Original Release Date:  October 13, 1993 (USA)

Editor’s Note: This film, due to distribution by multiple production companies in different countries, has multiple versions available that different audiences have seen.  The original theatrical cut was trimmed significantly by the production company, coming in at under 90 minutes long, but the cut preferred and created specifically by the film’s director, Richard Stanley, runs at 105 minutes long.  This second version is called “The Final Cut” or “The Director’s Cut,” and for clarity’s sake it’s important to note that this is the version of the film being reviewed here.

Horror movies are often over-the-top and violent. They are often filled with overt sexual imagery. They deal with superstitions or legendary characters coming to life, seeking bloody revenge for some reason or another. And while Richard Stanley’s film Dust Devil deals with all of these things to a certain extent, it does so with an element that most horror films never consider: beauty.

In the film, Robert John Burke portrays the Dust Devil, the embodiment of a South African legend. He is unbridled fury in the shell of a man; he looks like an angrier version of Crocodile Dundee.  Wearing a sun-bleached trenchcoat, a hat decorated with teeth, and leather bags filled with mysterious weaponry and ritualistic tribal implements, the Dust Devil blends in with the world around him while unable to ever truly be a part of it. He is driven to kill those who are suicidal and despondent – those who are “ready to go.” Every murder brings him one step closer to his transformation from a shape-shifting man creature back into an elemental force, the winds of a sandstorm.

If William Congreve was right and Hell truly hath no fury like a woman scorned, then Hell drives a Volkswagen Beetle. Wendy Robinson (Chelsea Field) has about had it with her abusive husband Mark (Rufus Swart). After one closed-fist kiss too many, Wendy, an emotional wreck, takes off across South Africa on a soul-searching mission. Actually, it’s more of a soul spot-check, because very quickly, Wendy is sitting in a bathtub staring intently at a shiny, shiny razor blade. Unwillingly, she has called the Dust Devil to her side.

Detective Ben Mukurob (the criminally underrated Zakes Mokae) is a man caught between two worlds. As a police officer, he is committed to hunting down a serial killer. But his spiritual side keeps poking its nose in where it doesn’t belong. His friend Joe (John Matshikiza), a holy man, warns him that he isn’t hunting a man; he’s hunting a demon, something that cannot be compartmentalized or profiled, something that refuses to be encapsulated on a rap sheet.  The internal battle and the external job collide, leaving Mukurob at his most fragile and most vulnerable.

All of these people are on a path that converges in a ruined town called Bethany, which is slowly being reclaimed by the Namibian desert. It isn’t pleasant. It cannot be happy. And it will not end like you think.

Let’s flense this film and put it through the GASP Factor.

G: General Entertainment – In some ways, Dust Devil would have fit right in with the current wave of revisionist fairy tale movies. It feels like an old tale, a terrible myth brought to screeching life before your eyes. From the moment the Dust Devil walks on screen, he is a commanding presence, something primal wrapped in a veneer of modernity, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The character anchors the film firmly both in the now and in the never, as he should; if you can’t buy Burke as the Dust Devil, you can’t buy the movie at all. I was entranced from the get-go, and although the movie is leisurely paced, it never drags. It moves on the kinetic energy of Burke’s restrained, empathetic performance and Stanley’s incredible direction. 8/10

A: Actuality – One of the things that makes Dust Devil unique, especially among modern horror offerings, is character development. It follows a Blade Runner model (the theatrical version), incorporating a voiceover when necessary to provide back-story while actually showing the growth of the characters within the body of the film. It sounds awkward, but everything flows together quite nicely. It is like having someone read a gorgeous yet chilling picture book aloud to you. You can’t take your eyes off the images and you can’t stop listening. 8/10

S: Story – Dust Devil is story driven. It isn’t an exploitation film, barreling along from nonsense to nonsense to make sure it hits the “one kill for every twelve minutes” ratio.  It’s a mythos, and it resonates with a grandeur not often found in American horror. Dust Devil is inherently South African. There are scenes totally spoken in Afrikaans. Apartheid, which was slowly dying when the film was shot in 1992, rears its snake-like head and wends its way in and throughout the script. These touches lend real world gravity to an essentially otherworldly story. 8/10

P: Presentation – The movie ranges in location from Johannesburg to Bethany to the deserts of Namibia. Everything is covered with a fine sheen of sand; the whole movie looks like an exquisite terra cotta painting. There’s a real sense of agoraphobia here. The wide open spaces seem more threatening than the close dark interiors. Even more terrifying are the times when the outside comes in; sand piles up in drifts inside abandoned buildings, blocking doorways and making movement difficult. In the middle of it all resides the Dust Devil himself, with the power to summon storms and take lives, a barely-contained element himself. It is filthy and beautiful, terrifying and graceful and nothing short of amazing. 10/10

TOTAL SCORE: 8.5/10
VERDICT: AWESOME

Dust Devil is a demanding film. It insists that you be patient. It requires that you let it tell its tale at its own pace. There’s no hyperkinetic editing here, no subliminal storytelling. This is small-scale epic filmmaking, a creepy chamber piece that grasps after greatness and very nearly succeeds. The slow, deliberate pace may throw some viewers off. I can also understand how someone could become lost if they aren’t giving Dust Devil their full attention. This isn’t the movie to watch in a noisy house. It is a movie to be absorbed, savored and, finally, treasured.

Release Date: February 27, 1998

Just what makes a human “human?” That is the question that is posed by the film Dark City. Writer and director Alex Proya, who also directed The Crow and I, Robot, brings us a visually-stunning film set in a noir landscape coupled with elements of mystery, death, strange beings, and a constant nightmare-like state.

John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up to find himself in a room with a murdered woman. Not knowing who he is and what has happened, John spends the rest of the movie attempting to piece together this very important information. On his journey he witnesses the strange ritual of time halting at the stroke of Midnight; when time freezes, beings called “Strangers” come and alter the city and the people that live in it: new lifestyles are given and different personalities are injected into the citizens, entirely wiping their old memories. These experiments continue each night in order for the Strangers, who are in actuality a dying alien race, to learn about humans and their individuality and souls, with the intentions of replicating the process for themselves. During the Midnight hour, everyone falls asleep except John. He seems to be the only person the Strangers cannot control. He soon finds himself able to manipulate things by using a form of psychokinetic powers that the aliens also possess.

Along the way, he discovers that he has a wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly).  Also involved in the plot are Bumstead (William Hurt), and inspector that believes John is the serial killer that is performing grisly murders, and a mysterious Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland), who the Strangers use to participate in the nightly experiments.

Proya produces a wonderfully dark atmosphere, very reminiscent of his work in The Crow, to aid in the creep factor of the film. The mysterious Strangers are aliens using dead humans’ bodies as hosts. Their pale and chalky skin, bald heads, and long black coats and hats go perfectly with the odd clicking noises they make.

Great acting and a complex plot keep the story driven. The classically beautiful Connelly plays Emma, and William Hurt performs the role of Inspector Bumstead with his usual aplomb. Add a dash of strange with Sutherland as the quirky Dr. Schreber, and you have an incredibly well-rounded cast. Perhaps my favorite is Richard O’Brien as one of the Strangers named Mr. Hand, who has a personal interest in Murdoch. O’Brien is of The Rocky Horror Picture Show fame, and fits in great with the morbid ambiance of his character. I admit I kept seeing him singing “The Time Warp” in my head, but all joking aside, his portrayal of the alien was spot-on, and he brought the necessary dread and chill to this particular role.

Bringing us to the score…

G: General Entertainment – Proya gives us a wonderful, vivid, and dark film that kept me pulled in from beginning to end. Like candy for the brain, Dark City pulled all the punches necessary to become what is now a cult classic. Great acting, sets, and effects all made me want more. And did I mention there’s an evil alien-inhabited kid, too? Yeah, it’s got that going for it, also. Lots to love here, folks. 9/10

A: Actuality – There are two sides of this for the film. On one hand, you have the unrealistic part with the aliens using humans in experiments for their prosperity, while on the other hand you have a search for what makes us tick. I believe the search for humanity, for our soul, is one that has been going on for centuries, maybe even since we have existed. Exploring this subject is not new material, which does give it some realism. Humans want to know what makes us the way we are, so it would be understandable that the aliens would want that knowledge, too. 5/10

S: Story – There are many themes in this film, and it was successfully able to house many sub-plots. It wasn’t so complicated that I couldn’t keep up with it, yet it wasn’t so simple that I was bored. A good balance of mystery, love, and terror brought this film to life. I felt for the poor people in this sad city.  9/10

P: Presentation – Proya had the ability to give us what he envisioned in a grand and imaginative way. There is a recurring visual theme of spirals throughout the movie: pay close attention, they can be spotted in many different scenes. The nightly morphing of the landscape, with buildings blossoming and terrain constantly changing, was spectacular. Under the ground where the Strangers would meet as a collective, the idea of one mind controlling everything was conveyed with the giant sculpture of a head that would split open to present a clock that stopped time and, consequently, the humans’ lives. From the gritty, noir feel to the hope found in the memory of sunlight, Proya did a fantastic job on this one. 1o/10

TOTAL SCORE: 8.25/10
VERDICT: AWESOME

A fascinating tale, Dark City was an overall delight. With a satisfying conclusion and a superb cast, I recommend this movie for a Saturday night, stay-at-home, popcorn-filled evening. Enjoy!

Until next time, movie buffs…

The science fiction films of the 1950s and 1960s played into society’s fears at the time, either with musings toward the Cold War or delving into the new territory of atomic energy. The latter of those – atomic energy – proved very fruitful in the eyes of filmmakers, pondering the possible horrific side effects of exposure to radiation. Thanks to those writers and directors, today we have such classic monsters as Godzilla, the Amazing Colossal Man, giant leeches, giant gila monsters, giant grasshoppers – you name it, someone probably made a film featuring a giant version of it.

Every once in a while, though, something a little… questionable managed to make its way to the big screen, such as actor/writer/director Coleman Francis’ entry into the atomic monster genre: The Beast of Yucca Flats.

Russian scientist Joseph Javorsky has defected to the United States, carrying with him a briefcase full of secret documents that he hopes to pass on to the Americans. Traveling through the Nevada desert, he runs into two Russian agents determined to bring the briefcase back to the motherland – with or without Javorsky. After a short car chase, Javorsky flees from the car during a shootout between the Americans and the Russians, walking as fast as he can into the desert. He unknowingly walks into an atomic bomb test, transforming him forever into a vicious killing machine.

It’s actually not a bad premise for a film. And Francis hired Tor Johnson (of Plan 9 from Outer Space infamy) to play the title character. But let’s see what the Factor has to say about this one.

G: General Entertainment – With some movies, being poorly made can sometimes be a good thing, turning them in to cult or camp classics, such as the aforementioned Plan 9. Too bad The Beast of Yucca Flats doesn’t fare so well. I stared at the screen in amazement for the entire film film, wondering how, or rather why, it ever became a reality.  1/10

A: Actuality – Not even close to being believable. The actors stop and start as if directions are being shouted at them from off-screen. The majority of the dialogue is dubbed, and even then, the voice actors sound bored. The setting is hard to be believed: the atomic testing site is incredibly close to the highway as well as the town, and the townsfolk run amok through the test site without any adverse effects. Nothing seems to have been impacted by the radiation – even the little unscripted jackrabbit that wanders through the test site at the end of the film seems unaffected. 1/10

S: Story – What starts as a promising premise becomes muddled very quickly with nonsensical scenes, such as the opening sequence featuring a woman in a motel room being strangled that doesn’t fit anywhere within the timeline of the story. A general lack of cohesiveness and interest spells doom for the film. 1/10

P: Presentation – The film is narrated, which wouldn’t be too bad if this were a documentary.  Unfortunately, the dialogue we’re forced to sit through is hackneyed and stunningly bad. For example, as a car drives down the road, the narrator says: “Flag on the moon. Where did it come from?” I almost shouted at my TV screen, “What the Hell does that have to do with the movie?” Thank goodness no one else was home with me at the time. And poor Tor Johnson as the Beast, with nothing more than a torn shirt and some prosthetic or latex pieces glued to his face – it’s sad, rather than scary, to watch. 1/10

TOTAL SCORE: 1/10
VERDICT: WHYGODWHY

The Beast of Yucca Flats is considered one of the worst films ever made, and after sitting through all 54 minutes of it, I can understand why. Bored characters, absurd scenes, almost entirely dubbed dialogue, gratuitous semi-nude females, and a Beast that wasn’t all that beastly – it should serve as a lesson on how not to make a film.

The invitation comes in the mail.

The envelope from which you pull it has gold confetti and has some kind of a light, perfumed aroma emanating from it. The invitation itself is made of the finest paper and, if you didn’t know better, you could swear it was a satin surface, it’s so smooth to the touch. Bright bold streams of ink pop brilliantly, crying out to you. Welcome! We’d love to have you join us for our party!

It’s warm, inviting, and you have to admit to yourself that you’re curious about going. The menu boasts of seafood, beef, and vegetarian dishes. Just thinking about it makes your mind up for you: yes, you’re going. The day arrives. You dress your best and arrive on the doorstep with a bottle of chilled wine under your arm, ready to meet the rest of the guests. The door opens and… you’re met with a shotgun barrel aimed between your eyes. The party is over.

In Starman, our alien hero picks up broadcasted information inviting him to swing by Earth and check us out. So he does what any curious bystander would do when greeted so warmly: he drops by for a visit, only to be shot down upon arrival and have his craft crash in a secluded area, darn close to the middle of nowhere. How rude!

Concerned and looking for a place to hide, he takes on the human form of a recently deceased husband named “Scott,” with the intention of rendezvousing with his rescue ship in Arizona. He doesn’t expect that the three days that it takes to get there will be met with so much hostility along the way from the humans who invited him. Or that he will find a loving human companion within Jenny, the woman that he has forced to travel with him to get him back home.

It’s hard to believe that Starman – starring Jeff Bridges, Karen Allen, and Charles Martin Scott, and directed by John Carpenter – was made simply because The Thing (1982) had been such a colossal flop in the box office years before. (GASP! What were the people in 1982 thinking?) The urge to make something that was much different than The Thing resulted in another great hit from John Carpenter, which in turn was great for the movie-going public.

Here’s the score for the movie that might not have been if the people of 1982 had been more supportive (is this a good or a bad thing? You decide):

G: General Entertainment – There is dust on this baby, that you can tell from the watching of it, but it doesn’t detract from the fun of the movie. If you’re seeing it for the first time, it might be a rough introduction to the film, but for many people like me, who first viewed it when they were younger and are watching it again for the first time in years, it’s a blast from the past filled with humor and cuteness that’s hard to deny. And you get to see a younger Jeff Bridges (for real, before the CGI anti-aging of 2010’s Tron: Legacy). Great fun. Classic movie. 8/10

A: Actuality – I can think of plenty of times that human beings have intentionally hurt others in misinterpretation or miscommunication. It’s not unreasonable that this kind of story line could happen. Are we alone in the Universe? How would the government react to an alien species coming to check us out under innocent pretenses? Things gets a little iffy for the viewer when we start thinking that an alien species can replicate a human body right down to his reproductive organs for a particularly non-surprise ending of the movie, but hey… Jeff Bridges is one handsome man. I’ll let the alien sex slide. 8/10

S: Story – You can’t expect this movie to be as action-packed as the films we see today, but the plot is ageless. Certainly, there are parts of the movie that don’t flow as well as they once did, some of the effects are dated, and the acting is a little goofy by today’s standards… but Starman helped pave the road to what movies look like today, and I can’t find fault in too much about this movie or the story. It is still fun after all this time. 8/10

P: Presentation – Okay, am I the only one who giggled and then outright laughed like a weirdo at the “birth” of our alien hero into “Scott the human?” Holy moly. I’m not sure if, at one time, it was meant to be a scary or cute baby-to-man morph scene, but I swear that, at some point during the scene, I saw Kuato from Total Recall taking shape there for a minute. He’s not the only one asking you to “open your mind…” when you see the special effects used here. Truly horrifying and gut-bustingly funny at the same time. 7/10

TOTAL SCORE: 7.75/10
VERDICT: AWESOME

The movie is the kind that, on some rainy afternoon, you need to sit down and give it a watch. It’s silly, fun, and oddly tender when it needs to be. In 2010 there was some Internet buzz circling that Jeff Bridges was interested in making a modern day sequel to Starman to answer the way things were left back then. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone picks up the ball and runs with it. At the date of this review, there are no serious rumors going on surrounding the idea. It remains just Internet chatter for the time being.

Original Release Date: February 7, 1967 (USA)

With the specter of nuclear warfare firmly in our cultural rear-view mirror, it might be tempting to view 1965’s The War Game as a quaint reminder of a long-lost horrible chapter in civilization’s history. After all, several generations have grown up in this country without that near-constant threat; air raid drills and “Duck and Cover” are little more than stories told by our parents or grandparents, usually with a chuckle at how absurd the exercises seem in today’s world.

It’s tempting to try to compare The War Game with “Duck and Cover.” The latter has become something of a laughingstock, cultural shorthand for well-intentioned but useless propaganda designed less to inform the public than to pacify them (whether this reputation is deserved is up for debate; my point is simply that the film is perceived that way today). The War Game might be best described as “speculative documentary.” Even though (spoiler alert!) England has never been the victim of a nuclear attack, The War Game tells a chilling story of a hypothetical nuclear attack against Rochester, Kent, a city on England’s southeast coast, while also mixing in contemporary interviews with average British citizens and experts on nuclear arms.

Created for the BBC in 1965, The War Games was banned from broadcast because of its frank and often disturbing depictions of the effects of nuclear war. Thanks to a loophole in British decency law, it saw distribution in movie theaters and was widely lauded for its realism; it won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 1966, despite not being based on any real event. Think about that – this movie was so compelling and its subject matter so important that its fake story was considered better than four other real stories.

G: General Entertainment – It’s hard to “enjoy” in any traditional sense a story of widespread death and devastation. Instead, The War Game grabs its audience with what at the time was a very real threat and takes us on a journey to explore the vast horrors of nuclear warfare. It’s an extremely blunt subject, but the narrative develops slowly and allows the stark truths of nuclear warfare to sink in rather than bludgeoning the viewer all at once. 8/10

A: Actuality – I can’t speak intelligently about the exact science of a nuclear event, but both the immediate impact and the lingering effects of fallout seem to be authentic and well-researched, which makes the whole thing that much more horrifying. The scenes exploring the breakdown of polite society in the months after the attack are just as compelling as the descriptions of the initial nuclear event. This movie isn’t “science fiction;” it’s more appropriate to call it “science probably.” 10/10

S: Story – Surprisingly, there is a narrative here. The main story of the bombing of Kent introduces characters, albeit briefly, and takes us logically through society’s progressive collapse until we see British soldiers reluctantly but dutifully executing citizens for stealing food. Unfortunately, the newsreel-style presentation means that more of the story is told through narration rather than shown. 7/10

P: Presentation – The movie is in black and white, which could be either an artistic decision or a technical limitation, but the lack of color doesn’t seem to detract from the experience in any way. The special effects are either makeup to (convincingly) simulate the physical scarring from radiation injuries or camera effects to (unconvincingly) simulate the glow of a nuclear blast. Still, the actors involved play their parts very well and the power of the message is enough to see us through some of the less artful effects. 7/10

TOTAL SCORE: 8/10
VERDICT: AWESOME

The War Game is more important than it is purely enjoyable. There’s a level of fear throughout the contemporary interviews that chillingly illustrates the tension of the Cold War, and the central narrative seems geared to remind the audience that the average citizen was entirely powerless against the force of such awesome and destructive weapons. Even several generations removed from the threat of nuclear war, the hypothetical scenes of destruction and devastation carry plenty of weight.

Release Date: June 1977

The hard thing about writing a review for a movie called Satan’s Cheerleaders is that the title pretty much is the movie’s own review. If a movie with that lurid of a title is something that appeals to you, you’re probably going to like it quite a bit. If the title, Satan’s Cheerleaders, offends your delicate film sensibilities, there’s no reason for you to watch the movie. The title is the litmus test. If you can make it past that, you’re going to have a good time. And really, what’s not to love here? You’ve got nubiles, horrible music and Satanists in the same movie. It’s a win-win situation, as far as I’m concerned.

The cheerleaders of Benedict High are practicing on the beach in bikinis (like you do).  Their coach, Ms. Johnson (Jacqulin Cole), wonders how the girls have learned such bawdy cheers. It wasn’t like that back in her day. Oh no! Here comes the rival cheerleading squad from Baker High. And while immediate wishes for bikini catfights don’t come true, we do get a game of chicken, which Benedict High wins. Oh no! The football team is here, too! Now there are cheerleaders getting shagged in the tall beach grass while responsible adults look on helplessly and a horrible disco song (“Push ‘em back! Push ‘em back! Waaaay back!”) plays endlessly in the background.

All the kids think Billy the custodian (Jack Kruschen) is a tad creepy. He does stammer quite a bit. He wears an amazing leisure suit that appears to be made of an American flag. He also tends to give the girls the hairy eye as they walk by. Billy has a convenient hole in the wall where he can watch the cheerleaders take showers, which, to be fair, may be part of his job description. But what no one realizes is that Billy is a powerful Satanist! He steals into the girls’ locker room, whips out his pentagram and waves it over one of the girls’ cheerleading uniforms. He utters a powerful Satanic spell, guaranteed to score him some high-school tail. When you really want to score chicks, let Satan be your wingman.

On the way to the football game, the cheerleaders and their coach have car problems. Who happens to be right there to rescue them but Billy, the custodian! He herds the girls into the back of his truck, slams the tailgate and hightails it up a dirt road. That’s not the way to the football game; it’s the way to a lovely outdoor stone altar. Sacrifices have to be made, and it looks like this time, that sacrifice is a cheerleader. But as hot blonde cheerleader Patti (Kerry Sherman), under the spell of Billy via her uniform (with the pentagram, remember?) strips and climbs onto the altar, our evil custodian gets a major surprise. Satan decides to take Patti for himself! Billy feels so betrayed, he coughs until he chokes out. Patti puts her clothes back on and she and the other girls make their way into town.

Find the sheriff! Find the sheriff! So reason the girls who have obviously never seen a horror movie before. They certainly find him and his name, kids, is B.L. Bubb. This is not a good sign! The sheriff’s beautiful wife, Emmy (Yvonne DeCarlo), hides a Satanic shrine behind a curtain. Is it really a spoiler to let you know that Sheriff Bubb and his wife are the High Priest and Priestess of the Devil Cult that Billy the janitor was a member of? No. It’s not.  HIS NAME IS B.L. BUBB. That fact couldn’t have been telegraphed more if the filmmakers had used a Marconi device. The girls try to escape, but the cultists are hot on their heels. Patti, having been given the Dark Seed previously, has a couple of secrets up her sleeve…

O Dark Lord, let us place this, thy film, into the GASP Factor, for thy glory!

G: General Entertainment – This movie is nothing but entertaining. That is precisely what it was engineered to do. Did you really expect Satan’s Cheerleaders to provide a deep hard look at the foibles of society or the perceived class war in modern-day America? Of course not. It’s boobs, evil mumbo-jumbo and, uh, some more boobs. 7/10

A: Actuality – There are some glaring errors in the film, as far as the spirituality aspect goes. I don’t know why there’s an eyeball In the center of the pentacles of the Satan worshipers. I don’t know why the pentacles aren’t upside-down, as any Satanist or 80’s metal band member will tell you they should be. I don’t know why their Satanic incantations end with the phrase “Blessed be,” which is used as a universal blessing by Wiccans and Pagans everywhere. Research for the screenplay is sketchy at best, but that lack of actual knowledge manages to add to the movie’s goofy charm. The filmmakers didn’t know what they were doing making the movie and I don’t know what I was doing watching it. 5/10

S: Story – Satan’s Cheerleaders is wonderfully silly, to the point of being debauched and decadent. There’s certainly nothing morally redeeming about the movie, yet through the eyes of the modern viewer, there’s a delightful innocence about it. It’s not the forced pseudo-1950s innocence of a fraudulent film like Porky’s, which pretends not to be softcore porn while actually being that, and on the basest level. It’s an ignorant lack of self-awareness that makes Satan’s Cheerleaders so appealing. It doesn’t know it is garbage, and that only increases its charm. 6/10

P: Presentation – All of the effects in Satan’s Cheerleaders were achieved with a wind machine and polarizing the film with a red hue. There’s nary a drop of blood to be seen. Beyond that, it plays out like your basic ‘70s filler program on a drive-in double bill. There’s nothing fantastic visually besides the cheerleaders and Billy’s flag leisure suit. It’s put together in a watchable, workmanlike fashion, like the competent drumwork of Don Brewer. 5/10

TOTAL SCORE: 5.75/10
VERDICT: GOOD

A prime example of ‘70s genre-mashing at its finest, Satan’s Cheerleaders is a light-hearted and lightweight piece of fluff, filled with horrible dialogue, terrible religious practices and some of the worst music this side of the Sylvers. But it isn’t pretentious enough to be self-referential, which would have destroyed any of the fun to be derived from the slightness of the script. Truly one of the last of its kind, Satan’s Cheerleaders is an excellent way to cleanse your movie-watching palate before moving on to something more serious (which could literally be almost anything else). Blessed be.

A Jacob’s Ladder is most commonly known as a ladder that descends from the heavens, as seen in the biblical Jacob’s dream. In Jacob’s Ladder, writer Bruce Joel Rubin uses the imagery and meaning behind the phenomena to present a film not only about the Vietnam War but also about the journey of death itself. What happens in that moment of death? Here is one take on that.

The film opens with a scene from Vietnam. There is a group of soldiers that are obviously pretty close to one another, joking around. Quickly they are ambushed, and at the same time some of the soldiers begin to act strange. A tense moment follows with some of them falling down, grasping their heads, foaming at the mouth, and displaying various other symptoms. The protagonist, Jacob Singer (played by the talented Tim Robbins), is shown taking a bayonet in the abdomen.

The scene quickly cuts to him asleep on a subway, wearing a postal uniform. The dark, ominous tone is set in the movie in these first few scenes. There are many oddities and unexplained phenomena that Jacob experiences. We are taken on a journey to see what has become of his life: he has left his wife and children, and now lives with a woman named Jezzie. She is a beautiful, complex character played wonderfully by Elizabeth Pena. She is cold and insensitive to the fact that Jacob has children, one of whom died before Jacob went to war. Jacob’s dead son, Gabe (a very young Macauley Culkin who wasn’t even included in the credits), plays a pivotal role throughout the movie.

Jacob suffers through many different scenarios. He has visions of demons, and distorted people whose heads move impossibly fast. The old group of soldiers, who are still close friends, are brought back together when one of their own, Paul (Pruitt Taylor Vince), dies, but not before revealing to Jacob that he has also been seeing demons. The men briefly attempt to make a legal case against the government for wrongdoings, but it quickly falls apart. Meanwhile, Jacob’s visions are getting worse.

One memorable scene involves Jacob and Jezzie going to a party. At the party, he stumbles into having his palm read and receives a cryptic message. Afterward, he goes to look for Jezzie and finds her on the dance floor. She dances with him briefly, and when he declines to dance more, she joins another man. As Jacob looks on, they start to move more sensually to the beat of the song. Quickly it turns into what seems to be sex on the dance floor, but the clincher is that the man begins to morph into some beast with wings. They continue to dance, writhing against each other, until it becomes apparent that Jezzie is having sex with some type of creature. The scene ends with a horn exploding through her mouth, and Jacob fainting.

A man who claims to have been a chemist working for the government during the Vietnam War approaches Jacob. He explains that they were testing a drug that would increase aggression in the soldiers, named “The Ladder”, and that Jacob’s battalion had been secretly receiving it. The significance of the drug name is that it supposedly took you on “a fast trip straight down the ladder, right to the primal fear, right to the base anger.” This also gives double meanings to the title of the movie.

The most unsettling scenes come when director Adrian Lyne employs a technique in which the actor would wave his head around while they were filmed at a low frame rate. This allowed for the illusion of the actors head moving very quickly, causing it to blur.  The technique was known for its later influence on the “Silent Hill” video game and film franchise.

Let’s give it a score, shall we…

G: General Entertainment – Jacob’s Ladder is a deep, thought-provoking film more about the human condition than it is a war movie. The audience can find themselves relating to Jacob, at times, during his grief, and also entering areas they’ve never allowed themselves to go. Visually pleasing and excellently acted, the film holds our attention from the beginning to the end with ease. We want to know what is going to happen next to our hero, Jacob. 9/10

A: Actuality – The Vietnam War was real. The soldiers who fought in it came back with memories and physical hardships that were tangible and damaging. In the film, the use of the drug, “The Ladder,” brought to mind a parallel between the government’s use of Agent Orange in this era and its subsequent effects on our soldiers. Embellished, of course, but the premise here is similar. Jacob’s grieving from his loss of a child is, unfortunately, a very real aspect to life. His delusions and his visions are things he owns, and as such cannot be disputed or validated. 7/10

S: Story – Following Jacob, the audience can feel the atrocities that he endures repeatedly throughout the film. There is a human edge to the story that is able to stir emotions within us. Because of this, it is easy to become invested in the film. Rubin uses his talents to brilliantly unfold this delicate and layered storyline. 9/10

P: Presentation – Lyne utilized groundbreaking techniques and raw viscera to bring us the edgy film we see today. Although it was made some twenty years ago, it stands the test of time with honor. Jacob’s demons both entrance and terrify us. One visually stunning scene is the one in the hospital, as Jacob is being wheeled on a gurney. This scene alone displays Lyne’s true talent and form as a director. 9/10

TOTAL SCORE: 8.5/10
VERDICT: AWESOME

Join one man’s journey through his own nightmares, and see for yourself: do his demons resemble yours?

Until we meet again, horror fans.

The 1950s was a banner decade for B-movie creature features, and many of the best of those sprouted from the appearance of a new form of power – nuclear energy. Scores of movies centered on mutations caused by too much radiation flooded the movie theaters, providing the masses with a variety of mutated creatures such as giant gila monsters, giant tarantulas, giant shrews, and even an incredible shrinking man. Only a few of these films made their way into the realm of pop culture icons. Those that didn’t either made their way to cult status or faded into the annals of movie history.

The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues falls into the latter set of films. Released in December 1955, the movie tells the story of Dr. Ted Stevens, a world-renowned oceanographer, hired by the US Government to investigate a rash of mysterious deaths along the Northern California coast. Each of the bodies was covered with burns, and upon a brief examination of one such body washed up on the beach, Dr. Stevens attributes them to radiation of some kind.

Joining forces with an agent from the Department of Defense, Dr. Stevens questions the only person in the area likely to know what’s going on – Professor King from the local university. With the professor dodging questions about what he knows of the bodies, Stevens discovers a deposit of uranium just off the coast, guarded by a fearsome, mutant creature. They soon learn that the professor has known about the uranium for some time, even conducting experiments on the local sea life to determine the effects of radiation.

What none of them realize is that another party is also interested in the uranium deposit, hoping to sell it as a weapon to some interested buyers. Soon, it’s a race against time to destroy both the uranium before it falls into the wrong hands, as well as the creature before more beachgoers wind up dead.

Let’s run The Phantom through the Factor and see whether this film swims away into a beautiful sunset or floats belly-up.

G: General Entertainment – Science run amok, nuclear weapons and a mutated sea creature – this has the makings for a perfect B-movie, yet it somehow failed to hold my interest. I found myself laughing at the so-called Phantom and scratching my head at the actions of the characters. It felt more like a group of friends got together one day and said, “Hey! Let’s make a movie!” But I have seen worse. 4/10

A: Actuality – For a mutant creature film, the creature itself doesn’t get much screen time. This might be a good thing, as the Phantom looks more like a man in a bulky lizard costume rather than a creature from the depths of the ocean. The eyes don’t move or blink, it walks along the ocean floor rather than glide through the water, and I think I even spotted human hands sprouting from the claws. As for the human characters, they all seem like actors reading lines, marking their spots, reading more lines and so on, which is a bit boring. 3/10

S: Story – The story has some holes in it, such as why is the Phantom the only creature affected by the uranium or who Professor King’s secretary’s son was (it’s her motivation for wanting to put an end to King’s work), or why the actors run around the sand in dress shoes and high heels. The biggest flaw, though, is in the title: 10,000 leagues. That equals roughly 30,000 miles so where did this Phantom come from if the uranium deposit isn’t too far off the coast? (And as a personal side note, the move takes place during the summer break at the nearby university yet the beach is deserted. Where are all the sunbathers?) 2/10

P: Presentation – Not much in the way of special effects for this sci-fi/horror film. Well, except for a ship of some kind that explodes within the harbor when it comes too close to the uranium, and the other explosion that destroys the Phantom. 4/10

TOTAL SCORE: 3.25/10
VERDICT: IFFY

One of the taglines for The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues was: “Freezing horror! Hideous atomic mutant strikes from the depths!” Sadly, the laughable so-called Phantom and lackluster performances are far from horrific. And I’m still not quite certain where the freezing comes into play.

Released: November 21, 1984

There is something timeless about the Superman movies that starred Christopher Reeve. To this day, I can watch them and still appreciate them for an entertaining performance. It was more than just his handsome face – Reeve had that “Clark Kent” believable charisma down solid and was able to switch between the dual roles easily, even if the viewer can’t help but say “how can they not know he is Superman? Some reporters they are…”

The reason I’ve sidetracked, given that the title of this review is of Supergirl and not Superman, is because of the huge contrast between these two movies, spun from the same cloth, but not of the same quality at all. Both the characters of Kal-El and Kara are alien human beings from another planet. They are both extremely attractive, powerful, and eager to help the human race when they aren’t using hidden identities to blend in. But what they both are not are timeless, good movies. Superman is, but Supergirl is not.

When young and naïve Kara Sol-El uses a powerful alien tool called the Omegahedron and causes an accident, her home planet’s destruction is set in motion. Hoping to save the planet and fix her terrible mistake, she climbs aboard an interstellar flight ship capable of following the Omegahedron’s funnel through space and time. Determined to get the job done and return home, she assumes the secret identity of Linda Lee to aid her search on Earth. While on our planet, she matches wits against Selena, a human woman with the desire to be a supernatural powerhouse. If Kara can get the Omegahedron back, she can save her planet. But if she falls into Selena’s trap, she may never see her home again.

I’ll be honest, I love the idea of Supergirl. I truly enjoy seeing a strong female character in film and television cleaning clocks. Buffy & Faith (the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series), Alice (Resident Evil), Mystique (X-Men), Raven (the Teen Titans TV series), Selene (Underworld), V.I. Warshawski (Kathleen Turner)…you name it and as long as I can relate, I probably like it. I like Bloodrayne because she kicks massive posterior in the video game, but in the movie representation…not so much (though Bloodrayne 2 came much closer to my expectations). So for me, it’s not just about girls with attitudes kicking butt. I do have to enjoy the performance, the believability, of the actor, too.  Supergirl just didn’t fit that bill for me.

Here’s how it stacked up for me:

G: General Entertainment – Do you see the cover art to the movie? That’s a beautiful blonde in a great costume. What isn’t entertaining or inspiring about that? If you aren’t attracted to her, you want to be her (in essence). There is nothing about that image which isn’t entertaining. Whether it’s watching her trying to fit in as her alter ego Linda Lee or watching Selena try to fulfill her crazy little plans, it is fun in those regards. It’s a movie that manages to have some fun along the way while telling its story. 7/10

A: Actuality – Obviously the whole movie is pretty far-fetched. Is it something that you can relate to? Maybe in some places, but mostly it’s not something that can win awards on realism. Unless you’re a beautiful flying alien from space. And there are so many of those around, right? Hey you, I see you in the corner, trying to be one. It’s not working, sorry. It’s not that you’re not beautiful, I just think you’re lying about being an alien from outer space. Unless you are. Which in that case…um, never mind. 4/10

S: Story – The narrative felt displaced and forced, in my opinion. Her instantaneous costume apparition felt a little like the movie said “let’s skip to the good stuff already, who cares how she does it?” It becomes apparent later that she can just envision herself a dye job and materialize clothes, but that’s never something Clark has been able to do. Why can Kara? And her flighty and silly introduction to earth went on too long. I got up from the chair to get a soda and when I came back, she was still flying around like she was Tinkerbell. “Ohhhh, ahhhh.” Stop and smell the flowers a little less, will ya? While there is realism in being enamored by boundless beauty – especially when she had so little of that on her home planet – the whole scene was too purposefully theatrical in nature. It’s not a ballet and it didn’t seem genuine. She also seemed to have a lot of details about her cousin Kal-El (Superman) and other Earth-specific things that I felt really wasn’t earned by the time those details came up.  3/10

P: Presentation – While I thought they cast Selena (Faye Dunaway) and Kara (Helen Slater) well, I was not overly fond of the movie as a whole, especially on recent re-watchings. I did, however, smile at a few of the cameos, specifically upon seeing Matt Frewer as one of Supergirl’s human antagonists and I catching Peter O’Toole in his mad little role. But nearly the whole pace and plot of the movie just felt rushed. Whether it was due to poor editing or because they pushed the movie into theaters quickly in order to cash in on the popularity of Superman, something just felt out of whack throughout the film. I feel that it needed some more screen time to develop. 4/10

TOTAL SCORE: 4.5/10
VERDICT: IFFY

On the whole, I liked Supergirl for the memories it stirred up and the “ideal” of the movie, but didn’t enjoy watching it like I used to when I was younger. That’s a bummer for me, since I went in to recent viewings expecting to be pleased. In fact, I wouldn’t mind a Supergirl reboot from Hollywood. Let’s bring on new film versions of Wonder Woman, Supergirl, and Red Sonja. I’m ready for some more ladies packing impressive punches.

Ultimately, I think Supergirl can still appeal to a younger crowd who enjoys superhero movies, but for adults who have seen better action films, they may not be impressed.

See you next time.

Original Release Date: October 25, 2005

The winter holidays are hard enough for horror fans, with all that peace and joy floating around like so much sugar plum fairy dust. It is the time for pretentious award-winning films, usually heartwarming dramas about dysfunctional families or extraordinary animals. Ugh. Surely there must be some movie that the fear-loving family can watch together and still have some semblance of Christmas spirit? And while my first thought is The Polar Express, that’s just because I’m terrified of Tom Hanks. Seeing thousands of animated Tom Hankses prancing about a golden train serving hot chocolate to creepy, fat motion-captured children is enough to set me to shivering.

Let me gently direct you to the slick piece of weirdness known as Santa’s Slay, a wonderfully off-kilter look at Father Christmas. There’s enough feel-good sentimentality to keep the Christmas lovers happy while the gore-hounds can delight to the sight of Fran Drescher with her hair on fire. Actually, there are probably lots of seemingly normal people who would like to see Fran Drescher with her hair on fire.

About 1,000 years ago, Christmas was much different than it is now. It used to be known as “The Day of Slaying,” and it was the day when the son of Satan roamed the Earth, killing everyone he came into contact with. One year, the hellspawn was challenged to a curling competition by an angel. Satan-Boy loses and has to keep up his end of the bet: for 1,000 years, he has to be Santa Claus, spreading joy and love, giving presents to all the good boys and girls, the whole shebang. Well, the 1,000 years is over, and Santa has some pent-up rage he wants to let out. He flies his sleigh into the charming burg of Hell’s Township and begins his rampage of blood.

Going against Evil Santa is teenager Nicholas Yuleson (Douglas Smith), his bordering-on-dementia grandfather (Robert Culp) and the girl Nicholas is too shy to ask out (Emilie de Ravin). Grandfather seems to know everything about Christmas, to the point of possessing the ancient “Book of Claus,” a kind of Santa-nomicon that explains why Santa has stopped being jolly and started being stabby.

Let’s strip the tinsel off this flick and run it through the Factor.

G: General Entertainment – Santa’s Slay is not one of those dark Christmas movies like SInt or Rare Exports. It’s bright and colorful, like the holiday itself, which only adds to the fun. The movie is instantly engaging, with a bloody and funny prologue that sets the rest of the movie up beautifully.  After that, it just rolls like a snowball going downhill, fast paced and crazy. The cast is likable, but watching professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as the homicidal Santa is sheer pleasure. He’s obviously having fun, relishing the heel turn he never had when he was wrestling, and it’s fun to watch him cheese his way through the part. 7/10

A: Actuality – It’s kind of hard to talk about actuality when the main character of a movie is someone we’ve been told doesn’t exist since we were children. And all the traditional Christmas trimmings are present in Santa’s Slay, from the flying reindeer to the lumps of coal. The whole thing lives or dies on the strength of the cast and how well they get the whole concept over. I looked at the movie with the eyes of my twisted inner child. It worked for me. 6/10

S: Story – This movie is inherently ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean it is stupid. The script is fairly intelligent, poking fun at the old-school horror trope of terror coming to a small town and no one believes it but the youngsters. Sly references to famous action movies – like The Terminator, just to name one – abound. So do the cheesy jokes. There are a few groaners in here to be sure, but points for a Christmas movie that doesn’t take itself so seriously, that doesn’t believe it has an obligation to make people cry or believe in the goodness of humanity. Santa’s Slay wants you to laugh, cringe and have a good time. 6/10

P: Presentation – Earlier, I referred to this movie as “slick.” And it is: no shaky-cam, no sequences tinted blue, none of the things modern horror audiences tend to associate with modern horror. This may be a turn-off for some people who like things dingy. The film is total Hollywood in its packaging, but don’t we expect Christmas movies to be bright and jangly, like a present? Well, I do, you Scrooge-ish snob, so lighten up and quit looking for auteur work. It’s Christmas. 7/10

TOTAL SCORE: 6.5/10
VERDICT: GOOD

There are plenty of reasons for Santa’s Slay to grow in prominence and become a yearly holiday tradition. Goldberg’s barking mad portrayal of Santa, the cheerful way it dispatches its victims, and the complete and utter absence of Tom Hanks all help to make this one of my family’s favorite holiday films. Sweet without being sticky, weird without being pretentious, Santa’s Slay is worth a look.