: It had William Shatner as the lead, so I of course expected some juicy campy goodness. And Shatner thankfully lived up to his name, swaggering around the screen and making passes at lady doctors. The movie also had lots of pretty damn funny moments, from a woman shooting off her hand to get a spider off her, to Shatner being attacked by hundreds of spiders. Good stuff. It also was COMPLETELY devoid of any sort of logic, which was enjoyable as well. And Shatner's a total slut. But again: unfortunately it was kind of slow-moving, otherwise this would've been another gem.



Overall: If you like to make fun of Shatner, definitely check it out. Otherwise, you could take it or leave it.

Grade: C (camp)

We All Scream for Ice Cream

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A man returns to his home-town with his family, only to find that the town (and his childhood gang of friends) are being haunted by a creepy-clown ice-cream man that they'd done wrong to. If the child of one of the aforementioned men bites into the "special ice cream" that the creepy clown ice-cream man is selling, their father melts into a puddle of ice cream.

Scariness factor: Not so much. I just kept thinking, seriously: that little ice cream jingle? Moreso irritating than scary.



Gross-Out Factor: The people die by melting into ice cream, so for the most part, not too gross. Though there IS one inexplicable slow-melting-of-flesh scene that could make one a bit squeamish.

Complaints: The movie wasn't terrible, it just wasn't anything amazingly impressive. The acting is fairly cardboard. The plot-line is a little bit weird and farfetched: Did the boys never get punished for killing somebody? Why does no one else seem to notice the ice cream truck that comes in the night accompanied by billowing clouds of smoke? And it just really wasn't that spooky. I tend to think that if YOU as the viewer wouldn't be threatened by the situation if placed in the movie (which, in this case, we wouldn't, since we weren't a member of the boy-gang that killed the ice cream man), it's hard to feel quite so threatened by the events taking place. The worst part, however, of the whole movie was the stupid repetition of the trying-to-be-creepy "I scream, You scream, We all scream for ice cream" jingle.

High Points: The first scene where you realize that the people die by melting into a pool of ice cream was pretty damn sweet--I dug the special fx in it. There were also a few decent campy moments, though pretty few and far between.



Overall: It's a short flick--only 60 minutes--so if you're intrigued by the notion of death-by-ice-cream, then you should check it out. Otherwise, if you don't ever end up seeing it, it won't be too big a loss.

Grade: C

Cloverfield

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Something is happening in NYC, and no one's quite sure what to make of it. A group of friends happen to catch the events on film as they take place.

Scariness factor: It has a few tense moments, but they are fewer and farther between than one might think.

Gross-Out Factor: Minimal.



Complaints: The characters were a bit irritating in the way that characters from The Blair Witch Project also got complained about--I think a lot of it's just the nature of setting up the story as though the characters are the ones filming it. The logic of the movie doesn't make sense at times, at least for a film that's trying to be a fake-documentary-style movie. For example, when four of the characters retreat into a subway station for safety, THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE STATION. Which is *really* goddamn difficult to buy in a city so packed-full of folks: That station would be JAMPACKED with people trying to take cover. So fah on that. The movie's not as high-paced and tense as I'd expected. It sort of is, but sort of isn't. The mystery behind what's going on in the city isn't all that interesting, especially since it's never explained (I couldn't decide whether I *liked* this fact or whether it was a too easy cop-out on the part of the film's writers). And I really had a hard time buying the fact that the video-camera lasted as long as it did, especially through the end of the movie. (I also had a hard time believing that the folks with the video camera would continue to make such a concerted effort to film everything the whole time.) Oh, and the camera-work will easily get you feeling seasick, you may want to take some dramamine before watching.

High Points: The video-camera usage *was* sort of interesting. It lent to the excitement of not seeing EXACTLY what was going on when it was going on, which lent the movie a LITTLE bit of spookiness at least. And I actually liked the framing of the ending of the film. Perhaps it wasn't unexpected, but it was kind of nice.



Overall: I could take or leave this movie. If you *DO* have some urge to see it, it's definitely something you'd want to catch in the theaters though, because I don't think it'll be quite so visually interesting on dvd.

I have also been urged to note that my friend MC (whom I went to see the movie with and who had been looking forward to seeing the movie for weeks) hated the movie to the point of anger, so much so that he very emphatically (and repeatedly) told me that I need to make sure I quote him in all his hatred of the film while reviewing it, that way people can understand what a horrible film it was and avoid it--so I quote:

"My hatred for the movie Cloverfield burns with the passion of a 1,000 suns." -- MC

So there you have it. Two reviews for the price of one.

Grade: C

28 Weeks Later

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: It's 28 weeks later than the 28 days that started it all, and the virus has apparently wiped itself out, with the help of a governmental quarantine of London. As the military struggles to carefully maintain this quarantine, one slip up takes place, wiping all precautions out, and starting a rampage again.



Scariness factor: Not nearly as scary as the original, mostly because there weren't as many intense zombie scenes that left you with your heart in your throat.

Gross-Out Factor: About the same as the original--lots of zombies, people being shot up, gruesome deaths, etc.

Complaints: This movie was really just kind of boring. I *WANTED* to like it, if only for the premise of the dad returning after having left his wife to the zombies without trying to help her escape and then later becoming infected himself and hunting down his own children, but even *that* didn't spice it up enough. Slow-moving and not enough zombies--that's the long and short of it.

High Points: The point at which the virus sweeps through an enclosed place where many survivors have been locked in for quarantine was fairly spooky, but mostly because it just got you thinking how terrible it would be to have nowhere to go to escape it all. Other than that, it was mostly just sort of ho hum. I still don't quite get how some people think this was better than the first--this is a lot more processed and squeaky Hollywoodish.



Overall: Eh. Rent the original, skip the sequel.

Grade: C

Burnt Offerings

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A family decides to rent out a gorgeous house in the middle of the country from a couple of crazy old siblings. They get the rent really cheap, and in turn, they just have to feed the old lady who lives up in the attic. Sounds simple enough. But of course, as soon as they move in, strange things start to take place--the father tries to drown the son, the mom becomes obsessed with the pictures in the house, etc.

Scariness factor: It's very 1970s, and the horror is all very subtle.

Gross-Out Factor: Very low. I think the worst scene is when someone flies out a window.

Complaints: Karen Black. Seriously, for some reason it pains me and disturbs me to stare at her face for more than 2 minutes because her eyes are just WAY too close-set. Case in point:



Truly: it makes me feel dizzy very quickly and then I just want to kick her in the shin. Other than that, I thought the movie was too slow-paced. The first hour or so, nothing really interesting happens. Except maybe the near-drowning. You're just kind of like, um, what am I supposed to be frightened of right now? Oh, and Karen Black. Seriously. Oh, and it seemed like a bit of a rip-off of The Shining (though I just realized that it was made 4 years prior, so I guess it couldn't've been after all)--nonetheless, The Shining is much more well-worth seeing.

High Points: Bette Davis is in it, and she rocks as a bad-ass elderly aunt. She was probably my favorite part of the movie. Other than her, I really thought this movie was kind of boring until about the last 20 minutes or so. The ending is pretty damn creeptastic, though very very 1970s, especially with the freeze-frame moment. The end ALMOST redeemed the rest of it, but seriously: it was really kind of sluggish.



Overall: I could take it or leave it. If you can handle not watching any of a movie except the last 20 minutes, it may be more worth your while.

Grade: C+

The Man With the Screaming Brain

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: Industrialist William Cole happens to be in Bulgaria with his wife on business. She shacks up with a Bulgarian cab driver. He makes eyes with a gypsy. He gets killed by said gypsy, as does the cab driver, and some mad Bulgarian scientists bring him back to life by replacing the damaged portion of his brain with a piece of the cab driver's. His wife is killed by this same bastardy gypsy. She is brought back in the body of a creepy cyborg-esque robot. They both head off to get revenge.

Scariness factor: In the vein of mock B-horror-movie flicks, it's not supposed to be.

Gross-Out Factor: A few knives in stomachs, that's about it.



Complaints: I wasn't as entirely bowled over by this film as I thought I would be. I can't pinpoint precisely why that is, but I think I was just expecting more Campbelly goodness. When he was on, he was on. But most of the time, he wasn't so much. And honestly, if he wasn't in the movie, I probably wouldn't've given it much more than a D.

High Points: I *DO* love Bruce Campbell. He plays such a good asshole. So I'll pretty much watch anything with him in it. And if you like slapsticky, goofbally, B-movie-ish fun, this'll probably do it for ya. But, in all honesty, if you're looking for a newer movie full of campy B-movie goodness, I recommend The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. It is infinitely funnier, and it's kind of what I was expecting when I tossed on The Man With the Screaming Brain.

Overall: Honestly, unless you're a big Bruce Campbell fan or you're just a big dork about slapstick comedy, I doubt that this movie will do much for you.

Grade: C+

(You can also read Patrick's review of The Man With the Screaming Brain HERE)

Eaten Alive

--Reviewed by Lindy Loo

Plotline: A crazy guy with a hatred for whores owns a hotel with an equally blood-thirsty croc that seems to enjoy helping pick off the folks who check in.

Scariness factor: A distant shadow of the creepiness of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Gross-Out Factor: Very 1970s-ish, but yes, you will see a few gross scenes of blades in throats and whatnot.



Complaints: It's hard to watch a Tobe Hooper film without automatically comparing it to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but seriously: though this movie tried really hard to capture the creepy realism of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, it never succeeds. The whole movie is clearly filmed on a set (unlike The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which seems so startlingly real because of all the outdoor scenes). The acting is TERRIBLE--the bad guy seems like the jittery hyperactive brother of the Hitchhiker from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (he has the exact same mannerisms). And although it has some really tense scenes, it doesn't really have anything propelling it forward the way that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre did. No driving force or anything. You're sort of just like, yeah, this is happening, and I am watching it. But do I care? Not so much. I really wanted to like this movie more since it involved an alligator, which seemed kind of fun, but it wasn't really as fun as it seemed.

High Points: The gator scenes will crack your shit up. Marilyn Burns is still perhaps my favorite scream queen. Then again, I may just be partial to her since I met her in real life. *Nostalgic sigh* You get to see Robert Englund (aka. Freddy Krueger) in underpants. And most of all: the score. If nothing else, Tobe Hooper is a master of the creepy horror movie score. There's nothing that even comes close to the music in his movies, all discordant and eerie. Good stuff.



Overall: I was easily distractable throughout this whole movie, which is typically a sign that it's not sucking me in at all. So yeah: If you're a Tobe Hooper fan, of course rent it, just so you can say you saw it. But if you're not, it's not really something to lose sleep over.

Grade: C