Review: The Faculty (1998)

Tonight's movie was not supposed to be The Faculty: The plan had been to watch Night of the Comet, a borderline horror film from 1984.  However, issues with the Blu-ray player forced me into a streaming solution, so this film was quickly slotted in.  Thus, I ended up with the second movie from 1998 to feature Josh Hartnett (after the previously-reviewed Halloween H20, his debut film).

This movie is a combination of The Thing, The Breakfast Club, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers: partly homage (there is a decapitated head that crawls across the ground that couldn't be anything but) and partly a twist on those various movies' formulas.  And it is a fun twist on them.  It doesn't rewrite any of the genres it is pulling from, but it does use the tropes wisely.

The plot: Aliens are invading a small town by sticking parasites inside the brains of various people, with them starting at the local high school.  Various students (played by Elijah Wood, Josh Hartnett, Jordana Brewster, Clea DuVall, Shawn Hatosy, and Laura Harris) realize that something weird is going on and work to stop the invasion.

Now, in case you didn't notice, that is quite a stacked cast for our students.  It also extends to the titular faculty, with Robert Patrick, Piper Laurie, Bebe Neuwirth, Famke Janssen, Jon Stewart, and Salma Hayak.  How this movie got such a cast, I cannot say (did director Robert Rodriguez have that much pull post-From Dusk till Dawn?), but it definitely works in the film's favor.  Most of these actors could play these roles in their sleep, but everyone is 100% committed to the characters they are playing.  Patrick, in particular, is having a blast as the asshole football coach.

If I am going to criticize any aspect of the script, it would be that the students figure out the basics of the aliens far too fast.  Part of that is because of the runtime of 104 minutes (precious little time given how many characters there are), but it would've been nice if the discovery of weaknesses/anatomy were discovered by accident or happenstance.  Even with the caveat of the smartest one being a drug dealer who makes his own drugs (to give him science credibility, I guess?), it reads as a bit forced.

To keep this review relatively short (compared to my other reviews) this is a fun little time capsule and an above-average teen horror flick.  An easy recommend

7 out of 10

Review: The Relic (1997)

The Relic follows Dr. Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller), an evolutionary biologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and Det. Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore), a lieutenant with the Chicago Police Department, as a strange series of killings occur in and around the museum.  The killings are especially brutal, with entire brains removed from the head - and the full brain is never recovered.  What could be doing such a thing?

A monster, to answer that question.  For The Relic is a creature feature, one where the creature is partly played by the best CGI 1997 had to offer (so, very dated as of 2025) and partly played by a creature designed by the legendary Stan Winston that has aged very well.  The movie makes you wait a long time for a full shot of the creature - possibly too long, given that we know there is a monster about long before the characters do - but once it is revealed, it is quite a site to behold.

The creature is one of the main reasons I chose to revisit this movie after having not seen it in many years.  It's an inventive design, an amalgamation of multiple animals that - at least in the practical appearances - blend into a familiar yet otherworldly monster that feels truly threatening.  It's a bummer when the CGI takes over (though it is above average for the time period) because that loss of weight to the creature really takes you out of the movie.

But back to our plot:  Our cold open shows us Dr. John Whitney (Lewis Van Bergen) interacting with a tribe in Brazil.  This tribe gives him something strange to drink, which appears to affect him both physically and mentally.  We then cut to him desperately trying to get his cargo off of a ship before it leaves and being refused.  Why does he need that cargo so badly?  We won't find out until near the end of the movie, so buckle up.

The movie plays at being a mystery for a good chunk of the first half of the movie, which is the weaker half by far.  Most of this time is spent with Vincent and his partner as they try to figure out what is going on (and he seems to be the only one that realizes something especially weird is going on).  We do break away from him to see Margo and her museum adventures (namely: checking out some weird fungus on the leaves sent to them by Dr. Whitney), but mostly we are waiting for the two storylines to converge as the plot spins its wheels far too long with subplots from the book that don't really have any bearing on the main story.

At least it is well acted.  Miller and Sizemore both carry the film easily without ever feeling like they are above the material.  You also have Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, and Chi Muoi Lo providing vivid characterization in their supporting roles (Lo, in particular, plays an annoying sleazeball incredibly well).  Even the bit parts have some nice moments scattered throughout.  It helps keep the movie entertaining before we get to the monster, which is a good thing since the plot meanders a bit.

Once the monster reveals itself - during the big exhibition on Superstition, to make sure things are already as creepy as possible - it's basically a race to see who will survive and who will escape (and how will they defeat the monster) until the finale.  While I might sound blasé about it, the use of the exhibit is one of the strongest bits of production design in the film.  It allows the film to be purposely dark and sets a great tone going into the final act of the film.

Would I recommend this film?  Yes.  It's a bit dated in the graphics, but it works really well as a creature feature, and it is worth it for the practical version of the monster.  It doesn't rewrite the genre, but it is a fine way to spend a couple of hours.

7 out of 10

Review: The Black Scorpion (1957)

The Black Scorpion follows a pair of geologists, Drs. Hank Scott and Arturo Ramos (Richard Denning and Carlos Rivas) as they go to investigate a new volcano that has formed in Mexico.  Along the way, the meet and have Teresa Alvarez (Mara Corday) join them, and also discover that prehistoric giant scorpions have been released by the volcano and are terrorizing the countryside.

So, I kind of love this movie?  It's such a weird juxtaposition of plotlines and acting.  Once the giant scorpions make their appearance, you'd expect that to dominate the plot.  The script has other ideas though, as we spend far to much time (soooo much time) on the romance plot between Hank and Teresa.  Like, they go out for an extended dinner scene at one point.  While the threat of giant scorpions is still present.

The scorpions are a mix of three different movie techniques: overlaying an actual scorpion over the film footage (also used in parts of Empire of the Ants); stop-motion animation done by Peter Peterson - who worked on The Giant Behemoth - and supervised by Willis O'Brien of King Kong fame (the 1933 version); and a scorpion 'head' to use for close up/reaction shots.  Which I will let speak for itself

Who expected the movie poster to be so spot on?

The stop motion effects are actually very, very good.  I'd say they are better and more realistic than some of the CGI used in movies today, and that's probably about a third of the reason this movie lives on today (the other half being its appearance on MST3K).  While the budget was greatly reduced here vs their other movies, they still worked some magic for the scorpion scenes.

But back to the script:  For as destructive as these scorpions are (and as large, they can easily pick up and flip a tank) there is precious little urgency from our main characters.  Even as they themselves are fleeing the creatures, it's played more as a mild inconvenience than something life-threatening.  Normally I'd complain about the introduction of a child to up the stakes, but thank God they did or our main characters would never have felt urgency.

That lack of urgency does cause the movie to drag at points, but there is enough destruction scattered throughout that it never feels too long.  It definitely gives the audience a pretty stellar final battle with the biggest of the scorpions.  But even that scene has a moment of weirdly lackadaisical delivery and an inadvertently hilarious setback for the characters.

Can I recommend this film?  Yes, with the caveat that it is probably best watched with friends and mockery ready to go.  Don't take this movie seriously - have fun with it.

It's really a 4 out of 10, but I'll give it a bonus point for the chuckles I got mocking it.

5 our of 10

Review: Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later (1998)

My main goal with this month's horror movies has been to watch movies I had never seen before.  Or, failing that, had not watched since I was a child.  This was mostly successful, sans three of the movies (Psycho, Psycho, and Clown in a Cornfield all failed both criteria, though the latter Psycho was probably the closest to meeting my criteria).  However, sometimes you just want a comfort watch, and while Halloween H20 (I am dropping the unnecessary and stupid 20 Years Later) isn't a masterpiece, it's nice to go into one of these films knowing exactly what to expect.

Directed by Steve Miner - who also directed the second and third Friday the 13th films, along with producing Dawson's Creek - seems an odd choice.  With more experience with the pre-Scream slashers, there is a bit of rough edges to his work on one filled with 90s cynicism and irony.  He does a fine job - I'd say there are two scenes that are absolutely stellar from a horror perspective - but there feels like a lack of enthusiasm for the project.

The film famously was the first starring role of Josh Hartnett - getting a special 'Introducing' credit - though he isn't given much to do once Michael Myers reaches the school where he and his mother, Headmistress Tate (Jamie Lee Curtis) - actually Laurie Strode with a faked death and name change - attend and work.  It's mostly the Jamie Lee Curtis show, though her and Hartnett do get some nice scenes together during the plot establishment part of the movie.

That plot: 20 years after the first two movies (four, five, and six are erased from this timeline), Laurie Strode has son and severe PTSD.  She drinks heavily, especially around Halloween, and is overprotective of her child.  He has just turned 17 and has grown tired of this, and after Laurie initially refuses to let him go on a school trip to Yosemite, he makes plans with his girlfriend Molly (Michelle Williams) and friends Charlie and Sarah (Adam Hann-Byrd and Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) to have an impromptu Halloween party.

At the same time, Michael Myers (played by stuntman Chris Durand) has broken into the now-dead Dr. Loomis's house and killed Marion (Nancy Stephens, reprising her role from the original) and stealing all of Loomis's information on Laurie.  Two neighbors of Marion also get killed, including actual 17-year-old (at the time) Joseph Gordon-Levitt in what may have been a surprise cameo?  Either way, it is fun to see him kick the bucket before the opening credits.

Michael uses the stolen information to get to Laurie, people die, there really isn't anything new to the plot once we get to this point.  There's some weird humor in the film - I think an attempt to be hip where they fail horrendously.  They are much more successful in the many homages to other horror films - Janet Leigh appearing as a secretary whose first line is complaining about a clogged shower, Laurie telling John (Hartnett) 'to go to the McKenzies' - but if someone complained about too many references, I wouldn't be arguing too strongly against them.

Despite its flaws, this might be the best film in the series after the first two.  The 2018 legacy sequel could've made a claim before the second and third films retroactively made it worse, so H20 - flaws and all - continues to hold that title.

Would I recommend it?  Only if you want more Halloween after finishing the first two films.  I'd definitely recommend skipping all of the other sequels and remakes (though I have not seen the infamous Halloween III that does not feature Myers in any way) and stopping with this one.

6.5 out of 10

Review: House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Does one even need to give a summation of House on Haunted Hill?  So much of it is part of the popular lexicon that it only seems necessary because of how often it gets confused with The Haunting due to that movie being based off of The Haunting of Hill House.  To give a quick recap: Millionaire Frederick Loren (played by legend Vincent Price) rents a supposedly haunted house and invites five guests to join him and his wife for a party, with a reward for anyone who makes it through the night without leaving (or dying).

The Lorens (wife Annabelle is played by Carol Ohmart) do not like each other: She finds him overly possessive and jealous and he believes her to have attempted to murder him by poison earlier in their marriage.  With that information - and the reveal that none of the invitees have ever met the Lorens or each other before - we get into the party.

I'll be honest: Most of these characters only exist to give the more interesting characters someone to talk to or to provide exposition.  Vincent Price is a legend and gives the film its best acting, but Ohmart gives an absolutely delicious performance as his scheming wife.  Any scene that features one of them commands your attention.  Carolyn Craig, (as Nora Manning, an employee of Frederick) is the designated screamer in this film - the character is the one with the most supernatural encounters - but she provides a decent amount of shading for an underwritten character.  Once you get past those three characters, there isn't much to write about, not because anyone is bad, but because the movie moves quickly through its plot (it is a short 75 minutes) so we don't get much time with anyone else.

I think most of the modern audience would find the film cheesy - and make no mistake, it is - but part of why it feels so cliche is because of how many of them it likely set.  Hell, it might've been full of cliches at the time (though its positive reviews suggest it was a rather fresh take on horror) but because of how much it's survived in the public consciousness while others from the same time period have faded.

An interesting fact: The film was released with the 'Emergo' gimmick, where a skeleton would fly above the audience during a certain scene.  If a revival screening ever happens near me and includes that, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to skip it.

While the movie does build some tension, having multiple plot shifts in such a short film does make some parts feel rushed.  Again, everything works, but like the characters, certain arcs don't feel like they get enough attention; details are dropped of a larger narrative but none of it is explored beyond the hinting.

I'd still give this movie an easy recommend (it is vastly superior to - and somehow less dated than - the 1999 remake), especially if you want to check out some older horror films.  In fact, prior to my watching this film, I had never seen Vincent Price in a horror film, having only seen him in Edwards Scissorhands and hearing him as the voice of Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective.  He's one of the greats of the genre, and it was genuinely enjoyable to see him in his element.

7 out of 10

Review: Shelby Oaks (2025)

Shelby Oaks follows Mia Brennan (Camille Sullivan), as she tries to find out what happened to her sister Riley (Sarah Durn), after she disappeared while filming an episode on ghost towns for her YouTube channel, Paranormal Paranoids.  Not just Riley either: co-hosts Laura, Peter, and David (Caisey Cole, Anthony Baldasare, and Eric Francis Melaragni) also disappear, although their bodies - and one of the two tapes filmed while in ghost town Shelby Oaks - are eventually found.

That information - given to us via a documentary being filmed about the disappearance - is given to us during an extended cold open.  It's actually a bit surprising when the title card comes up: At that point we are so invested in the story - though we do get one hell of a tonal switch just before the opening credits start up - that the fact that what we have seen is just set up is honestly shocking.

I went into this movie fairly blind - I did not watch a single trailer for this movie before seeing it and only had the vaguest notion of the plot.  I mostly saw it on the promise of director Chris Stuckmann, a YouTube reviewer I have watched for years and who made one of the best videos about horror about a decade ago:  The Problem with Horror Movies Today.  He goes into great detail about what works and doesn't work for horror.  Because of that video, I was excited to see him attempt a horror film to see how well he followed up on this video since he very clearly understood what makes a great horror film.

And I am happy to say that Stuckmann nails it.  While not a perfect movie by any means, it is a damn good one for a first effort, and it does show that Stuckmann understands what makes one work.  The tonal consistency is amazing and after that shift to end the cold open, the movie never stops going.  Granted, the movie is 91 minutes long, so it cannot afford to waste much time, but even factoring that in, this movie is judicious in how it moves the story forward.

From a found tape, to research on a character introduced to the narrative suddenly and violently, to Mia's increasingly frantic attempts to figure out what truly happened to Riley - none of  it feels forced.  There are some 'horror movie decisions' that I wish had been avoided - namely Mia choosing to do some of her investigations in the middle of the night - but overall, everything just works in a way that shows that care was put into both the direction and the screenplay (which was also written by Stuckmann).

It also helps that the performances are strong across the board.  Sullivan has the bulk of the work, performance-wise, and never hits a false note even as her character makes questionable decisions.  Even aside from her, we get a great cameo from Keith David, and Sarah Durn plays the missing Riley perfectly - you see the variance in her natural vs YouTube selves.  While I won't spoil anything about her character, Robin Bartlett also gives an effective performance in her brief appearance.

Again, this is a good movie.  I hope it is successful and I would highly recommend it!  Despite how much I have revealed in this review, it really only touches a small part of the movie and going in as blind as possible is advice I happily give.

8 out of 10

Review: Trilogy of Terror II (1996)

Trilogy of Terror II is a 1996 made-for-TV anthology movie whose gimmick is that each of the segments stars the same actress.  The original from 1975 (also a made-for-TV affair) famously had Karen Black as its star.  More famously, it had the Zuni doll which kept the movie alive in the minds of many and whose notoriety most likely lead to this sequel (both share the same director: John Curtis).

It's tempting to skip to the last sequence of the film (the above poster makes it clear that everyone involved knew what we were here for) that stars the doll, but I'll stick to the actual order.

Our first segment, where we meet this trilogy's three-part star Lysette Anthony, is called The Graveyard Rats.  Anthony stars as Laura, the wife to millionaire Ansford (Matt Clark) who has caught her having an affair with Ben (Geraint Wyn Davies).  He threatens her with a tape incriminating her in the affair if she doesn't end it.  Rather than do so, Ben convinces her to instead kill Ansford instead.

You may be wondering where the graveyard rats of the title come into this segment, but don't worry, this segment is in no rush to get to that point.  The lovers attempt their plan, and I won't say what the end result is, but it does - after a long interim where we watch the surviving cast members go to a bar (where we hear a story about the rats) then bury and dig up the character that dies.  Only at this point - shortly before the segment ends - do we get the titular rats.  You'd think they'd either go with a different name for the segment or get to the rats faster, but not so much.

It's the weakest of the three by far: draggy and far too much time spent on buildup followed by a weirdly written sequence of escalations and betrayals.  The rats themselves don't look that great - which may explain the delay in their appearance - and while no one is bad in it, no one is particularly interesting either.

Our second segment is called Bobby.  In this segment, Anthony plays Alma, a woman grief-stricken by the death of her son Bobby, who drowned sometime in the past.  Unable to cope, she results to a dark ritual where she calls on a deity to return her son to her.  She then hears a knock on the door to find Bobby (Blake Heron) there, claiming to not have drowned but instead having washed ashore some distance away where he was cared for by a family.  Despite her suspicions of the story, Alma gladly welcomes him back.

This, to me, has the best performance from Anthony.  She plays the grief and depression very well in the beginning.  When Bobby first starts to act different, she does a great job of playing a woman who knows something is wrong but refusing to accept it and ignoring it instead.  Once Bobby fully reveals himself as Not Having Coming Back Right, she plays the terror (and maybe guilt?) in those scenes incredibly well.  There's an implication that maybe Bobby's drowning is not accidental, but given that we hear that from whatever is pretending to be Bobby, I'm not sure how reliable that is - it could just be the entity playing into any guilt Alma might have felt after it.  Either way, this is probably the best segment of the three.

Our final segment - featuring the Zuni doll everyone came for - is called He Who Kills.  It is a direct continuation of the original segment from 1975, where after the death of the those characters, the doll is sent to a museum so that Dr. Simpson (Anthony again) can determine what, if anything, it had to do with the double murder.  As she soon finds out: everything.

For the Zuni doll soon comes to life and starts murdering.  This segment gets to the violence quickly and the bulk of it is Dr. Simpson desperately trying to find a way to keep the doll at bay.  It's probably the best pure-terror performance from Lysette Anthony out of the three segments, with her giving a fairly convincing performance that a doll could be as threatening as the segment wants you to believe.

There isn't much plot to this one; it knows what the audience wants it delivers it.  I wish that the other victims would have received a bit more time before being offed, but given the time constraints, what we get is fairly solid.

It's a definite recommend for campy fun.

6.5 out of 10