Did you ever make plans to hang out with someone you didn’t like and were beating yourself up over it all day only to have that person call you last minute and cancel?  Pretty awesome, isn’t it?  It’s the element of surprise, or “the unexpected,” that makes something like this happening so great.  You’re expecting one thing and get something completely different happen.  Some films do this as well.  Best example:  1996‘S FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.  I saw this on opening night and didn’t know a goddamn thing about it.  What starts off as a road trip-flick with a couple of criminals fleeing from the law suddenly changes gears and becomes a vampire movie — a really kick ass vampire movie.  RITES OF SPRING follows a similar model.  What starts off with a kidnapping quickly escalates into a monster/creature flick.  Is RITES OF SPRING successful at it?

Before the film begins, we’re told that in the Spring of 1984 five teenagers went missing and every Spring since, two girls have disappeared with the bodies never being recovered.  We then join Rachel (Anessa Ramsey) and Alyssa (Hannah Bryan) as they’re getting into their car one dark night after work.  Before you can say, “Is that Jame Gumb?”, they’re knocked out and kidnapped only to awaken tied up in someones barn.  In the other main storyline we join a group of kidnappers:  Anything Horror favorite, AJ Bowen (Ben), his girlfriend Amy (Katherine Randolph), the ringleader Paul (Sonny Marinelli), and Ben’s brother Tommy (Andrew Breland).  They’re planning on abducting the young daughter, Kelly (Skylar Burke), of a very wealthy couple.  The film cuts back and forth between the two storylines and brings them together very nicely.  RITES OF SPRING doesn’t have the same kind of violent transformation that FROM DUSK TILL DAWN had, but the way writer-director Padraig Reynolds juxtaposes these two storylines is very well done.

We meet Rachel and Alyssa’s kidnapper early on and realize there’s something much more sinister happening.  Their kidnapper, known simply as “The Stranger” (Marco St. John), seems to be preparing them for some kind of ritual, but he isn’t the one who is going to do them harm.  RITES OF SPRING quickly becomes a creature flick in the vein of JEEPERS CREEPERS.  The creature here is very different from the one in Victor Salva’s films, but there’s that same theme of it reappearing and going on a killing spree after a period of dormancy.

The acting here is good all around and I always love seeing AJ Bowen.  He always brings a lot of intensity and depth to his characters.  The other shining performance is Anessa Ramsey (Rachel).  She’s put through the grinder here and she never comes off as a helpless victim or as an unbelievable superwoman.  She beautifully plays her role as the ordinary woman who finds herself in a very surreal and dangerous situation who is trying to survive.  She comes across as genuine and real.  Kudos to Reynolds for writing such a strong female character and for not resorting to the typical stereotype of the hysterical, whiny, crying female victim.

RITES OF SPRING clocks in at a quick 80 minutes and Reynolds takes most of the time setting up the two storylines and bringing them together.  He does this really well, but the last act feels a little rushed.  We get an explanation of what the creature is, but it’s a very surface-level description.  The potential for a really interesting backstory and history with this creature is there, and I would’ve liked Reynolds to have explored it more.  Adding in another 10 minutes would’ve given Reynolds enough time to build up a little more tension and not rush though the final act.  What we get, though, is a fast-paced horror film with well written characters and a plot that never reaches beyond what it is.  Reynolds knows exactly what his story is and he never attempts to go beyond it.  He stays focused and the result is a well written film — and that’s a pretty damn good quality to have!!

We get to see the creature in a few fast clips, and what we see looks good.  The creature, dubbed “Worm Face,” carries around a farming tool and uses it a lot.  I was surprised, though, by the lack of gore in this one.  Most of the gore occurs off screen and whereas I never think gore is necessary to make a film good, you all know that I do love my gore.  More on-screen violence and gore would’ve made RITES OF SPRING an instant hit, but as it is we do end up with a hugely entertaining film.  Some of you may be put off with the abrupt ending, but don’t worry; it wasn’t nearly as bad as THE DEVIL INSIDE (but then again, what is).  I get the feeling this was made to be the first film in a series.  I can see the sequel picking up exactly where this one left off!!

RITES OF SPRING offers some solid filmmaking chops (good cinematography, great editing), some great acting, a fun plot, and a good looking creature.  More on-screen gore would’ve only helped to elevate and make this even more fun, and even though it stumbles a bit in the final act we do indeed get some closure.  RITES OF SPRING is a really fun debut feature from Reynolds and I’m really looking forward to seeing what he follows this one up with next.

My Summary:

Director:  Padraig Reynolds (& writer)

Plot:  3.5 out of 5 stars

Gore:  3 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Yes, ZOMBIE BABIES is the actual title of this movie, but wait;  it gets better!!  The tagline is, “What’s grosser than a pile of dead babies?”  Hopefully you realize that nothing in ZOMBIE BABIES is meant to be taken seriously.  We have silly, yet quite funny, dialogue; over-the-top, gross characters; and dead babies coming back to life after an accident.  Writer-director Eamon Hardiman, who also gave us the PORKCHOP franchise and VAMPIRE WHORES FROM OUTER SPACE, set out to make a gross-out, crossing-the-line kind of film and he succeeds.  There’s a little bit of everything here to offend everyone, that is unless you actually have a sense of humor and take this film as it’s intended – as a horror-comedy.

ZOMBIE BABIES revolves around the antics of one Dr. Burt Fleming (Brian Gunnoe) — I think he’s a doctor.  Even the good doctor himself has been hit by the economy and it seems no one is coming in to take advantage of his specialty.  What’s his specialty, you ask?  Late-term abortions.  That’s right; there’s no woman, no matter how far along her pregnancy is, that Fleming will turn down.  In order to boost business, Fleming (now that I think of it, I don’t believe he’s a doctor at all) is offering his services at next-to-nothing prices.  It doesn’t take long before a few couples gather together to take advantage of getting rid of their little unwanted bundles of joy.  There’s Kevin and Leah (Trent McKelvin & Kaylee Williams); Jami Lynn and Jackson (Missy Dawn & Dean Stark); Veronica and Louis (Ruby Larocca & Shawn C. Phillips); and Capri and Reggie (Desiree Sueliu & Ford Austin).  They join Fleming at his casino-clinic (??!?) for a fun weekend of abortions and partying.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, ZOMBIE BABIES is all played for laughs.

The first thing Fleming does is get those pesky abortions outta the way so everyone can enjoy the rest of their weekend.  Jami Lynn, Capri, and Veronica all go through with the late-term abortions, but Leah has second thoughts and ends up keeping her baby.  We don’t get to see anything too explicit with the abortions, but we do get a pretty kick-ass abortion montage.  Remember the great training montages in all the  ROCKY flicks?  Well imagine them instead with ankles in stirrups, long wire coat hangers, and lots of blood spurting everywhere … you get the picture.  This montage is grossly offensive, and it was right up my alley.  It’s hard to take a film like this seriously, so don’t!!

But what’s a poor doctor to do after he completes three abortions?  Cleanup is such a pain in the ass that the doc decides to throw the dead, late-term babies in a pile in the basement.  Yeah, I know.  But Fleming has a distillery in the basement (right next to the pile of dead babies), and that damn thing decides to spring a leak and soak the pile of little corpses with a very potent amount of alcohol.  Now the babies are back, and they don’t take too kindly to being aborted!!  Let the undead have their revenge.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, ZOMBIE BABIES is all played for laughs.

There’s umbilical cord decapitations; death by baby feces; babies in blenders; and just about anything else that could potentially shock and offend you.  The cast looks as though they’re having a blast with the material and much of the dialogue seems to be ad-libbed (and ad-libbed well).  Everyone does a good job and the fun they’re having is infectious.  Lots of nudity and debauchery abound as the group is picked off one by one by the undead fetuses.  Kaylee Williams (Leah) stands out as the expecting “Expendable” who ends up kicking some baby ass.  Her innocent and sexy look made her perfect for the role of Leah, the once meek now kick-ass heroine.

The “babies” themselves are obviously a combination of hand puppets and puppets on wires and that’s what made this so much fun.  Once the zombie babies start attacking you can’t help but laugh and have a fun time.  The f/x are all practical and the filmmakers here aren’t afraid to go heavy on the blood and goo.

The only negative thing I have to say about ZOMBIE BABIES is that it dragged on a little too long.  At a running time of 95 minutes, there were more than a few scenes that just went on for too long.  Another go around (or two) in the editing room could have tightened this one up and made the pace a little quicker – which is exactly what it needed.  But just wait until you see Fleming and his assistant Teddy (Rob Cobb) man up and go after the undead babies.  Their weapon of choice?  Wire coat hangers, of course!!  And I was literally laughing out loud when these two were running through the undead-infected house and and dead babies were flying all over the place.  Good stuff.

ZOMBIE BABIES won’t be winning any Oscar’s any time soon.  With its rather controversial subject matter (of late-term abortions), over-the-top execution, and blood, gore, and tits everywhere, ZOMBIE BABIES never tries to be more than it is:  A really silly and ridiculous zombie-comedy.  I had a lot of fun with this one.  Check it out.

My Summary:

Director:  Eamon Hardiman (& writer)

Plot:  3 out of 5 stars

Gore:  7 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  3 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Oh Syfy … you definitely dance to the beat of your own drum!!  I know I stand out from other reviewers in that I enjoy the vast majority of SyFy Originals (waaay more than I should).  I’ve also realized that the sword-and-sorcery Originals pretty much suck across the board; the giant creature flicks are loads of fun; and films like this one (a creature feature, but not a giant creature) always fall somewhere in the middle.  With all its flaws I actually really enjoyed 2012’s LEPRECHAUN’s REVENGE (my review).  I know … I need help!!  So when I got the screener for (THE) BOOGEYMAN, more on the title in a second, I was more than excited.  (Oh stop it; we’ve already established that I need help).  A good cast, a workable plot, and a decent looking creature – what the hell’s going on here SyFy??  But in the end the only thing that matters is whether it’s fun enough to recommend.  So is it?

The film opens with brothers Jacob and Isaac playing around the neighborhood “creepy house.”  Jacob, the younger of the two, is obviously freaked out by the house and what unknown horrors may lie inside, but one of Isaac’s friends takes Jacob’s cell phone and throws it through a window on the top floor.  Now Jacob is forced to go inside.  Unbeknownst to Jacob and the others, the house is a prison to a creature as old as the book of Genesis from the bible itself — and it’s as pissed off and hungry as it is old.  Jacob accidentally sets the creature free and upon realizing it’s free, the creature’s guard, Mr. Skinner, has a heart attack and dies, setting off a chain of events that leads to the creature going on a massive killing spree.

Jacob and Isaac’s father, Mike (Eddie McClintock), who also happens to be a cop in the small town, is investigating the death of Mr. Skinner when he and his female partner Rebecca (Amy Bailey), are sucked into the conspiracy of what the creature is, why it’s in their town, and why it has targeted Jacob.

First let’s talk about the title:  The DVD screener I got is simply titled, BOOGEYMAN.  On the IMDb.com page the film is titled, THE BOOGEYMAN.  I have no idea what to say about this other than the fact that sometimes the IMDb.com page is made before the film is itself finalozed.  Whatever.  But there’s even more mystery with the title.  If you name your film “Boogeyman,” realize this comes with a lot of baggage.  Without knowing anything about the film I assumed the titular creature would be tormenting children by hiding under their beds or in their closets.  You know; the childhood creature that’s the cause of all the “bumps in the night.”  There are two different scenes here where the titular creature hides under a bed and in a closet, but overall this film isn’t about the monster that causes children to lose sleep.  BOOGEYMAN is really about the creature’s association to the bible (that’s all I’ll say about it).  The pivotal part of the plot has to do with what the creature is, how it’s survived over the millennia, and why it targets certain people.  The storyline has a bit of an identity crisis and it seems the filmmakers tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole by attempting to turn the Boogeyman here into the monster of children’s nightmares.

Director Jeffery Scott Lando does a nice job keeping everything moving along at a quick pace.  The finer details of the plot (written by David Reed) kinda get plowed over, but that’s probably for the best.  There are a lot of silly things going on in this story.  Example; the titular creature is several centuries old and has been held in captivity for a long time by old Mr. Skinner (its guardian).  But then along comes an eight/nine year old kid who releases the creature from its prison in a matter of seconds.  Hey Skinner, it probably wasn’t the greatest of ideas to hang the key next to the goddamn door where you have the monster locked up!!  There also seems to be an awful lot of cops in such a small town.  I know this sounds as though I’m nitpicking but there’s probably a cop for every three or four citizens!!  This is also the haziest, smoggiest film I’ve ever seen.  I get it that they were using the haze to create a certain tone in the movie, but when there’s so much smog that it’s hard to identify which character is, I think it’s time to lay off the dry ice!!

But despite these and (many) other problems, I really found myself having a fun time with BOOGEYMAN.  McClintock plays pretty much the same role here as he does in WAREHOUSE 13, but it’s a fun character.  He’s a little goofy, charming, and can kick ass when needed.  He and the rest of the cast do a nice job with the material they’re given.  The creature is also pretty decent looking.  We actually get a practical creature and not some shitty-looking CGI abomination.  The creature reminded me of a combination of the titular monster from PUMPKINHEAD and Jason from the FRIDAY THE 13TH films.  A compliment if I’ve ever given one.!! And there was a little more blood and guts in this one than your standard SyFy Original.  We get to see the aftermath of the Boogeyman’s rampage after it crashes a party in the woods.  Fun stuff.

If you sit and start critiquing every little detail in BOOGEYMAN then you’re gonna have a miserable experience.  If, like with all SyFy Originals, you just sit back, knock down a few beverages, and ‘go with it,’ then you’re gonna have a fun time.  I enjoyed this one overall despite the seemingly ambivalent nature of the creature.  Check this one out!!

BOOGEYMAN premiers this Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 9pm ET/PT, on SyFy.

My Summary:

Director:  Jeffery Scott Lando

Plot:  3 out of 5 stars

Gore:  3 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

This was a nice surprise!!  When I first came across ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS I couldn’t help but immediately compare it to 2008’s ZOMBIE STRIPPERS (my review).  In ZOMBIE STRIPPERS, writer-director Jay Lee created a world where strippers get infected with a zombie virus and somehow manages to make the zombie strippers sexy.  Like extremely sexy (I think there’s something wrong with me).  ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS doesn’t go the same route as Lee’s film but takes a similar set up and really runs with it in his own direction and creates a pretty damn good zombie-comedy.

ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS is the story of Spider (Circus-Szalewski), the owner of a strip club, The Tough Tittie, (and the owner of what is perhaps the oldest functioning cell phone in existence).  The Tough Tittie, located in the middle of what looks like an industrial park and surrounded by warehouses and not much else, is slowly sinking deeper and deeper into debt.  This particular night Spider decides to sell the club and gathers all his employees (four strippers, the DJ, the bartender, and the bouncer) to break the news to them and have a final bash in the club.  But Spider has pretty shitty luck and timing.  From news reports and radio stations it sounds like society is crumbling.  There’s riots everywhere and reports of people exhibiting extremely violent behavior attacking others.  That’s right; Spider and his employees find themselves right smack in the middle of the zombie apocalypse!!  What’s fun is watching the cast as they become ever more aware that they’re in some deep shit.  At first there’s a few homeless person-zombies hanging around the club, and by the end of the film we have a full blown apocalypse.

The employees of the club are like a big dysfunctional family.  They all don’t particularly care for one another and in some cases hate each other.  But they also know they’re all they’ve got and when it comes right down to it, they’ll all fight to the death to protect one another.  Besides Spider there’s Marvin (J. Scott), the bouncer; Bobby (Don Baldaramos), the bartender; Bernie (Tanner Horn), the DJ; and the strippers Bambi (Victoria Levine), Vanilla (Brittany Gael Vaughn), Jasmine (Adriana Sephora), and Sugar (Anything Horror fav, Eve Mauro).  And believe me when I tell ya that these strippers don’t hesitate to take their clothes and tops off at the drop of a hat!!

The acting is surprisingly good and everyone does a really nice job in their roles.  No one in the cast stands out as being weak and there’s great chemistry between all the actors.  The cast looks like they’re having a genuinely fun time making this film, and as we’ve seen with other films, this energy is as infectious as whatever’s plaguing the zombies!!  ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS is definitely played for laughs and nothing here is meant to be taken seriously.  But this doesn’t mean the f/x were phoned in.  The gore effects were really well done and we get some really juicy scenes of body parts being torn apart, arterial blood sprays, and other zombie nastiness (like high heel stripper shoes in the head).  The zombie make-up is also pretty damn good for a film who’s estimated budget is around $500,000.

ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS doesn’t offer anything new to the zombie genre and that’s not what it set out to do.  If ya wanna see sexy girls,in various stages of undress, fighting off and killing zombies then you’ve come to the right place.  If you want ‘Shakespeare meets Masterpiece Theater,’ then you’re gonna be disappointed.  But anyone (myself included) who would even consider a film titled, “ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS,” most likely isn’t looking for a Shakespeare flick.  Director Alex Nicolaou and writers Nicolaou, Kent Roudebush, and Frank Francomano keep this flick moving along at a nice pace and don’t waste any time jumping tits-first into zombie mayhem (pun intended).  This is also Nicolaou’s debut feature and he does a great job for being behind the camera for the first time.

ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS is a Full Moon Features production and if you’re like me I haven’t seen a Full Moon flick in quite some time.  I’ve always been a huge fan of Full Moon and after seeing ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS I’m gonna keep my eye out for more of their releases.

If you’re looking for a well written, directed, and overall fun zombie flick that has a nice blend of horror and comedy elements, then check out ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS.  Good acting, good looking zombies, and good gore effects topped off with a really fun energy makes ZOMBIES VS. STRIPPERS a surprisingly entertaining flick.  Check this one out.

My Summary:

Director:  Alex Nicolaou (& co-writer with Kent Roudebush & Frank Francomano)

Plot:  3 out of 5 stars

Gore:  6.5 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  4 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Films can be so much more than ‘just a film;’ a film can serve as a metaphor for something else.  APOCALYPSE NOW, one of the greatest films ever made, isn’t just about the search for Colonel Kurtz who went bat-shit crazy; it’s also a metaphor for one man’s personal journey into his own hell as well as a metaphor for how crazy war is.  But there are times when a film just needs to be about the face value of the story.  Take KENNYVILLE for example.  We have a pretty interesting idea for a story that gets so wrapped up in being about something else that it loses focus and ultimately disappoints.  KENNYVILLE is the feature-length debut from filmmaker Brooks Hunter (he directed five short films prior).  All the basics are here, but Hunter had loftier goals for his debut feature, and ultimately this ‘higher goal’ ended up kneecapping the overall experience of the film.

The film begins with the report of a missing Toronto girl, Kim (Kelsey Oluk), who disappeared around the town of Kennyville.  After the police dropped the missing person’s case way sooner than protocol dictates, Kim’s parents hire two private detectives to track down where their daughter is and find out what happened to her.  The detectives Patrick (Dany Gehshan) and Megan (Vanessa Broze) decide to go to Kennyville undercover using the names Charlie and Kelly.  Why?  I don’t know; no one in Kennyville has any idea who they are so they really don’t need aliases (I assume giving the leads to different names/identities has to do with the real meaning of this film).  They pose as backpackers and almost immediately arriving in Kennyville find themselves nipple deep in beatings, kidnappings, and a nefarious hidden government agenda.

The first people they run into are Ben (Josef Malonzo) and Victoria (Irena Angeloutsa), a seemingly harmless duo who actually work for Marshall (Nick Maiorino), who kidnaps women for Adrian Black (Michael Scratch), who experiments on them to turn them into government assassins with the help of a little magical pill.  Yes; the Canadian government, whose entire military is about the size of a small mid-Western town, is funding the creation of assassins to send behind enemy lines.  Got it?  And don’t worry, I didn’t spoil anything here.  The KENNYVILLE IMDb page gives away more of the plot than I did!!

Megan/Kelly is abducted and Patrick/Charlie is beat up more times than a toilet gets flushed at an all-you-can-eat gas station taco night!!  Soon after Megan/Kelly is brought to Adrian and we get the typical ‘evil doctor’ speech, Megan/Kelly finds that Kim is there and she seems to be staying there of her own volition.  It was at this point in the movie that I began to feel something wasn’t kosher.  The story, which at first had a very interesting kernel, seemed to be taking a back seat to some other element.  So I jumped online and did some research and discovered that in an interview, Brooks Hunter (director and co-writer with Vincent Galvez and Geoff Heintzman) mentioned that KENNYVILLE is actually a metaphor for bipolar disease.  Aahhh; the missing piece of the puzzle.  I’ll get back to this point below, but first let’s look at the other elements of the film.

As mentioned above, KENNYVILLE has the kernel of a good story.  Attractive girls who’ve gone missing in or around the small town of Kennyville; a town where everyone seems to know what’s going on and yet do nothing to stop it; and to top it all off, there’s a good old fashioned government conspiracy at the heart of the story.  All these plot elements never really get explored and end up taking a back seat to the filmmaker’s desire to create a film that’s a metaphor for bipolar disease.  But what’s more is that the acting isn’t all that good.  Everyone is trying really hard, but there’s some really bad acting across the board here.  Some overact, some play their roles overly dramatic like they’re in a Shakespearean play, and others look really uncomfortable in front of the camera.  I was never able to completely submerse myself into the story because I was always aware I was watching a movie due to the bad acting.

And then there’s the extended bipolar metaphor.  At first the metaphor is subtle, but as the film moves on it starts to take over and get to the point where you roll your eyes and yell at the screen, “Okay, okay; I get it already!!”  Allow me something I never do in my reviews – to quote someone else’s review.  This is the review on the KENNYVILLE IMDb.com page:

[KENNYVILLE] depicts the realities of what one goes through as mental illness plays on your being. Every character represents a symptom of mental illness. Fear, medicated, trapped, manipulated, pain, loneliness, suspicion etc… It all seems very innocent in the beginning. As you watch Kenneyville and knowing the underlining meaning of mental illness, it makes you have an appreciation for what one must go through. If you know someone who is suffering of symptoms of mental illness, this may help you understand more deeply what it feels like for them. Hold this thought as you watch Kenneyville!

Look; I don’t suffer from bipolar or any mental illness and don’t know anyone who does.  I’m not gonna sit here and minimize what those people must go through.  But from this review (which I suspect is written by one of the cast or crew) they make it seem like you need to already have an understanding of mental illness to fully comprehend and appreciate what Hunter is doing in KENNYVILLE.  I’m sorry, but I thought the ultimate purpose of making a film was to entertain and reach a larger audience, not to create a film that should be playing in health class in high schools across the country.  After watching KENNYVILLE, I had no better or deeper meaning of mental illness than I did before seeing it.  What I did get was the feeling that I wasted my time with a film full of poor acting, a meandering story, and bad pacing.  There may be an audience for KENNYVILLE, but it certainly won’t be for the majority of horror fans out there.  Definitely skip KENNYVILLE.

My Summary:

Director:  Brooks Hunter (& co-writer, co-producer, & editor)

Plot:  2 out of 5 stars

Gore:  0 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Is it just me or does the theme to SESAME STREET flash through your head when you read the title of this film?

Can ya tell me how to get

How to get to

Psycho Street 

PSYCHO STREET is a horror anthology I’ve been waiting to see for a long time now.  This film is the culmination of a lot of very talented indie horror folk.  Some of the names involved are Marv Blauvelt, Anthony Sumner, Anything Horror fav Alan Rowe Kelly, Tiffany Shepis, Jerry Murdock, Jeremiah Kipp, and a gaggle of other talented folks.  Better yet, PSYCHO STREET delivers on the gore, comedy, creepiness, and straight up weirdness that is promised in the title.  The wrap around story, “Come on Down,” serves as the perfect canvas on which the other stories are presented, which all take place in the odd little town of Kronanburg (very appropriately named).

Genre favorite Tiffany Shepis stars as Leyla Barker, the mother or sister (she claims both titles which is creepy in it’s own right) of some kind of hideous and hungry creature in the basement.  Leyla’s main job is to keep the beast satisfied by feeding its’ voracious hunger.  As “Come on Down” begins we find sexy Shepis banging the mailman who leaves to investigate some kind of noise in the basement.  Bye bye mailman!!  Soon after, the new neighbors stop by and one by one fall victim to Leyla’s warm hospitality.  As Leyla charms the new neighbor, she regales her with various stories she’s heard from around town.

The first story she tells, “Hypochondriac,” is the story of a big city doctor, Dr. Oliver Combs (Marv Blauvelt) who comes to the rural town of Kronanburg to take over the town’s medical clinic.  Dr. Combs has a germ phobia and thinks he’s seen it all in the big city but quickly realizes that life out in the country can be very … well … very disgusting.  His assistant, Nurse Amber Love Joy (Raine Brown) is an oversexed, under-achieving side kick who doesn’t think twice about giving out her phone number to any swinging dick with a pulse.  But Combs really meets his match with one particular patient, Charity Betencourt (the always great Alan Rowe Kelly).  Old Ms. Betencourt is a hypochondriac who acts as her own self-fulfilling prophesy (you’ll understand this when you see it).  She’s quick to diagnose herself as well as cut out/off the cause of her supposed illness.  Kelly puts in another of her great performances and really has fun with this part.  Kelly never makes Ms. Betencourt a silly caricature and has a really nice balance of a crazy old broad who is just sane enough to be really dangerous.

Blauvelt also puts in a terrific performance with his portrayal of Dr. Combs.  Anal and meticulous, Dr. Combs is a 100% straight shooter who’s all business and can’t squirt his hand sanitizer around fast enough!!  Blauvelt is really fun in this role (man is he geeky looking) and it looks as though he had a great time playing Combs!!

The next story Leyla spins is, “Anti-Bodies,” and this one proves to be more twisted and bizarre than it first appears.  Suzanna isn’t a person you’d be calling “Mother of the Year” anytime soon.  She has her daughter Aimee (Kaylee Williams) tied up in the bedroom and is pimping her out to any trucker willing to pay.  As her daughter is getting raped, Suzanna likes to strip down and masterbate while listening to the deed.  But things aren’t as they seem.  “Anti-Bodies” takes a pretty twisted turn and becomes something so much more than what you first think.  I’m not going to say anything more about the story … you need to see this one to believe it.

This is the third film I’ve seen with Kaylee Williams in it in the last month and I’m wondering why we’re not seeing more of her!!  She’s a natural genre actress who has a great scream, is sexy as hell, and has the acting chops to bring it all together.

The last story is one I reviewed last year:  Anthony Sumner’s fantastic “Lewis” (see my full review here).  This is the most serious story of the group and in some ways the most twisted.  It has a few scenes of out and out perversity that you will just absolutely love (I sure did).

The anthology ends by returning to the wrap around story, “Come on Down,” where we finally get to meet the creature in the basement.  This story does not fail to satisfy.

As a whole, PSYCHO STREET is a really fun and well-made horror anthology that will make you both laugh and cringe at the same time.  The stories are all done tongue-in-cheek and have a twisted sense of humor that I really appreciated.  PSYCHO STREET reminded me of George Romero’s TV horror anthology series, TALES FROM THE DARKSIDE in both tone and execution.  That’s pretty damn good!!

Look for PSYCHO STREET soon (the distribution deal is almost complete) and keep it here for info on where you can find this really fun and gory anthology.  Recommended.

My Summary:

Directors:  Pete Jacelone, Patrick Desmond, Arthur, Cullipher, & Anthony Sumner

Plot:  3.5 out of 5 stars (for the entire anthology)

Gore:  6.5 out of 10 skulls (for the entire anthology)

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains (for the entire anthology)

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Back in early July I reviewed the much-anticipated film, BLOOD FARE (my review).  I was really looking forward to this one, but when I figured out it was a ghost story I got nervous … very nervous.  I’ll be honest; I hate ghost stories.  They’re usually all the same, taking place in either a haunted house or … well that’s pretty much it.  And there’s also that scene in every single ghost flick where one of the characters is looking in their bathroom mirror (you know; the kind that opens), and as they’re closing the door after getting their toothbrush or mouthwash, there’s that sudden “shocking” scene of a ghost standing behind them (often accompanied with some high-pitched strings).  We’ve seen that done a thousand times and I have the same reaction each time:  I yawn and reach for the fast forward button on the remote.  So when I received my copy of REVENANT and read the description, my heart sank.  I was looking forward to this one and really enjoyed director Derek Cole’s previous film, MUTILATION MAN (my review).  I’m glad to say that Cole really surprised me with REVENANT and managed to take an over-used idea and really inject some new life into it.

As the film opens, Paul and Stella (Stephen Twardokus, who’s also the writer, & Liesel Kopp, respectively) have moved into a new house.  Paul is a struggling writer looking for that big break and believes he’s found it.  He specifically chose this house due to its long reputation of being haunted.  He wants to experience the haunting first hand so he can base his first novel on the ordeal.  He’s pretty fearless, and as he’s moving in he says, “Alright house … show me what ya got.”  The cause of the haunting is supposedly a result of a man killing his entire family and himself several years prior.  Paul, in trying to ensure a haunting takes place, recreates what the house looked like at the time of those murders.  Using old police crime reports, he paints the house its original colors and even decorates the various rooms to look like they did on that fateful night.  Stella is on the same page as Paul and even comments on their first night in the house that it has a certain energy to it that’s exciting.  Uh-huh.

This is usually the time in your standard ghost flicks where all the odd shit starts happening.  But director Cole does something different here:  He holds back and demonstrates an amazing amount of restraint.  Nothing odd happens for a while.  We see the days passing by and Paul grows more and more frustrated that nothing “ghostly” has happened yet.  Then suddenly on the ninth day he and Stella get their first taste of the supernatural.  Cole’s decision to start things off slowly really pay off here.  He shows a lot of restraint as a filmmaker and this results in Cole building up a lot of tension.  The viewer knows something’s gonna happen … eventually.  But waiting for the shit to hit the fan is way more tense than when the shit actually hits the fan.

The first supernatural event happens simultaneously to Paul, who’s out in the detached garage/shed, and Stella, who’s in the house.  Cole does a terrific job of getting the hair to stand up on my arms and I even considered turning some lights on in the house (I watched this one in the middle of the night alone).  This first ‘event’ is too intense for Stella (yes, the same Stella that nine days prior was all excited and amped up about the “energy of the house”) and she leaves Paul and moves back in with her mother.  Stella’s character became a little annoying at this point.  She knew the house was haunted and she knew Paul was just waiting for something to happen.  But at the first sign of any kind of supernatural activity Stella gets very spooked and bails.

This is the point of the film that will divide audiences.  Paul is now alone in this creepy house with some kind of presence.  Some viewers will be pissed that Paul is staying while others (like myself) think Paul’s decision to remain in the house alone is organic to the story.  This isn’t a simple matter of a character doing something stupid thereby making their situation worse.  When trying to comfort Stella you can see the decision-making process going on in his head.  Part of him wants to leave, but the part that wants to stay and see this through is stronger.  Paul’s been a quitter all his life and the one thing he wants is to be a writer.  If you’ve ever attempted to become a writer you’ll understand his thought process!!  Writer Twardokus did a great job writing a deep character who isn’t you’re typical shallow ‘horror hero’.  And it’s because Twardokus is the writer and the actor that he pulls off the role so beautifully!!

After more supernatural events occur and become more and more regular he attempts to hunt down some previous owners of the house.  One such previous owner Sue (Wendy Haines), is still a basket case and is experiencing post traumatic stress disorder from her time in that house.  She tries to warn Paul to leave that house immediately, but it’s hard to believe someone who is borderline bat-shit crazy.  She tells Paul that the entity in the house targets one person and then does everything it can to scare off the people in it’s target’s life.  Paul should’ve listened.

The acting here is great all around (especially Twardokus’ role as Paul) and Cole does a fantastic job of creating a lot of suspense and some real honest-to-heart scares.  The cinematography is beautiful and Cole doesn’t employ any cats jumping through windows to the sounds of high-screeching strings here!!  Cole’s decision to start off the film slow with almost no supernatural incidences really pays off.  As the entity becomes stronger and Paul slowly realizes he is loosing more and more positive control of the situation, Cole exploits this tension to the max.  You’ll be on the edge of your seat when Paul starts aggressively going ofter the entity!!  REVENANT is one of the most effective ghost stories I’ve seen and I’m really impressed with what Cole was able to accomplish.

Derek Cole is two for two in my book and he’s done something I never thought possible:  He has me rethinking my stance on ghost flicks!!  If only they were all this well written, shot, and acted!!  Definitely check this one out.

My Summary:

Director:  Derek Cole (& executive producer, cinematographer, & editor [along with Stephen Twardokus])

Plot:  4 out of 4 stars

Gore:  0 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

What do you get when you put Frank Stallone in a B-grade Bigfoot flick?  What do ya think — ya get Frank F*cking Stallone in a B-grade flick!!  If you’re sitting there unfamiliar with Frank Stallone’s oeuvre then I just don’t know my readers as well as I thought I did.  Yes, Frank is the younger brother of Sylvester but is a powerhouse in his own right.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the video of his hit song, “Far From Over” from the STAYING ALIVE soundtrack:  VIDEO HERE.  See?!??  Well good old Frankie might be listed at the top of the credits on IMDb.com, but his role is actually pretty small but he still manages to put in an intense performance.  But enough of Frankie.  What about the film, NIGHT CLAWS??

At the end of the day NIGHT CLAWS is a film about Bigfoot.  I wouldn’t exactly call it a “Sasquatch-ploitation” flick, due to the noticeable lack of gore and violence (we’ll get to this in a minute), but the film does manage to be entertaining.  The film opens as do many B-movies — with a couple making out in the backseat of a car.  The girl hears something and he doesn’t.  He convinces her it’s nothing until there’s a noise even he and his raging semi can’t ignore.  Bigfoot crashes their little party and then we immediately roll to the opening credits.  A pretty standard and uninspired opening that luckily doesn’t infect the rest of the film.

The next day sheriff Kelly (Reb Brown) is called to the scene of the torn-apart tonsil wrestlers and the coroner is convinced some very large animal is the culprit.  News of the attack draws the attention of Sarah the scientist (Leilani Sarelle) who drags her assistant Thomas (A. Wade Miller) to the backwater burg because she’s convinced that Bigfoot is responsible.  In another subplot there’s a local survivalist, Sharon (Tara Kleinpeter) who teaches submersion classes on how to stay alive in the woods.  Just as the sheriff is issuing a “stay outta the woods” mandate, Sharon is taking two couples, Cindy and Charlie (Alissa Koenig & Ted Prior, who’s also the director) and Ed and Linda (Edward Saint Pe’ & Candace Weber) out for a pretty hardcore survivalist lesson.  Charlie comes across as brutish, violent, and very abusive to his wife … and it also seems that he’s being set up as one of the stars of the film.  Odd choice because I wanted to see Bigfoot peel him like a grape, that abusive asshole!!

In yet another subplot there’s a mysterious hunter (David Campbell) and his cronies who are hunting down Bigfoot.  It seems they’ve been tracking the creature for quite some time.  There’s other subplots about the town drunk, Cooter (Art. James), who claims to have had multiple run-ins with Bigfoot and even claims there’s multiple Bigfoot’s out there; there’s a group of teens throwing a party despite the sheriff’s warning; and there’s even the mayor who has a chronic case of JAWS-itis.  It’s getting warmer outside and the surrounding forest provides a lot of income from tourists and campers:

“Are you crazy?  We can’t close the beaches … Uuhhh, I mean the forest …. We need to keep the forest open.  Yeah, the forest!!” 

All these various subplots really make the film feel like a made-for-TV movie which is unfortunate, but it also seems to be what happened here.  From what I read, NIGHT CLAWS started out as a TV movie and then evolved into the feature length film before us.  Unfortunately the tone and atmosphere of the film never rises above the level of “made-for-TV.”  I’d say this feels like a SyFy Original, but even SyFy flicks have more blood and gore in them.  The acting, though, is above average and NIGHT CLAWS is full of recognizable B-movie actors and actresses.

The good news is that the acting is solid all around and director Prior keeps everything moving along at a nice pace.  We don’t get to see the creature nearly enough and all the gore, except two scenes, is done off camera.  This was very frustrating because the potential to make a Sasquatch-ploitation flick was there, but everything was tamed down for what the filmmakers thought was going to be a TV audience.

NIGHT CLAWS also takes a completely unnecessary twist towards the end where a few main character’s true intentions are revealed.  One character’s twist in particular was completely ridiculous and only hurt the overall effect of the film.  It just didn’t make any sense and even thinking back to all the “clues” leading up to the twist, it just doesn’t work.  These twists were foolish choices by writers Prior and Fabio Soldani.  And who’s choice was it to end the film so abruptly?  It felt like they ended this one after the camera ran outta film!!  But what I really enjoyed was Frank Stallone’s cameo at the end.  Yeah he gets top billing here, but he’s in the film for about eight minutes.  It’s a short but sweet role.

NIGHT CLAWS isn’t without it’s flaws (it’s biggest one being the noticeable lack of blood and gore), but it also has it’s charms.  Sheriff Kelly, Sarah, and a few others are really likable and do good jobs in their roles.  If you can get beyond the made-for-TV feel NIGHT CLAWS has, you’ll find yourself enjoying this one.  I did.  And what’s really refreshing is that there is zero, zero CGI here.  The Bigfoot creature (played by Bruce Larsen) is 100% practically done.  It’s not perfect but I found myself really enjoying this one.  Definitely recommended.

My Summary:

Director:  Ted Prior (& writer & actor)

Plot:  3 out of 5 stars

Gore:  3 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

Have you noticed that for a while now the horror genre has been flooded with old-school style flicks that either pay homage to a better, by-gone era or is made “in the style” of such an era?  For example, we’ve gotten some really well done “return to grindhouse/exploitation” films recently like HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN (my review) and FATHER’S DAY (my review); some really great old-school-style slashers like HATCHET and LAID TO REST; and even the short film LEWIS (my review) paid homage to those classic satanic cult films of the 1970s like THE BROTHERHOOD OF SATAN (1971), RACE WITH THE DEVIL (1975), and TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976).  When done right these throw-back films are really fun and can take you down memory lane.  When they’re thrown together haphazardly just to make a quick buck … well it shows!!  Enter Gav Chuckie Steel’s THE SHADOW OF DEATH.  This one has a fun time reliving the old-school slasher film, but does Steel have the chops to pull it off as a whole, or does the gimmick wear off after a while?

THE SHADOW OF DEATH has a really basic set-up:  Three long time girlfriends and roommates waste a day by going out to meet their dealer in order to score some more weed.  The roomies are Nancy (Sophia Disgrace), the stoner; Debra (Corinna Jane), the nice girl; and Jamie (Jane West), the nerdy girl.  Steel has a fun time playing around with the typical archetypal characters found in slasher flicks and barely has any male leads.  Jamie and Debra accompany Nancy, who once again ran outta weed, to meet up with Dan (Daniel Carter-Hope).  Dan is Nancy’s ex and her hook up when she needs more smoke.  The dude (and trust me; he’s a dude) Dan buys from, Marley (Charlie Bore), is out in the woods getting back to nature.  So the gang pile into Debra’s car and head out to the woods.  What they don’t know is that there’s a psycho out in the woods dressed up like Death who’s taken it upon himself to “cleanse” the woods of all the sinners.  I know it’s not much of a motive, but does the killer in a slasher film ever really have a solid motive?

Throw in a sub-plot about borderline whack job Craven (Dan Bone), who thinks he’s a “super cop” but who’s really just the town crazy, and you have some truly bizarre moments in THE SHADOW OF DEATH.  The film starts out with a bang as we see the killer dressed as Death taking out every and anyone in the woods who crosses his path.  The death scenes are pretty fun and Steel comes up with some interesting kills.  I won’t ruin anything by being too specific, but have ya ever seen a ‘death by bong’ before?  I bet not!!  There’s also a really great death scene that Lucio Fulci himself would approve of.  Considering the budget for this one is listed at an estimated £250, the special f/x are well done.  They are all practical, and f/x man Mark Kelly keeps it simple, yet effective and gooey.

What I also liked was the way the film was shot.  THE SHADOW OF DEATH has an almost washed-out look in some spots and an over-exposed look in others.  This was nicely done and didn’t feel gimmicky at all but felt like a natural part of the film itself.  THE SHADOW OF DEATH will most remind you of the original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT as far as the look and tone of the film.  The editing is a little jumpy in spots (on purpose) and the film almost feels like you’re watching an old home movie.  The one negative thing I have to say here is that the pacing is inconsistent.  The first and last acts of the film are nicely paced with fun kills and quick dialogue.  The middle of the film, though, drags a bit.  The killings kinda stop in the middle acts and there’s a little too much exposition.  Maybe another run through the editing room (also done by Steel) would have tightened it all up a bit.

THE SHADOW OF DEATH is a really solid debut feature from Gav Chuckie Steel and if he can successfully make a film on a £250 budget then I’d love to see what he could do with a few thousand pounds!!  With the acting and special f/x way above the average for a micro-budgeted indie film, THE SHADOW OF DEATH is a really nice find in the indie horror scene.  Check out THE SHADOW OF DEATH website to stay updated on information on distribution.  I’ll make sure to pass along any info as I hear it.

My Summary:

Director:  Gav Chuckie Steel (& writer, producer, music composer, cinematographer, & editor)

Plot:  3 out of 5 stars

Gore:  6 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer

First off I love the title!!  Simple, descriptive, and effective.  This movie is indeed about a guy who goes around killing people.  But wow there’s so much more going on here.  SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE is written by Ryan A. Levin and is inspired by Levin’s 14 minute short film, THE FIFTH.  The writing here is every bit as clever as it was in the short and it was nice to see that Levin could make that leap from a short to a full length feature so effortlessly.  But what director Jack Perez (yes, the very same ‘Jack Perez’ who directed MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS) smartly does is cast some terrific actors that do great jobs in making this story successful.  SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE is a horror-comedy and the best one I’ve seen since TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL (my review).

As the film opens we join Ken (Kevin Corrigan) as he bolts awake from a recurring nightmare.  In the nightmare he’s tied to a chair with tape over his mouth being tormented by a group of guys.  Ken arrives at work late (again) where he boss is pissed off (again) and his buddy Irv (Leo Fitzpatrick) is there to cover for him (again).  Ken, it seems, has just recently been released from the local nut farm where he spent a few years after he tried to kill himself.  But it seems the prolonged stay in the looney bin did Ken some good.  He’s calm, stoic, introverted, and intelligent.  He’s constructed a thick shell around himself and doesn’t let anyone in — not even those closest to him like Irv and his nightmarish passive-aggressive mom Ruth (played beautifully by horror icon Karen Black).

Ken has a shitty job at the local ice cream shop where he’s forced to dress up like a giant ice cream cone and work catering jobs and pass out flyers on the street.  One day in a random, chance encounter Ken bumps into a girl on the street who he later discovers is his eleven year old daughter, Amy (Ariel Gade).  But Ken wants to make a change in his life and he really wants to make an effort into trying to connect with his daughter.  Ken seems to be on a roll and shortly after “meeting” his daughter meets Stephanie (Lucy Davis) at one of the catering jobs he’s working.

Amy hasn’t been getting along with her mom lately so she decides to pack up and move in with her dad … on a whim … without letting Ken know about it.  Now Ken’s world is turned upside down as he tries to adjust to having an eleven year old daughter living in his house who he essentially knows nothing about.  But Ken also has an active night life where he’s taken it upon himself to kill those people from his past who he believed ruined his life.  Is it the same people who haunts his dreams?  Did they indeed ruin his life or has Ken constructed this fantasy world in order to blame someone for his shitty life?

SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE is a hugely fun and pretty kick ass flick.  The dialogue is quick and witty and cleverly hilarious.  Writer Levin doesn’t construct silly situations to create the funny moments.  All the comedy is completely organic in the film.  SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE takes place in a small town and the sheriff, Sheriff Fuller (Barry Bostwick) and his deputy Ernie (Eric Price) are brilliantly written and provide some of the biggest laughs in the film.  They aren’t, though, bumbling small-time cops who resort to slapstick and low-brow humor.  Their characters are aware that there’s a serial killer in their small town and that they’re extremely ill-equipped to deal with such a crime.  They try so hard to figure out what’s going on but they mostly come up empty handed until Sheriff Fuller stumbles upon some important evidence.  Fuller and Ernie are extremely well-written characters and Barry Bostwick pretty much steals the show here with his deadpan delivery.

Beyond Bostwick, the entire cast does a great job here and Kevin Corrigan (Ken) plays his role beautifully.  Corrigan is perfect playing a guy who’s not just beaten down by life and unhappy with the direction his life has taken, but he also expertly plays a man who doesn’t really fit in anywhere … especially in his own skin.  Corrigan is simply brilliant in this role.

Levin also manages to do something I never thought would be possible:  Levin has written a horror-dramedy.  What’s a “horror-dramedy,” you ask?  Well the horror aspect of SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE is pretty obvious.  A serial killer is stalking and killing in extremely graphic and bloody ways various men in town.  But the ‘dramedy’ part of this film is interesting.  Levin has written a heart-warming story of a psychologically damaged man who’s life hasn’t really turned out as he expected and who’s constructed a wall around himself in order to further shield himself against the outside world.  But in a world he can no longer connect with, he discovers there’s one final connection that he just can’t abandon — his eleven year old daughter.  So we watch as these two slowly bond and connect amidst his nightly killing sprees.  I know; it sounds bizarre and a very unlikely combination, but it works.  It works well!!  Director Perez keeps everything moving along and he really surprised me here.  For the last couple of years Perez has been a director of films for The Asylum.  Yeah; I know.  But this guy’s got some great directing chops and knows how to make a great film, and SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE proves that.

The final act feels as though it drags in some places, but it soon became apparent that Levin and Perez had something up their sleeves.  They throw in a twist that I didn’t see coming … and it works.  The ending gets a little dark and ‘heavy’ (which was a nice touch), but the ending is completely satisfying.

I really loved SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE.  The writing and acting are spot on and there’s a really fun energy to the entire film.  This is the way a great horror-comedy (sorry … horror-dramedy) should be!!

My Summary:

Director:  Jack Perez

Plot:  5 out of 5 stars

Gore:  5 out of 10 skulls

Zombie Mayhem:  0 out of 5 brains

Reviewed by Scott Shoyer