Movie Appraisal: Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995)

"I'm not in here with you. You're in here with me."
Honestly movie, you can't steal from Watchmen. Although I did laugh when I heard that line actually uttered in a film about evil children and corn.

I really thought I would hate this movie. After watching both the first movie of this franchise, then the second, and thinking that both of them were fairly mediocre, I came into this film with an undeniable feeling of dread that did not abate as the movie started. I saw Urban Harvest and was afraid. They are only three movies in, I thought, and they're already resorting to going into an inner city environment with Children of the Corn, a franchise supposedly about rural Nebraska. Oh dear, I thought, this cannot be a good thing. But-

But I was wrong. This is the best movie of the franchise so far, full of excitement, actually scares, and an amazingly well put together ending. The actors don't really matter here. None of them sell the film and none of them blew me away. They were there as set dressing for an interesting and shocking story. For once this franchise wasn't afraid of killing off protagonists. In fact this movie is the first of them that actually has a bit of a Stephen King feel to it despite having a very, very, silly premise.

The plot involves these two brothers (not blood brothers, but adopted ones) being yet again adopted after Eli, the younger brother, kills their father in Nebraska. Joshua seems a little slow compared to Eli, but that character trait is dropped fairly quickly, which I'm glad for. These two brothers get adopted by a husband and wife in Chicago and subsequently go to school, a Catholic private school, in Chicago. And it works quite well, I think. The urban environment contrasts well with Eli and Joshua's sensibilities. As a result Joshua is taken in by the culture and makes friends (and a special ladyfriend) in the process. This is the only romance subplot I've liked in these movies so far. It's decently explained without being completely ridiculous in scope.

Anyway, Joshua, the older brother, gets taken in by the culture and acclimatizes, while Eli grows corn and remains a creepy little boy. His own adopted mother seems wary of him as does the head priest at the school. Eventually Eli does make friends almost to spite Joshua. But his friends are simply followers to his message, the message of He Who Walks behind the Rows. Eli grows the corn in a backlot, and anybody who goes back there seems to die fairly horrifically. And this is where the movies shines. It can sometimes be slow, but it's always moving along. The horror is interspersed with the rest of the plot, actually making every moment exciting and interesting.

The deaths are extremely noteworthy for both being very gruesome and very well put together. When the adopted mother dies, I was shocked. And such a horrific "accident" it is. The bum is another gory death, with his head seemingly still animate even long after his supposed death. Even later on with the death of Joshua's best friend Malcolm, who gets his head and spine taken off his body, I think. Whatever happens, it's fairly awesome to watch. The gore is so gratuitous that it never feels scary, but it also doesn't look very pleasant either. I liked it as far as gore goes.

The movie sets up a good amount of things as it goes on as well as showing some things that happened in the past movies with some dream flashbacks. These worked well even if they were a little awkward. The setting up of the corn being sold off is a good stinger. mostly though, the thing that sold me on this movie was the ending. I think I fall in love with any movie that lets an eldritch abomination Corn Cthulhu start killing people nonchalantly while eating some action figure people. I could seriously watch the last ten minutes of this movie on repeat for the rest of my life. It's absolutely amazing.

I guess I don't know what else to say. This movie wasn't good in the classic definition, but it was a fun ride with some good gore effects, no bad CGI, and a really amazing (no sarcasm here) ending. The dialogue is hit or miss. The acting is passing. The direction is better than the last two movies. And mostly, the plot held my attention. While I can't wholeheartedly recommend this movie, I would recommend watching the glorious ending, which I seriously absolutely loved. Some of the death scenes are also quite good as well. Don't feel obligated to give this one a try, but it's actually a very solid movie. I recommend it, I suppose, although I doubt anyone should watch this one without watching the other Children of the Corn movies.

As a horror movie, I especially wasn't disappointed. And that's all I ever wanted.

Radio Drama Review: Salem's Lot (1995)

Well, here is a radio drama review finally. I say finally because I've been reviewing things for almost four years and have never actually reviewed an audio drama. Shame on me. They're actually worth a lot if done correctly, and this is one of the best I've heard. Anyway, before getting into this, I should welcome you all to yet another horror-filled month of reviews and enjoyment! October Nights are here, and these reviews are for you, dear reader, so much more than they are for me. I say that because every year I literally kill myself to get these reviews done for the amusement of the masses. I enjoy the hell out of writing them, but reviewing 31 horror-related things in 31 nights is often a little insane, even for me.

This is my forth annual October Nights, and as I mentioned in the post leading up to this first post, I think it will be a fascinating month of reviews. The last several years I've started the October month out with a Salem's Lot review, and I'm doing the exact same thing every year until I run out of adaptations to review. Anyway, this year is the radio drama adaptation by the BBC, and, honestly, it is by far the best adaptation I've had the pleasure of enjoying.

It literally hits most of the major points in the novel without missing a beat. And it's incredibly enjoyable to hear those scenes from the novel done incredibly effectively in an audio format. While both miniseries are enjoyable and fun in their own right, both make some pretty huge mistakes in the end. I spoke of both of the miniseries before here and here. (I also reviewed a sequel and the book itself if you want the story of what's happening, which I'm not going to get into here.) The miniseries alter and change characters and the ultimate fate of characters so much that it does affect some of my enjoyment of them. While both adaptation are actually quite good in their own right as adaptations or simply as standalone stories, both do suffer a little from their departure from certain parts of the novel's narrative.

This is one of the few books that I think is seriously near-perfect, which is why the changes of the adaptations actually bother me at all. Changing Callahan's character in the most recent miniseries was a grievous mistake on the creators' part, especially when Father Callahan would have such a pivotal part to play in The Dark Tower series after the events of 'Salem's Lot. And in the first television movie, the fact that characters are omitted (especially Dr. Cody) has always bothered me.

Now, speaking of this radio drama, most of the book is there. Yes, some parts (like the side-stories of characters who are not main characters) are either completely omitted or mentioned in an off-handed way by more main characters. The plot mostly focuses on just the core five or six characters of the narrative, barely mentioning the side-characters at all unless they become important to the main plot. While the purist in me loves the entire novel, filler and all, the writer in me loves how the audio drama accomplishes what it does. Of course some things need to be taken out of the narrative. I'm mostly glad that the characters and their stories aren't changed at all really. And I'm glad that the story unfolds basically how it does in the novel. While there are some big changes, like the bookends of the episodes of the radio drama involving Ben and Mark telling their story to a Mexican priest, most are cosmetic changes and omissions, something I cannot see a problem with.

Honestly, the focus on the main characters works incredibly well, especially backed up by fantastic vocal work by the voice actors all around. Mark is the only character who even sounds a little off, but most of the characters sound exactly like they should with Straker and Barlow (played by Doug Bradley of Hellraiser fame) being literally incredible voices in their own rights.

The production is creepy, especially as a vampire story. It works every bit as well as Dracula or some of the other more macabre vampire stories out there (of which there are far too few for my liking). Some of the scenes work very well, especially any scene involving Barlow, who has singularly jumped up my list of terrifying villains in fiction to basically take the top spot. Of special note is Matt Burke (played by Gavin Muir), whose voice is a pleasure to listen to. The acting is especially good all around, and you'll find yourself literally having goosebumps if you listen to this late at night.

I had the special circumstance to not only be in a small New England town on the day I listened to this, but also to be out and about on an overcast fall day as I listened. My job gives me the ability to listen to many audiobooks and audio dramas and such, and I took advantage of it on the perfect day to do so. I know that not everybody out there lives or works in a small New England town much like the titular 'Salem's Lot, but if that chance comes up, this is perfect listening in situations like that.

I wholly throw my support behind this adaptation of one of my favorite books. I recommend this completely, unlike last years debacle with the terrible A Return to Salem's Lot. Check it out if you get the chance. I doubt you'll be disappointed. Also, here's a website and podcast that you can download it from, just because I'm a great guy.

The only negatives that I can think of are Mark (who sounds funny to my ears) and some of the acting which can be slightly overdone. Also, at times, the action moments can sound very confusing. But as an audio adaptation, I would put this up there with some of the greats. Give it a listen if you want a spooky time, just make sure you have three-and-a-half hours to spare to listen to it.

Space Horror Mini Movie Appraisals: Prometheus (2012), Pitch Black (2000), and Screamers (1995)

I think it would be pretty cool to review three space horror movies that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet. While I'd love for all of these movies to have their own reviews, I don't think I have enough to say about these movies to have content enough for full reviews of each. Prometheus itself is so incredibly popular and talked about that there's not much more that I feel I could add to the conversation. Pitch Black, although excellent, only leads me to say one major thing about it, and Screamers, while I have the most to say about that movie, has a simple yet effective story, but little else to offer.

So, starting with Prometheus, this prequel to Alien, made by the same director as that movie, Ridley Scott. It was his first time returning to the franchise since Alien and... yeah... I have a lot of the same problems with this movie that I had with the first one. While I think the movie looks absolutely gorgeous (and it really does) it relies heavily on CGI, even if that CGI is some of the best I've ever seen. The story itself is fairly bland, full of plotholes, characterization misses, and generic alien environments. It doesn't fit well looks-wise into the Alien franchise, and *probably* should have been a completely new franchise that works on its own without the Alien franchise limiting it. Now, I love Aliens, but that doesn't mean that any other movie in the franchise really appeals to me. I also truly think that this movie, even while having those stunning visuals, is basically a really awful movie.

I hate the acting. The characters, except for David, are largely uninteresting, have no discernible or qualifying features, and are really, really flat in general. David, played by Michael Fassbender, is brilliant though, and he continues the legacy of all the Alien films I've seen having the best character (and actor) being an android. The plot makes literally no sense to me. As a biology major with a concentration in genetics, I have no idea why the archaeologists somehow figure that the "Engineers" created humans or why these archaeologists have any say when it comes to actual genetic samples that need interpreting. Look, you have a biologist for a reason and you're supposed to use him... I mean, yes, he dies quickly and stupidly, but the plot could have been worked better. I'll even throw out my own hypothesis here: If the DNA of the Engineers and humans are the same, then that points out that we are probably descended from them rather than created by them. It would make a great deal more sense serving as a hypothesis rather than humans being created and still being 99.9% similar to chimpanzees in the end anyway. It basically dissolves the theory of evolution, which would be a pretty ignorant thing to do (no offense meant, but it is the best explanation of why genetic material is so similar even across large taxonomic gaps). I truly wish more thought would have been put into the science rather than the visuals, but... what is a big-budget film these days except a movie that puts style over substance?

Other complaints are more varied, including complaints about make-up, random dead people not being dead anymore for some reason, and a male only operating tube thing. None of those make me happy. They're all terrible and stick out in a movie that should be much better structured all around with a powerhouse of a director, and a ton of money behind it. I really wondered why some of the make-up effects were so bad, particularly on Guy Pearce's character. I have to mention him specifically because he looked just plain silly. The movie also delivers no tension, no real character moments, and a generally ridiculous plot that makes no sense and ultimately ends with a whimper. This isn't horror so much as stupid.

I can't help disliking this movie. I can't recommend it. If you want a good Alien movie watch the first movie or Aliens. Avoid this one.

Pitch Black is all kinds of brilliant. I've seen the theatrical version, the edited for TV version, and the Director's Cut, and I've loved them all. It's a wonderful film no matter how you watch it and a great space horror flick to boot. I can't recommend it enough if you want a really good horror movie, a really good space movie, or a really well acted story and character based movie. Riddick has quickly become one of my favorite characters movie fiction. While I don't like the second Riddick movie anywhere near as much, this one really works on every discernible level. Vin Diesel plays the perfect Riddick. It was like the role was made for him and him alone, and that's not something I say about most characters and their actors. Nobody else could ever play Riddick, and that's about the highest praise I could give about a character. Radha Mitchell also does a great job as Carolyn Fry, pulling out a surprisingly emotional performance that I thoroughly enjoyed.

While the plot is simplistic, I think it works incredibly well. I love the characters, the situation, the beginning, the end, and the middle. It is one of my favorite movies I newly saw this year. I can't help recommending this film as much as I possibly can. Watch this movie if you want a movie sort of like the Alien movies, but all kinds of different nonetheless. I found this movie incredibly enjoyable, much more enjoyable than any Alien film, and easily one of the best horror movies taking place in space/on another planet outside of Pandorum, Sunshine, and Event Horizon. It is horrific in all the right ways, has some great directing courtesy of the wonderful David Twohy, some pitch-perfect visuals, and an alien that rivals the alien from the Alien series for purely horrific and terrifying. If you haven't seen this movie you need to.

Screamers, a movie about opposing military bunkers on a planet with an important natural resource during a civil war, has an incredibly complex plot, some really interesting moments, and harbors one of the better stories I've seen in movies of this time period. Based off of Philip K. Dick's short story "Second Variety" and starring Peter Weller, I don't think I could easily dislike this movie. It has some similarities to Dick's Blade Runner as well, specifically the reliance on robots/androids for things humans cannot or will not do. In this case the robots are killing machines bent on destroying the other side of the conflict with no ethical reservations. These robots eventually start evolving, become closer to human, but never having emotions, and always bent on destruction... uh... kind of.

I guess there is some room for the robots to evolve and at least one (maybe two) of the robots seemed to develop quirks in their personalities, specifically in regards to either having emotions (love and hate) or being able to pass well as humans. The robots are named "screamers" because when they attack they give off a high-pitched shrieking sound, whether they are little underground robot or more evolved models.

The human robots seem to be both creepy and heavily advanced from humans. They can pass as humans, among humans, for days without being found out, but just like in Blade Runner their fatal flaw is that they cannot pass perfectly. In this case they show their true colors by having tics and random repeats of certain phrases or motions. Also a model will look the same as a model of the same type, which is convenient. This movie features some blood and gore, but a decent amount of actual tension as well to create the horrific atmosphere. When the main characters are in the enemy bunker they've been going towards for half of the movie to help sign a peace treaty between the two sides, but find it tomb-like and full of death- well, I don't remember too many other moments that were quite as effective at creeping me out in other movies of this type. It's actually funny just how creepy an army of murderous robotic children screaming at you can be. I would have never expected that particular thing to be terrifying.

All-in-all, this movie is fun even if it is not perfect. I would call it average if not for a few wonderfully tense scenes towards the middle and at the end of the film. Check it out if it sounds interesting. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.

Movie Appraisal: In the Mouth of Madness (1995)

In the Mouth of Madness is a horror film directed by John Carpenter, and starring Sam Neill. I'd almost like to call it a post-apocalyptic horror film, or a Lovecraftian horror film, or a body horror film, or even a post-modern horror film, but none of those labels exactly fit. There are some labels that do fit this film, certainly, but the only real descriptor I can come up with is something to the effect of "meta-horror in a small-town setting," which is a complex way of saying that this movie is nuts.


It's a fun movie for the most part even if the horror elements are very much stuck in the 1980s. The body horror and horror of the mind and dreams are easily the most effective horror in the movie. When the reality and fiction of the movie is blended so heavily that there seems to be no discernible difference between the two, it does become, at least, a little unnerving.


John Trent (played by Sam Neill) is an insurance agent out to find a missing author, Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow) with the help of Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Julie Carmen). It first starts out with both comic and horror elements like many movies of this time, feeling simultaneously unsettling and strange. Eventually the movie moves into purely messing with the character's and the watcher's minds territory and it never looks back.


It's a pretty basic movie full of body horror, and the horror of a single man's demented mind having too much power. It's never boring and Sam Neill certainly makes it fun to watch, especially when he's in the asylum narrating the movie to the audience.


This, in my opinion, was John Carpenter's last great film, and it pales in comparison to some of his earlier horror, especially The Thing, which really is in a league of its own. Carpenter has such a unique style though and before this movie came out it was easily one of my favorite styles of filmmaking, purely and utterly 1980s all around. But after this movie, and there are hints of it during it as well, the horror and action films he made so wonderfully simply go away replaced with needless comedy and drama that are hackishly done at best. It was a terribly sad fall for such a brilliant director.


All-in-all though, I love most of Carpenter's films and this one is incredibly cool even if it isn't the best made or scariest. I think it can be both unsettling and unnerving at times, especially to one who thinks too much about reality and fiction.


One of the things that I take away from this movie is that it seems to be a bit of a cautionary tale. The problem is that nobody listened. The whole point is that a book or movie can drive people insane, making the author God in their eyes. This is seen all too often today, simply look as far as the Twilight books or Harry Potter. How many people rushed into theaters to watch that last film whether or not they enjoyed the books or the other movies? It's terrifying to think how one thing, one fictional story, can have so many real life repercussions. It can take over people's lives; it can even make them think that they are part of the story themselves. I guess that's what I've seen about certain fandoms. They get so heavily into a subject that it becomes In the Mouth of Madness, without the humor or the caution. It's not this movie that's scary, it's the implication that it isn't a movie at all, that this is the real world that we live in, not with the body horror, or the monsters,or the Old Ones coming up from the depths of somewhere unspeakable. It's the implication that something fictional can utterly take over a person's life to the exclusion of all else. I can't think of anything more terrifying than a lost life, unable to be lived to the fullest because the person is busy pretending to be something else. trying to live a life that they could never have. That's why this movie is effective and so well done.And that's why I will praise John Carpenter to the ends of the Earth.


So, I recommend it if you have a chance to check it out. It's fun even if it isn't really terrifying, and some of the make-up effects are really well done as well. It's well paced and somewhat believable despite being incredibly meta. I like it a bunch, but then again I like Event Horizon for many of the same reasons and people seem to hate that movie, so maybe the critics are all right and... 


...nah. They suck. This movie is fun and enjoyable. I advise everybody to check it out if given the chance.