235) It's Alive (1974)

"I think this little guy's trying to kill me."

Director

Larry Cohen

Cast
John P. Ryan - Frank Davis

Sharon Farrell - Lenore Davis
Daniel Holzman - Chris Davis

Andrew Duggan - the Professor
Guy Stockwell - Bob Clayton

James Dixon - Lt. Perkins
William Wellman Jr. - Charley

When it comes to horror, is anything sacred? Well, today, probably not. But when Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" made its way to theaters back in 1974, some things were surely still untouchable as far as horror goes. 

This was the era when realism was intruding into the horror scene. Horror movies involving a child antagonist, or rather, child monsters had appeared in movies prior to 1974 - "Village of the Damned," "The Bad Seed," "Kill Baby...Kill!" and the creepy kid movie of all creepy kid movies, "The Exorcist." 

But they involved older children. "It's Alive" is about a killer infant. When it came to evil newborns, well there is "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968 (a movie I particularly don't care for) but her baby wasn't a killer monster. Not right away, at least.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the movie "It's Alive." On the one hand, it feels like a satirical creature feature attempting to cross a line, and possibly succeeding. The satire does keep things a bit on a leash, though. On the other hand, I have the impression there's some social commentary I wasn't sure I was understanding well enough. 

The movie centers on Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) and his wife, Lenore (Sharon Farrell) who are expecting their second child. 

When Lenore goes into labor, she delivers some kind of mutated fanged baby monster that immediately kills the doctor and nurses in the delivery room. 

The baby, a boy, escapes the hospital before anyone can stop him or even knows what's going on. And poor dad is in the waiting room with the other nervous dads completely unaware of what his poor wife just went through. He finds out soon enough when he goes to check on her in the delivery room and sees the dead nurses and doctors laying on the floor bleeding out. 

When the medical staff start joining the patient list, it’s a sign the birthing process didn’t go according to the maternity ward's happy delivery plan.

With the killer baby monster on the loose in the streets of Los Angeles, police detectives, and even the media are trying to find it by following its trail of death. 

Frank is horrified at the situation, though he certainly tries not to act so. But we know he is. He's just good at hiding it. Anyways, Frank refuses to believe that this monster child is his son and agrees to kill it or have it killed - whichever comes first. 

John P. Ryan as Frank Davis in "It's Alive." 

Lenore's motherly instincts kick in right away and she's not so eager to see it die no matter what it has done. It's just a baby, afterall.  

Authorities and scientists think the baby's deformities and dangerous behavior may be the result of experimental drugs or environmental toxins. 

Whatever the case might be, the kid needs to be found and if the authorities have their way, destroyed once and for all. 

Overall, watching this felt uncomfortable. Even though the movie hides the gruesome parts, leaving things up to the imagination, it's jarring to watch a movie about a ravenous killing newborn child.

Honestly, kids before their teen years are innocent enough, generally speaking. Newborns are the most tender and innocent of all of us. Still, audiences don't cringe as much should a teenager be the killer antagonist in a movie. 

There's an interesting subplot with Frank clearly attempting to ignore his own emotions and give permission for authorities to end the life of his son. Despite all that, I grew somewhat bored with "It's Alive" halfway through it. 

It tries to have shock value but even with its jarring premise, it proceeds cautiously with its premise otherwise previously considered too shocking even for horror. 

Going back to my mixed feelings, as I said I couldn't tell if this movie is trying to make some sort of social commentary, or what commentary it's trying to make. Is it trying to make a pro-abortion stance, or is it a commentary on the anxiety that comes with parenting? Is it anti-child? Is it anti-parent? Is it both? Then again, there is that satirical element. Subtle, but present. 

Well, according to the 2018 article "Killer Babies, Winged Serpents, and the Hammer: The Guerrilla Genius of B-Movie Maestro Larry Cohen" published on theringer.com, while "It's Alive" was released the year after the Roe v. Wade decision, Cohen denied the suggestion that the movie is inspired by the abortion debate as well as the thalidomide deaths of the 1950s and 1960s. 

The article quotes Cohen as saying, “I wasn’t thinking about that. I was thinking about articles that I saw where parents kill their kids because they were so drugged up and so violent and so intimidating that they were terrifying the parents. Suddenly, these people found out that the little boy that they had in their home had suddenly turned into some kind of monster that they feared. In several cases they actually kill their own kid. So I said, what about if it’s a baby, and nothing more angry than a frustrated baby, so I just decided to make the movie.”

Aside from all that, "It's Alive" has definitely aged into a typical creature-feature flick truly straight from its era. 

Cohen uses a lot of fast cut-aways, quick glimpses, fish-eye lenses and low point-of-view angles, along with typical gore (mild, but present) to sell the scare to the audience and give it a period feeling. Plus, it even manages to have a bit of emotion. I mean, despite all that hasn't aged well within this movie, the premise of two parents wrapping themselves around the shock that their newborn is a fanged terror cannot-not be an emotional story to some degree when the parents are concerned.

Cohen has directed other movies with plots that contain social commentary and satire to some degree or another. 

His 1972 dark comedy "Bone" certainly satirizes racism and class divides as well as wealthy suburban life. 

His well-known film, "The Stuff" which I commented on back in 2021 is one big horror satire on consumerism, capitalism, and America's love of junk food. "Can't get enough of 'The Stuff'!" So, it's no surprise "It's Alive" would be satirical, too.

This movie did spawn two sequels, It Lives Again (1978) and It's Alive III: Island of the Alive (1987). It also has a 2009 remake with Bijou Philips, James Murray and directed by Josef Rusnak
"It's Alive" dabbles in territory often deemed too disturbing for horror, yet it earns recognition for portraying a father who discovers humanity within his monstrous child while an impulsive society fails to do the same. Cohen deserves applause for concluding the film on such a poignant note.

234) What's the Matter with Helen? (1971)

"I offered you my blessing, but you refused it. Now move along."

Director
Curtis Harrington

Cast

Debbie Reynolds - Adelle Bruckner
Shelley Winters - Helen Hill
Dennis Weaver - Lincoln Palmer

Micheál Mac Liammóir - Hamilton Starr
Agnes Moorehead - Sister Alma
Logan Ramsey - Detective Sergeant West

The 1971 psychobiddy horror flick, "What's the Matter with Helen?" has more tap-dancing, smeared eyeliner, and guilt-ridden older women than any other movie in the horror subgenre I've ever seen and written about. It'll unsettle more than it'll inspire jazz hands.

In my commentary on the movies, "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?," "Funeral Home," and "Mountaintop Motel Massacre" - of course all real cinematic gems and true masterpieces - I've discussed the horror/thriller subgenre known as hagsploitation, or psychobiddy horror. I'll reiterate.

Movies in this subgenre center on the lead role played by older women who fall into psychological instability, usually brought on by some traumatizing scenario. And this pushes them to violent behavior. So, it's all about old women going berserk.  

The subgenre began to spring up on movie screens sometime around the 1950s and into the 1960s with such movies as, "Sunset Boulevard" (1950) "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" (1962), "Straight Jacket" (1964) "Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte" (1964) and "The Nanny" (1965). There's also the movie "What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?" (1969). I guess when it comes to hagsploitation, that's the imperative question. What ever happened?
I'd say one of the more well-known movies of the subgenre is Stephen King's novel turned film, "Misery" (1990). That movie really demonstrates how much these cock-a-doody psychobiddy movies can be jarring to watch.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" has been on my radar for a couple years. I have a copy down in my horror collection paired as a double-feature with "Whoever Slee Auntie Roo?" Both movies, which star Shelley Winters, are packaged together as part of the "Midnite Movies" collection from MGM Home Entertainment.  

If she hasn't been dubbed "the queen of hagsploitation" already, I'm bestowing the title on Shelley Winters right here, right now on this platform. Between Winters's performance in this movie, and in "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" the title fits for her two unhinged woman roles.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" also stars "Singin' in the Rain" star and Carrie Fisher's mom, Debbie Reynolds. 

Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds in "What's the Matter with Helen?"

The movie is set in 1934. It kicks off with a period newsreel to make sure the audience knows exactly where and when they are. Among the news items in the newsreel, Eleanor Roosevelt is broadcast cheerfully touring Puerto Rico. The mood swerves hard as the final story is broadcast. It regards two mothers, Adelle Bruckner (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen Hill (Shelley Winters), swiftly exiting a courtroom after watching their respective sons each receive life sentences for the murder of a girl named Ellie Banner. Nothing says “nostalgia for America's golden era” quite like watching some happy news followed immediately by a soul-crushing tragedy.

As the mothers jump into a car at the courthouse, Helen claims someone in the rabbling crowd sliced her hand. 

Helen and Adelle decide to leave Iowa, change their identities, move to Hollywood, and open a dance studio and live in apartments above. There, they can teach young girls how to dance and perhaps become the next Shirley Temple. 

As they get accustomed to their new lives, Helen receives calls from an unknown stalker claiming to be the culprit who sliced her hand. He threatens to gain revenge on both of them for what their sons did.

Meanwhile, elocution instructor Hamilton Starr (Micheál Mac Liammóir) pays the ladies a visit to offer his assistance with their dance studio. 

Adelle welcomes his assistance. Helen, meanwhile, is weary and nervous about his presence, especially considering the phone calls she has been receiving. 

Helen is also certain she has seen a strange man watching them from across the street on a few occasions. 

Helen doesn't know who the strange man she claims to be seeing is, but the whole scenario is clearly wreaking havoc on her nerves and mental well-being.

Adelle ends up falling in love with a suave looking guy named Lincoln Palmer (Dennis Weaver) who's the father of one of the dance students. 

She regularly tunes into an evangelical religious preacher on the radio named Sr. Alma (Agnes Moorehead from the TV sitcom "Bewitched") which bolsters up a sense of guilt within Helen. It certainly doesn't help her frame of mind. Increasing paranoia stacked upon guilt, repression and religious anxiety slowly consume Helen. 

Plus, Adelle's romance with Lincoln arouses jealousy in Helen, too. Watching Adelle focus her attention to Lincoln has Helen feeling alone. Her mental stability is breaking down. 

One night, the two ladies have a nasty fight, and Adelle demands Helen move out. After all, she needs to tend to her own inner struggles without having Helen pull her into her problems. Besides, this new life and her budding romance with Lincoln are quickly becoming Adelle’s new escape.

While Adelle is on a date with Lincoln one evening, a stranger walks into the studio and heads up to their rooms calling for Helen while she is preparing to move out. 

She panics and pushes this stranger down the stairs. This guy slams his head against the wall causing a fatal gash in his head. Seeing this guy bleed out on the bottom of the stairs causes Helen to have visions of her late husband who died in a plowing accident. She also can't help but think about Ellie Banner as she watches this random stranger lose his life right in front of her. 

Helen is beside herself in fear at what just happened. When Adelle arrives back from her date and sees this guy lying dead in the studio, she fears what sort of press this will surely receive. 

So, she convinces Helen to wrap the guy up so they can both dump him into a ditch at a nearby construction site. Since it happens to be raining, it will easily look like the guy was out walking or something and had himself a nasty accident. 

Helen is an emotional mess after this. She's desperate for redemption and forgiveness. So, she goes to the church where Sr. Alma preaches in order to ask her for that forgiveness. But as they say, never meet your heroes. 

During the religious service, Helen approaches Alma and begs for forgiveness. Alma reluctantly plays along and offers her a blessing which is nothing different from what she's offering everyone else in the church. This isn't what Helen feels she needs. She wants forgiveness poured on her, but Alma doesn't do much to just humor this emotional woman, and tells her to move along. Helen's anguish erupts into a scene in front of the entire congregation. She's then dragged out in front of everyone and left to wallow in her complete shame and embarrassment. It's a thrust for Helen that pushes her into a darker and depressing phase. 

Despite a doctor's visit, and his advice for her to stay in bed and rest, Helen's mental state declines to the point of dangerous insanity. Not only is the question "what's the matter with Helen" a crucial one, but so is, "what's left for Helen to do now?" 

It's worth mentioning that Reynolds also stars in the 1959 dark comedy "The Gazebo" where she plays a wife caught in the middle of a plot that involves murder, a cover-up, and escalating tension. So, she's not a novice to psychological horror. There's solid chemistry between Winters and Reynolds as they play almost opposite characters trying to deal with a tragedy that fell on them and changed their lives. The key point is how each of them deal with their grief, and clash in the process. I sense a very slight hint of inspiration from Thelma Todd and ZaSu Pitts minus the slapstick comedy, replaced with anguish and mental breakdowns.

The story in this movie about Helen is quite a blend of psychological suspense, blame, festering guilt, the dire human need for forgiveness and redemption, and emotional repression. Despite this emotional salad, there's a lack of gusto that should push the movie forward. Still, Shelley Winters creates a truly sympathetic character as the audience watches her mental breakdown. 

The effort to make a serious psychological horror picture is clearly present. However, it feels a little too much like a made-for-TV movie of the week as it moves forward a little too cautiously.  

The biggest take-away from this movie - the blatant underlying plot point - is the immense guilt each mother carries after their sons are sent to prison for murder. However, no one ends up a winner or victor in this story. There's no happy ending because story has no room for one.

Helen and Adelle certainly deal with their terrible burdens in different ways though they both go into the same business together to push down their grief. It's an intriguing plot, indeed. 

The whole movie has a real unsettling atmosphere about it even outside all the psychological turmoil. There's a lot of psychological fear upon more psychological fear packed into this movie. It's all set against a backdrop of faded Hollywood glamour and glittered moral decay. 

Their depression-era dance studio setting makes the overall atmosphere feel darker and unsettling. That flows from these eager happy parents watching their children gleefully sing and dance, and work towards a potentially promising future while Helen and Adelle just watched their sons get put away for murder.  

But that singing and dancing  as a cynical tone to it. The movie gets even more awkward and uncomfortable to watch during a scene when an underage girl performs a song and dance number dressed as Mae West during a recital. She puts on her best sultry singing and dancing style, repeating the phrase in the best Mae West voice she can provocatively bellow out, "Oh, you nasty man!" The audience, with their trapped souls, sit there and pretend this is perfectly normal children’s entertainment. It's clearly a cynical depiction of parents pushing their children into the glamourous life. 

 "What's the Matter with Helen?" is directed by Curtis Harrington. He's no newcomer when it comes to psychological horror movies. Harrington also directed Shelley Winters in "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?" the same year as this movie. He directed other B-horror movies such as "Queen of Blood," as well as the psychological horror movies "Game" (1967), and "The Killing Kind" (1973) plus the supernatural horror movie "Ruby" (1977).

It's worth mentioning that Harrington also directed the 1961 fantasy horror movie "Night Tide" with Dennis Hopper in his first starring role.

"What's the Matter with Helen?" has a truly intriguing, horrifying and original plot. How would a mother, or a pair of mothers, handle having sons who were convicted of murderers? What did these boys do to their moms? Meanwhile, all of America is looking in as they try to hide and start life anew. 

The movie tries but lacks conviction. It displays the entire facade of both of these women but feels a little too reluctant and a bit too reserved to allow the real horror to claw its way out so the audience can see it. It tries, but proceeds with a just a little hesitiation - just enough to notice. 

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.