As any horror fan knows, there is no shortage of holiday-themed horror films out there. However, while holidays like Halloween and Christmas boast a multitude of titles, less represented holidays like say, 4^th of July have far fewer movies modeled after them. That being said, it’s hard to imagine a movie ever being made that could more enthusiastically embrace the patriotic American holiday than Uncle Sam.

The plot centers around Master Sergeant Sam Harper (David ‘Shark’ Fralick), a helicopter gunner who is killed by friendly fire during the Gulf War. When his body is shipped back to the states for burial his young nephew Jody (Christopher Ogden) becomes obsessed with him and following in his footsteps. But it isn’t long before Harper’s restless corpse awakens, steals an Uncle Sam outfit and goes on a bloody rampage against draft-dodgers, flag burners, corrupt politicians and anyone else who dares defile the honor of his beloved country. Will Jody have the courage to defend the town and stand up to his….(sigh) uncle, Sam?

While the idea of a murderous reanimated corpse in an Uncle Sam costume is indeed strange, what’s even more bizarre is that this weird throw-away film from the 90’s wasn’t directed by a first timer nobody, it was directed by fucking William Lustig! In fact, despite consistently working as a producer up till present day, Uncle Sam actually represents the final feature film the director of the seminal slasher Maniac has directed to date.

When you go into a movie like Uncle Sam you have a good idea what to expect. Clearly you’re not going to get brilliance but if the film can keep you entertained with a cheesy story and plenty of gruesome kills then it’s done it’s job. Unfortunately, this is where the film ultimately fails as it commits the only truly unforgivable sin of the cheesy slasher sub-genre…..it bores the audience. Aside from the opening scene there aren’t any kills until forty-two minutes in!

Evidently, a lot of padding was needed to stretch out the paper-thin story and even though the second half does pick up a bit, it’s too little too late. Some of the kills are creative and decently bloody but without the kind of glorious, gooey over-the-top madness we saw in 80’s films or the sleek, realistic gore of modern day horror this is a classic example of why the 90’s were considered an overall low point in the history of the Horror genre.

There are some things I did appreciate about this film, though. Primarily how it so fully embraced the underrepresented holiday with such gleeful abandon making this a film that doesn’t just take place on the 4^th of July but is, without a doubt, a 4^th of July themed horror movie, and all holidays should have at least one horror film that fully represents them. I also have to give props to the credit sequence which not only establishes the iconic Uncle Sam outfit for the viewer through real archival footage but also shows how genuinely bizarre and creepy it could be at times.

If this doesn’t sound like enough to recommend the film, it’s because it’s not. The movie is not even remotely scary which is largely due to the fact that the titular villain spends most of the time standing in plain view so there is never even a chance of tension or dread building before a kill. Even with the cheesy concept and low budget this film could have succeeded if it had jumped right into the action and assaulted the viewer with a series of brutal kills that didn’t let up. At least then it would have made for a fun movie to watch with a few friends and more than a few drinks. As it is, watching this is about as exciting as celebrating the holiday with a damp sparkler and a non-alcoholic beer.

The plot of Michael Myers: Absolute Evil can simply be summed as a mockumentary which discusses Michael Myers as though he were a real serial killer. However, unlike most mockumentaries this is not a comedy and is presented in the same kind of tone that you would find with a typical documentary about a real serial killer. This is certainly an interesting, unusual approach so the question becomes, does it pay off?

I do like the idea here but I think the very concept runs into a fundamental problem. The reason documentaries are engaging is because you’re learning details about a real person or event and the experience can be a fascinating journey of discovery. We accept that documentaries are mainly made up of talking heads, still photos and low production value reenactments because the information we are learning is compelling and real. On the other hand, mockumentaries are traditionally presented as dead-pan comedies that revolve around a completely fictional subject, think This is Spinal Tap, where the enjoyment is derived simply from the fact that the film is funny.

Since this film doesn’t meet either criteria I would have to assume that writer/director Rick Gawel created this to be viewed as a realistic documentary that just happens to be about a fictional subject. In this regard there are a few parts that could be tightened up to sell the idea that this is a real documentary. One example is a scene which contains an archival interview that we’re told takes place in 1964 but is clearly shot digitally with an after-effect put on during editing, which is noticeable. If the footage had actually been shot on film for that scene it could have come across as authentic. I had a similar problem with the title cards between interviews which are given a deliberate effect to make them appear old and flicker in and out of focus. The effect looks fine but creates a disconnect between the cards and the crisp, digital interview footage.

There were also some scenes shot specifically for this film that are created to expand upon the mythos but these largely fall flat. The cult leader especially didn’t read as charismatic or menacing enough to be believable and the awkwardly long short film that’s spliced in near the end never elevates itself beyond the typical found-footage films that have long since worn out their welcome.

This is a shame because the actual documentary parts of this film are quite well done and do for the most part feel like an authentic documentary. Gawel’s use of black and white stills is done masterfully as he takes the viewer through the history of Michael Myers as though it was one cohesive story, which is no easy feat considering how disjointed the films themselves could be at times. The interview subjects are for the most part quite believable and effective, although there are some notable exceptions including one man that appeared to be looking down at an off-screen script in-between lines (!).

Ultimately, it’s a very interesting idea that would be great as a short 20-30 minute film but begins to become tedious when stretched out to an hour and a half. It’s cool to see the overarching story presented in this way but there isn’t really much in the way of new insights or information to be gained by watching this that you couldn’t get from simply seeing the films. This is a clever concept with some nice touches, I like the subtle diss of the remake that was slipped in, but one that ends up being more of a novelty for fans rather than essential viewing.

Creating a world that is subtly surreal can be a very difficult task. Balancing elements of a disintegrating reality with a compelling storyline that progresses at the correct pace to guide the viewer along the journey with the protagonist is a challenging undertaking indeed. So how does Tall Men fare with a storyline that embodies this concept? Well, let’s discuss.

The film centers around Terrence (Dan Crisafulli), a man living with mental illness who has fallen on hard times and is filing for bankruptcy. An early scene eludes to a childhood trauma which seems to have played a big part in his current mental state. After his meeting with the bankruptcy attorney he begins to have strange visions and the feeling like he’s being watched. His life takes an even stranger turn after he applies for a mysterious credit card that seems too good to be true.

The first thing I will say about this movie is that it sucks you in. This is no doubt something that was made on a very modest budget but the sleek sound design and attention to detail give this film a professionalism that transcends its financial limitations. Director Jonathan Holbrook wisely chose to focus on a character-driven story in which he craftily builds tension and dread in a compelling and natural way. The world of the characters is well established and when the surreal and paranormal elements creep in you consistently find yourself questioning what is real and what isn’t.

The film has a lot of clever touches as well. For instance, the scene where Terrence is on a date with the weird, pretty girl he works with and the movie they go to see ends up unexpectedly being a horror film. As he comments “I don’t think this is a romance” there is a noticeable tonal shift in the overall movie itself and what had started to feel a bit like a quirky relationship movie the last few scenes takes on a darker feeling of dread and menace. It’s a meta moment that is far more effectively executed than in many films where I have seen similar things attempted.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a few things that I feel could have been a bit more polished. While I feel like most of the actors were quite effective some of the supporting cast could have benefited from reining in their performances a bit. Some of this may have been a deliberate choice by the director to inject some humor into the film but I feel it would have been stronger with a consistently serious tone throughout. This would have sold the characters as real people a little more and helped the viewer feel more immersed in the film. There were also a few scenes in which fake teeth were used where the actors exposed too much and betrayed the items as props which took me out of the moment a little. Okay, so these may seem like quibbling points but the devil is in the details and it is the attention to the subtle details that often separates good films from great ones.

Bottom line here, this is a very watchable film with some genuinely frightening moments and an interesting, surreal story. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it and would definitely see it again, which is certainly not something I would say about some of the other films I have reviewed. Without a doubt, recommended viewing.

When viewing micro-budget films, you have to go into it with the understanding that you are not going to be seeing the same kind of slick production values that you get with Hollywood films that have budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions. Because of this, I try to be fair and cut a certain amount of slack in terms of production aspects that could not be helped due to the budget, like footage quality, set design, amateur actors, etc. I do however still hold filmmakers responsible for choices within their control such as the script, actors they chose, and production choices made.

Flesh of my Flesh starts with a zombie outbreak in a hospital and then moves forward in time eighteen months for the main storyline which takes place in an abandoned city overrun by zombies. A three person rescue team, lead by Major Erick Vaas (Matthew Martin), is tasked with finding survivors and becomes stranded in the city when their helicopter is shot down by a zombie with a rocket launcher (!). They are then taken in by a small group of survivors in a bunker and have to work together to figure out a way to escape the city before the whole thing is leveled by the military in an effort to control the outbreak.

If this sounds overly ambitious for a film with a small indie budget, it’s because it is. When your resources are very limited it’s wise to play to your strengths and focus on a character-driven story with limited locations and an innovative concept that will hold your audience’s attention so much that they are willing to overlook the rougher edges of the production. It’s less wise to have an elaborate high-concept story that involves blowing up multiple helicopters and buildings. These effects unfortunately draw a lot of attention to the budget of the film, or lack thereof, and the final result ends up being more like Birdemic than Black Hawk Down. This was definitely a case where the director would have been better off finding another way to get the protagonists trapped in the city rather than attempting effects he could not pull off.

Also, I understand and appreciate that it is hard to find actors willing to act in a low-budget film and I’m not trying to be mean or pick on one actor but I just could not get past Matthew Martin’s performance. Honestly, no one was knocking it out of the park here but I really feel that the leading man of the film especially needs to have the chops to really pull you into the story and there truly wasn’t a moment that I didn’t feel like I was watching someone who was, painfully, trying to act.

Now, in case you think I’m simply being excessively negative here, I do want to mention a few of the things I did enjoy about the movie: I liked the idea of the kid zombies playing a game where they stand in a circle shooting each other over and over again because they cannot die. I enjoyed seeing one zombie rip another one’s arm off and eat it in front of him. To that end, I also liked it when one zombie ripped the head off another one and smashed it on the ground like a watermelon. Probably the most interesting part though was the zombie head that one of the survivors was keeping alive by feeding parts of it’s own body. Since in this film the zombies actually regenerate lost body parts it kept trying to re-grow the rest of it’s body starting with a spine which would have to be clipped from the base of the neck every few days to stop the regrowth. Gross, and cool.

And that’s really the basis of this film, a few cool, interesting ideas scattered throughout a movie that unfortunately is mostly a cliched, standard zombie film with a very low-budget feel. Without anything really creative or innovative to set it apart, I can’t see the reason to invest time into watching a film like this when you could simply watch one of the many zombie flicks it’s trying to emulate and be far more entertained by higher production values. I also feel like if a film like Wyrmwood could be made for $160,000 and look amazing then no one really has an excuse for blaming poor production values on lack of resources.

The real tragedy of this film is the ending though. Now, I won’t give anything away but suddenly, in the last scene of the movie, it becomes cool, really fucking cool! I remember thinking “Fuck! Why couldn’t the whole movie have been like this!?” Let me tell you, if it had been, I would have given the film very high marks indeed and I assure you it would also find a cult following in no time. The final shot itself is also so amazing, not just from a conceptual point of view but even from a technical one that I can’t believe it’s part of the same movie. It does give me hope though that writer/director Edward Martin III could be capable of some really great, interesting work. He simply needs to branch out into a far more bizarre, abstract and creative direction and then I think he could be capable of contributing something raw, gruesome and significant to the horror genre.

Quantum theory, sentient liquid, 80’s synth scores and Alice Cooper. Today I discuss Prince of Darkness which is quite possibly John Carpenter’s strangest film, and that’s saying a lot. By the way, some minor spoilers ahead.

When an old priest belonging to a secret sect tasked with protecting the world from an ancient evil dies, another priest (Donald Pleasence) has to unravel the mystery of what he had been guarding humanity from. He enlists the help of Quantum Physics professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong) and his group of PhD students to try and discover the true nature of the swirling green liquid that the old priest had been guarding before it destroys the world.

Now, the script that Martin Quatermass (aka John Carpenter) created is certainly unique, especially where the antagonist is concerned. The evil, self-aware liquid (that’s right, you heard me) soon forces itself from it’s container and into the mouth of one of the students where it is then transmitted via direct mouth-to-mouth-vomit (!) into the bodies of other students, possessing each of them along the way.

So, credit where credit is due, that is certainly an interesting concept and the film does do a good job in the first act of creating a sense of dread and the feeling of a powerful, otherworldly menace threatening our very existence. In addition to this there were some discussions about quantum theory and the nature of reality itself that I found really interesting. However, that sense of dread and intrigue dissipated as I began to have far too many questions that should have been addressed.

For instance “why doesn’t anyone call the cops when people are blatantly murdered outside in the open or turn into giant piles of living bugs?” I mean, other than the groups of possessed hobos wandering around with Alice Cooper, the “evil” doesn’t appear to affect anyone else outside the abandoned church where the students are conducting the research. Also “why would a group of scientists be so quick to wholeheartedly believe in a bat-shit crazy story about the liquid in the basement being a manifestation of pure evil and Jesus being an alien based on the translated text from one source?” Now, to be fair one of the students does remain highly skeptical but that’s not nearly enough to counter-balance the ridiculous behavior of the others.

I feel like Quatermass (as he sometimes like to be called) is operating under a very vague understanding of how scientific research works. That’s why the so-called scientists of this film can declare an object that could only have been made by modern era humans is seven million years old without having to clarify it with a statement like “but of course that’s impossible!” Or extrapolate a profoundly crazy theory that the liquid is conscious and able to move objects psychically based on nothing more than a fucking seismograph reading!

The situation is not helped by the mediocre performances from the cast complete with some terrible attempts at comic relief that only succeed in exacerbating the inherent lack of realism. I will say that Donald Pleasence certainly does the best job in portraying a convincing character but others (I’m looking at you Dennis Dun) are distractingly bad.

All in all, an interesting and original idea that was poorly executed and not really worth tracking down to watch. A few scenes offer some interesting scares (the man into bugs one was actually incredibly creepy) but there just isn’t enough here to make up for the frustration of the shoddy plot. Maybe that’s why John Carpenter chose to hide behind a pseudonym with an esoteric sci-fi reference in it rather than use his own, highly recognizable, name.

The Sentinel is a lesser known film that was allegedly created as Universal’s response to The Exorcist which was made four years prior. And while it does in fact have some thematic elements that draw comparisons to that film, it actually seems to garner more inspiration from Rosemary’s Baby. So, the question naturally becomes “does it stand up those monumental horror classics but was unfairly relegated into near obscurity? Or is there a reason why it doesn’t often come up in the conversation when classic religious-based horror is discussed?”

The story follows model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) who is devoted to her slick, lawyer boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon) but at the same time looking for her own apartment because she wants her own space. Despite the fact that her wealthy father soon dies, money seems to be tight so she opts for a spacious but somewhat creepy apartment where her top floor neighbor is an old blind priest who does nothing but “stare” out the window. As you can imagine, shit starts getting creepy when she’s there alone and her and Michael must figure out the truth about the building before it’s too late.

Now, I’m a big fan of slow-burn tension but forty minutes into this film I honestly had the thought “how is this even classified as a horror movie?” While The Sentinel tries to establish a world full of palpable tension where things are not as they seem, a la Rosemary’s Baby, the effort largely falls flat, resulting in large stretches of monotony. This is not to say that there aren’t scenes where the film earns it’s horror stripes. A surprisingly gruesome encounter with a ghost about halfway through and a climax that is both incredibly creepy and very inventive do help to redeem the film a great deal, even if it does come off as rather overt Christian propaganda.

Clearly, the studio had high hopes for this being an effective horror vehicle and a lot of thought did go into assembling the supporting cast, but with mixed results. Faded star Ava Gardner’s Transatlantic Accent comes off as stagy and out of place from the reset of the cast. In addition, fantastic character actors such as Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum show up as minor characters but are squandered on insignificant roles. On the other hand, Burgess Meredith actually does deliver an effective performance that deftly transitions from friendly old coot to one of genuine menace.

In conclusion, The Sentinel does have an original concept and some great scenes interspersed throughout (that one with the cat eating the bird certainly had a chilling weight to it) but the overall picture isn’t engaging enough to really make it worth it. If you are religion-themed horror completest, there will probably be enough here to keep you interested to the end but frankly you’d have a better time just putting in The Exorcist again.