Review: Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre (2016)

Sometimes you come across a movie title and you just know that you have to watch it.  The name might not scream 'prestige' or even 'good' but dammit, it has a name you just cannot ignore.  It could be something like The Big Gay Musical or (to use a TV example) Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills: a name so ridiculous that it demands your viewing.  This is how I found myself watching Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre.

Now look, I did not go into this movie expecting cinema.  With a name like that, I expected something cheesy, moronic, exploitative, and funny.  It's about sharks attacking people in Arkansas!  And the people being attacked are inmates and guards at a women's prison!  How could this not be entertaining?

Easily, it turns out.

Now, I won't say the movie is entirely terrible (even though it is), but that title is selling a certain type of movie that it does not deliver.  All the more disappointing since it is directed by Jim Wynorski, whose previous credits include Slumber Party Massacre II, The Return of Swamp Thing, and The Bare Wench Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain.  Hell, the film advertises that Traci Lords is in it!

It feels like the movie goes wrong pretty early into it.  After an opening that delivers exactly what I was expecting for this type of movie (two guys 'fracking' in a way that shows no one involved understood what fracking actually is), we get to the women's prison (that does not in any way look like a prison) and they leave it immediately.  It's in the title that you are at a women's prison!  And you leave it and never return!?

Despite that immediate flaw, the movie still shows promise: All of the inmates are incredibly hot women wearing white t-shirts and jean shorts (you know, your classic prison garb).  They go into the woods for... reasons? to work (doing the worst shoveling I have ever seen in my life, and I was a lazy teenager who had to dig an insane amount) (Don't ask, it's way more boring than you'd think).  There is an extended section of this part of all of the women pouring bottles of water on themselves.  At this point, I think the movie, aside from a horrible location change, is back on track.

Except it quickly loses it again:  The first inmate kill is incredibly basic (which, okay, don't blow your load early and whatnot) but despite ripped clothing and blood splattered everywhere, everyone agrees that she just ran off.

And guys, my expectations were low, but come the fuck on!  I don't expect this to be anything other than ridiculous, but don't make the characters so stupid that this is the conclusion they come to!  Again, the movie almost saves itself with one of the characters - still being stupid, she says a tree is bleeding - shows her 'blood' covered hand to the camera and it sits there just a bit too long before moving to the next part.

The remaining prisoners and guard (there was a 'prison break' involving the girlfriend of one of the inmates catching the guards off-guard and kidnapping them that leads to the second guard dying by shark) end up at a house where the guard and the Good Inmate team up to take back over the group (the movie being stupid in a good way again) and then they realize that sharks are around when another inmate gets killed by them.  This is also when we learn that the sharks can swim out of the water and into the ground.  Again, blessedly stupid according to expectations.

Two geologists stumble upon the group to drop exposition and provide a higher body count.  The group tries to escape the sharks and periodically lose a member here and there until only two (or are there more?) remain, having escaped.  I don't have to spoil who the survivors are, it's kinda obvious who it will be.

There are some fun moments scattered throughout, but why name the movie this and not lean into it?  I'm gay, I don't need to see naked women, but how did this movie not have a single naked breast in it?  There are 3 different types of exploitation movies being referenced in the title alone that would create the expectation of gratuitous nudity!  Again, I am not the target audience but even I feel a bit cheated out of this expectation.

You might noticed that I never credited Traci Lords to a role despite mentioning her at the beginning.  That is because her character, a police officer, does not interact with the main plot until the very end of the film.  She (and her partner) could be completely removed from the film without affecting a single thing.

I wanted this movie to be a good time.  And it occasionally was!  But it just didn't use its premise well enough to be anything other than a way to pass time.

3 out of 10

Review: Tentacles (1977)

It's always interesting reading the backstories for some movies as I watch them.  For instance, Tentacles, the 1977 killer giant octopus movie, was originally written as a more comedic take on the formula popularized by Jaws.  However, it was retooled and rewritten to be a more serious film.  Either version was an attempt to cash in on the Jaws craze, and I wonder if it might have been better to go in the comedic direction.

Set in Solana Beach, California, this film follows reporter Ned Turner (a slumming John Huston) as he tries to find the source of a series of attacks by an aquatic animal.  He gets help from diver Will Gleason (Bo Hopkins, trying really hard to make the material work), and butts heads with Mr. Whitehead (Henry Fonda, originally the lead before a heart attack forced him into this smaller role) the businessman responsible for antagonizing the giant octopus (Is this a spoiler?  Could it have been anyone else, really?).

We also have Tillie Turner (Shelley Winters), the sister of Ned providing a B-plot (her son is in a sailing race where all of the entrants get attacked) and Claude Akins as Sheriff Douglas Robards as a third person for many of the scenes.  And I mean that: there are several scenes where it is primarily two people talking and it seems that the Sheriff is there just to provide an additional voice to the conversation.

Because this was an Italian production, every other character in the film is played by an Italian actor.  Unfortunately, most of these actors have incredibly distracting voice dubs, and there is a noticeable difference in the sound quality of these actors vs the American cast.  And it is even worse when one of the Americans shares a scene with an Italian.  I'm not sure if it would have been better to try to get American extras or just let the accents stay with the current actors, but it makes for a weird viewing having the dubs mixed in.

This movie also has some very odd directorial choices.  Several scenes feature what amounts to a screenshot (nothing in the frame is moving for several seconds) before cutting to the same scene only with movement this time.  There are also random music queues scattered throughout that almost have rhyme and reason to them, but miss just enough (and in a few cases, they miss wildly) that most viewers will notice the odd musical choices.

The special effects are bad, but better than I would expect for a movie with as small a budget as this one had.  Which is damning with faint praise, but what else can I say about a movie that, in one scene, has a killer whale attack the octopus where the viewer can tell it is a toy whale being thrust at a normal-sized octopus?

I hate to pick at this movie - it's akin to kicking a wounded animal - but it is such a misguided production in so many ways that I struggle to find anything to praise.  Shelley Winters gives the movie more effort than it deserves yet still the performances doesn't work.  Bo Hopkins, as alluded to above, also tries to salvage something from the script but something, likely the direction, holds anything worthwhile at bay the entire time.

If I am going to praise the movie for one thing, it will be that it really does not hesitate to kill characters.  The very first kill is a baby, family members of the main characters die throughout. and the movie isn't afraid to kill anyone, which is something.  It just isn't enough to save this movie.

3.5 out of 10

Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Creature from the Black Lagoon has a simple enough premise: Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) discovers a fossilized claw that appears humanoid but has webbing and claws.  Excited, he manages to get funding from Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Dennings) to expand his expedition to find more of this new discovery.  Along for the ride are Dr. Edwin Thompson (Whit Bissell), and colleagues (and lovers) Dr. David Reed and Kay Lawrence (Richard Carlson and Julie Adams).  Said expedition then learns that this creature is not entirely extinct, as they encounter one while searching for more remains.

The impact of this movie cannot be overstated.  While Universal had a history of successful horror films (Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, and the Mummy), by the 50s most of these characters were old hat - having appeared in movies together in various combos, and almost all having interacted with Abbott and Costello also.  The Gill Man was an entirely new - and entirely original - creation that was so instantly iconic that you'd be hard-pressed to find any 'fish man' that deviates away from this design.

Of note: though only makeup artist 'Bud' Westmore receives onscreen credit for the creation of the Gill Man, animator Millicent Patrick - one of the first women to be hired by Disney as an animator - also contributed heavily to the design.  This is because Westmore very angrily argued against the studio promoting her involvement.

The movie stands out for how consistently the tone plays throughout the film.  This could very easily have been something akin to The Brain from Outer Space (not a real film) but director Jack Arnold ably controls this film:  Staging the sequences so they are never not interesting (the swimming duet between the Gill Man (Ricou Browning for the underwater sequences) and Kay being a particular highlight), and keeping the film moving in a timely manner (the film feels much shorter than its 79 minutes).

When the Gill Man moves to land (played by Ben Chapman for these sequences), he still feels altogether alien despite his humanoid appearance.  Chapman deserves credit for moderating his movements to keep the Creature otherworldly so that the audience can never be fully at ease during his appearances.

The performances across the board are fine to good - much better than one would expect for a B horror movie from the 50s.  Julie Adams (credited as Julia Adams for this film and much of her earlier filmography) is justly an icon for her role in this, but best in show likely goes to Richard Dennings as the much more cutthroat Mark, who'd prefer to kill the creature rather than just study it.

Originally released in 3-D and considered one of the best of those from the 50s, I unfortunately only got to experience the 2-D version.  And I wonder how much is lost because of that difference.  Because, despite all the praise I can heap on this film for what it has accomplished, I am much cooler on it than I expected.

Possibly the music has something to do with it.  The Creature's theme - played continuously throughout the film - gets tiresome given how often and how loudly we hear it.  Despite the performances being good, none of the characters truly stand out - even Kay is more famous for her abduction by the creature than the character work of Julie Adams.  For whatever reason, this movie just didn't 'click' for me despite the skill and craftmanship that went into it.

Would I recommend it?  Yes: it certainly deserves its place in horror history, and I think even non-horror fans can enjoy it, though they might struggle a bit with the 50s style of acting.  I could even be convinced to give it a rewatch, though I would certainly want it to be 3-D next time.

6 out of 10

Review: Clown in a Cornfield (2025)

Clown in a Cornfield, based off the novel by Adam Cesare (which is a fun read), follows Quinn Maybrook (Katie Douglas), who has recently moved from Philadelphia to Kettle Springs, Missouri.  Kettle Springs is home to the Baypen corn syrup factory and its mascot Frendo the Clown.  Quinn quickly falls in with a group that makes horror YouTube videos based off the mascot, and when that group is pursued by a veritable army of costumed Frendos, she has to find a way to survive.

This movie is very much a throwback slasher:  Characters are fairly thin outside our lead, motivations are an afterthought, and the redshirts are fairly obvious.  However, it is still a fun time with some inventive kills and sly comedy scattered throughout.

Slashers - especially one that is paying homage to the 80s slashers - live and die by their energy.  Slow slashers rarely work (and for them to succeed, the slowness needs to be part of the gimmick like with In a Violent Nature) and boring/cliche kills can turn it into a slog.  So there is a constant battle to one-up previous slashers in both these ways that can turn the story into something perfunctory just so the focus can shift to those other priorities.

Because this is based off an existing novel, the story part is taken care of.  The adaptation trims quite a bit from the story, but the bones are there and allows the focus to shift to other aspects of the filmmaking.  Short of a complete rewriting of the novel (which, why would you adapt from a novel if that is your aim?), they have a blueprint to keep things from going too far off the rails.

The movie also succeeds with some inspired casting: getting a whole cadre of character actors to fill out the roles of the townspeople.  The biggest name is probably Will Sasso, but Kevin Durand and Aaron Abrams also make appearances.  All of the performers do an excellent job.  None of them break new ground with their performances, but they match the tone that the movie is asking for and flesh it out just enough to give it a pinch of realism.

The movie also wisely moves along at a quick pace to go along with the high energy.  We meet our characters and set up conflicts fairly quickly, and the kills start soon after.  At 96 minutes, it has to be judicious with its scenes and director Eli Craig (with an assist from editor Sabrina Pitre) makes sure not a moment is wasted.

All in all, this is a fun little movie.  It isn't doing anything to rewrite the genre, but it's a fun time.

6 out of 10

Review: Freaks (1932)

Freaks, directed by Tod Browning, is a complicated film.  Filmed in the pre-code era, it offered a compassionate look at those with disabilities and was vilified for it.  It is a tale of revenge that gets lumped into the horror category, mostly for the wrong reasons, but does feature moments of horror within it.  Originally 90 minutes long, producer Irving Thalberg - without letting Browning know - edited the film, removing so much of it that the alternate footage had to be added to give it a theatrical run time of 64 minutes.  The full version is lost.

It's hard to talk about the film on its merits when the version that survived to today is so heavily compromised.  Not only that, but a modern audience would approach it in a much different way than a contemporaneous one - which is the proper way to review it?  I'm going to somewhat split the difference between the two, but I can't say if that is the best method.

The story of Freaks is simple: Hans (Harry Earles), a dwarf circus performer, is smitten with Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) a trapeze performer.  Because of a large inheritance he has received, Cleopatra leads him on for a bit before hatching a plan with her paramour, Hercules (Henry Victor), to marry then poison Hans so that she can get all of his money.  Unfortunately for Cleopatra and Hercules, they are found out and the titular freaks get their revenge.

The movie is one of contrasts: An early scene shows two men talking about what basically amounts to eugenics before coming across the sideshow performers and being horrified by them - this providing a counterpoint to the many familial scenes within the circus performer community, with both the 'freaks' and several of the 'normal' performers living amongst one another. Phroso and Venus (Wallace Ford and Leila Hyams) a clown and a seal trainer, consider many of these performers to be their friends, and Venus is attacked by Hercules because she knows too much about their plot.

There is also the infamous 'One of Us' scene where, after marrying Hans, Cleopatra is offended to be welcomed by the freaks and called one of them.  Whereas the 'freaks' are happy to welcome another into their group, the beautiful (and somewhat Aryan) Cleopatra - despite performing in the same circus - considers herself better than this other group.  Director Browning, who himself had traveled with a circus, likely didn't do this by accident.

The movie is not without problems, despite being in many ways well ahead of its time.  The revenge against Cleopatra and Hercules is still portrayed as horrifying because of who is pursuing them more than a proper comeuppance for their crimes, and Frieda, Hans's love interest, is played by Daisy Earles, the sister of Harry Earles.  While the former is likely a combination of the heavy edits to the movie and the time period in which it was made, the latter really feels like it could have been avoided with better casting.

Still, the movie is an interesting time capsule into the how filmmakers in the past worked to be subversive, and two years later the Hays Code would have made the making of this film all but impossible, so it should be treasured for what it did accomplish moreso than criticized for what it did not.

Would I recommend this movie?  It's short, so even if someone didn't enjoy it, it isn't asking too much of their time to check it out, so I'd say yes for that reason alone.  Film buffs should definitely watch it though.

8 out of 10

Review: Frogs (1972)

It's weird seeing Sam Elliott without his mustache.

Frogs finds a very-young Sam Elliott, playing photographer Pickett Smith, as he finds himself spending an evening and day with the wealthy Crockett family after one of their clan almost runs over his canoe with their boat.  Apologetic, they offer to let him dry off and spend the evening with them on their island.  An island that is teeming with frogs (or, toads that we are meant to believe are frogs).  Those frogs, and the various other wildlife on the island, have plans for the Crockett family and their visitors...

I think whether or not you enjoy this movie is heavily dependent on whether or not you can roll with the combination of a silly premise and serious acting.  While there is a certain level of campiness to a few of the performances, most of the actors play the dialogue dead serious.  It works for the film - I don't think the movie would work if there was any sort of leaning into the ridiculous premise - but if the viewer can't get into it, they will not enjoy this film.

I was able to get into it.  It's always interesting to see a before-they-were-famous performance and it is easy to see the easy charisma of Sam Elliott in this performance.  Several of the female characters are instantly in lust with him, and the viewer can actually see why they are into him so quickly - not an easy feat to accomplish.

Because of the large cast - there are a grand total of 10 members of the Crockett family, plus two servants and a guest in addition to Pickett - the deaths happen early and frequently.  While precious few of them are caused by frogs - I'll let future viewers be surprised at the actual total - all of them are caused by wildlife of some sort.  A few of them, while lacking realism, are still gross to watch, including one poor soul who ends up with a tarantula in their mouth - and not a fake one.

I'd almost like to watch a making-of this movie.  A man wrestles a live alligator in one scene, the trailer shows a woman dropped into quicksand by a giant butterfly (this does not make the final cut of the film), there is an extended sequence with animal sounds coming from stuffed animals where most do not match: I willing to bet the making of the film is just as if not more interesting than the finished product.

Overall, I'd say the film is enjoyable.  It could probably do with a few less scenes of frogs menacingly staring at the camera, but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, though I can definitely see opinions varying wildly on this one.

6 out of 10

Review: Wolf Man (2025)

I think the critics got it wrong on this one.

The 2025 Wolf Man follows the Lovell family (Blake, played by Christopher Abbott; Charlotte, played by Julia Garner; and Ginger, played by Matilda Firth) as they go to Blake's estranged father's home after he is declared legally dead.  However, it t urns out his father is not dead, but now a werewolf who attacks the family, infecting Blake.

This version of the classic tale diverges from other versions by having the turning process be long and painful.  Blake starts to get heightened senses, but then loses the ability to talk or even understand his family.  The metamorphosis is slow, and complicating matters is that the werewolf that infected him continues to hunt the family into the night.

There are undercurrents here of family trauma being passed on to the next generation, as well as less subtextual moments relating to relationships within a family that is strained but not broken.  The slow decline of Blake - treated as an infection given to him - feels pointed in a post-COVID film, and I appreciate director Leigh Whannell twisting the age old myth in such a way.

A film like this is going to live and die on its performances, and with a cast of 5 - two of which are fairly small - there isn't any room for a bad performance.  Thankfully, all of the cast do an amazing job.  Abbott in particular does an amazing job of showing Blake's slow loss of his humanity (it isn't stated, but is implied, that once you transform it is permanent).  Garner, as a mother who worries she doesn't connect with her daughter or husband as she should, also delivers.

Whannell does add some flair to several sequences in the film.  Several chase scenes are fairly inventive - my favorite being one involving a greenhouse - and the decision to cut between Blake's 'werewolf' vision/hearing and that of his family works very well at creating otherworldliness that would be missing in a standard werewolf movie.

This movie also wins points by not being overly long.  An hour and 40ish minutes - including credits - means that we get to the actual meat of the movie fairly quickly, and it doesn't drag at all as the family is trapped/attempts to escape Blake's childhood home.

I will say that this movie is more focuses on the psychological and body horror rather than on jump scares.  I think it is the correct choice for the story that Whannell and co-screenwriter Corbett Tuck want to tell, but for those looking for more traditional scares, this won't scratch that itch.  However, I'd definitely recommend it to those who don't mind a different type of horror.

8 out of 10.