Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW] Is ‘Dead Alive’ (1992) The Goriest Movie Of All Time?

Published

on

Is Dead Alive the goriest movie of all time? No. And I wish people would stop acting like it is. Yes, it’s gory, but it’s far from the goriest. Half of the movie contains zero blood. And if you even want to get to the ‘good’ part, you have to get through that bloodless first half! The film’s second half would feel worth it if the first half wasn’t such a slog to get through. First, it’s important to look at the backstory of this film.

The Banned, Cut, and Recut History of Dead Alive

Braindead’s full runtime sits at 104 minutes, and was initially only released in full in the UK and Australia. It would later be banned in multiple countries. Once it hit the United States, a title change would come, Dead Alive, and nearly 20 minutes would be cut from the film. Eventually, we’d get a 97-minute uncut version, but that still means we’re missing almost 10 minutes of footage.

Dead Alive follows Lionel Cosgrove (Timothy Balme), whose mother, Vera Cosgrove (Elizabeth Moody) gets bit by a rat-monkey creature at a zoo. Vera receives said bite after she backs up against a monkey’s cage when stalking Lionel, who’s on a date with Paquita (Diana Peñalver). After a short incubation period, Vera passes away. But don’t you worry, before you shed a tear, you should know she has come back to life! Granted, she’s now hungry for human flesh, but she’s alive! Can Lionel stop his mother’s corpse before it’s too late?

When Slapstick and Gore Collide

Let’s get the negatives out of the way. Slapstick comedy and extreme horror don’t work for me. It just doesn’t work. The slapstick comedy of Hundreds of Beavers works well because it’s easy enough to suspend disbelief and accept the world the characters live in. Dead Alive, on the other hand, has just absolutely awful slapstick humor. It doesn’t even abide by the rule of three. Seeing the same obese guy getting kicked in his balls ten times is fine and all, especially because of who he is, but it’s just not funny. And almost everything in this film is played for laughs. When it comes to movie ratings, I’ve heard violence is rated based on its context–the more violent and mean a kill is, the harder the MPAA would go towards the rating. In Dead Alive, there isn’t a single serious moment, and trying to ‘enjoy’ the kills is incredibly frustrating.

I watched the unrated version and I really wanted to like this movie. Ultimately, it ended up being an extremely frustrating watch. Awful acting and a barebones plot that doesn’t feel fresh even for 1992 just takes what should have been a wonderful first-time experience into 97 minutes of trying not to watch the clock. By the time the action kicks in, I was already turned off. I didn’t care about the outcome at this point because I was unbelievably frustrated.

Advertisement

Overhyped and Underwhelming: A Missed Opportunity

If I learned anything from the endless hours of Lord of the Rings bonus features is that Peter Jackson loves practical effects. The practical effects of Dead Alive still mostly hold up today. The face deglovings, dog throat removals, and zombie headlamps look surprisingly great. If the film’s first half had been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, it would have worked better for me. Being told time and time again that Braindead was one of the goriest films of all time may have overhyped it for me. The film’s lawnmower scene, the bloodiest scene in the film, just didn’t have any impact at this point.

I desperately wanted to love this movie. Part of me was worried that my review would seem too biased because I would enjoy it that much. I can’t think of a time a film has let me down as much as Dead Alive did. Luckily I was able to watch the unrated version because I think I’d be even more frustrated watching a version with less gore. Oh and don’t even get me started on the half-baked dead dad storyline that’s explained in full almost immediately and then dropped for no reason. Overall, Dead Alive is a film I would never revisit and something I would never recommend.

Brendan is an award-winning author and screenwriter rotting away in New Jersey. His hobbies include rain, slugs, and the endless search for The Mothman.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Them That Follow’ Review: A Bleak and Brilliant Thriller

Published

on

From Blood Shine to now, I’ve really been eating my words with my “don’t like cult horror” attitude. Maybe all I needed was a gigantic break from the hundreds of cult-based horror films that were being churned out. Or, maybe the subgenre just needed some space to find its footing? Anyway, imagine the shock on my face when I was researching snake-based horror films and came across Them That Follow, starring Walton Goggins, Olivia Coleman, Kaitlyn Dever, and *checks notes* Jim Gaffigan!

Lemuel (Walton Goggins) is the pastor of a snake-fearing religious group, tucked away deep in the Appalachian mountains. His daughter, Mara (Alice Englert), is set to marry Garret (Lewis Pullman), a man she seemingly has no interest in. As their young love comes into question, Johnny Law starts breathing down their necks. With her best friend Dilly (Kaitlyn Dever) on her side, Mara questions everything she’s known about her life thus far. Will she go forward and marry a man she may not even love? Or, will her former fling, Auggie (Thomas Mann), win her affection and get her to leave this awful life behind?

A Slow-Burn With Style

Writer/directors Brittany Poulton and Dan Madison Savage bring a wholly unique feature to the table with Them That Follow. At first, the film’s meandering and lackluster pace is grating. WHEN will something happen? WHAT will move this story forward? Slowly but surely, Poulton and Savage’s story serpentines its way into nihilistic horror. If you have zero control over your life, what kind of life is it? Them That Follow is a harrowing, albeit slow, exploration of grief in a way that “elevated horror” typically fails at doing. Rather than forcing audiences into its grief, Poulton and Savage craft an excellent story around it.

Them That Follow explores not just grief, but groupthink. In a world where deeply religious political parties storm pizza restaurants with automatic weapons and kill in the name of their god, this film acts as a harsh mirror. YOU may not be aware that groups like this exist…they do. One of my favorite articles is written by someone who embedded himself in a Q-adjacent cult as he chronicled just how broken some of these groups are. (I wish I could remember the title/author, sorry!) Them That Follow does an incredible job at visualizing some of the things I read in that article. Those who believe Lemuel see nothing wrong with letting one of their friends get bitten by a venomous snake and slowly drift into a quiet death in the name of their god.

Outstanding Performances and a Surprising Cast

What really excited me about Them That Follow is how wonderfully miserable the cast is. Never have I seen people portray misery as entertainingly as this cast. Walton Goggins embodies his violent optimism in a way I haven’t seen him do before (though I haven’t seen Justified). Olivia Coleman is brilliant as always. But it’s everyman comedian Jim Gaffigan who really caught my eye. His performance is subtle and refined, something I didn’t think he could pull off. And if you ever thought you would see the day where Jim Gaffigan and Olivia Coleman play husband and wife on screen, you’re lying.

Advertisement

It’s not until the final act that the film goes from stagnant (positively) forwardness to amped up energy. I was concerned Them That Follow wouldn’t nail an interesting stinger, but Poulton and Savage wrapped a bloody brilliant bow on the end of this gift. I did wish they had gone in a different, less realistic angle to the film’s ending; something more grotesque. But I can’t fault them for leaving the film grounded in a reality that is justified and believable. Not all films like this have to end with a supernatural, Lovecraftian twist. And for that, I tip my ten-gallon hat to them.

Why Them That Follow Deserves More Attention

Them That Follow was an incredible surprise, and a wonderful change of pace for what cult-based horror films typically are. With a stacked cast, brilliant writing, and stunning performances, I’m shocked more people haven’t stumbled across this film. It utilizes its snake-based horror well and doesn’t vilify those slithery sneaks in a way many snake-based horror films do. At the very least, watch this film to see what it would be like if Olivia Coleman and Jim Gaffigan were married.

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ Review: Fanservice Wrapped in Mess

Published

on

I have no illusions that Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 entertained me due in no small part to personal bias. There was genuine enjoyment to be had for how silly and fun it was and enjoy it I did. I, of all people, am not immune to nostalgia. But there’s no mincing words: the second outing at the cinemas for creator Scott Cawthon’s behemoth horror franchise is, in no uncertain terms, a movie of mixed to low quality. It’s kind of bad. And that’s okay.

Its effects are simultaneously better and worse, its dialogue ranges from alright to atrocious, and its performances are all over the place. The premise it runs with, remixing the second game with its shiny new Toy versions of the Fazbear Entertainment gang, is a fun time fueled by fan service and busting at the seams to try and accommodate it all to an under two-hour runtime. But it’s messier than the backrooms of the pizzerias it takes place in.

A Remix of Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 (And Others), Heavy on Fanservice

This time, the primary antagonist puppeteering a cast of aggressive animatronics is literally a puppet; the Marionette, a scorned victim of the previous film’s antagonist William Afton. Slain and bound to the very first restaurant Afton started, a group of ghost hunters unleash its evil when a recording of their show goes horribly wrong. It’s up to Mike (Josh Hutcherson) and Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail) to try and seal it away again, or risk their lives being torn apart by the supernatural once more.

For the game fans this film was crafted for, it will satiate any lore craving they might have. Well, at least until the third film, when Mike will combat oxygen deprivation that causes him to hallucinate phantom animatronics (no, that sentence is not a joke, that actually happens). There are tidbits of foreshadowing for sequels, confirmations of theories, retcons, and somewhat amusing cameos. For everyone else, you’ll get a good laugh and the occasional scare, but you will have a plethora of questions.

The Screenplay Has Been Springlocked

The script for this sequel is riddled with oddities, nothing characters, and genre cliches that are in a quantum state of “good because it’s hilarious” and “bad because it’s genuinely bad” depending on who is delivering them. The story isn’t always predictable just because of the adaptation factor it relishes in, but its dialogue is undeniably silly and hamstrings what could otherwise be good performances with a need to rush along lore and forced character development.

Advertisement

Hutcherson’s go around as Mike this time is phoned in, and it doesn’t help that he wasn’t given anything to work with other than being a stereotypical single father figure to his kid sister. It’s not all bleak; Lail does actually deliver the film’s best bits in a genuinely frightening dream sequence delving into Vanessa’s backstory. She also gets a few fun final girl moments, but hasn’t reached the level of iconic that would garner calling her a scream queen; we’ll see if that changes in 3 given the radical shift in character she goes through here.

Great Villains Hamstrung by an Imperfect Script (And Effects)

Piper Rubio is once again fit to her role as Abby, though the character she’s playing is oddly one note for a child who is psychic friends with the ghosts of dead kids. The brief voice lines for the animatronics by guest stars garner little in the way of memorability, but long-time Freddy voice actor Kellen Goff does manage to make a solid impact with the one or two lines he receives.

While we’re on the topic of those new fiendish animatronics, they are much better than anticipated. Their practical puppetry bases and how they’re composited with the CGI isn’t bad at all, with game designs translating well and moving nicely. The Marionette’s myriad forms, however, do feel exceptionally goofy despite the terrifying concept of a slithering octopoid puppet ghost with no concrete skeleton. They’re the lowlight of the film’s effects, but it’s kind of endearing how silly they look.

The biggest victim of the film, however, is Freddy Carter. He plays the creep factor of his character up to a thousand in a way that absolutely would work with better writing and a darker tone. But he’s shackled by the lore implications of being a character people have been waiting for, in a way that feels more offensive to the story than the constant easter eggs. Every word that leaves his mouth feels comically bad, laden with exposition or just outright limp and cold linework.

We Underused Matthew Lillard Again (And Skeet Ulrich This Time Too)

Which is a shame, because our minor villain does get to have fun. Matthew Lillard’s brief screen chewing time in the sun as William Afton once more is delightful, playing a deranged killer in a yellow bunny costume with all the glee that visual would indicate.

Advertisement

Skeet Ulrich as fan favorite character Henry Emily, however, doesn’t get nearly enough time to shine. Despite being a perfect casting for the role and delivering a convincing turn as a grieving father, he’s relegated to just delivering a plot device that gets 30 seconds of screentime. Here’s to hoping the next film reunites the Scream alums, allowing the long-time rivals of the game to finally cross paths.

Can Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 Be More Than Fan Service?

I suppose the constant reiteration of that last point is important to address: the current train of thought is that hopefully, eventually, the kinks will be worked out as far as the Five Nights at Freddy’s films go. Though I’m not holding my breath.

There are no reservations that this is, first and foremost gateway horror for younger audiences, with a nostalgia barbed fishhook to sink into in older fans as well. My humble prediction is that almost all of these films will remain roughly the same level of quality (middling to poor), the same level of frightening (more than you’d think and much less than you’d hope), and the same level of entertaining for the segments of the population it hits for (a fairly fun time).

And maybe that’s enough. To simply be entertaining gateway horror is fine, I don’t think there’s a screaming necessity for these to be masterpieces. This movie is kind of bad, and that’s okay if all you need is some fleeting entertainment or to see your favorite game adapted to film. But films with this much franchise potential should be treated as all others. They can be strong horror films with great iconography rather than features beholden entirely to that iconography.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 fails to wow in any particular department other than being “for the fans” and much of its unintentional humor. Still, there’s a glimmer of hope here in its silvery eyes that this can all be something more down the line.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement