Pet Sematary (2019)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Kevin Kölsch, Dennis Widmyer
Studios: Di Bonaventura Pictures, Paramount Pictures
Starring: Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, Amy Seimetz, Jeté Laurence
Tagline: Sometimes dead is better; They don't come back the same.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, zombie, haunting, family drama, remake, Stephen King
Scare score: B-
Rating: B+/B

Plot overview: After moving from Boston to Maine, Louis Creed (Clarke) and his wife Rachel (Seimetz) are hoping for a more calm way of life so that they can slow things down while raising their two kids. Shortly after settling in, however, the family begins to be plagued by strange events, culminating in the death of their beloved pet cat, Church. The Creeds' new friend and neighbor, Jud Crandall (Lithgow), decides to help with their grieving, so he takes Louis beyond the local pet 'sematary' to a dark and ancient place to bury Church, who comes back home later that night, seemingly alive but fundamentally changed. When disaster strikes the family again shortly thereafter, the temptation to bring the dead back to life proves too strong for Louis, even though he knows that whatever comes back will not be the same as what was lost.

I waited a few weeks to see this movie in theaters, and I ended up having an afternoon showing all to myself. The projectionist even fast forwarded past all the previews so that I could get straight to the movie. Sometimes living in a small town has its perks for Horror Buff.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but considering his prolific and unmatched impact on horror as we know it, the majority of Stephen King's body of work that was adapted to film fell victim to the era of production, that is to say so many of his books became movies cursed by the production quality of the '80s. I think The Shining is a stunning exception to this, but when you think about movies like Thinner (which is still fun) or especially Graveyard Shift, even Cujo and Christine to a lesser extent, I think it becomes more apparent. Anywho, nothing a remake can't fix... enter Pet Sematary.

The original movie from 1989 was one of the earliest horror movies I was continuously exposed to while growing up, and it has had a very lasting impression on me. It felt like it was always on TV, and some of my earliest memories of horror are from this film. I think one of the images that has scared me most throughout my life, all because of how young I was when I would see it on TV, was that of Rachel's sister and her case of spinal meningitis from hell. That being said, my interest was piqued when I learned that this new version was coming out.

My general thoughts are that this was a fun adaptation but not groundbreaking. It had a lot of familiar elements with some other scattered references to King's mythos (e.g. Derry sign while Rachel is in traffic), but it also made some bold choices to change the plot of the book and the original. Even though Horror Buff feels like a purist so much of the time, I didn't see the harm in freshening up the story with some of these new or altered bits of plot.

I really enjoyed the production quality and I thought the film was pretty lovely to watch, including all that beautiful Maine wilderness. I especially loved the creepy animal masks the local children would wear on their processions into the Pet Sematary when laying a lost loved one down; this was one of those eerie things just believable or fun enough that a small town might do and that would look as terrifying to outsiders like Rachel as it did to us as viewers— but that might be totally normal to locals who had observed the tradition for generations.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I also thought the acting was pretty solid throughout the movie, or at least in lazier scenes that it never got into that awful family drama aspect that we've seen in so many horror movies focused around the family unit. I recognized Clarke's face but I'm not too familiar with his other work; he could have fooled me that he's Australian! I didn't love him in the beginning but he grew on me during the film. Amy Seimetz (The Possession, Alien: Covenant) was given a sort of strange role with Rachel, who really misses out on most of the action. I liked her but I didn't feel especially moved by the re-exploration of her childhood trauma, which I felt she could have acted more strongly. She was great in her final scenes, however. I think one of the smartest plot change decisions this movie made was to kill and reanimate Ellie (Laurence) instead of Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie). I thought the young Laurence has a great look about her and I wonder if we will see more of her, and it felt more natural to utilize a more mature actor—even though she's still a little kid—to play such a crucial role in the movie. I laughed out loud at the early scene when she comments how "cemetery" is spelt wrong on the sign at the pet sematary. ELLIE IS ALL OF US. Especially as her undead version, Laurence brought a lot of morbid fun to the movie— there was something mature about her contemplative nature upon realizing her own deadness and incompatibility with the natural world. I could have done without that demented ballet scene, though.

Pretty much the whole time, I was expecting the infantile Gage to get killed, and as the first movie showed us, there is only so much you can do with a child that young coming back as some demonic zombie. I was even nervous that it would become special effect heavy to carry that all out, given how young Gage was. So as my stomach was all in knots anticipating the inevitable during the birthday party scene, it's fair to say I was really surprised with how that all ended up. Why wouldn't these people have built a giant fence along their property line? Forget the creepy cemetery and ancient Indian burial ground (*yawn*)— that highway was a nightmare! Admittedly, I jumped pretty hard the first time a truck sped by early on in the movie. After that, I really didn't think this movie was too scary. There was some classic suspense, and even just the right amount of gore between the flashback to Zelda's (Alyssa Levine) death, Ellie attacking Jud (Achilles tendon iconic to the original), and that particularly enjoyable early scene when Louis tries to save former college student and future ghost Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) following an accident. I chuckled during Jud's death scene as we see demon zombie Church licking his little cat lips in anticipation— that was great.

Fun fact: Stephen King was inspired to write this book while working at the University of Maine (much like Louis) after his family cat was killed by a truck on a busy nearby road. He had to bury the cat and explain what had happened to his daughter when he started to wonder, what would happen if the cat could come back, only different?

Otherwise the horror here was kind of odd at times. I think it's almost more that I found myself too busy questioning the logic behind everything that I couldn't focus on what exactly was happening. Why does Victor get to haunt Louis? Especially when there is a special burial site to reanimate the dead, where does a random ghost come into play? Why in the world did Jud ever think that bringing Church back to life would be a good idea, especially given his story about his pet dog and the implications about his late wife? Are the dead simply brought back to life with a grudge, or is this more of a demonic possession happening? While the end of the movie is being considered shocking now, I felt the last couple of minutes were not wholly satisfying and that the movie even ended on a strange note. (Not to mention it breaks my first Cardinal Rule!)

I know the Indian burial ground trope is tired and has received its fair share of due criticism, but I enjoyed this movie's quick references and short sighting of the wendigo, a prevailing piece of Native American folklore that scared me a lot as a kid. I think this movie examines the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, exploring not only death but grief and loss in general. I wonder if there is commentary on the guilt so common in grief, and if that guilt can be extended to America's bloody colonial history. As Jud mentions, perhaps burying Church in the burial ground in the first place started a string of events that would ultimately lead to the Creeds' demise, or maybe the events were totally random. Is there an element of revenge here? Who are the demons returning in the dead's bodies, anyhow? Or am I overthinking it?

Final critique: This wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't the amazing remake you might anticipate after almost exactly 30 years (the original was released April 21, 1989). Then again, the actual material here is pretty specific, and I don't think there was much more you could have changed without losing the story, or without losing the audience who is first and foremost dedicated to King. Though not a terribly scary movie, the combination of jump scares, brief violence/ gore, and the generally dark mood of the film might mean some people will have to sit this one out. The moral dilemma here is enough to have you thinking about this movie for a while after. How far would you go if you had the power to reverse death? Or is it better to accept that the loved one you lost can never come back, at least not as their original self?

Hostel (2005)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Eli Roth
Studios: Next Entertainment, Raw Nerve, Lionsgate, Screen Gems
Starring: Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Eypór Gu∂jónsson
Tagline: Welcome To Your Worst Nightmare.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, psychological horror, body horror, torture, drama
Scare score: C+/B-
Rating: B+

Plot overview: Three friends are traveling Europe in search of forgettable girls and unforgettable adventure. When they're promised the best parties and hottest women, they travel farther east on their hunt for hookups. When they arrive to Slovakia, however, they unwillingly wind up in an international scheme where they become the hunted.

Who hasn't seen or heard of Hostel? This was released a year after Saw and in many ways the two films heralded in a new era of body horror and, more specifically, torture porn, which I feel many modern audiences most heavily associate with the horror genre today. Eli Roth made a name for himself several years earlier with the enjoyably bloody Cabin Fever— a movie which perhaps better bridges the gap from early 2000s horror into more body-centric terror. I would argue it's also no coincidence that the teen comedy EuroTrip was released in 2004, because in many ways Hostel is a perverted and nightmarish version of that film, complete with Josh (Richardson) moping over an ex-girlfriend, Amsterdam nightclubs, feisty strangers on a train, and winding up in Bratislava. Tell me that's a coincidence. Which leads me to my next point...

Above all else, Hostel is an exploration of the role of America (and Americans) in a post-9/11 world. The Bush era was a time when American backpackers were not welcome many places, when Americans abroad posed as Canadians to avoid the recently-marred reputation on the world stage. While it exploits some of the stereotypically obtuse nature of American tourists, it also serves as a commentary of American violence when we meet the fantastically creepy Rick Hoffman as the American client later in the film. In general, setting the majority of the film in an impoverished and third-world-looking version of the Slovakian capital of Bratislava drew major backlash from government and audiences in that country, which went on to invite Roth for an all-expenses-paid trip to show him their true beauty and culture. Roth explained that the film was not meant as an insult to the country or its people, but rather to make a point that most Americans wouldn't know Slovakia was a country, or at least that they wouldn't be able to place it on a map. While our main characters are fairly bright, this ignorance and the ensuing loss of innocence are explored in the film.

It's not a coincidence that the victims we see explicitly in the film are American and Japanese, or that German plays a large role, because I feel that this, too, is a commentary on power: Taking citizens of the world's most powerful and industrialized nations and subverting them into victims in a nightmarish pay-per-victim business in what is clearly portrayed as a developing country. Since the Cold War, Eastern Europe has long been viewed in the American imagination as some broken down and eternally foreign place lost in the past. I can see how this film certainly would have perpetuated those feelings. A major moment in the film comes when the formerly cocky and ignorant Paxton (Hernandez) begins speaking in fluent German to his torturer, thus tapping into the masked butcher's humane side and allowing Paxton to buy himself some more time to formulate a plan. To me, this represented the importance of culture and multicultural/ multilingual education as a path to salvation for Americans, who are stereotypically monolingual and ignorant of cultures other than their own state/ city/ family.

I really enjoy this film. I remember the first time I rented it with a friend back in high school and we just sat there half laughing half terrified at what was happening before us. The first half of the movie plays almost as an adult film until we are ushered into a dark transition. I absolutely adore the juxtaposition of these young men looking for sex and speaking poorly of sex workers, only to then find themselves as the meat or merchandise being sold to wealthy international clients. Natalya (Barbara Nedeljáková) explicitly points this out with a great line to Paxton later on: "I get a lot of money for you, and that makes you my bitch." There is something so crucial to the genre about this subversion of independence and agency into total obedience— and then enter the body horror as their physical forms get slowly mutilated. I think that is what differentiates body horror from splatter films: There is a larger focus on the physical mutilation than simply on the bodily fluids to follow. Hostel offers plenty of that as well, and if there was one scene most representative of the movie, it would probably be the infamous bit with the eyeball. Another great sequence is when Paxton is being dragged past the doors of different rooms in the factory (why are the doors open?) and we get brief glimpses into various snapshots of torture. My favorite scene may have been when Paxton is in his torture room and his vomit starts erupting around the ball gag that has just been put into his mouth. So excellent.

Another interesting theme the movie touches on not-so-shyly is that of a gay subtext. I recently listened to the Hostel episode of the usually fun and insightful Horror Queers podcast that brought this back to my attention since I had not seen the movie in years. Going back to American relations, I think another major stereotype/ reality we have is that European men are more "feminine," as we have come to understand that word in Western societies, meaning they are more openly sensual or comfortable with their bodies or in expressing themselves. Óli (Gu∂jónsson) shows off his butt more times than I can count and is openly interested in heterosexual couples copulating, as well as other kinks. Horror movies in the early 2000s are usually ripe with overt homophobia, and Hostel is no different. Our three brochachos are galavanting around Europe looking for "poosay," and it's primarily Josh who becomes a target for Paxton and Óli's homophobic remarks regarding Josh's use of a fanny pack (trendsetter!) or his reluctance to try and sleep with every single girl they encounter. One of the most interesting bits from the film is when the Dutch Businessman (Jan Vlasák) places his hand on Josh's thigh during the train ride, and Josh immediately freaks out. When they meet each other again, Josh tries to atone for his outburst by buying the businessman a drink at a bar, and he reciprocates the man's original gesture by placing his own hand on the man's thigh. This prompts the man to admit that he had to ignore his urges and start a family, but that Josh still has time to do what is right for him. There is really no other way to read this except that the man is admitting he is not heterosexual, but was forced into a heteronormative lifestyle, and that he acknowledges homosexual feelings in Josh and wants the adolescent to follow his own path (AKA telling Josh 'Gay is okay.') Josh seems confused by this exchange, and we don't really see too much more of it because at that point it's already too late for him anyway. While Paxton starts off the film as a pretty unrepentant homophobe, part of his arc is to get more in touch with his feelings as becomes more human and tries to survive his ordeal. The idea of these men tied up and made subservient is one aspect of that, as well as some of the general torture/ BDSM equipment we see in the factory, including the ball gag used on Paxton. At the end of the film, the bathroom kill scene is also heavy on the gay allusions as cruising in bathrooms was historically (and still remains) a way to rendezvous with or meet other men. (We have seen this touched upon in other horror movies, such as the 2007 Halloween remake or even the latest installment from 2018.)

In general, I think the acting is pretty solid in this movie, more so in specific scenes than in general. I do like the hunky Hernandez as our final boy Paxton— bet you didn't see that coming when the movie started. Surviving the ordeal becomes fairly ridiculous, especially when he's an inch away from escape and hears screams coming from inside the factory (how?), triggering him to rescue Kana (Jennifer Lim) as redemption for the little girl he didn't stop from drowning in that minor backstory you might have missed in the first place. Facing the trauma of the moment, it's wild that his brain even allowed him to process that, whereas most of us would be in full-on flight, fight, or freeze. I feel so-so about Derek Richardson as the more empathetic Josh, but he has perhaps the biggest standout moment of the movie when he first comes to in his torture cell. This is our first introduction to the reality of the movie as well, and his realization/ begging for mercy/ suffering is one of the best sequences in the entire film.

Overall, this movie is not very scary. Violence and gore are very separate from actual scares to me, so while they are certainly heavy in those departments, the film itself is more terrifying psychologically in the reality of what is happening with the Elite Hunting organization. That name also cracked me up, what with an ego-boosting suggestion that these butchers were "hunters," when in reality their prey is being handed to them. Maybe some commentary on big game hunting there as well. The first half of the movie is all setting us up for the second half, and there is really very little horror in the beginning at all, which is interesting. A few scenes end up fairly silly, like the most dramatic low-speed hit and run we've ever witnessed (RIP Eastern European accomplices) or that other classic scene on the train platform at the end. (AMAZING blood splatter on random women. LOVE that.) The movie also ends on a really weird note, I was almost surprised that that was it.

I also picked up on some great Shining references throughout the movie, from the presence of the number 237, to the camera angles approaching the factory (similar to approaching the Overlook), even to the string-heavy music in some scenes. That was fun to see throughout. The music, however, is pretty corny, and I think that hurts the scares in otherwise dark scenes. There is a great soundtrack in the beginning of the movie, but by the time the terror kicks in, the score sounds very outdated and overdramatic. Was a bit turned off by that as well.

Final critique: This movie is a wild ride that many audiences are sure to enjoy. This came early on in the years of modern body horror and torture porn, with just a few explicit scenes but plenty of special effects, makeup, props, and bodily fluids to add to the overall feel. If you can't do gore, there is no reason why you should even attempt this movie. Otherwise, it's quirky in its own ways, but mostly a quick and enjoyable watch with plenty of deeper subtexts that helped boost Eli Roth to major fame in the genre.

Evil Dead (2013)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Fede Álvarez
Studios: Ghost House Pictures, FilmDistrict, TriStar Pictures
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore
Tagline: Fear What You Will Become
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, psychological thriller, possession, drama, action, gore
Scare score: C-
Rating: B-

Plot overview: Five friends arrive at a secluded cabin in the woods to help Mia (Levy) quit and overcome her withdrawal from heroin. After discovering disturbing animal sacrifices and a mysterious and ancient text in the basement, a demonic force begins to possess and kill the group one by one.

This movie is tricky. Described by the director as a continuation of the original classic, my biggest complaint about this film is that in many ways it feels like another gritty, early 2000s revamp of a horror classic and yet doesn't have any of the bizarre humor that made the original stand out in the first place (although acting and effects are up to par with 2010s horror). For that reason, I feel this movie isn't super memorable. Case in point, I was watching it last night and it wasn't until about halfway through that I realized I'd seen it once or twice before. My bad.

That being said, lots of things about this not-quite-a-remake, 4th installment in the Evil Dead franchise are awesome. It's not for everybody, to be sure, but there is something so unrelenting about this movie—and about the nature of the horror which manifests in it—which keeps hitting you again and again practically from start to finish. The best thing this film does is maintain the gore-heavy nature of the original. Using really fun makeup and special effects—and only very minimal CGI—we are treated to tons of bloody, dirty, sharp, gut-wrenching gore that is pretty similar (if less campy) than the original's. There are also tons of great nods throughout the film, which isn't too surprising given that the producers of the original films were on this project as well (Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, and Robert G. Tapert). It's a rehash of the original in many ways, but even Ash's car is still there, the chainsaw of course, and at one point we see a Michigan sweater, like in the original, because Raimi and Tapert both went to Michigan State, Campbell also went to college in Michigan, and all three were born in the Great Lakes State. I love when creators pay homage to their own upbringings, and Michigan specifically seems to be hot in recent years, such as in It Follows or in another Fede Álvarez-directed thriller (also starring Levy), 2016's excellent Don't Breathe.

I didn't think this new take on The Evil Dead was scary whatsoever, and I was going to give it a lower Scare Score, but then I thought more specifically about some of the action-packed scenes in this movie that, while not scary in your typical sense, were kind of horrifying in their brutality. Like the first film, the horror-action is pretty relentless once the incantation is read from the Naturom Demonto, this installment's version of Lovecraft's infamous Necronomicon. Unfortunately it all feels a lot more pointless than the way the first movie did it, and while I enjoyed watching all the projectile vomiting and cutting or tearing off of various limbs, I really didn't enjoy the so-called Abomination. Sort of fell flat and felt like stuff we've seen in other films like The Ring or The Grudge. On the other hand, I enjoyed when the characters were becoming possessed. That to me was creepier than the evil entity itself, and in some ways more well done than the original.

I really thought there was some strong acting in this movie. I wasn't anticipating this, because the setup and mood really felt a lot like some of those subpar 2000s revamps of other horror classics, and the horror culture at that time certainly did not emphasize acting compared to other things like looks. Really enjoyed the handsome Shiloh Fernandez as the calm and caring older brother, even if he got a little dim at parts. As in most movies like this, each character got a bit conveniently dumb (feels like Cabin in the Woods at play) at times, including the heavily-criticized Eric (Pucci)—who was probably my least favorite of the bunch—who immediately reads from the Naturom Demonto even though he knows it's an awful idea. The real star of the movie is Jane Levy as Mia, who keeps us entertained the whole time as she moves from emo/traumatized to violent withdrawal/psychosis to demon-possessed to badass final girl.

As in the original, this continuation employs unrelenting horror to disgust and terrify audiences. Does it work? In some ways, it's more refreshing than the first, which is admittedly cornier with more syrup-heavy fake blood and colorful gore. This version wanted to go darker, and it certainly did that, but I feel it missed out on the great cinematography and creative violence of the first. The film ends up serving as a sort of grittier tribute that takes itself too seriously (I hate the movie poster so much). Still, I appreciate the sheer volume of violence and gore it offers once the demons are released. When it comes to the sexual violence in the film—which has taken a thornier turn for the worse—the same questions are raised: What is the purpose of the violence? Is it to terrorize us further or is it simply a shock factor? This time around, it was less explicit, with more of a sci-fi possession twist going on.

Final critique: It's no surprise that a modern take on The Evil Dead was going to happen eventually, so it's a good thing it was done with as much respect and detail as this version, which had the guidance of the original team. At first it may feel like a forced and darker version of the original, but eventually the sheer action and gore help stand this film on its own two feet, although fans of the first will miss the dark and slapstick humor that made it a cult classic. If you can't do gore, stay away from this film, which has it in spades. Otherwise, this movie isn't spectacularly scary, and if it weren't for the name and history attached to it, it feels pretty forgettable.

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Robert Hiltzik
Studios: American Eagle Films, United Film Distribution Company
Starring: Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten, Christopher Collet, Karen Fields; ft. Mike Kellin, Robert Earl Jones
Tagline: ...you won't be coming home!
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, slasher, serial killer, mystery, teen, surprise ending
Scare score: C+
Rating: B 

Plot overview: Years after watching her family die in a tragic boating accident, the incredibly shy Angela (Rose) is sent to summer camp with her popular cousin Ricky (Tiersten). Although she begins to grow comfortable with Ricky's best friend Paul (Collet), most of the other kids at camp insist on bullying her. Unfortunately for them, there's a killer on the loose. Can these kids survive sleep-away camp?

All I wanted before bed tonight was to cuddle up to some classic '80s horror, and I'm so glad I found this movie. Reviews online about "that twist ending" piqued my interest, so I decided to give it a shot. You can't beat those great movie posters either, I had to include the second one because I thought it was just perfect.

To be fully honest, I was nervous at first. I wasn't expecting any great production quality, but the first 10 or so minutes of the movie were pretty rough in terms of the over-acting and melodrama. As you give the movie time to progress, however, its standard slasher plot becomes filled with ridiculous details that make it obvious why this movie has such a strong cult following. First and foremost, this movie is CAMP— pun intended. It has plenty of on-the-nose '80s cheesiness that might not be for everybody but certainly works for Horror Buff (sometimes). Some parts of the movie become so unrealistic that you truly have to suspend your belief and go along for the ride, and if you stick through it, you will be happy that you did.

Even when the acting was subpar or the plot seemed a little weird, the gory deaths in this movie made everything worth it. The makeup team did an amazing job here, and the gore alone elevated this movie so far up in my book. While the majority of the movie isn't super scary, the gore alone carried the movie forward, making it even more memorable.

The most obvious thing about this movie is that it's a Friday the 13th-inspired pastiche from start to finish. The '80s were the golden era of teen slashers, and Sleepaway Camp seemed to just lower the ages of its victims, stay a little less raunchy, and add some Freudian motives to the plot. I was shocked to see how young most of the cast was, and while none of the acting in the movie is anything to write home about, some of the younger actors were leagues ahead of the adults in the film. And how cool is it to see the late Robert Earl Jones, father of the legendary James Earl Jones, making an appearance? Regardless of its very literal camp quality, there is something so alluring about '80s slashers—or about the perversion of places like summer camps, which should be happy—that helps keep the plot enduring even 36 years later.

What struck me most about this movie was probably the character of Dr. Martha Thomas (Desiree Gould), Ricky's mother and Angela's aunt. Any scenes including her—as well as the strikingly psychoanalytic and dreamlike flashbacks featuring Angela's dad—were visually and aesthetically incongruent with the rest of the film and added such a fun dimension to the otherwise straightforward plot. I don't know if it was Gould's personal choice or the director's, but the way she acted Aunt Martha was so alarming and unsettling, like something out of a Tim Burton film. In general, the subplot of Angela's past added a psychodynamic level to the movie that only adds to what seems like a fairly obvious whodunnit mystery.

*SPOILER ALERT*

This movie caught me off guard a few times. I had a really hard time with some of the characters/ subplots, especially the camp's head chef (Owen Hughes) being an unabashed pedophile. I don't think we would ever even see that in a kitsch movie today. Watching the film is like looking into a time capsule of cinematic oddities: There are a few things between nudity and implied violence that I don't think would fly today. For what it's worth, the movie is a wonderful exploration of the terror of puberty and adolescence, as well as a commentary on the stark contrasts between your All-American summer camp setting and the hectic reality of teenage life, not to mention the ensuing struggle to establish an identity. Throw in some selective mutism, a repressed Oedipus/Electra complex, and some definite PTSD, and you've got a lifetime of therapy wrapped up in this film.

They really weren't kidding about that twist ending, huh? I love slashers where the identity of the killer is a mystery, because so often even the simplest answer is hiding a truth that you never would have guessed. The resolution in this movie was not what I was expecting, and while it opened up so many questions for me (I want to learn more about the pathology going on here), it's just that sort of ending you will honestly never forget. The best part was that awful, animalistic noise. So great.

Final critique: This movie is not for everybody, but if fans have kept something popular for 36 years, I think it's a huge credit to a film's reputation. This hit my sweet spot for a cheesy '80s slasher, and it brought with it psychological dimensions I was never expecting to watch. Between the fun mystery in the plot and the roller coaster of melodramatic acting, questionable script-writing, and that amazing surprise ending, this movie would is a perfect watch to pair with a fun group of friends and a big bowl of popcorn for a relaxed movie night. The movie really isn't very scary—just a few jumps scattered over a fairly suspenseful storyline—but the death scenes bring out gore that will have some people covering their eyes and trying to hide. Campy to be sure, and by far not the best the '80s brought us, but an enduringly curious horror movie that you can appreciate nonetheless.