Dead Snow

A group of Norwegian med students go on vacation up in the mountains, where they accidentally incur the wrath of a platoon of Nazi zombies.

Dead Snow is a goofy, energetic horror/comedy, although you'd be forgiven for not knowing that based on the first half. Although it's got a likable, funny cast, it gets off to a seriously slow start. I understand that the build-up is a crucial part of these films, but considering how little of interest happens, and how much fun the premise seems, it starts to get a little frustrating. Worse, most of the first half takes place at night and is ugly and murky, even kind of hard to follow in places. Maybe it was just the copy on Netflix streaming, but it was a little hard on the eyes.

Then, shit hits the fan in the second half, and the movie seriously picks up. It turns into a fast-paced, funny, inventive gorefest (mercifully shot in daylight!). It's actually a major shift not only in tone but in overall quality; it just seems like it becomes a better made movie. And one with a bigger budget, too. The first half struck me as a silly little low-ish budget thing slapped together by some friends, then BAM the second half has an army of zombies, chainsaw evisceration, a POV shot of someone having their guts ripped out and eaten, a part where a dude fights a zombie while dangling off the side of a mountain swinging from another zombies intestines. Maybe best of all, a scene of self-amputation and cauterization that turns tragically, hilariously futile.

Grade: B-

Bereavement

In this prequel to the 2005 horror movie Malevolence, we learn the origin of that film's killer. As boy, he is abducted by a religious nut serial killer, who believes that the creepy cow skull in his house commands him to kidnap and murder young women as some sort of means for atoning for previous sins. The boy, who intriguingly cannot feel pain, is forced to become the man's assistant in his crimes. Meanwhile, a young woman, moving in with her extended family after a personal tragedy, finds herself in close proximity to the killer.

I know, guys, your prayers have been answered. Put on your official Malevolence T shirts and baseball hats, pack a lunch in your Malevolence lunch box, pour yourself a Coke in your clear plastic McDonald's Malevolence glasses, and go ahead and take down your vision board where you've been trying to will a Malevolence sequel into existence for the past 6 years, because they finally did it. They finally made a follow up to perhaps the defining horror film of our generation.

OK, enough snark. I barely even remember Malevolence from whenever I saw it 5 or 6 years ago, except that I thought it was terrible. It was a particularly dull slasher movie with perversely unlikable characters (they were bank robbers who spent the whole movie shouting and being assholes), and a "twist" ending that didn't really seem to add or explain anything. I was kinda stunned anyone even remembered the movie enough that there would be an audience for a sequel. But I was even more stunned to find out that, holy shit, Bereavement was actually a pretty good horror movie.

Director/Writer/Producer/Editor/Composer/probably also the Caterer Stevan Mena (who gives himself a few too many credits during the opening; dude, either condense that shit or start using pseudonyms like John Carpenter) has clearly learned a thing or two in the last 6 years. Bereavement is, more or less, a slasher movie, but one with an uncommonly melancholy atmosphere, a nice feel for suspense, and a surprising focus on character development and themes. It doesn't break any new ground, per se, but it does what it does quite well. It spends long stretches not only with the killer and his new protege, but also fleshing out the heroine and her relationship with her family, especially her uncle (played by Michael Biehn!). This will probably make the movie a little too slow or dull for casual viewers, but I appreciated the fact that we're given more of a chance to learn about and care for the characters. There's also some ambitious themes in the film, mostly dealing with the old nature vs. nurture debate. (Sadly, there's one scene where they spell it all out a little too heavy-handedly in the dialogue, but I'm willing to give them a pass on that part).

Not perfect by any means, Bereavement is just a real horror movie in an era of half-assed crap. The ending doesn't really have the impact it should (for one, if you've seen Malevolence, then you already know there's only one way this can turn out), but the stakes still feel greater than they usually do in these things, and you're genuinely upset to see the characters meet their demise, instead of eagerly awaiting the next murder scene. I still haven't found an honest to goodness great horror movie this month (or even a minor classic), but this is as good as anything I've watched so far, and I'm glad my memories of the original didn't keep me away.

Grade: B

American Horror Story (Episode 1)

It's the classic setup: a family, on the verge of falling apart, moves into a old house with an unnerving backstory (the previous owners killed themselves). Could the house be... haunted? Probably. But here's the twist: there's like 80 twists. The girl next door with Down Syndrome likes to sneak into the house and proclaim "You're going to die here!" There's a fucked up fetish suit in the attic that may or may not come to life and rape people. The maid appears as an old woman to the mother, but as a sexy young trollop to the father. The father is a psychiatrist, and one of his patients may be able to turn in to (or summon?) a monster. Some dude with a burned face seems to be hanging around near the property, watching the family. And like a million other things I didn't mention.

Okay, so this is not technically a movie, but I thought since there was a new horror TV series debuting this month, I'd include the first few episodes for the marathon. Reviews for American Horror Story have been brutal, and I can kinda see why, but I was tickled enough with the pilot that I want to stick around for at least a few more episodes. At the very least, I'm intrigued with the format. Usually, when there's a horror themed television show, it's either an anthology series (Twilight Zone, Tales From the Crypt, Tales From the Darkside), or if it's an ongoing story, it's more of an episodic/procedural/monster-of-the-week type deal (X Files, Supernatural) with some serialized elements. So I'm really curious to see how this is going to work, a horror series that is presumably telling one, extended story.

The pilot has (serious) problems, but there's some creepy touches, some novel ones (the maid thing is kinda unique), and sometimes a sort of knowing, campy tone that let's you know they are trying to have fun with all this weirdness. It has way, way too much story for one episode of TV, but I suspect that's supposed to be part of the appeal: it's like they are trying to pile on every plot, every stock image, every cliche from every horror movie you've ever seen onto one show. I can't say that I'm at all drawn into the story yet, or that I care how the solutions to any of the countless mysteries they've set up, but I am curious to see just how thick the writers keep laying it on.

This is by some of the folks that did Glee, and this pilot was directed by co-creator Ryan Murphy. And he seems kind of like a shitty director. Well, that's a little unfair: some individual shots are kinda cool (those ghost twins walking out from behind either side of the mother was nifty), but it's all been edited into ADHD incoherence. Brief scenes of two people conversing will be broken up into what seems like 10 different shots for no discernible reason. Much like how Murphy ruined all the song and dance scenes in the Glee pilot with his unwillingness to hold a shot long enough to show a complete action (one of the main reasons I have never watched another episode of that show), he kills a lot of the atmosphere here by breaking everything up so much. Some times, it's clearly intended for effect (there's a scene where the mother thinks someone is in her house, and the editing gets herky jerky to, I guess, show her panicked state of mind), but it just looks ugly and incompetent. The only time it maybe kind of works is during a bizarre, strobe lit suspense sequence set in the basement, but it works because the point is that the scene is supposed to be visually confusing. Credit where it's due, that scene is one of the highlights of the episode.

Ha, kinda funny that I just wrote more about an hour pilot than I did about any of the full length features so far. But I guess it's just because I'm really into the idea of a new horror series, and I care enough that I don't want them to fuck it up. I'd say there's just enough here in the pilot that I'm willing to stick it out for at least the rest of October.

Grade: C+

Edge of Sanity

A doctor by the name of Henry Jekyll begins experimenting with cocaine (on his patients and himself), and accidentally invents some sort of super crack that, when he smokes it, turns him into a vicious, sex crazed madman who goes by the handle of Mr. Jack Hyde. Soon, he's off gallivanting around London murdering prostitutes. That's right, this time Jekyll/Hyde is also Jack the Ripper.

As a story, Edge of Sanity never really comes together. It's a mostly typical journey through a well-worn story, despite the attempts to add interest with the Jack the Ripper thing, and the drug themes and some transgressive sex. The story develops along predictable lines, there's not much of a build to it, and Hyde's victims are all basically cyphers so there's not much suspense either. Anthony Perkins gives a good performance in the lead role, but he's such a frail, old guy here that he never makes much of a credible physical threat.

Yet the film is still a fair amount of fun, thanks in good part to the over-the-top direction by Gerard Kikoine. It's the kind of film where characters will enter a room, and it will be entirely bathed in red or blue light for no reason except that it looks cool. Where the whores in a brothel all wear elaborate costumes, and perform bizarre sex acts that involve reenacting the crucifixion. Where madness is signaled not through subtle lighting changes or music cues, but through the camera violently spinning around or zooming into an extreme close up while the score cranks up to 11. If you have a taste for this kind of overwrought nonsense, as I do, then Edge of Sanity is a good way to kill 90 minutes. It's a real, if slight, treat for the eyes and ears, a horror movie with few interesting ideas but tons of style to burn.

Grade: B-

Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil

A group of obnoxious, stereotypical slasher movie college kids go camping and run afoul of two menacing looking rednecks named Tucker and Dale (Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine). Soon, the kids are dropping like flies, in a series of increasingly grotesque deaths. The twist? Tucker and Dale are just a couple of innocent, goofy, lovable schmoes who keep finding themselves in situations that make them look like Leatherface-esque serial killers.

Yes, it is sort of a one-joke premise, but it's a pretty funny joke. And even when the joke gets a little stale, the movie still has two enormously likable leads to keep your attention. Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil starts off as a knowing, almost pitch perfect parody of the countless generic kids-in-the-woods slasher movies they made in the 80's. I kinda wish they had actually set it in the 80's, although maybe that joke would have gotten old fast. As it is, there's a priceless 80's flashback scene, with some ridiculous fashion and a brilliant choice of soundtrack, that milks the joke for what it's worth. The movie, by virtue of the plot, kinda veers away from slasher parody after a while, before oddly enough becoming a more typical slasher/comedy during the last act.

It's a reasonable amount of fun. I think the biggest missed opportunity is with the death scenes. The running joke is that the stupid college kids keep getting themselves accidentally killed in hilariously horrifying ways that make Tucker and Dale look responsible. These are intended to be over-the-top, but the problem is the deaths actually aren't any crazier than the normal deaths you get in these kinds of movies (kid gets impaled on a stake, cop gets nails shoved through his face, dude goes headfirst into a woodchipper, etc.). Slasher movies became self aware years ago, trying to one-up each other with their gross-out content. The audience I saw this with was eating it up, really going crazy for these deaths, which makes me suspect that they probably don't actually watch a lot of the kinds of movies this is trying to parody. For those of us more familiar with this disreputable genre, some of the big payoffs are gonna seem kinda tame.

Grade: B-

Subspecies

Some sexy young grad students go to Romania to study Romanian history (or something), but end up drawn into a conflict between two vampire brothers, one good and one evil, fighting over their father's legacy.

I actually tried watching this one for last year's marathon, but I couldn't get past the first scene. It's a Full Moon release, pretty much a guarantee that it was going to be an unwatchable, microbudget mess. But then I kept reading more about it, how it spawned an entire series and seems to have a genuine fanbase behind it, so I thought I'd give it one more shot.

And even though I wouldn't say I liked it, I'm glad I saw it. Turns out that the first scene of the movie is probably the most overtly awful, and the rest of the film is surprisingly not unwatchable. In fact, it's kinda ambitious and even has some cool ideas. Despite its (many, obvious) limitations, it aspires to be a classic-style, classy vampire movie with just a slight "modern" (it was made in the 90's) twist to it.

The problem, of course, is that the budget (and maybe the overall talent of the filmmakers) can't really sustain this. The makeup, the sets, the costumes, and especially the special effects, are all just a shade on the cheesy side, as are the actors and the screenplay, so it never fully cultivates the serious tone it's going for. But, and I mean this sincerely, it's kinda fun watching them try. The effects are almost laughably bad in places, but there's also sort of an earnest charm to them as well.

The title refers to the evil brother's henchmen, these tiny little monsters that he creates from his own body. They look like this:

 

Yeah, not the most intimidating monsters in the world, but they are kinda cute!

So, again, not a good movie, but not without it's charms. I'm still trying to decide if I want to watch any more of the series for this month's festivities. We'll see.

Grade: C

Demons of the Mind

Baron Zorn keeps his (teenage?) children drugged and locked away in his castle, fearing that they have inherited their mother's insanity. But it seems more like Zorn is the madman, and soon he entrusts their care to doctor with some, shall we say, questionable practices that pushes his children closer to the edge.

Demons of the Mind is a pretty cool, weird little early 70's British psychological horror movie. It's a little slow (sometimes in a good way, but not always) and a little unsatisfying, but it has a pretty richly creepy atmosphere and some standout scenes. Considering its a period piece and is set in a castle, you might expect a more Gothic atmosphere, but it actually goes for a more naturalistic feel (except for one awesome, trippy scene of a bunch of creepy images superimposed over an extreme close up of an eye) that helps play up the psychological element. It gets its tone more from the story and themes (lots of madness, murder, incest, all that good stuff), solid performances, a measured pace and a wonderful, eerie score. It's not a complete success, but there's enough cool stuff going on that you won't waste you time with it.

Grade: B-

Scream and Scream Again

Jeez, where to begin? Um, someone's abducting people and amputating their limbs. And also there's a foppish serial killer on the loose, killing women that he picks up at a nightclub. And also there's this weird, apparently well-funded neo-Nazi type group up to no good. And a big guy going around killing people with the Vulcan nerve pinch. And don't forget the oddball scientist who claims he's just doing medical research, but happens to keep a giant pit of acid in his backyard.

I've developed something of a taste for the British horror films of the 60's and 70's, but I had a bad feeling about this one when I started it up, and instead of an orchestral score it was some obnoxious jazz fusion nonsense. I knew what this meant: instead of a classy, elegant production a la one of the better Hammer Dracula movies, this was going to be one of those offbeat cheapies, complete with sloppy handheld camera work, a dull color palette, and bad sound.

The bad news is I was right. The good news was that, though it wasn't any good, Scream and Scream Again was completely fucking crazy and that's better than nothing. As you can tell from the above description, it has enough plot for probably 5 bad horror movies, attempting to make up for quality with quantity. It took a little too long me to realize this, but about halfway in it dawned on me that this was probably supposed to be something of a horror/comedy. Certainly no one could have made something this ludicrous, thinking it was a serious film.

Even with all the stories vying for attention, this one is kinda slow and has a few too many dull stretches. More disappointing: Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee all get top billing, but their roles are little more than cameos. (Price, at least, factors significantly into the finale).

So, not very good, but not a waste of my time either. And it has at least one completely awesome subplot that I wish had gotten more screentime/been dragged out more: a man wakes up in the hospital, and finds that his leg has been amputated. And every time he wakes up, another limb is missing. That is some hilariously horrifying shit, and I wish more of the film had been in that vein.

Grade: C

The Sleeping Car

A down and out former journalist, recently divorced, tries to get back on his feet by moving to a new town, getting a new place, and going back to school. His new apartment is, oddly enough, the sleeping car from an old train, and wouldn't you know it, the car turns out to be haunted by the ghost of "the Mister," the anal-retentive train conductor responsible for a major train crash.

This may sound like a backhanded compliment, but The Sleeping Car is the most affable horror movie I can recall watching in a long time. I know that's not usually a quality you're looking for in a horror movie, but there's a real laid back charm to this one that I appreciated. Since there's barely any real plot (just the usual hokum where the protagonist slowly realizes his place is haunted, the ghost kills a few people, final showdown, etc.), the movie mostly ends up being about the characters sitting around, bullshitting, and enjoying each others company.

An American Werewolf in London's David Naughton leads the cast, and he brings a similar goofy, wisecracking charisma to The Sleeping Car. (Come to think of it, this might be the only other thing I've ever seen him in). The female lead is Judie Aronson, which probably means nothing to you, but I recognize her as the hottest, most likable girl from Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (and she also had a small role in After Midnight). She and Naughton have good chemistry together, despite him being way too old for her (the movie comments on this, at least), and the smartass screenplay is content to devote a lot of screentime to them bantering and trading one liners. His Girl Friday it ain't, but it's still good fun. There are also enjoyably silly roles for Kevin McCarthy and Jeff Conaway.

It's ironic, in most other Nightmare On Elm Street wannabes from this era, you usually tune out during all the dialogue scenes and perk up for the murders and special effects. This time, it's the opposite. It's almost a shame that it has to be a horror movie at all, because most of the special effects are a little on the cheap and unconvincing side. Although, I suppose there is some genuine fun in seeing Jeff Conaway get mutilated and eaten by a fold out couch. The big finale is a little awkwardly staged and feels a tad inconsequential, but honestly the movie built up enough good will at that point that I had fun any way. Don't set the bar too high, and I think fans of this sort of crap can enjoy the charm of something light and likable like The Sleeping Car.

Grade: B-

Vanishing On 7th Street

Everybody in the world is minding their own beeswax, when suddenly the world is engulfed in darkness and most of the population is devoured by some sort of weird shadow entity. A very, very small group of survivors holes up in a bar and tries to plan a way to escape the city.

Over the past decade or so, Brad Anderson has established himself as a reliable director of quality horror movies and thrillers. Although Vanishing On 7th Street doesn't quite match his best movies (for my money, Session 9 and Transsiberian), it's a brisk, exciting post-apocalyptic thriller with a cool, novel villain.

Maybe a little too brisk. My only major complaint with the film is that at 90 minutes, it could stand to be a good 20 or 30 minutes longer. Post-apocalyptic movies tend to get a lot of their flavor from atmosphere and world-building, really fleshing out the details of the devastation in order to mine all the pathos. Vanishing On 7th Street is more breathless; the world ends in the blink of an eye and its a mad dash for the few survivors to try to stay in the light and not succumb to the darkness. Which, now that I think about it, is kind of a unique take on the genre, and it really emphasizes the fast and heartless nature of the threat. Still, I think a little more screen time showing us a little bit more of the world outside of the bar the heroes are hiding in would have helped sell the premise a little better. Maybe they didn't have the budget for it.

The cast is good (I've discovered that Hayden Christensen is a serviceable actor when he's not working for George Lucas), the screenplay is streamlined for maximum forward momentum, Anderson makes good use of light and shadow (he better, given this premise), but I'd say the real standout element is the villain. It's sort of a whispering, moving shadow with the impression of human figures (its victims, most likely) inside of it, and when it gets you, you vanish, gone in an instant, leaving behind only your clothes. This leads to some awesomely abrupt/shocking ends for some of the major characters, just the way I like it.

Grade: B

TrollHunter

A trio of students in Norway are making a documentary about poaching, and try to latch themselves onto a suspected poacher. Instead, he turns out not to be poaching at all, but rather hunting down and exterminating escaped trolls for the Norwegian government.

Okay, at this point I feel like I've written more screeds on the internet about my distaste for most phony documentary horror movies than I've had hot meals in my life. So I don't want to be a broken record here, but let me at least give the greatest hits. The main thing is I just resent the way the format makes filmmakers think they've been given a license to ignore the basic tenants of competent film making. Awkward framing, choppy editing, incoherent shaky cam, pointless zooms, lazy storytelling, etc., all suddenly become acceptable in the name of making the movie look "realistic." TrollHunter is just another in a long line of movies to cover up shoddy directing with this tired gimmick.

Which is a shame, because I think there's a dynamite concept here for a deadpan horror/comedy. The trolls are inherently ridiculous, but everyone treats them with grave sincerity; it's a great dynamic. Too bad every time the trolls show up, the audience is treated to five minutes of a cameraman waving his camera around as he runs through the woods, showing us a bunch of blurry trees while the shot cuts every 3 seconds despite the fact that we should probably be watching an uninterrupted take.

Grade: C

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders

In this oddball Czech film, a pubescent girl undergoes a sexual awakening, via a journey through a weird dream world of ghouls, vampires, and lots of lesbians.

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders isn't a horror movie in the normal sense. It's more of a surreal art film with a fair amount of horror-influenced imagery. It's main aim is to strike a partly beautiful, partly nightmarish dream-like tone and sustain it for an entire film. Appropriately, I was kinda tired myself when I watched it (had to start and stop it a few times while I drifted in and out), and so it played even more like a series of odd, semi-connected images than I've heard it already comes across as. In other words, I'm a little hazy on the story specifics, but it sounds to me like most other viewers are, too.

I don't think there's anything bold, or unique, or striking enough here that would put it on the level of Lynch or Bunuel, but it's still got some solid atmosphere and some memorable imagery. It looks fairly low budget, but manages to nail that elusive, half-remembered nightmare feeling even with its limited means. I'd say the main problem is the frequent menstrual and sexual symbolism grows stale pretty quickly, and the atmosphere gets repetitive and isn't really enough to hold interest, even for the film's brief run time of only 75 minutes or so.

A note of interest to at least one person who might read this: the film was supposedly a serious influence on Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves, and although it's been a long time since I've seen it, I'd say the tones of the two movies are pretty similar. So if you liked that one, this one is worth your time as well.

Grade: B-

Scissors

A socially awkward, shut-in young woman (Sharon Stone, because who else would you cast as a socially awkward shut-in?) is assaulted and almost raped in the elevator of her apartment building. Despite the reassurances of her shrink (Ronny Cox), she is convinced that the rapist is still out to get her. Meanwhile, she meets with her friendly neighbor and his intense, crippled twin brother (both played by Steve Railsback!), getting entangled in some sort of power struggle going on between the two men. Then things really start to get weird.

Scissors is the kind of movie it's probably best to know little about before you see it, so I don't want to spoil too much of the story. The real gimmick of the film doesn't kick in until nearly half way, but as far as I can tell, every description of the film online gives it away as if it's the overall premise. Suffice it to say that the second half is mainly confined to one location, has a solid gimmick, and works in part because its not the direction the movie initially seems to be heading in.

Usually with these kinds of high concept thrillers, they try to get to the high concept right away, only to find out that it can't really sustain feature length. This usually results in the movie running out of steam and having to resort to endless subplots, distractions, plot twists, etc, to reach the 90 minute mark. (Just recently I saw The Perfect Host, which was extremely guilty in this regard.) So I think it's pretty nifty the way Scissors starts out as a different kind of thriller, before abruptly taking a left turn.

This is good, overwrought thriller material, with a story melodramatic and audacious to a degree worthy of DePalma, even if stylistically it is nowhere near his level. It's got psychodrama, sexual hysteria, creepy dolls, seriously over-elaborate set design, and a killer with a ridiculous motive and even more ridiculous master plan. So needless to say, this was right up my alley.

The cast is top notch (even the seemingly miscast Stone really gives it her all), working straightfaced with ludicrous material, and I think I kinda love that Railsback goes to great pains to play two distinct characters and (SPOILERS) both characters turn out to be completely extraneous to the plot, one a romantic interest and the other a red herring. Scissors is by no means a classic, but those with a taste for silliness played straight, like myself, will dig it.

Grade: B

Aftermath

In this short Spanish horror movie, a mortician sticks around after hours at the morgue for some overtime. And by "overtime," I mean he mutilates and rapes a female corpse. Ick.

I think that description right there would be enough to turn most folks off of ever watching Nacho Cerda's Aftermath, but bear with me here. I'm not recommending it, and I didn't even like it too much myself, but it's better-made and more ambitious than you might expect from a film that, on it's surface, seems like the worst, most exploitative trash. It's a 30 minute short, shot without dialogue, although it definitely makes, uh, shall we say strategic use of some very evocative sound effects. Which isn't to say they keep the really nasty stuff off camera; graphically speaking, this one goes there. There's no denying that on a very basic level, this is a work of provocation, but I'd say there's some evident technical skill behind the camera that makes the overall result seem less crass (at least, a little). This isn't some tossed-0ff, low budget, cult audience sleaze; it's a real film with real style, real atmosphere, and real ideas.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the film might be aiming for some level of disgusting profundity. The film that Aftermath most obviously brings to mind is Stan Brakhage's remarkable, near-unwatchable autopsy documentary/art film The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes. Like that film, I genuinely think that Cerda is trying to grapple directly with the ugly realities of death. As much as this does come off as a bit needlessly vulgar, I think it's clear from the way the film ends with a closeup of the victim's obituary, that our empathy is supposed to lie with the corpse (even if its just a corpse) and not with the necrophiliac. It's not a film designed for the audience to enjoy the gross special effects, it's a film designed to make the audience sad and contemplative. And that's, ultimately, where I think it fails. I'm pretty hardened to this stuff, but Aftermath is just a little too imaginative in its nastiness, and there's a distancing effect. It's aiming for something like existential despair, but I'd say it mainly just succeeds at being gross.

I see that Cerda has another short film or two, plus a horror feature, so I may get around to watching one or more of those before the month's up.

Grade: C+

After Midnight

In this terrifying bone-chiller, a group of college students meet at their professor's house to let it all hang out, chug-a-lug and shout, stimulate some action, get some satisfaction, and find out what it's all about.

No, I'm sorry. That's not right. Actually, their professor is teaching some class on the psychology of fear, and basically they all get together to tell scary stories. It's an anthology film. In the stories: a man and woman break down in the middle of nowhere and find themselves seeking help at a creepy looking old mansion; a group of teenage girls break down in the bad part of town and find themselves terrorized by a crazed vagrant and his vicious, well-trained dogs; finally (no break downs in this one) a phone messaging service operator with a broken leg hears a murder over the phone, and finds herself next on the killer's hit list.

I'm a sucker for a good horror anthology movie. Or even a not that good horror anthology movie, as is the case here. I tend to prefer these kinds of stories to be short and sweet, with a good twist ending, which isn't really the case with After Midnight, although technically the first story has a twist ending. These are all more in the vein of "oh shit, something's chasing me and I have to get away from it" type horror stories, which is funny because those don't seem like the kind of scary stories you sit around and tell your friends. I can only imagine, if instead of the stories being short films we just saw the characters in the wraparound story talking, there'd be a lot of scenes of people saying "And then the girls ran from the dogs into another room. And then into another room, and then down a hallway."

Still, this is silly, reasonably well-made 80's fun. It's never boring, it's got some enjoyable special effects (especially during the nonsensical finale) and I'll probably never have the need to ever watch it again in my life.

One (probably not intentional) hilarious touch: during one of the wraparound segments, the power goes out, and the professor says he thinks he has some candles he can light. Cut to the next scene, where the room is now filled with, like, 50 different candles of varying sizes eerily lighting the room. Who keeps that many candles?!

Grade: C+