BUCKET OF BLOOD (1995)

Roger Corman strikes again, bringing us an updated version of one of his earliest films, A BUCKET OF BLOOD.  This 1995 re-telling features an all-star cast of B-listers, including Anthony Michael Hall, Justine Bateman (forgot how cute she was), and many others.  In terms of horror, it’s a rather slight affair – focusing instead on getting laughs by mocking the self-conciously arty.  But in doing so I have to admit I enjoyed myself – it was short, quick, and entertaining.  Could have used a little more buckets of blood, but otherwise, I can’t complain.

BURNT OFFERINGS

A few years ago I was sitting around in the dark with a friend telling ghost stories.  Some of the best come from haunted house movies, so I immediately launched into stories from some classics like THE INNOCENTS or THE HAUNTING (the original).  My friend brought up a couple tales from BURNT OFFERINGS, tales I found intriguing.  So when I saw BURNT OFFERINGS coming up on cable, I immediately TiVo’d it.  The end result was an occasionally chilling, but mostly silly movie that could have been so much more.

BRAM STOKER'S WAY OF THE VAMPIRE

Remember when BLADE first came out?  Then a couple years later, UNDERWORLD?  It seemed the newest thing was the dark, violent vampire movie that involves sexy young things in leather and latex running around dark, damp alleys slashing each other.  Enter a low-budget, but earnest attempt to capitalize on this trend: BRAM STOKER’S WAY OF THE VAMPIRE.  It’s a relatively bad film, but it tries with such sincerity that I found myself enjoying the 80 minute flick in spite of its clear limitations.  By the way, did Bram Stoker actually write a story this movie is based on?  Yes, it’s called DRACULA, perhaps you’ve heard of it?  This is a movie that takes extreeeeeeme artistic license from that movie.  How extreme?  Listen to this:

NIGHT OF THE DEMONS

A few months ago, I watched NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 2, a witty, gory, entertaining horror film which kept me happily entertained.  Since I was so impressed with that film, I decided to check out the first one.  Big mistake. Even bigger mistake, I had about five guys staying at my place, all looking for some gory entertainment.  What I delivered to them was a slow paced, lame horror movie.

THE RE-ANIMATOR

Many of you have probably already seen this classic horror film.  I, to my great shame, only saw it recently.  I felt it was finally time to rent the damn thing, since I endured through so many e-mails from people exclaiming, "You haven't seen THE RE-ANIMATOR?! And you call yourself a horror fan!?"  Aah, but no more.  Now, I can enter the ranks of the truly demented horror fans who crave for more blood, guts, nudity, and bad dialogue.  All of which, by the way, are found in director Stuart Gordon’s THE RE-ANIMATOR, a film which, even after all the hype, did not disappoint.

HOUSE 4

Let me start with my traditional disclaimer when I see the sequel to movies I’ve never seen: DISCLAIMER: I’ve never seen HOUSE 1-3. HOUSE 4, on the other hand, is a slapped together piece of junk clearly trying to capitalize on the huge following of the first three movies.  Actually, I made that last sentence up, I have no idea whether or not the first three movies had a following – all I know is that hey must have been just profitable enough to justify investment in this crap-a-thon.