Tag Non-Slasher Psychos

Shuttle (2008)

Shuttle (2008)

Never ride with a stranger.

Mel and Jules are two young women who return home late at night from a holiday and take a shuttle bus back from the airport along with a couple of young men who have been flirting with them and another older male passenger. The journey seems fine at first but when the driver begins to take them through deserted back streets, they realise that something is up.


If you can handle the silly notion of a single man simultaneously driving a shuttle bus whilst managing to keep five other people hostage without cuffing them to the seats, then you may enjoy Shuttle. The film has received a lot of negative reviews, scathing in fact. It clearly dresses itself up as ‘torture porn on a shuttle bus’ so with the sight of two hot chicks and a sinister-looking driver, you’d be expecting the film to go off in all manner of depraved routes. It doesn’t though and I guess this is what is upsetting a few people. It helps to view the film as more of a thriller with horror elements. Although this doesn’t make the film any more engaging or entertaining, at least your expectations will be lowered so you won’t be as disappointed.

Let me state one thing – the film is based around one daft premise and it milks it for every single penny. Most of the film is set aboard the shuttle bus so get used to it. It’s not the most interesting place to set a film and it soon seems stale. The film also becomes quite repetitive once the driver has revealed his intentions as the characters make continuous efforts to escape, all of which fail, backfire horribly or result in one less hostage. The script seems pretty messy for the majority of the film as the driver forces the passengers to complete weird tasks. A lot of things don’t make sense or have a purpose but after a while a picture begins to emerge and the whole big reveal at the end about what the driver really wants makes everything clear. Reality seems to go out of the window as the script clearly forgets where the film is being set – aboard a small shuttle bus! Sometimes the people inside act like they’re on a plane and the film’s concepts of physics and chemistry have a lot to be desired at times.

It’s got an awesome ending though. I won’t give too much away but rest assured it’s not the nicey-nice ending we’re all so used to. Highly original, extremely downbeat and like a sucker punch to the gut, I’m surprised that it got the green light as a lot of studios like to make sure the audience are happy when the film finishes. When films finish with strong, unexpected endings like this, I always give them an extra half star. It makes the rest of the film make so much more sense and also worth sitting through. You actually appreciate that the film, whilst painstakingly slow at times, was building itself up to this final reveal.

The characters aren’t particularly well written. The two young men seem to have walked off the set of a teen comedy such is their one-dimensional attitude to sex and life. The driver seems to have come off the set of a Terminator flick as he takes a lot of damage but like all clichéd villains, seems indestructible and keeps on coming. At least there are attempts to give him some humanity towards the end of the film so that he isn’t just a psycho. Tony Curran is menacing enough in the role but as I stated earlier, quite seriously how you’ll be able to take him holding these people hostage when he’s driving remains to be seen.

As for the females, well the characters are poorly written, managing to turn the tables around on their captor but not killing him when they have the chance. I guess there wouldn’t have been a story if they did but it’s extremely annoying and frustrating. Scripts need to find ways to avoid this pitfall but it’s an easy copout for the writers to have the hero/heroine be unable to take a life. Peyton List looks like she could be one to watch for future though as she brings the right amount of attitude, sympathy and basically looks hot enough to care about.


Shuttle is a serviceable horror-thriller with a killer ending which will leave you reeling and make the rest of film make sense. It’s not the greatest film out there and there’s a ton of things wrong with it but this is one bus journey worth getting on….just don’t be prepared to go to the destination you expect to!





How to Make a Monster (1958)

How to Make a Monster (1958)

See the Ghastly Ghouls in Flaming Color!

Acclaimed monster make-up man Pete Dumond has worked for American International Film Studios for years and loves creating new monsters to scare people. But he is soon sacked when new bosses take over and tell him that they are not making any more monster movies, focusing on musicals instead. Pete decides to extract his revenge using the very monsters they have condemned to the scrapheap.


I first saw the‘re-imagined’ version of How to Make a Monster as part of a modernised collection of some of Samuel Z. Arkoff’s most famous B-movies. Despite not being great, it made me want to go back and check out the original films to compare the two. This was the first of those films I decided to check out and to date, the last one! The similarities between the two end in title only. Surely a case of a story which sounds better on paper than it does in execution, How to Make a Monster is a cult film but one which is hardly exciting or entertaining.

What we have here is clearly a story that was conceived and made whilst other films were being filmed. Saving on sets, props and even actors it seems, How To Make a Monster contains so many things ‘borrowed’ from other films it almost becomes a ‘guess the film’ piece where you have to name the film from where the items have been taken. Spot one of the aliens from Invasion of the Saucer Men. Or the creature from It Conquered the World. I can understand the logic behind it – Hammer used to do it in the UK and shoot two films back-to-back using the same sets and principally featuring the same actors. Financially it makes perfect sense. But from a critical point of view, it gets annoying to the point where you wonder how many more references they’re go throw towards their films and whether or not this is just a long plug for some of their more famous work.

How To Make a Monster is pretty rubbish. It’s got a feeble running time of seventy three minutes which means that the film is over almost as soon as it gets going. Not a great deal happens in that time and, although the idea of Pete’s creations killing people off is novel, you have to remember that in reality it’s just a couple of hypnotized teenage actors wearing his masks strangling people. The monsters don’t come to life or anything. They don’t go on a bloody rampage. It’s all very low key and very dull. This is what I mean about the story sounding better on paper than in reality. A couple of murderous teenagers with cheap Halloween masks on does little to scare the viewer.

Robert R. Harris is good as Pete Dumond but his sudden transformation from mild-mannered make-up artists to a snarling, devious psychopath is a bit unbelievable and it spoils the final act in the film. You never buy this character change for a second. There are a lot of unnecessary characters floating around the film too and the police investigations are pointless – it wouldn’t take a brain surgeon to spot the link between a disgruntled ex-employee and murdered old bosses. Another point is that around an hour into the film, it suddenly bursts into glorious Technicolour! There seems to be no point to this whatsoever except to sell a few more tickets with colour stills from the film gracing the promotional posters.


How to Make a Monster is pretty poo but given that it was 1958 and garbage like this sold seats back then, I can tolerate it to a certain degree. Almost.





Death Proof (2007)

Death Proof (2007)

A White-Hot Juggernaut At 200 Miles Per Hour!

Stuntman Mike is a former Hollywood stuntman who uses his “death proof” stunt car to kill women. He has just finished off his latest victim when he targets a new group of girls he meets at a diner. Unfortunately he doesn’t reckon on them being tougher than his usual prey and they begin to turn the tables on their tormentor when his attempts to kill them fail.


Quentin Tarantino is an enigmatic director whose work I’ve never been a major fan of. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are classics but the rest of his films are sketchy, self-indulgent and seem to wallow in homaging older genres to which someone like me has never seen or simply has no interest in seeing. Tarantino and his best friend, fellow director Robert Rodriguez, came up with the idea of Grindhouse, a double-bill homage to trashy 70s exploitation films, in which both would direct a feature film, place them back-to-back and then throw in a load fake trailers in the intermission to add to the authenticity (some of which are now being made into feature films themselves including Machete, the pick of the fake trailers). The films were scratched and muffled to give them an ‘old school’ feel and some reels have purposely been cut out to again make it look like it was from the 70s. I have to laugh when I read reports that Americans walked out of the cinema after the end credits of the first film had finished because they thought that the film was over. Do they not read reviews or previews of the films they’re going to watch? The two films were then split up and released separately. Death Proof was the first one and received more commercial success than Planet Terror, which failed to ignite at the box office but, in my opinion, is the far superior flick.

Death Proof has very little story and that could easily have been set up as a short story. Instead the film is padded out to one hundred and fourteen minutes of pure boredom and it’s basically the same hour repeated again. Stuntman Mike comes across a group of girls, gets to know them, they talk about sex and drugs and all that stuff and then the girls leave before being pursed by the ‘death proof’ car with Mike at the helm. Once he kills off the first group of girls, you wonder where the film is going to go but Mike simply walks into another bar and meets another group of girls. It’s almost exactly the same routine as the first half with the same sort of self-indulgent dialogue tripe from Tarantino before the end chase.

Tarantino’s biggest fan is arguably himself and he loves to go to town with his script. He’s making a film not for the rest of the world but for himself. He seems to think that because he loved this type of film, then everyone else is going to be in the same boat. The characters talk like they’re straight out of a 70s exploitation flick with lots of F-bombs and N-bombs thrown around left, right and centre and he throws in plenty of self-referencing to films he clearly adored as a teenager. I admire the guy for being able to write scripts like this but I just don’t have any interest in them in the slightest. I find them dull, off-putting and eventually in the end they just turn me away from the film. It may have been fresh and original back in his earlier days but now it just seems like it’s the only trick he can pull off.

The highlight of the film is the extended chase sequence towards the end in which Stuntman Mike tries and fails to kill the second group of girls, only for them to turn the tables on him. It’s lively, energetic and well shot and it makes you wonder just what the wait to get to the good part was all about. And the best thing is that it’s all done with stunt men – not a CGI car in sight. Its how car chases used to be and should still be. Nothing beats the thrill of knowing that these chases are real. The head-on-crash in here is one of the most impressive and brutal every shown on film. They need to show this instead of crash test dummies ploughing into walls!

If there is one thing which I love about Death Proof is that it gives Kurt Russell the chance to star in his own major film for the first time in what seems like an eternity. Tarantino has a knack for reviving flagging careers of older actors and although it seems that Russell hasn’t been able to capitalise on this, it was at least a pleasure to see him headline a major film. He’s having a blast as Stuntman Mike and reminded me of just why John Carpenter frequently cast him back in the 80s.


I think you can tell that I’m not a massive fan of Death Proof and that’s an understatement. It’s talky and long-winded, delivering only minor thrills and an awesome performance from Kurt Russell. I admire Tarantino’s passion for the old grindhouse films and the love he has for them is clear to see in the intricate steps he’s taken to make it look as close to the 70s exploitation genre as possible. He has managed to bring back a forgotten age into the mindsets of today’s cinema goers and must at least receive recognition for doing that. But as a modern motion picture, Death Proof is extremely flawed, bordering on the terrible at times.


Coroner, The (1995)

The Coroner (1999)

Pray you’re dead before you meet…..

A female lawyer, who defends low-life prostitutes in their court cases, is knocked out by a tranquiliser on her way home one night. She awakens to find herself strapped to a table in a dingy house. It turns out that a recent spate of murders in the city has been committed by the local coroner. He ha seen singling out suicidal people and finishing the job for them – and she is his next victim.


Back when I was able to start buying my own films with my own cash, I would frequent the local video stores to see what low rent rubbish they’d have on offer. The walls were full of trashy horror films, low budget romps designed to lure unsuspecting punters like me into parting with their hard-earned cash. Every now and then I’d come across a little gem –The Dentist springs to mind as one of my earliest finds. But more often than not, I’d come across a right old turkey and The Coroner is one of them.

I just wish as much emphasis had been placed on making a decent film as there was with the tag line “Pray you’re already dead before you meet…The Coroner.” The Coroner is low budget drivel at its most, well, low budget. It is a complete mess from a story and structural point of view – hell I tried to make sense of the plot but it just doesn’t add up. I can’t reveal anymore to the story other than the simple outline above but there’s a lot more to it than that. Somehow it manages to fill out eighty minutes but most of it is the same thing over and over again – the coroner captures the lawyer, the lawyer escapes, the coroner catches her again, etc. Talk about padding out a film. There are plenty of flashbacks and flash forwards throughout the running time which is filled with footage culled from other films (though which films I don’t know as there is so little information about this film hanging around on the internet).

Barring the two main leads it seems that every other character in the film is pointless. The idiotic boyfriend, the two cops, the man and woman making out at the party, etc. They are just there to fill up screen time with some moments of dialogue and provide an extra body count. You won’t see the coroner actually kill anyone either – all of the action happens off screen. He doesn’t even dress like he does on the front cover and there’s no sign of any of the surgical equipment that he uses for autopsies. Maybe it is his day off or something. You’d never guess that it was his job if the film hadn’t been called what it is. Most of the action takes place in the coroner’s dingy house too and this set looks every bit as two-bob as it is, with cardboard walls vibrating a the slightest noise and looking ready to blow over if one of the actors got a bit carried away.

Jane Longenecker can’t act to save her life but she looks ok, is dressed in a school girl uniform by the coroner for whatever kinky reason and then at least gets naked in one of the scenes. Sometimes sins can be forgiven. Dean St. Louis isn’t too bad as the evil coroner of the title (and sports a bit of an off-beat Will Ferrell about him) but as I’ve said, he doesn’t kill anyone on screen – in fact he doesn’t do much at all except act like a pervert. He displays homosexual tendencies throughout the film, making his pursuit and torture of women seem a bit bizarre.


As far as pointless films go, The Coroner must rank up there at #1. It’s got little plot, little character development, little action, little excitement – little anything. You’d be better off taking this film to a real coroner and getting it dissected to find anything of note.





Dentist, The (1996)

The Dentist (1996)

From the Creators of Re-Animator…

Doctor Feinstone lives a perfect life. He has a beautiful wife, a huge house with an outdoor pool and a very successful job as a dentist. However one day comes along where everything goes wrong for him. He discovers his wife is having an affair with pool attendant and the I.R.S. are closing in on him for tax problems. He snaps and begins to take out his frustration on his patients, inflicting all manner of horrific dental torture on them.


Warning: The Dentist is not a film for everyone. If you have a fear of the dentist then this isn’t the film for you. In fact, even if you don’t have a fear of the dentist, you might after having seen this. Admittedly The Dentist does opt for the cheap shock treatment of utilising a lot of people’s worst fear to its advantage but it’s much more than just a tacky slasher. The Dentist turns itself into a gripping and horrific thriller in which every last dental cliché is going to be thrown at the audience in the hope that something strikes a chord with them. We’ve all been sat in that chair. We know what it feels like to be helpless with someone prodding dental implements in your mouth. Well this plays upon that but not before we’ve been given a master class in character build-up.

Corbin Bernsen is simply brilliant as the deranged Dr Feinstone. He’s not exactly 100% sane to start the film with his obsession with cleanliness but when he snaps, you can almost sympathise with him. He loves his wife dearly and takes pride in his job but when his marriage falls apart and his job causes problems, there’s nothing else for him and you can only feel sorry for him. Feinstone’s descent into total madness takes it’s time to come to fruition and it’s good to see director Brian Yuzna spend so much time in building the character up. It may be a little slow but it’s like that for a good reason. Bernsen may have slummed around in many cheap B-movies but his performance here is the right mix of scene-chewing silliness and scary seriousness. He knows when the push the right buttons towards the audience especially during the torture scenes and displays a perfect balance of humour and horror. Linda Hoffman has the supporting role as his wife and looks fantastic, providing the more-than-ample nudity factor. Both Ken Foree and Earl Boen are wasted in small roles.

So let’s get down to the real notoriety of the film – the scenes in the chair. These scenes of dental torture are brutal, there’s no two ways around it. There are plenty of close-ups so you get a good first-hand look at all of the damage he causes. I’ve seen everything from people being eaten alive, heads chopped off, intestines ripped out, limbs severed and the like but I haven’t grimaced as much as I did when the dentist destroys a woman’s tooth to dust with the drill. It’s stomach-churning material because it looks so real. It’s for this reason that the film has the high 18 rating in the UK. There’s not much gore elsewhere in the film but these dental torture scenes are pretty horrific because they look so realistic.

There’s a reason this doesn’t get the full marks treatment though and that’s because of the finale. The film was going so well up until the final third inside the dentist’s surgery but its here where it reduces itself to a mess of generic stalk clichés and the pay-off doesn’t pack the punch it should. I guess there’s only so much leverage the script could give a character as deranged as Feinstone before it had to resort to such stereotypical slasher tactics.


The Dentist is a totally underrated gem of a horror flick and one of the best of the 90s low budget scene. If you have a fear of the dentist, then DO NOT watch this film as it will reinforce your wildest nightmares. If you don’t fear the dentist, you’ll still think again after seeing it.





Fear in the Night (1972)

Fear in the Night (1972)

Peggy, a young woman recovering from a nervous breakdown, is attacked by a one-armed man in her house but no evidence is found and no one believes her story, merely blaming it on her state of mind. Her new husband is offered a new job at a rural boarding school and she moves with him to the country. There they meet the rather eccentric headmaster and his wife. However things soon take a turn for the worse when she believes that the one-armed man has followed her.


Hammer is more famous for their classic Gothic horrors but they did dabble in other genres such as the fantasy genre with the likes of The Lost Continent and One Million Years B.C. What are usually forgotten or glossed over are there numerous forays into the Hitchcockian-style thriller that they did in the early 70s. None of which are particularly memorable but are at least curious companions to their more lavish horror counterparts. It was around this time that Hammer had begun to emphasize gore and nudity a lot more in an attempt to keep their films fresh and get back some of their lost popularity. Fear in the Night was an attempt by the studio to head in a new direction. Ironically enough this ‘new direction’ was to hark back to its golden era where atmosphere and suspense were the name of the game, not blood and boobs.

Unfortunately this one relies a little too much on creating the atmosphere and suspense and forgets to do anything with it. Director Jimmy Sangster was responsible for two of Hammer’s worst horror films but redeems himself somewhat with a solid effort which keeps it’s cards close to it’s chest for as long as it can. This can be a little distracting for the viewer – each character is seemingly hiding some secret which would reveal more about the plot twist but they are kept hidden for as long as possible. Whilst this allows for an interesting pay-off, the route leading to it seems plodding and rather distant from the viewer. Usually thrillers keep you hooked with little tid-bits of information but Fear in the Night refuses to play by the rules. You’re either going to switch off in confusion (or boredom) before the finale or stick with it in the hope that the script will play its cards at some point. Unfortunately, the finale isn’t overly thrilling although there’s a prolonged ten-minute stalking sequence through the creepy, desolate school. Hammer was always great at setting their films in eerie locations and this remote schoolhouse is one of their best complete with empty classrooms and huge white sheets covering over furniture in others. Tape recorders play the noise of children yet there are no pupils to be seen anywhere. And the opening shot of a slow pan across the school grounds to reveal the legs of a man hanging from a tree is a rather startling image.

Can you go wrong with Peter Cushing as a rather nutty headmaster? I don’t think so. This was Cushing’s first film after the death of his wife and he looks rather detached from proceedings but this works in his favour as the character has a lot of sinister secrets to keep hidden. The fact that his character only has one arm isn’t kept in the dark and one of the first encounters he has with Peggy where he stands behind her to help her untie her scarf is excellent – we see that he has a prosthetic arm but she does not.

Joan Collins has made a career out of playing bitchy women in film and television and her role here is no exception. She plays, well a bitch, and is one of the stronger performers on display and it’s a shame she’s not in the film more than she is. Judy Geeson is attractive and likeable in the lead role as the long-suffering woman who no one believes. She’s not the best actress I’ve seen but the role requires more sympathy and support from the audience than it does admiration and she fits this bill. Ralph Bates, the man Hammer tried to groom as their next leading man, is as weak as he was in the other Hammer films he starred in. Bates isn’t a bad actor and delivers his lines well, it’s just that he has little screen presence or charisma to really get into any of the roles he plays.

Whilst the cast are all very well-equipped in their roles, this is arguably the film’s weakness – there are just too few people around! Like the Scooby Doo cartoons where the ghoul/ghost/monster was always the only other person introduced in the episode apart from the gang, Fear in the Night attempts to keep us guessing with the murder-mystery story but it’s blatantly obvious who it’s going to be from the start. It’s the only possible outcome to the film as there are so few suspects lurking around the school grounds.


Fear in the Night was a brave attempt by Hammer to go in a new direction but ultimately fails because even in 1972, the plot twists weren’t new or original in the slightest. It’s entertaining enough if you want to stick it out but it will never be regarded as one of Hammer’s better films.





Circus of Horrors (1960)

Circus of Horrors (1960)

Spectacular Towering Terror! One man’s lust…made men into beasts, stripped women of their souls!

On the run after a botched operation, a deranged plastic surgeon takes over a run down circus with the assistance of two accomplices and proceeds to turn it into one of the star attractions in Europe. He transforms disfigured young women into beautiful circus performers. But when they attempt to leave the clutches of the circus and the obsessed doctor, they begin to meet with deadly accidents in the circus ring.


Wading through the never-ending onslaught of genetically mutated animals, cannibalistic backwoods madman or deranged psychos in masks, it’s always refreshing to go back to an earlier age when horror wasn’t bothered about shock and gore tactics, when there were no “rules” to the genre and when audiences were a lot more scared of the silliest little things. Thankfully there are still an awful lot of films out there that I’ve never heard of and which have gone under the radar for so long, that it’s almost like watching a new release when I eventual get around to see them. I’ve got a lot more time and appreciation for something like Circus of Horrors than I would for something like Shark Zone simply because of the era it was made. Is this the right approach to have? Well watch the two and tell me.

Circus of Horrors is your standard 60s British horror which means lots of dialogue peppered with a few scenes of brutality or gore and the whole thing finishing off rather suddenly. There’s not really a whole load of plot – simply a repeated cycle for most the film which involves the doctor operating on a new victim, turning her into the star of the show and then deciding to terminate her contract when she starts moaning about wanting to leave. There’s padding either side of this involving the wrap around plot with the opening being about the doctor on the run from the law and finally having to face the consequences in the finale. It’s a great finale too with the doctor being chased around his circus and you wonder which of the numerous parties after his blood will get him – the police, the woman he disfigured at the start of the film or his accomplices who have finally grown sick of the murders.

The film isn’t overly graphic in its violence but there are some neat circus-related deaths including a woman fastened to a rotating wheel whilst an Indian throws knives at her (you can guess the rest). I got a bit sick of some of the circus music and at times the film seems to be an advertisement for the real circus that allowed the film crew in to take the stock footage of the acts.

Anton Diffring stars in the lead role and he’s fantastic. He plays the role perfectly with charisma and menace. You can never totally hate him because he believes in what he’s doing and his work becomes his obsession, so much so that he turns into a monster – sort of like the Frankenstein of plastic surgery! Quite how Diffring never really made it big is a mystery but he’s clearly the best thing about the film. Able support comes from the bevy of beauties that he turns from freaks into stunners. And Donald Pleasance is even on hand for a few scenes early on before he’s offed by a really cheap-looking stuffed bear.


There’s not an awful lot more to say about Circus of Horrors except that it’s a solid genre effort from a classic era. Decent story, superbly acted, entertaining, well-paced and violent and moody when it needed to be. Check it out!