233) Deadly Friend (1986)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (One last review)

"I studied brain physiology and cognitive theory till it's coming out of my ears. I have ideas no one's ever thought of."

Director 

Wes Craven

Cast

Matthew Laborteaux - Paul Conway
Kristy Swanson - Samantha Pringle
Anne Twomey - Jeannie Conway
Richard Marcus - Harrison Pringle
Anne Ramsey - Elvira Parker
Charles Fleischer - voice of BB

In an interview back in 1989, Wes Craven says "I am in the business of intensity. That's what my films are about." 

That intensity is definitely loud and clear in many of his movies such as, "The Hills Have Eyes," "Shocker," "The People Under the Stairs," and definitely, "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Wes Craven's 1986 movie, "Deadly Friend,"  tries to make its way into Craven's realm of intensity, but does it actually arrive there? 

I was initially going to review "Deadly Friend" in this year's Halloween thread but it wasn't available when I was writing my seventh post in this series, "Deadtime Stories." "Deadly Friend" was my primary choice for that slot. But I couldn't get access to it on any platform, nor did I want to spend money rent it. None of my backup titles were available. So, I went with "Deadtime Stories." I didn't want to review it, but I was out of options. 

However, as I was finishing up my commentary for "Pet Sematary," I saw that "Deadly Friend" was finally streaming on Pluto, I think. So, I'm getting to it at the last minute, and just in time for Halloween.

In this movie, Matthew Labyorteaux (from the TV series "Little House on the Prairie") plays Paul Conway, an intelligent teenager who works with computers and computer tech like a master artist works with paints or clay. 

Among his prized achievements is an interactive intelligent robot he built named BB. 

His attention is heavily diverted when a cute blonde named Samantha (Kristy Swanson) moves in next door. 

Among Paul's top priorities is making sure BB stays out of his neighbor's, old Miss. Elvira Parker's (Anne Ramsey) yard. She's a cranky spinster who has threatened to blow it away with a shotgun if it ever makes its way onto her property. 

Aside from that, Paul and Samantha become pretty friendly. Sadly, Samantha lives with an abusive alcoholic father, Harrison (Richard Marcus). 

On Halloween night, Paul's buddy, Tom (Michael Sharrett), along with Paul, BB and Samantha pull a trick on Elvira.

Kristy Swanson as Samantha Pringle in "Deadly Friend."

The robot manages to unlock Elvira's front gate and Samantha goes to ring her doorbell. An alarm goes off on the property, and the trio hide behind a bush. BB, however, can't move that fast because he's a 1980s robot. 

Elvira freaks out, grabs her shotgun, and fires off a few rounds at BB, hitting him each time. 

Paul is devastated at seeing his robot pal laying motionless in Elvira's yard. 

Later, in a drunken rage, Harrison gets abusive again with Samantha, and accidentally knocks her down some stairs. She hits her head against a wall hard enough to leave her brain dead. 

She's kept on life support with no signs of recovery. Her dad makes the deicsion, a little too easily, to pull the plug on his own daughter. 

Paul, however, has a plan. He thinks he can bring Samantha back by taking BB's microchip and implanting it in Samantha's brain. Being the scientist he is, Paul is certain he can pull it off. But he needs Samantha alive so he has to get to the hospital and operate on her without getting caught before the plug is pulled. It's a race against the clock. 

Of course, Paul succeeds and Samantha is revived but acts more like a robot than a human being. Possessing BB's knowledge, she's out to seek murderous revenge on those who harmed BB and Paul starting with Harrison. Elvira, of course, is next! 

After she kills, Paul has to stop her and get the old Samantha back. 

"Deadly Friend" is quite a mix of dark humor, horror, and a bit of heart-throb. It mixes these genres together pretty well.

According to a January 5, 2022 Dread Central article, Craven wanted the movie to be a sc-fi romance story, which it clearly is. But the studios wanted some of his intense horror. So, they had him throw in some gore. The movie includes gore, and outlandishly so. 

Kristy Swanson and Matthew Laborteaux.

One particular scene in which robot-brained Samantha takes on Elvira with a basketball. It's a scene that has become a viral video, and is probably the most iconic scene in the movie.   
Kristy Swanson's performance is best before she becomes a robot-brained science experiment thanks to her lonely-hearted boyfriend. 

She puts on that sweet girl next door motif rather well. After her character is put through the robot treatment, Kristy must have been told to look like a lost puppy or a deer in the headlights. I'm not blaming her, necessarily. She is clearly working as best she can with what she's given. 

I think the biggest issue with "Deadly Friend" is studio interference. It's pretty darn clear too many hands where involved in this movie. With Craven's successful "A Nightmare on Elm Street," I'm willing to bet the studios wanted a success along those lines. "Deadly Friend" was meant to be a romantic sci-fi, and who wants that when it could be a money-making gore-fest like Elm Street. 

It seems like the movie is trying to go in a certain direction but something is keeping it from getting to where in needs to go. 

And then it's ending caps the story with a feeling that something important was left out. The ending makes no sense. 

The movie feels too loose at the seems, and unable to get to a suitable conclusion. It's a Sci-Fi romance so it needs to end on a romantic note. But it doesn't.

I think the movie managed to score some fandom thanks to its cheesiness, dark humor, and outlandish plot despite its inconsistant tone, overall poor acting and incomplete feel. 

The story changes tones quickly, and the creepiness lies mostly with the main character keeping Samantha in both his basement and attic for "side keeping." This movie could have been better than it is. 

Despite Wes Craven's well-earned reputation as a master of horror, "Deadly Friend" could have been a memorable teen romance in either the horror or sci-fi genre. The final product, rather, is simply a movie that happens to have romance, and horror, and some science fiction. It touches upon themes of grief and obsession. But thanks to what the studios want in order to make a quick buck, "Deadly Friend" is another curiosity of the 1980s.

~

So, thar's another review series in the bag for yet another Halloween season. I'm already anxious to do another for next Halloween. In the meantime, I have some movies already in mind to watch and review for the upcoming new year. 

Until then, happy Halloween! 👻🎃

232) Pet Sematary (1989)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part ten)

"Sometimes... dead is better." 

Director
Mary Lambert

Cast
Dale Midkiff - Louis Creed 
Denise Crosby - Rachel Goldman-Creed
Blaze Berdahl - Ellie Creed
Miko Hughes - Gage Creed
Fred Gwynne - Jud Crandall
Brad Greenquist - Victor Pascow
Andrew Hubatsek - Zelda Goldman

A thread of 1980s horror movies would feel incomplete or ill considered without at least one movie based on something by horror writer Stephen King. We're talking Stephen King before "X" was a thing where King can be found tossing out all sorts of random non-sensical posts. 

Most of King's iconic movie adaptations came out in the 1980s - "The Shining" (1980), "Cujo" (1982), "Christine" (1983), "Children of the Corn" (1984), "Stand by Me" (1986), and this movie, "Pet Sematary." 

In my review of "Day of the Dead," I made some comments about how zombie movies generally speaking tend to be repetitive and as slow as the zombies they depict. 

To be fair, I including a handful of zombie movies that are actually well made and entertaining. 

The 1989 back-from-the-dead horror flick, "Pet Sematary," based on the 1983 novel by Stephen King, stands far above any zombie movie I've ever seen. 

I've seen this movie, as well as the 2019 remake, before I read King's book. I consider it to be the scariest King novel I've read, and I've read a bunch of his books.   

Like the novel, the movie "Pet Sematary" has a bleak tone, highly unsettling atmosphere, and a despairingly dark story that goes places other horror tries to reach but doesn't quite get to. 

In this movie, Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) moves his wife, Rachel (Denise Crosby) along with their daughter, Ellie (Blaze Berdahl) and their younger son, Gage (Miko Hughes) from Chicago to the small country town of Ludlow, Maine. 

Blaze Berdahl, Dale Midkiff, and Fred Gwynne in 'Pet Sematary.'

Louis took a position as a local small-town doctor. Their gorgeous country home sits near a highway road highly used by trucks from a nearby factory down the road.  

The Creeds are welcomed by their elderly neighbor, Jud Crandall (Fred Gwynne). After getting to know Jud, they ask him about a trail nearby their house. 

He tells them it leads to a children's pet cemetery, and that he'll take them down there sometime. 

When they all finally go to check out the cemetery, the sign above the enterence spells cemetery, "sematary." As trucks whiz by down the highway, many a pet have been victims of those trucks. Hence, the burial ground for pets. 

While starting off his new job as the new local doctor, college students bring in a fellow college student named Victor Pascow who was hit by a car while on a jog and has suffered severe head trauma. 

As Louis prepares to examine his injuries, Victor suddenly awakens long enough to tell the doc not to venture past the pet cemetery as the ground is "sour." After that, Victor dies. 

His ghost visits Louis late that same night and has him follow as he leads Louis to the cemetery to warn him not to "cross the barrier." Of course, Louis doesn't know what to make of this, or what Victor means. Victor tells him he's trying to help in return for Louis trying to help him. 

While the family is away at Rachel's parent's house back in Chicago for Thanksgiving, Louis stays home. He doesn't quite get along with his father-in-law, and he has to work. 

Ellie had previously been worried that her pet cat, Church, would be another victim to the trucks that fly past on the highway and end up in the "pet sematary."  

Such is Church's fate. Jud finds the cat's remains and Louis doesn't know how he's going to break the news to his little girl when she gets back from Chicago.

But Jud has a recommendation. One he'll later deeply regret. 

He takes Louis to the ancient Miꞌkmaq burial ground past the cemetery to bury Church. Jud instructs him not to tell anyone about what they did. 

The next day, Church is back home seemingly alive. However, he's not the friendly pet cat he was before getting hit by a truck. 

Louis, of course, has tons of questions for Jud beginning with, "what did we do?". 

He tells Louis about his experiences with the burial ground back when he was a young man. And though Church has a much different personality, at least Ellie won't have to suffer the loss of her cat. 

Jud really regrets divulging this information about the burial ground to Louis after his little Gage is tragically killed by a truck. That's when the story really turns dark. 

"Pet Sematary" is uncomfortable for me to watch. 

Like the book, this movie went places other horror movies before it hadn't gone. It doesn't present the reality of death in a way that takes the edge off that inevitable part of life. 

And the movie is one of the creepiest and far-reaching flicks of the decade. It takes death as a real part of life and as a concept, and uses it to play around with the audiences' imagination to make them think "what if." King uses that question, "what if"in most, if not all, of his stories. It's what strikes a chord of trepidation and fear among his readers. 

"Pet Sematary" isn't just scary because of the monsters and creepy things in it. It's the subject matter of death and how bluntly it's depicted. That's what'll keep you up after watching. 

The movie takes its moral that death, though painful, is a necessity. To eliminate it is against nature. It's an effective method that gives this movie its staying power, for sure. 

Though it's a dead-rising-from-the-grave movie, the originality is the most effective I've seen from a film.

The story doesn't turn the return-of-the-dead premise into an emotional feast of good feelings and reunions. Nor does it turn the risen dead into brain-eating zombies. 

The story explores human grief, denial and human aversion to the fact of death. The movie doesn't tackle the what-if question in bringing the dead back to life, especially when the pain of loss stings the most sharply, into some typical zombie horror movie audiences have already seen. There's a lot of depth in the story, thanks to director Mary Lambert. 

Brad Greenquist (left) as Victor Pascow.

The story goes further into the realm of life, death, and strong human emotions that spur the main character to cross boundaries that once crossed can't really be returned from. That crossing leads to the destruction of the main character's family, emotions, and his son. "Sometimes, dead is better," Judd tells him. "Pet Sematary" is certainly the most intense "wish-gone-wrong" movie I've seen. 

It's difficult to compare "Pet Sematary" to any other movie. 

The 2001 movie "The Others" explores death and life after death as the main character is a mother protecting her children. "The Sixth Sense" from 1999 also deals with the subject of death amidst a horror movie tone in a unique way as well. 

One movie that comes close is the 1985 horror movie "Re-Animator" based on the work of H. P. Lovecraft. "Re-Animator" relies a lot on shock, grotesqueries, gore and a fair amount of comedy. 

There is a horror movie from 2011 called "Wake Wood" that has some similarities to "Pet Sematary" in that two parents participate in a ritual to resurrect their deceased daughter. When it works, their returned daughter isn't quite the same as she was before. 

"Pet Sematary" managed to spawn a sequel, "Pet Sematary II" in 1992 and a remake in 2019. There's also a prequel to the remake called "Pet Sematary: Bloodlines" from 2023. I saw the remake and had mixed feelings about it. I found it inferior to this movie. But that's another commentary for another time. 

Anyways, hands down, this movie is one of the most uncomfortable movies I've sat through. Not because it's a terrible movie, but because the film takes the reality of death, its role in human existance, and really hammers in the reality of it. It does that more effectively than any other movie, horror or otherwise, that I've seen. It captures that very element from King's novel spot-on. 

231) The Blob (1988)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part nine)

"Your meteor brought something all right but if it's a germ, it's the biggest son of a bitch you've ever seen!"

Director

Chuck Russell

Cast
Shawnee Smith - Megan "Meg" Penny
Kevin Dillon - Brian Flagg
Donovan Leitch - Paul Taylor
Jeffrey DeMunn - Sheriff Herb Geller
Del Close - Rev. Meeker
Candy Clark - Fran Hewitt
Beau Billingslea - Moss Woodley

I love it when a sequel or remake is as good, or better, as the original. 

Such is the case for the 1988 creature feature of all creature features (the ones that aren't "Alien" or "Jaws" or "Jurassic Park" or "Godzilla"), "The Blob." 

How ridiculous it is that the creature in the feature is a big glop of man-eating goo. The more it eats, the bigger it gets. And yet, the movie still taps into the realm of fear and gag reflexes. It turns a mass of goo into a shapeless mass of unstoppable dread and cold, slithering death.  

The 1988 movie is a remake of the 1958 sci-fi horror flick of the same name, starring none other than Steve McQueen.  I have an old copy of the '58 "Blob" on VHS. It's a campy movie, but it's still a certified classic. 

The 1988 remake, directed by Chuck Russell, takes the premise of the 1958 classic and sharpens up the gore, fear, performances, and effects (even for 1988) while eating away the general campiness. It's a well-made and well-performed update. 

In this movie, just like in the original, a meteor crash-lands in the fictional town of Arborville, California. It's nowhere near the strangest thing to happen in California.  

Anyways, some transient bum is the first to discover the meteor. As he studies it, a gelatinous entity spews out and attaches itself to the guy's arm. 

He screams in terror and pain dashing all hope of getting rich off of the meteor he found. 

Local teens, Brian (Kevin Dillon), Meg (Shawnee Smith) and Paul (Donovan Leitch) find this guy and take him to the hospital. 

While they're at the hospital, which doesn't seem to be all that active, Paul and the doctor check on the homeless guy and find that this blob has eaten most of him from the inside out. 

The blob manages to escape the hospital, but not before dropping from the ceiling onto Paul and eating him in one terribly gruesome scene. 

The blob crawls around town permeating in every crack and crevasse, eating whoever is within reach.

The military gets involved; Meg and Brian find out that this thing isn't from outer space. It's actually the result of a failed government experiment. So, the government did what it does best and hid their mistake by launching it into space. 

Well, it found its way back. And now the military tries to contain and destroy the blob and make sure none of the locals leave town. Everyone and everything must be contained. 

Meanwhile, the blob continues eating victim after helpless victim. No one is safe! The military is also willing to permit casualties in order to stop this blob. 

Like "Day of the Dead," "The Blob" is another horror flick I recall seeing at an age I probably shouldn't have thanks to some older brothers of mine. I particularly remember the scene where the blob pulls a guy down the sink drain at a diner. Gross!

The '88 Blob is one of those instances where the sequel or remake is as good or better than the previous. It updates the story of the original blob amazingly well. The previous, though again a true classic in the truest meaning of the word, is a dated movie. 

The remake respects the original story and gives it some respectable updates. Plus, it turns on the gross blobby horror wonderfully. As far as creature features go, this is one of the best. 

The scene in which the blob attacks the movie theater as theater-going patrons run out in terror, is a legendary horror movie moment. Also, the way the blob is defeated is pulled out of the original movie. 

When no one is safe from a monster, then no one should be safe. Men, women, and children. No one! That's true in this movie. The blob traps a poor helpless waitress in a phone booth and also grabs and swallows a kid trying to escape. A monster is a monster. The more of a threat it poses on even the most innocent of victims, the worse the monster is. And the more satisfying it is to see it defeated. Sorry to see you go, kid. 

The title, as satirical as it sounds, might lead first time viewers to think the movie is another off-the-wall festival of campiness. 

The '58 "Blob" has more of a typical atomic age thriller sci-fi and teen melodrama to it. 

The remake of "The Blob" certainly moves faster than its '58 counterpart. It doesn't use the blob as a means towards one big climatic confrontation at the end. This thing thrashes, rips. tears and devours throughout. By the end, all that's left to do is figure out how to kill it. 

Plus, the '88 pours more horror into the story's sci-fi foundation. 

The teen melodrama is replaced with tension and gore plus some cynical humor surrounding government deception and corruption. 

Where the main character in the original, Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) comes across as more passive than anything else, Megan is much more active in this version. She becomes the main protagonist after the hero "Brian" is devoured by the blob. 

The storyline for the '58 blob is rooted in the Cold War era as that's when the movie was made. The blob is an outside threat. Not even small-town America is safe. There's definitely a Cold War vibe in the first film.

However, in the remake, the blob is an unfortunate man-made secret government bioweapon gone wrong. Now the government is trying to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen. It's not alien. It's a disgusting by-product of corruption and governmental decay. In true 1980s horror fashion, the movie has a subtle hint of social satire. 

It's worth mentioning Chuck Russell's directorial debut was "A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors" which is pretty much the only decent and most frightening Elm Street sequel. That is, it has the most terrifying scenes and atmosphere outside of the first movie. It's good for a sequel. 

Russell also sat in the director's chair for "The Mask" (1994) with Jim Carrey, and "Eraser" (1996), He's good at creating intense images in his movies, especially when it comes to horror. 

It's also worth noting that movie director Frank Durabont wrote the screenplay for "The Blob." That's a plus for me. 

Durabont directed some note-worthy movies such as "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Green Mile," and "The Mist," all based on works by horror writer Stephen King. He also wrote the screen play for the aforementioned "A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors," and the not-so-terrific "The Fly II." 

Durabont was executive producer for the first season and part of the second season of the AMC series, "The Walking Dead." Lastly, he directed two episodes in the most recent fifth season of "Stranger Things." So, he has a respectable resume for sure. 

The following year after the movie' release, the blob would make an uncredited cameo in "Ghostbusters II" as footage from "The Blob" remake was used in the movie. "Ghostbusters II" centers on the evil acts of New Yorkers turning into pink slime accumulating underneath New York City. Shots from "The Blob" were recycled for the Ghostbusters sequel. 

"Ghostbusters II" even has a scene with movie-goers running out of a theater in terror as pink slime resembling the blob drips from the theater marquee. It's a clear homage to the '58 movie. 

The visual effects in "The Blob" are amazingly horrific and memorable, and it maintains that classic creature feature atmosphere amidst the modern (well, 1980s modern) setting. 

Some scenes definitely have staying power with audiences and pop culture, especially the scene where the blob eats Paul. 

It doesn't take anything away from the original movie. It does bring it up to date while respecting the source material and making the IP popular again. 

The blob is a creature/monster that deserves a high standing pedestal among other creatures of creature features. It's a simple blob that manages to strike a threatening feeling. No matter where someone hides, the blob can easily get in through cracks and crevasses to absorb its victim.  And once it has a victim, nothing can save them.   

It's a remake that's a lot darker and more suspenseful than before.

I'd be interested to see what another remake would do with the blob. However, I don't think the storyline would appeal to today's younger audiences like "The Blob" may have in 1988. 

230) The Stepfather (1987)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part eight)

"Who am I here?"

Director

Joseph Ruben

Cast
Terry O'Quinn - Jerry Blake, Henry Morrison, Bill Hodgkins
Jill Schoelen as Stephanie Maine
Shelley Hack as Susan Maine
Stephen Shellen as Jim Ogilvie
Charles Lanyer as Dr. A. Bondurant
Robyn Stevan as Karen
Gillian Barber as Annie Barnes
Blu Mankuma as Lieutenant Jack Wall

The 1987 psychological horror "The Stepfather" is either some sort of social commentary on "patriarchal society," or it's simply quite the horror thriller movie. Either way, it remains quite the horror thriller movie. 

It's certainly very much a slasher flick with a lot of suspense and blood. 

The story is loosely based on real life murderer John List according to a Dec. 3, 1989 article entitled "How Profitable Sequels Succeed" by Inquirer Movie Critic Desmond Ryan. On the flip side, the movie smacks of sharp social satire. 

It strikes me as a bitter critique of the perfect nuclear family by the way the story flips ideals like order, loyalty, domestic happiness into the very things that destroy it.

The movie starts as Jerry Blake (Terry O'Quinn) has just murdered his family for nothing more than disappointing him and not meeting the high standards of a perfect family that he expects. He leaves the murder scene inside his home, and takes off with a new look and new identity to pursue a new life and a new family. 

Jerry meets a widow named Susan Maine (Shelley Hack) whom he ends up marrying. Her teenage daughter, Stephanie (Jill Schoelen) is weary and a bit suspicious of Jerry despite his mild-mannered, seemingly friendly, and "father knows best" demeanor. However, during a barbeque he and Susan are hosting for friends, Stephanie catches him having an angery mood swing in the basement after he reads about his murdered family in the paper. 

So, she looks into his past and discovers he may not be whom he says he is. 

Not only is she hot on his murderous sadistic trail, but there's also another individual trying to find Jerry. Of course, Jerry is aware she's snooping. He's not aware, however, that the other person is his old brother-in-law from his last marriage. He's right on Jerry's heals. 

Anyways, the more Stephanie investigates Jerry's past, the more his facade starts to crumble, and his murderous true self surfaces until he has to...take care of them just like he did with his previous family.

I have mixed feelings about this flick. 

For starters, it's a decent thriller but it doesn't excel above other similar movies. 

Terry O'Quinn in "The Stepfather."

The good elements of "The Stepfather" begin with Terry O'Quinn's performance. His performance as repulsively sinister underneath a facade of a charming and likeable family man is fantastic.It's an underrated performance indeed. 

Terry carries this movie from beginning to end. Jerry starts over as the happy family like nothing happened before, slowly transitioning into a disappointed man driven to murdering more victims for preventing him from establishing a moral and bright future together as a family. 

Jerry insinuates that the murdered family from the beginning were a disappointment. 

As for the rest of the cast, everyone else just goes through the emotions and actions. I wasn't completely convinced. 

Outside of great elements thanks to O'Quinn's performance, I think it's an average film with enough turmoil and thrilling suspense to keep an audience invested. 

The story gives the audience barely enough insight into Jerry's motives for being the homicidal man that he is. I think it's included to avoid making the movie just another mere slasher flick. The character needs exploring but this movie just touches the surface of his mindset. 

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I picked up on some subtle criticism of conservative family values. I wouldn't be surprised. These were the Reagan years, after all. By 1987, those years were winding down. And by 1987, Hollywood was already well established as a place where wholesomeness and virtue incite the influences-that-be down there to recoil with painful aversion like a vampire in the presence of a crucifix. 

So, I have doubts this is meant to be a mere thriller about a safe, suburban setting turning into a household of hidden terror.

The movie struck me as exploitative as the main character murders his families when they fail to live up to his ideal family image. So, Jerry quickly turns to murder.

Again, maybe I'm overthinking it, and "The Stepfather" is really just about a crazy maniac who murders each family he enters because they don't meet his expectations. Plus it uses the safety of a suburban family to intensify the dread and trepidation. And it's the modern left's criticism and scathing contempt of the tradition family constantly shouted from that camp nowadays that has me seeing this movie with all this skepticism.  

I don't know. "The Stepfather" takes a true story and uses it as inspiration for what seems like a critique of traditional family values and the pursuit of those values. When Jerry's family doesn't meet those values and standards, his conservative-looking self destroys them. He's obsessed with creating the picture perfect, traditional family. He's evil, irrational, barbaric, sick, twisted and to quote actress Emma Watson in regard to those "pressuring" girls to marry, cruel. The story presents such ideals and values as rigid, difficult and potentially dangerous. It tosses in psychological horror with social commentary on identity, control, and domestic life. 

The movie takes the male character with high ideals who pursues that natural desire to start a family, as any virtuous man does, and turns him into an obsessive, insane, violent murderer. So, what's the alternative then? Modern society would paint Jerry as the "patriarchy" personified. 

Director Joseph Ruben has made similar movies depicting the ideal good person as an uncontrollable evil. Based on the movies he's made, I wonder if he's just a solid skeptic. 

He directed the 1989 courtroom drama, "True Believer" about the wrongful conviction of Chol Soo Lee who was accused of a gang-related murder in San Francisco's Chinatown back in 1973. 

Ruben also directed "Sleeping with the Enemy" (1991) with Julia Roberts, and "The Good Son" from 1993 with Macaulay Culkin. 

In that movie, Culkin plays a young, blond hair and blue-eyed kid who appears as a happy normal boy but is really a violent and callous child inside. It's a decent thriller but I have mixed feelings about that movie, too. Also, I didn't like the choice of casting Culkin as an evil child. I'll get to that some other time. 

It's the notion "The Stepfather" presents that a perfect nuclear family can easily be an illusion that gets to me. Nuclear families and having children quite often turn people into conservatives to some degree or another. I think that doesn't sit well with Hollywood and the political side that operates the movie making industry. Then again, Jerry is the one destroying families, and is the antagonist of the movie. He's the bad guy who needs to be stopped and destroyed, which he is. So, maybe I have this move all wrong? The hand that destroys the cradle, destroys the world. 

Still, all things considered, Jerry O'Quinn's performance is the best part. The rest of it just didn't sit well with me. It gave me mixed messages. I'm not above watching a murder mystery/ horror- thriller flick. "The Stepfather" just rubs me the wrong way. 

229) Deadtime Stories (1986)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part seven)

"You were expecting Janet Leigh?"

Director 
Jeffrey Delman

Cast

Michael Mesmer - Uncle Mike
Brian DePersia - Little Brian

Scott Valentine - Peter
Nicole Picard - Rachel
Matt Mitler as Willie
Cathryn de Prume - Goldi Lox
Kathy Fleig - Miranda
Phyllis Craig - Hanagohl
Melissa Leo - Judith "MaMa" Baer
Kevin Hannon - Beresford "Papa" Baer
Timothy Rule - Wilmont "Baby" Baer
Anne Redfern - Florinda
Casper Roos - Vicar

The 1986 horror comedy anthology flick "Deadtime Stories" wasn't my first pick for the seventh movie in this ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza. It wasn't even my third pick. It wasn't an option at all. But it became a pick because I couldn't access the movies I really wanted to watch and comment on, particularly "Deadly Friend" or "The Hitcher." The latter being my primary pick. However, "Deadtime Stories" fits this platform pretty well, all things considered. 

The movie tells three tales wrapped around the premise of an impatient uncle named Mike (Michael Mesmer) trying to get is sleepless and annoying nephew, Brian, (Brian DePersia) to sleep by telling him bedtime stories. Each story is more cynically twisted than the previous. 

The first story is called "The Black Forest." Peter (Scott Valentine - TV's Nick from "Family Ties") is sold as a slave to two witches who are cruel and, you know, witch-like. These two witch sisters are attempting to resurrect their third dead sister from the grave. So, they get Peter to do some pretty dark stuff against his will to help them bring back their dead sister. 

The second story, "Little Red Running Hood" is a low-budget and low I.Q. retelling of, obviously, "Little Red Riding Hood." 

The segment follows Rachel (Nicole Picard), who's supposed to be Little Red Riding Hood, who needs to pick up her grandmother's medication from a local drug store. She accidentally grabs meds for a werewolf instead. Hilarity ensues. Werewolf transformation takes place. Good times! 

The third segment, "Goldi Lox and the Three Baers" you'd think is self-explanatory. Basically, it's a much more off-the-wall and demented version of the fairytale. 

The "three Baers" - Beresford "Papa" Baer (Kevin Hannon), Judith "Mama" Baer (Melissa Leo), and Wilmont "Baby" Baer (Timothy Rule) - are actually three escaped mental patients. Their hideout is discovered by Goldi Lox (Cathryn de Prume) who is able to move objects through telekinesis. Rather than scare her off, the Baers keep her around as she is actually a murderer and Baby Baer has taken a liking to her. 

Matt Mitler as Willie in "Deadtime Stories."

It's amazing how this movie goes from slightly campy with a dominating dramatic horror tone to completely cheesy and stupid without care. It's like the movie gives up trying to be something at least somewhat significant. 

Honestly, I just don't care about this movie. This movie is satirical. While I do love satire, it still did nothing for me. It's style of satire is dryer than a librarian's sense of humor. And it's cringier than an "apology" from a sniffling Jimmy Kimmel. Ok...not that cringy. 

It's uncomfortable to watch beginning with the dirty-minded uncle who turns these stories into horrific versions of themselves, making characters like Rachel (i.e. Red Riding Hood) and Goldi Lox in saucy seductive characters. 

His stories are a mix of gore, sexuality, and mindless absurdity. Goldi Lox for instance is played absolutely absurd and pointless! Her telekinesis  makes the story feel all the more silly and overblown.
The movie took a while to grab my attention. Well, it grabbed my attention the same way a cheap souvenir does. It's interesting for a moment, and then remains dull once that moment has passed. 

The whole movie feels like some low-budget gimmick. It becomes an over-saturated dark comedy with a completely uneven feel. For some, its low-budget VHS horror charm might work, and that style does appeal to me. This one, not so much. You can see the absurdity increase moment by moment. 

The visual effects are gag inducing, especially in the first story. It's amazing that "Deadtime Stories" starts off looking like a movie that's half-way decent as far as quality goes and ends like a low-budget film school short with terrible camera work, over-the-top acting and nothing worth remembering. 

The whole thing is unreal and twisted. The writers knew this thing wouldn't be a big hit, so they just had fun being as ludicrous as they wanted. That much I can appreciate. 

"Deadtime Stories" is a cheap raunchy, blood-soaked trio of tales the likes of which a drunk uncle would likely share to whoever (if anyone) is listening. 

228) Day of the Dead (1985)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part six)

"Civil behavior is what distinguishes us from the lower forms. It's what enables us to communicate. To go about things in an orderly fashion, without attacking each other like beasts. Civility must be rewarded."

Director
George A. Romero

Cast

Lori Cardille - Dr. Sarah Bowman
Sherman Howard - Bub
Joseph Pilato - Captain Henry Rhodes
Terry Alexander - John "Flyboy"
Richard Liberty - Dr. Matthew "Frankenstein" Logan
John Amplas - Dr. Ted Fisher
Jarlath Conroy - Bill McDermott

Anthony Dileo Jr. - Private Miguel Salazar

When it comes to zombie movies, I feel this horror subgenre is stuck in a rut. Most zombie movies end up as slow as the zombies themselves. 

Seven or eight years ago, I started watching the series "Walking Dead." When I got to season five, I was  bored and my interest was gone. By that point, I found the series repetitive and ... repetitive. It also felt like it was out of ideas as to where else the storyline should go. I didn't even finish season five. I'm surprised I made it that far.

However, it goes without saying that the three best, and maybe the only best of all of zombie movies that I've seen are George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead (1968)," "Dawn of the Dead (1978)," and "Day of the Dead (1985)."  

I throw in the 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead," directed by Tom Savini, and "Zombieland" too, which is unrelated to Romero's zombie trio, among these well-made zombie flicks. Oh, and the "zombie-esque" movie I'll post about at the end of this year's thread. 

With "Night of the Living Dead" the world's end begins as the dead start rising from their graves. 

In the sequel, "Dawn of the Dead," the world is in the midst of collapsing. And in "Day of the Dead," the world has since fallen. It's everyone for themselves. 

I had previously watched "Dawn of the Dead" a few months ago to review but didn't get around to writing something up about it...yet. I'll probably watch it again. 

I feel like I should comment on "Night of the Living Dead" first. The original is an absolute horror classic in the truest meaning of the word. And Tom Savini's remake is a well made one. It's a true labor of zombie love filmed with respect for Romero's original movie. In fact, I made it a personal tradition to watch it every October either on or before Halloween. That, and "Trick 'r Treat" from 2007 are seasonal must-sees for me, kind of like watching "A Christmas Story" and "It's a Wonderful Life" during the holiday season.  

In this movie, the world has been pretty much overrun by the walking dead. 

The actual living seem to exist in small factions here and there. The story centers around a small band of survivors that live in safety (for now) in an underground bunker somewhere in Florida. 

Joseph Pilato as Capt. Rhodes in "Day of the Dead."

This group is composed of a few scientists, a couple soldiers, and a helicopter pilot. 

The scientists are headed by Dr. Matthew Logan (Richard Liberty) whom everyone calls "Frankenstein." They call him that because he's conducting experiments on zombies that the crew had previously captured and are keeping in a fenced in area within the bunker. His goal is to figure out how to control the zombies rather than destroy them. 

Logan's prime zombie subject is a living-dead guy he calls "Bub" (Sherman Howard).

Bub is his breakthrough subject as he shows huge signs of submission, capability, memory, and emotion. He's basically relearning how to be human. Bub is a sign of hope for the world's future. 

Meanwhile, the soldier-side of the group is led by Captain Henry Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). He's much more hostile, anxious and irate as he thinks zombie experimentation is a waste of time. It's also dangerous as he believes it could lead to a zombie attack. 

Tension between the two factions intensifies little by little. Once discipline collapses, Rhodes takes charge through intimidation and threats.  
Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille), who's studying the cause of the zombie outbreak, tries to be an intermediary, but Rhodes considers her a threat to his dominance and forces her, and all the other scientists, to submit to his "authority." 

In the midst of this turmoil, the zombies break loose from their enclosure. Now, the only options are to escape or die. 

I appreciate the fact that the movie doesn't cast any major celebrities. Doing so would steal the focus away from the apocalyptic plot. It also adds to the plausibility. Otherwise, the experience would be "that movie with the famous person fighting zombies."   

The story reminds me of the book "Lord of the Flies" but with scientists and soldiers working against each other, with completely different ideas on how to survive their isolation as zombies threaten their existence. 

It's hard not to think that with the previous movies about world domination (for lack of a better word) by zombies, with each movie depicting their advancement while survivors are forced underground where the dead people once were, this movie has its share of social commentary. Or maybe I'm just constantly looking for it in most of the horror movies I watch whether it's there or not. 

It took a while for something interesting to happen. There's a lot of exposition in the first half of the movie. The story saves the horror for the final act. And when it arrives, it delivers. A lot! The gore fest kicks off full force in the last 20 minutes.

"Dawn of the Dead" does the premise better. "Day of the Dead" is more for shock value. The characters know what to expect since the events in "Dawn of the Dead" which is a better movie. 

When it comes to Captain Henry Rhodes and his bad ass-ery, he epitomizes the standard qualifications to being a bad ass according to 1980's standards. One just needs to swear every sentence and shoot everything, or threaten to shoot. He masters it. 

Sherman Howard as 'Bub.'

"Day of the Dead" is a movie I have stomach-turning memories of from my youth. 

I grew up with three older brothers. Two of these brothers of mine loved horror movies like this. And I often caught glimpses or more of some of the movies they watched - "A Nightmare on Elm Street," "The Lost Boys," and this flick. I remember seeing them though I was much too young. 

I recall one particular afternoon after school, one of my brothers and few of his friends were watching "Day of the Dead" which they probably rented from the local video store. I distinctly recall the scene where Henry Rhodes gets torn in half by zombies. No doubt, my five-year-old face must have looked like it was trying to uninstall life as it witnessed this scene on the TV screen. 

My brother's friend, Chris, leaned over to me and said with some sympathy "Don't worry, Mike. It's only a movie." But that didn't help. He might as well have told me mayonnaise is a vegetable. The damage was done! 

That uncomfortable and sick image of Rhodes's demise, insides exposed and all, is forever burned in my head nearly 40 years later. 

I do need to mention that "Day of the Dead" is an entertaining showcase of  make-up artist Tom Savini's masterful special effects talent. He's great at it and it shows. Otherwise, the movie is a treadmill of waiting. That is, waiting to see the annoying characters die at the hands of the zombies, while the good guys get away!  

In this case, the movie doesn't disappoint. It does have an intensity about it, but it's not as strong and intriguing as the previous movie, "Dawn of the Dead" nor the trepidation, immediacy, and realism of "Night of the Living Dead." It tries to out-do the last movie, with some over-the-top action and gore. In that case, it also succeeds to a small extent. 

Characters are fighting among themselves while trying to protect themselves from the ravenous living dead. 

I think Romero carries on the suggestion that government, science, and military strength are only as strong as the people that are running these things. When they're corrupt, the whole thing stinks. 

227) A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge! (Part five)

"I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater." 

Director

Wes Craven 

Cast

Heather Langenkamp - Nancy Thompson
Robert Englund - Freddy Krueger
Johnny Depp - Glen Lantz
Amanda Wyss - Tina Gray
Nick Corri - Rod Lane
John Saxon - Lt. Thompson
Ronee Blakley - Marge Thompson

The 1980s! The Reagan years. Who ya gonna call? Be all you can be! Just say "no!" Where's the beef? The choice of a new generation. 

As I've mentioned a few reviews back, when it comes to horror movies, the 1970s saw a surge of realism in horror specifically, and in movies in general. 

Gone was the atomic era from the 1960s with space invaders and mutant monsters. Movies such as "The Exorcist," "Rosemary's Baby," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Halloween" gave horror real bone-chilling plausibility. 

Then the 1980s came and gave horror a surreal element though keeping the chill factor right were the 1970s left it. 

It seems 80s horror (generally speaking) has a mixture of, well, horror, plus fantasy and a smidge of comedy. In other words, the horror genre didn't seem to take itself too seriously in the 1980s. But it could still be nightmare-inducing. 

Some great franchises sprang up during this gnarly era. Child's Play. Friday the 13th. The Evil Dead. Poltergeist. Horror went from believability to a rise in gory creature feature stories that really hit what we fear. And in a lot of cases, campiness made a kind of comeback. This time, it was intentional. 

The perfect blend of fantasy and bloody gore is nowhere better depicted than in Wes Craven's 1984 iconic picture, "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Craven's movie added one more monster to the rogue's gallery of horror movie icons - Freddy Krueger, played by Robert Englund. 

I previously wrote about the sixth installment in "The Nightmare on Elm Street" series, called "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare." It's the first horror movie I ever saw in a theater, which is why I decided to review it before any of the other Elm Street movies which I'll get to later. I guess I was feeling overly nostalgic that day because part six is one of the worst movies in the series. 

Anyways, "A Nightmare on Elm Street" begins as children and teenagers living in the town of Springwood, Ohio are having terrifying nightmares. 

They're all dreaming of a horribly burned man named Fred Krueger who wears a red and green sweater, dirty brown hat, and a glove with razor-sharp knives who's hell-bent on killing each of them. 

And those whom Krueger kills in their sleep actually die. 

Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund in "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

One high school girl named Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) is having nightmares as well with Krueger showing up. She learns that other teenagers at school, including her friends as well as her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) are all having the same reoccurring dream as she is. 

She presses her mother Marge (Ronee Blakley) and especially her dad, Don (John Saxon) who's a police lieutenant, about the man in her dreams. 

Of course, they're reluctant to tell her what they know and would rather she take dream suppressants and forget about these nightmares of hers. Obviously, that's not going to happen. 

Nancy is eventually told about a dark and grim secret the parents of Elm Street/ Springwood share. Years earlier, they hunted down and burned Freddy Krueger alive because he was a child murderer who escaped justice due to a legal technicality. 

His damned spirit has returned and is getting his revenge on those parents who killed him by killing their children in their dreams. That's where the parents can't save them. 

Once Nancy finds this out, she can either stay awake the rest of her life or face off with Freddy and destroy him somehow. 

Freddy Krueger sits on a high rising pedestal amidst classic creatures - Frankenstein, Dracula, and the I'll throw Leatherface up there, too. 

But Freddy Krueger is frightening in ways that other monsters aren't. He utilizes the ultimate vulnerability of his victims. Everyone has to sleep. There's no escape from sleep. And it's as desirable as eating and....other things. 

Sleep is when we're all the most helpless. And there's no escape in our dreams other than the hope of waking up just in time. 

Freddy also blurs the lines of reality. It's all the more nightmarish for the teens of Elm Street since he uses this power of his to psychologically weaken them. 

He's intelligent. He's sadistic. And rather than dawning dark clothes and capes while lurking in the shadows, Freddy has a striking and intense appearance, and an actual personality (albeit an evil one). He makes dark jokes, mocks his victims, and has a twisted sense of humor. 

He's a demon who acts as a sort of punishment for the sins of teenagers. 

As the Elm Street movies progress, the nightmares become sillier and sillier. 

"A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" is mediocre. It tries to be another story stemming from part one, focusing on a new teenager. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" sees the return of Nancy and is pretty good for a sequel. It has some of the freakiest scenes and intense visuals in the entire franchise.

The movies go downhill beginning with "A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master." It's dumb. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child" is dumber. Part six, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare just wants to kill it all off as fast as it can. "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" from 1994 is... interesting. It's not terrible. And I think it was the direction the franchise should have gone immediately after part one. 

"Freddy vs. Jason" is only entertaining when Freddy and Jason are fighting. It's a bit cartoonish but it's actually not bad. I enjoyed, anyways. 

And the remake from 2010 with Jackie Earl Haley was simply bad. I think most audiences saw it out of curiosity. 

The terrible sequel problem originated with Freddy being both scary and adored. When the writing got away from Wes Craven, it seems other writers embraced the adored part of Krueger, and his image suffered for it. The frights were watered down. The campiness was blown up. And we got visions of Freddy sporting sunglasses, rapping, playing Nintendo (with a power glove no less! Remember those?) and trying to get the audience to laugh rather than scream. That's why "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" is much better than the sequels. 

Freddy Krueger comes right in the midst of hacking and slashing maniacal boogeymen movies (for lack of a better term) that sprang up towards the later 70s and spawned sequels through the 1980s. Of course, "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" are the most well-known among other such horror movies like "Black Christmas" for instance. 

With "A Nightmare on Elm Street," the camera work, amazing effects and nightmare inducing imagery, especially when Freddy first appears, are nothing short of renowned in the horror genre. 

The score, though, and Freddy's laugh sound like something from a local outdated Halloween attraction. 

Also, there's real and solid rival chemistry between Nancy and Freddy. Both are fantastic. Their's is as iconic as Laurie Strode and Michael Myers, or Sidney Prescott and Ghostface, or Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lector, or even Van Helsing and Dracula. 

Nancy has a strength and fearlessness to her, well performed by Heather Legankamp, that Freddy can't contend with. She does something to Freddy that no one else has done. Arouse fear. There's nothing about her Freddy can take her on. She doesn't show vulnerability which he can use to destroy her. For what it is, the character of Nancy is believable as she goes from nightmare after nightmare, to doctors and sleep specialists, with parents in denial of what they unwittingly wrought. The children suffer the sins of the parents. 

Nancy doesn't succumb to weaknesses but embraces the fight or flight instinct because her friends are dying and she needs to get some friggin' sleep. She's no Ellen Ripley in "Alien" but she's on the same level as strong leading heroines of horror. 

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" doesn't waste time. It knows where it wants to go and has such a well-directed build up. 

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" blends psychological horror with the classic slasher genre. Both elements are equally necessary. The movie uses the blurred line between dreams and reality to its advantage and uses that trope extraordinarily well. That psychological element really laid a foundation in the horror which led to movies like "In the Mouth of Madness" (1994), "Event Horizon" (1997), and "Candyman" (1992). It reshaped the genre with its inventive storytelling and unforgettable villain.