The original film, “Lake Placid” was possibly one of the crappiest killer animal flicks I’ve ever seen. And I was anxious to see it when it was released. The woefully under-appreciated Bill Pullman was alright, as was Bridget Fonda, but through it all was a horrible script, a cheesy plot, and a simplistic story that bordered on absurd. Nah, we didn’t need a sequel. I know you were about to ask that, right? Does necessity come into play when money comes to mind? Never, you stupid fool. “Lake Placid 2” has one thing going for it. Cloris Leachman, and then you wonder how the hell they wrangled her into this. This woman is a comedy legend, what the hell did they do to grab her? A bribe perhaps? Blackmail? A blood oath made with Satan? Poor Cloris Leachman.
Tag Archives: Horror
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)
He’s a skilled serial killer, a slasher along the lines of Jason, and, oh yeah, he’s a self-promoting sensationalist who wants to become a famous slasher of all things teen. Leslie Vernon lives in a world filled with monsters. He lives in a world where Jason, Freddy, and even Michael Myers wreak havoc on innocent victims and young teenagers. And what does Leslie Vernon want? He wants to be like them. And he’ll go through any lengths to live up to their legacies. And wouldn’t you know it? Director Scott Glosserman is about eighty percent of the way there.
Altered (2006)
These days many people just do not enjoy “The Blair Witch,” and that’s a shame. I still love the movie, and I still think it’s a frightening simplistic horror film about curiosity killing the cat. But in a day and age where gore is on the menu, it’s not hard to fathom why it’d be disliked. “Altered” is an admirable if flawed follow-up from the “Blair Witch” boys that is much different in every sense. Gore and guts are present, as well as a fairly simplistic alien carnage story. Ah, the joys of being a horror fanatic. “Altered” is a good old fashioned horror film, and one that relies on the conventions of typical claustrophobic horror fare to get us through.
Maniac (1980)
“Maniac” is a different kind of slasher film, one so incredibly vile and utterly wretched that you’ll be forced to decide if you enjoyed this or not. I experienced the same conflict of decision. Did I enjoy this or not? I’m not entirely sure, but a good part of me says “yes.” At a time when the Son of Sam was still fresh on everyone’s minds, “Maniac” is the closest depiction of a madman on the streets that we’ll ever get again. We don’t just watch this madman destroy folks, we learn about him, and we get into his mind.
Grindhouse (2007)
Let’s face it fair readers, I was born in the wrong era. While I’m living in the time of cell phones and reality television, I should be living in the time of grind houses, and porno theaters. While I’m in a time of Kelly Clarkson, I should be in a time of Donna Summer. Simply put, I wish I was born during another time. But, you have to admit, Tarantino and Rodriguez got what they wanted. They wanted to create the grind house experience, and that’s exactly what I received. A double feature, scratchy film, and an empty theater. It’s me and my family, and about four other people, and no one got the joke. Continue reading
Kaw (2007)
The film “Kaw” is a remake of “The Birds” before the actual remake of “The Birds” arrives to shit on us from above in theaters. I love monster movies with funny names, don’t you? There’s “SuperCroc,” and there’s “Sssssssss!” and then there’s “Kaw.” The title of this feature just isn’t the problem of Wilson’s film, because that’s just my good old humor. In spite of Wilson’s evident wisdom of pacing and tension, the birds here just don’t frighten me as much as I assumed they would. What’s the point of having Ravens if you’re not going to exploit their penchant for being creepifying? Otherwise, just bring on a humming bird and call it “Kaw.”
I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman) (1978)
Camille Keaton. What more is there to say about this woman? She’s so gorgeous, that I bet her feces smells like roses on freshly cut grass during the Spring. The statuesque and awfully beautiful Keaton is one of the highlights of the awfully gruesome “I Spit on Your Grave.” A film generally reviled, and yet so beloved among the great portion of movie lovers, this B revenge flick is a man hating saga before a slew of unofficial remakes stormed theaters in the 80’s. You have to appreciate a movie so reviled for doing what it set out to do, which is likely why many audiences are still offended by its cinematic offerings of a simplistic story of a woman being victimized and seeking vengeance, even to this day.
We sit there watching this woman be victimized almost endlessly, and after a while we want to seek pure revenge. That seems to be the general intent from director Zarchi. He draws out the pure horror for this character and brings the audience in at eye level. Hill is victimized and harassed, and chased, and raped, and raped, and raped some more. And it becomes utterly grueling to sit through. What did she do to deserve it? Nothing. She’s merely a victim of a series of senseless crimes, and she’s alone in this town. Why should you watch this? Curiosity, perhaps, experimentation, and experiencing what is, whether some like it or not, a cinematic zeitgeist of grind house filmmaking, and pure filmmaking in general. There’s simply nothing more to the plot than what can be described in two sentences.
An author vacationing at a local friend’s house to work on her book is attacked and raped by five men. Surviving, she appears two weeks later, and proceeds to kill them in a fit of bloody revenge. There’s simply nothing more to it. But what Marchi offers in this film is much more than dialogue or complexities can offer. It just visits a heinous and utterly senseless crime that seemed to almost be a sub-conscious word of warning to sexual freedom. This is a film that appeared subsequent to the feminist movement, and the free love era, and Hill seems to embody this attitude while being ravaged by the small town psychos who simply take that to their advantage.
Hill lies wide open, swims, and even lies on a boat in the river, and the group of men that watch and wait, make her pay for it. And many will say “She didn’t deserve this attack,” but Marchi seems to offer the notion that Hill may not have deserved it, but she sure was offering meat to the lions, whether she knew it or not. And she shows a woman’s wrath in ways that are still shocking. I mean, I guarantee you’ll re-consider getting into a hot bath with a woman after seeing what happens to the group leader Johnny. You really will. Women will cringe, men will cringe and instinctively cup their better half. Even decades later, the film still retains its shock factor and sheer gasp inducing imagery, and that’s an accomplishment. Keaton’s performance is rather fantastic and I stick to that notion.
Her rape is something that will be remembered for days on end, after viewing this. She screams, she suffers, and in one scene shambles home holding her arms up in sheer disgust at her violated, torn body. And once she seeks revenge, she hits the deep end and never comes back from it. “I Spit on You Grave” is not a film I’d normally enjoy: Man-hating cinema. But, it offers something that was genuine in its time, and it’s a classic that should be seen. In spite of the repetitiveness it gets caught in the halfway mark, “I Spit on Your Grave” is still an effective and shocking bit of revenge cinema with Camille Keaton burning herself into my brain as this gorgeous woman who becomes a stone cold punisher on the monsters who ravaged her.
In 1980 Roger Ebert described this as “A movie so sick, reprehensible and contemptible that I can hardly believe it’s playing in respectable theaters,” along with an obvious mortified declaration of: “There is no reason to see this movie except to be entertained by the sight of sadism and suffering.” It’s not surprising many folks consider this utter putrid, but “I Spit on Your Grave” should be looked on as a completely different sort of revenge film. It’s one that not only inspires such hatred from its heroine/victim Jennifer Hill, but it manages to inspire pure hatred from its audience. And it’s not surprising that many who defend it seem to suffer a harsh scrutiny, because I’ve found many seem to share Ebert’s thought process.
You can argue the film is sick, but you also have to admit it’s a very powerful rape and revenge thriller that set the standard and still compels, whether it’s through offending or mesmerizing its audience.

