My Bloody Valentine Review (1981)


My History With the Film:
I first watched My Bloody Valentine in May of 2018 (and have patiently held this review in draft status for the past nine months!). I'd seen the remake previously, but never the original. I was set on watching the extended cut, but it's been out of print for years and copies online go for well over $25. One day while browsing in FYE, I saw a copy sitting on an end cap used for $3.99. They had marked it as a copy of the 2009 re-make, because the first date you see on the back of the case is 2009. I was thrilled at my luck and I took home my prize where it sat for six months before I finally got around to watching it.

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
A small mining town is tormented leading up to a Valentine's Day dance by a miner who was once left abandoned after a tunnel collapse.

What I Liked About It:
-The town of Valentine Buff's felt like a real place. The town seemed like a place you could actually visit instead of someone's interpretation of what a small town is like. This made a huge difference in caring for the characters and believing the tale of the miner.

-The Miner has an incredible look. He's menacing and is truly something of nightmares. I especially love the look of the light that blinds the victims or at least skews their eye sight from what's coming.

-I watched the Extended Cut with all the gore added back in and man what an impressive film this is. I thought the effects were amazing, especially the laundry mat scene.

-The mine scenes have a very creepy ambiance to them and you can tell it's a real mine.

-The cast was great. A lot of them played the dumb teenager/young adult role, but they didn't feel cliché like so many other slasher films from the time period. I think making all the males miners really helped in breaking that feeling of having "the smart guy", "the dumb guy", and "the horny guy."

-One of the scenes I most appreciated came towards the end of the film when Sarah (Lori Hallier) is running around trying to keep Patty (Cynthia Dale) alive. Patty is distraught at the situation and keeps trying to quit on life and complaining. It gets annoying and Sarah lets her have it over and over again, telling her to shut up and dragging her around. It's refreshing to see a horror film where the whiner isn't immediately killed or we are forced to listen to them for a long period of time. I caught myself thinking, "Shut up" and at that exact moment Sarah goes, "Shut up!" I loved that.

What I Didn't Like About It:
-The opening scene contains an almost Three Stooges style joke where all the miners are running for their cars and it was not a good way to begin a horror film. I groaned at how cheesy it was and assumed I'd probably be turning the film off in the next twenty minutes. Luckily, that was a one-off scene and the rest of the film doesn't contain that type of humor.

-I don't factor this into my review, but most of the "extended cut" scenes have no been restored and are in horrible, scratched shape. Watching them placed back into the movie is jarring and its a shame that no one has cleaned up these scenes and made it match the rest of the movie which had a very nice restoration. The effects were amazing for its time and I feel like had they remained in 1981, My Bloody Valentine would had been better received and made a "must watch" by all horror fans.

Additional Notes:
-The DVD contains a twenty minute documentary that does a great job of summarizing the creation and release of the film, along with some quick publicity stuff for the remake. During this documentary I learned that the cast was brought into this small mining town a week earlier in order to observe how small town life existed and to give them time to assimilate into the culture. It works wonders because it's one of the most realistic settings I've experienced in a horror film.

-The movie was shot in Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia because the mine had just shut down and still had all sorts of rustic charm. Unfortunately, once the townspeople heard about the film, they spent $50,000 to clean up and paint the mine, thus ruining the location for the film. $75,000 was spent of the film's budget to restore the mine back to it's dirty and rundown condition.

-The movie was actually shot inside the mine and could only be lit by 25 watt light bulbs which gave the film it's distinct and creepy look.

-The film was created solely to be sold as a holiday horror film. The producers picked Valentine's Day and then gave the direction, George Mihalka, around five months to write a script and film the movie.

-In 2001, George Mihalka approached Paramount about making a sequel, but due to poor box office receipts from the first film, they declined.

-Nine minutes of the film were cut to satisfy the MPAA which was coming down hard on Paramount following Friday the 13th's success. All but one of the gore scenes were found and restored for the extended cut. The one scene not included was an impalement scene that had deteriorated too much. Six additional minutes were lost, but they included no gore or special effects, just character development.

Rating:
My Bloody Valentine surprised me. It was really good. Sometimes when watching the early 80's slashers I feel like I don't appreciate them as much as others because I didn't grow up with them. But My Bloody Valentine holds up a lot better than many of the others and its a shame it hadn't ever been given the proper recognition and appreciation that it deserves. I doubt we'll ever see a better cut than what was released on the extended release DVD and Blu-Ray in 2009, so if you are wanting to see this film make sure you dig up a copy. The footage looks terrible when added back in, but it provides so much better gore and backstory to the killer.

I'd rate My Bloody Valentine a four out of five, and say it's worth a rental.

In The Mouth of Madness Review (1994)


My History With the Film:
For whatever reason I always confuse The Serpent and the Rainbow and In The Mouth of Madness. I’ve seen them both a few times, but I just struggle remembering which is which. I’m hoping after my most recent viewing of In The Mouth of Madness I’ll associate, “Do you read Sutter Cane?” with the title and a little more and actually keep the films straight.

In the summer of 2017, I found In The Mouth of Madness streaming on Hulu and decided to give one of the John Carpenter movies I’ve watched the least another go.

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
A fraud investigator is sent to investigate the case of a missing horror writer Sutter Cane.

What I Liked About It:
-Sam Neill (Event Horizon) is amazing in everything he does and this film is no exception. He’s sympathetic and relatable which helps connect the viewer to the insanity that is going on around him.

-There are some genuinely scary moments (the bicycle comes to mind).

-The ending is great. It might be a little Twilight Zoneish but I love that about it. It’s hard to believe this movie was funded by a major studio since the viewer’s perception is twisted and contorted the last twenty minutes until you feel intense frustration and even fear.

-The soundtrack is great, but then again, when is a John Carpenter soundtrack not great?

-I’m not a huge fan of movies with flashbacks, flash forwards, and repeated scenes. However, In The Mouth of Madness uses these filmmaking techniques to disorientate the viewer which works within the plot of the movie.

What I Didn’t Like About It:
-They mention Stephen King once or twice, but you almost feel like this is a movie written about Stephen King himself which is interesting. I feel like King should have had something to do with this if they were going to use him for a model and it bothers me that he did not.

-The ending may not be for everyone. I actually watched it twice this go around just to really appreciate all that is going on.

-The supporting cast is quite weak including Julie Carmen (Fright Night 2) and Jürgen Prochnow (Beverly Hills Cop 2) who I simply don’t buy into being Sutter Cane.

Additional Notes:
-This is the third film in John Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy: The Thing, Prince of Darkness, and In The Mouth of Madness.

-The movie is filled with H.P. Lovecraft references and quotes.

Rating:
I enjoyed In the Mouth of Madness and find it a great way to spend a couple of hours. It’s not a perfect film and the ending can be a little chaotic, but if you like movies that screw with your mind and your perception then I think you’ll like this film.

I rate In The Mouth of Madness a three out of five and say it’s a rental.

Dracula Review (1931)


My History With the Film:
So confession time.... I've never watched any of the Universal Monster movies. Nope, not a single one. I've seen documentaries and have read all of Crestwood Horror Series of books, but the closest I've gotten to watching a Universal Monster movie was watching The Monster Squad. That was until recently, when I decided to watch Tod Browning's 1931 Dracula.

I knew I needed to see a handful of the Universal Monster movies, so I bought the eight movie Blu-ray set back in 2017. It's taken me some time to get around to watching them, but I finally watched Dracula a few months back.

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
A local solicitor is sent to Count Dracula's castle, who unbeknownst to him is a vampire. After siring the solicitor, Count Dracula travels to London to reek havoc.

What I Liked About It:
-The set design is amazing and it's truly wonderful to see in crystal clear blu-ray format. I couldn't imaging sitting through a VHS copy of Dracula, but man is the blu-ray gorgeous.

-The plot is simple and the performances are all around pretty great. Of course, watching this film eighty years later it's easy to notice quirks in the dialogue and action that were used by the performers in these early talkie films.

-The special effects are surprisingly good for 1931. I was not expecting them to look as good as they did.

What I Didn't Like About It:
-Personally, I struggle with films from before 1975 or so. It's a pacing thing for me, and the pacing on this movie is what you'd expect out of something from the 1930s. It comes across almost like a play and is slow and deliberate giving the audience enough time to pick up on the story and never once get lost. I wasn't bored by this film, but I also wasn't riveted.

Additional Notes:
-In 1927, Bela Lugosi portrayed Dracula in a Broadway version for 261 performances. He was so eager to play Dracula on film that he took a meager salary of $500 a week for seven weeks to secure the role. This was an insultingly low pay even for an actor during The Great Depression.

-Also from the original Broadway play were actors Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Herbert Bunston as Doctor Seward.
-Lugosi's epic Dracula stare was achieved by pointing two pencil-spot lights into the actor's eyes.

-Sound was so new to films in 1931, that no real musical score was used in the movie. It was believed that the audience would have a hard time hearing music with no real explanation of why it is there.

-Dracula's castle was actually a painting on a piece of glass in front of the camera..

-The boat footage was taken from another Universal film, 1925's The Storm Breaker. Silent films were shot at a different speed of film, thus the reason for the quick and jerky moments during that scene.

-A Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the same set at the same time, just featuring actors who spoke Spanish.

Rating:
I'm sure there have been millions and millions of words written about this film. If you are reading my site, you know that I keep things as minimalistic as possible and don't dive too much into themes. The question I try to answer is: is this movie worth my time? In all honestly, for the film and story it is not. It's simple, slow moving, and a little bit boring at times. With that being said, if you are a fan of older films I'm sure the pacing wouldn't throw you nearly as much as it does me. Also, if you are a huge horror fan, then I think its worth your time to sit down (like I am) and checking out these classics. These films paved the way for the horror movies that were to come and they were some truly technological treats in their day. The make up, special effects, and acting were all groundbreaking and without these films tearing down barriers, who knows if the film industry would have grown into what it is today.

So, I feel obligated to review this film on two standards. Is this film worth your time for story? No, skip it. It's a two out of five.

Should you watch this film for historical value? Absolutely, it's worthy of a four out of five when you judge it based on that.

Summer of ’84 Review (2018)


My History With the Film: 
I first heard about Summer of ’84 sometime in late 2017 or early 2018. The title caught my eye and after watching the trailer I was intrigued. I love these modern stories set in the 80’s (IT, Stranger Things, Super 8) and Summer of ’84 seemed to be out to capture that same tone of innocence and exploration that its predecessors did.

Summer of ’84 received a very limited theatrical release, but made its way to Shudder rather quickly. I had planned on watching it before the holidays, but if I’m honest, I was burned out on horror. I watched so much horror over Halloween that I just needed a few months to regroup and watch something different. Earlier this week, I sat down to give Summer of ’84 a shot and when it was all over I sat stunned at how brilliant it was.

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
After a string of teenage boys are murdered, a teenager and his friends begin to suspect a local police officer is behind it all.

What I Liked About It:
-The 80’s setting was wonderfully created and used to its full potential. I think sometimes storytellers use the 80’s and 90’s as a setting just because, and it doesn’t serve a real purpose. In the case of Summer of ’84, the 80’s provided the perfect backdrop to tell this story. Had it been set it in modern times, it would not have been near as effective and technology would have ruined a lot of it.


-The music is absolutely wonderful. After finishing the movie, I immediately added the soundtrack to my Synthwave playlist and I listened to it the following morning on my way to work. It’s a perfect synth blend that feels a lot like John Carpenter meets the soundtrack of Phantasm and Psycho.

-The casting was amazing in almost every way. The child actors knocked it out of the park, every single one of them. You truly believed they were all friends and it was almost like being welcomed into their own little world. The adult actors were also great with Rich Sommer (Wayne Mackey) putting on a memorable performance. I’ve been a fan of Mr. Sommer’s since Mad Men, but this is by far the best role I’ve ever seen him in.


-The slow burn in this film is amazing and the film keeps your attention with uncomfortable moments. You feel legit fear at times, and I love that! The one scene that blew me away ::SPOILERS:: is when Davey looks out the window with his binoculars and finds Mackey looking back at him. ::END SPOILERS:: That was frightening.

-I loved the relationship that everyone had with one another, especially Davey (Graham Verchere) and Nikki (Tiera Skovbye). They had some many incredible moments together, I especially loved what she did for him when she bumped into the guys checking on the house she was cat sitting.


-I expected them to blotch the ending. I don’t know why, but I just assumed it would be some generic ending that would leave me feeling unsatisfied. Instead, they went all in and I sat there with a huge grin on my face and I loved every second of it. It was the most satisfied I’ve been watching the end of a movie in a very, very long time.

-My favorite scene ::SPOILERS:: is when Davey realizes all the family pictures are actually pictures of his victims. My God did that disturb me in a wonderful way. ::END SPOILERS::

What I Didn't Like About It:
-The only weak spot I saw in this film was the casting of a single actor who played Davey’s dad. It’s not that he was terrible; he just felt a step below everyone else in the production. Looking over his IMDB page, it’s clear that he was not. I think maybe I just didn’t like how he portrayed the character. It just didn’t flow as well as everyone else.

Additional Notes:
-At the bowling alley you can see a cabinet with Polybius, a fictional arcade game that originated in an urban legend in the early 2000’s.

-There is a scene where the kids are all riding bikes while “Cruel Summer” by Banarama plays. This is done in the same positioning as the scene in The Karate Kid which was actually released in the summer of 1984.

-There are lots of other supposed nods/references to other 80’s properties, but I feel like a lot of them are reaching. I’m going to wait till I listen to the commentary before adding any of those additional notes.

Rating:
I make no qualms about admitting that I feel like this film was made for me. Almost every element of the film seemed to cater to all the things I love about movies and want in movies. There was adventure, friends bonding, legit terror, some crazy “oh shit” moments, and a touch of romance. The music was incredible, the cast was excellent, and I just cannot say enough good things about this film. The moment it ended I went straight to Amazon and ordered a blu-ray. This is a must watch movie if I ever seen one.

I’m not sure where this movie will end up in my favorite movies of all-time, because you always need to a second watch and a few months before making that sort of assessment, but I have a feeling it’ll be breaking into my top fifteen. I loved this movie and it was the most fun I had watching a movie in quite some time.

Summer of ’84 is clearly a five out of five and a must own.


Scream 4 Review (2011)


My History With the Film:
I was managing a movie theater in 2011 when Scream 4 came out. To be honest, I had no idea it was in production. I had heard rumors a few years earlier that Scream 4 might come about, but it wasn’t until I unrolled the Scream 4 poster that I realized this was in fact a real film.

In 2011, a new Scream movie didn’t sound all that appealing. Scream 3 was not a good film and my nostalgia for the franchise had yet to kick in. Now, if someone were to announce Scream 5, I would be jumping for joy and following every step of the production, but in 2011, things were different. Scream 4 came to the theater, underwhelmed, and left without much of an impact. 

A couple of years later, I had my first urge to watch the Scream franchise since 2000, when Scream 3 came out. It’d been well over ten years by this point and the fond memories of the debate over whether Scream was good for the horror genre of not was now just a fond memory in the back of my mind. I started at the beginning and worked my way though before finally buying a digital copy of Scream 4. I found a film that was updated, yet still effective, despite the story being a little on the weak side. 

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
Sidney Prescott returns home to Woodsboro on a book tour and the Ghostface Killer returns.

What I Liked About It:
-Scream was great because it was very meta (a word I hate, but have no other way to describe this) and current. It took current technology and turned it against us, and in Scream 4 they continue that tradition. Cordless phones and caller ID were no longer current, and instead the film utilizes cell phones, texts, video blogging, live camera feeds, etc. All forms of technology that are still valid at the writing of this post in 2018, as well as in 2011 when the film was released.

-Scream 4 decided to right the wrongs of Scream 3 by bringing back Kevin Williamson to write the script, returning the film to Woodsboro, and keeping the plot centered around the core group of survivors that we all love. They didn’t just insert these characters back into their old roles, they allowed them all to grow and adapt (some for better, some for worse) and it really felt like you were catching up with three characters ten years later who were at different phases in their life.

-One of my favorite things about Scream is the music. I love the score and it’s wonderful in Scream 1, 2 and 4. I’m not sure what happened in 3 since it was the same composer. I think they wanted to deviate from the status quo and that was a mistake. I’m happy to report that Scream 4 brings back those familiar tones and it just feels right.

-The movie was a little ahead of its time and focusing on the “Me Generation.” It’s about young people who want to be the center of attention, no matter what, and that is why I feel like this movie has actually gotten better several years after its initial release.

What I Didn't Like About It:
-I didn’t like the relationship that Sidney had with the killer. It’s plausible, but I just didn’t buy into it all the way. 

-For a good part of the film, it feels like they are attempting to transition the future of Scream from one generation to another. I’m glad this wasn’t the case, because quite frankly, the scenes featuring only the young cast members were the ones that worked the less. I don’t feel this way out of favoritism for the original cast, I felt like the new cast members weren’t as well rounded or different enough to matter. 

Additional Notes:
-One of the rare horror franchises where all of the main characters returned for all four sequels.

-The final film that Wes Craven directed before his death.

-The only Scream film to use a CGI knife.

-Wes Craven only agreed to film Scream 4 if the script was as good as the original Scream.

-Has the highest kill count (15) of all the Scream films.

-The film opened on April 15th, 2011, fifteen years to the day of the original film’s release.

-The new cast memebers were all archetypes for characters in the original film: Jill (Sidney), Kirby/Olivia (Tatum), Trevor (Billy), Charlie (Stu), and Robbie (Randy).

-Kevin Williamson expressed some annoyance towards the release of the film because The Weinstein’s brought in Ehren Kruger (the writer of Scream 3) to polish up the script.

Rating:
Scream 4 is a good entry in the Scream franchise. I’m not sure if I’d rank it above Scream 1 and 2, but it’s definitely better than Scream 3 and feels more like a Scream film. I like how the plot was updated to feature new technology and the motive the killer is rational, especially in today’s age of social media.

I rate Scream 4 as an four out of five, and say it’s a must own.

Better Watch Out (2016) Review (CONTAINS SPOILERS)


My History With the Film:
We are just a few days away from Christmas and I didn’t think I would manage to squeeze a Christmas horror film in this year. I’ll be honest, I burned myself out in October and I just haven’t been in much of a mood to watch anything dark. Heck, I haven’t even finished The Haunting of Hill House yet!

But I got home from seeing Aquaman this past Saturday night and decided to see what was on Shudder since my subscription is expiring at the end of the month. There are still a lot of movies on my watch list (I’m looking at you Summer of ’84) and I noticed Shudder had put up a Christmas section that included Better Watch Out.

Better Watch Out was released last year on DVD and was a film I really wanted to check out. I just never got around to it, and sticking with my 90’s theme, I reviewed Jack Frost instead. Let me just tell you, Better Watch Out is a million times better than Jack Frost. I'll save Jack Frost 2 for next year... maybe.

But before we begin I need to place a disclaimer. Heck, I’m even going to put it in caps to make sure anyone scrolling notices it:

::DISCLAIMER::

Better Watch Out is the type of movie that is most effective when you know nothing about it. I mean nothing. I went in blind as a bat and I recommend you do too. Don’t watch a trailer, don’t read this review, and don’t research this film at all. Just go rent it or watch it on Shudder and then come back for my thoughts. I’m warning you, this is the type of film that can be completely ruined by knowing anything about it.

With that being said, I need to talk spoilers to properly talk about this film. I’m going to tip-toe around them some, but after the warning in the title and now this disclaimer I feel like I’ve done my part in keeping you from ruining this interesting and enjoyable movie. So read on at your own risk.

::END DISCLAIMER::

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
A young boy and his babysitter are terrorized by intruders near Christmas.

::DISCLAIMER:: 

FINAL WARNING. DO NOT READ ANYTHING IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE!

::END DISCLAIMER::

What I Liked About It:
-I really enjoyed all of the actors/actresses in this film. I was expecting a low budget, amateurish movie but was instead shockingly surprised with how good everyone was in their roles with Levi Miller (Luke) standing out with his incredible and shocking performance. Virginia Madsen also made my night with her comment to her husband regarding his sexuality.


-This film doesn’t work if you know the twist. That is why I was so adamant about preventing people from reading the spoilers. All I had heard about the film was it was a horror version of Home Alone so that’s what I expected. The film also starts off like that is exactly what it is. Then the twist comes and even I said "What the fuck" out loud. I didn’t see that coming and I really appreciate how well it was set up.

-Outside of a few technical aspects, the whole set up was believable and Levi Miller’s performance sold me on this kid being so warped that he’d do something like that.


-The ending was great, especially with the reference to duct tape and the final scene.

-The movie gave me vibes to Hard Candy, where you have this innocence that is so evil that is really is unsettling and that gave the film its edge.

What I Didn't Like About It:
-With all that being said, I don’t like home invasion type movies, especially not ones where the victims stayed tied up for a while. Had I know this film was like this, I definitely would not have watched it. But I was so invested and so impressed by the twist that I stuck with it and enjoyed myself.

-My problem with home invasion movies is usually the pacing and this film has those same issues too. It’s just a rollercoaster of will they be saved or will someone stop them repeated for ninety minutes.

Rating:
I enjoyed Better Watch Out, but it’s a one-time watch for me. The twist was unexpected and it really made the movie work, but at the end of the day it’s a one trick pony and I’m not a huge fan of this horror sub-genre. With that being said, this film was way better than Jack Frost and while it wasn’t from the 90’s, it was a much better horror film to watch around Christmas time then that trash.

I’d rate Better Watch Out as a three out of five and say it’s a rental.

Village of the Damned Review (1995)


My History With the Film:
1995 was my breakout year for horror movies. I was eleven/twelve years old and my dad had already introduced me to Halloween and he wasn’t restricting the films that I rented anymore. If it looked scary, I rented it, and Village of the Damned was one of those films.

At the time, I had no idea who John Carpenter was, nor that he was the same man who directed Halloween, but I was sold on Village of the Damned thanks to Christopher Reeve and cool box art. Village of the Damned is rather tame and feels very much like one of those early-to-mid 90’s horror films with a side of John Carpenter styling/music. 

I rented Village of the Damned and taped it onto another VHS tape which my brother I watched dozens of times from 1996-1998. By then, I was done with Village of the Damned and had moved onto to other newer films. I actually forgot Village of the Damned existed until a couple years ago when I ran across the title and I put it on my list of films to revisit. After a lucky thrift store find, I came home with Village of the Damned and popped it in to see how it held up.

What The Film Is About (Non-Spoiler):
Everything alive in a small town passes out for a few hours. Nine months later, several women in the town gave birth to children who look similar and seem to share a collective mind.

What I Liked About It:
-Village of the Damned doesn’t feel like a typical John Carpenter movie, but every once in a while it dips into that “John Carpenter world” and I love that. The music also goes from boring but serviceable into badass John Carpenter synth in a matter of moments.

-I admittedly haven’t seen a lot of Christopher Reeve films outside of the Superman movies, but man was he a talented actor. His performance far and away is above everyone else and he really grounds the picture and makes it tragic.

-The children walk a fine line between creepy, haunting, and so annoying you want to strangle. Kudos to the child actors/actresses and the direction they were giving. Watching them march around 2x2 is a very frightening sight.

-There is one truly disturbing moment in the film ::SPOILER:: When Mara forces Barbara to repeatedly stick her hand into the boiling pot of soup really got to me. It’s something about not being able to control your own body and then doing harm to yourself that is unsettling. ::END SPOILER::

-Although there is not much gore in this film, the few times we do see something unsettling it’s well done.

What I Didn't Like About It:
-Growing up I was a big Kristie Alley fan, but while watching this film I felt like they could have casted the role better. Her performance left a lot to be desired and it felt like she was there to pick up a paycheck. She really phoned in her performance.

-It’s hard to categorize this film as a horror film, because it plays out more like a supernatural drama with a couple of horror moments. Then there is an element of science fiction in it, so it’s really impossible to truly place this film into a genre. It also makes watching it a bit strange, because you never know exactly what you are supposed to take from the film.

-When the John Carpenter moments show up (parts of the score, certain cuts, and the horror elements) the film really works, the rest of the time it’s really hit and miss. It feels like a film that John Carpenter made, but the studio got involved with, brought in a different director and then edited themselves.

-It’s hard for me to watch this film and not think of the wonderful Twilight Zone episode, “It’s a Good Life.” Sadly, “It’s a Good Life” is a better story and I think the run time helps. Village of the Damned would be a great entry in a one hour horror anthology series, but I don’t think there is enough substance to truly justify a feature length run-time.

Additional Notes:
-The film was shot in Marin County, California where John Carpenter owned a home. The locals were not happy with the filming and attempted to break into equipment trucks. One person would even crank a chainsaw or turn on a lawn mower during a sound take, and wouldn’t turn it off until he was paid.

-Christopher Reeve’s final feature film before becoming paralyzed.

-John Carpenter filmed Village of the Damned as part of a contractual assignment and it was not a project he was passionate about. I think this is why the film barely resembles a John Carpenter film. 

-Wolf Rilla, the director of the original Village of the Damned visited the set with his wife.

-The poor box office return on Village of the Damned killed The Creature of the Black Lagoon remake John Carpenter was working on with Universal.

Rating:
Rewatching Village of the Damned was an entertaining nostalgic trip for me, but I feel like this was one of those movies that was better left in the past. Had you asked me to review it based off what I remembered, I would have easily said it was four out of five, but having re-watched it, I'm hard pressed to say it's better than two out of five.

I suggest you skip Village of the Damned unless you are a John Carpenter completionist.