American Nightmare (2002)

Fear 0/5
Gore 0/5
Entertainment 0/5
Creepiness 0/5

This movie is truly an exercise in futility. I am simply amazed at how films like this are made. With decent production values, I have to think the filmmaker had to shell out a fair amount of coin. Throw in the cost to pay actors including one of which is a genre 'star' and you are simply left scratching your head after the credits roll (which I was praying for by films end). This is a mired mess of a film with ultimately no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

The film starts off with a group of friends sitting around a campfire, waiting for additional folks to show up for an All Hallows Eve bash. The two girls in the camp walk off as one of them hears the call of nature and needs the escort of her friend. As they chat while looking for a place to pop a squat, one of them talks about being questioned by authorities regarding a crazed nurse who supposedly started hacking up people at the local hospital. Why they question her is anyone's guess and the reason or rationale for the killings is never provided. They are startled by the screams of the men in the camp, return to find the knife wielding nurse in scrubs, and quickly fall victim themselves. Not too shabby of a start to the film. But its all down hill from here folks.


Fast forward a few years, we find a group of Friends (literally 'Friends' as they look exactly like the entire gang from the sitcom) hanging out at a local coffee shop/eatery. After talking about their party plans for Halloween, they are encouraged by the shops owner to dial into a local radio station and talk to the disc jockey who is being blared through the eatery's sound system. He's inviting callers to phone in and air their inner most fears. Each one does: from being afraid of taking a shower alone to being a terrified claustrophobic to being afraid of everything voodoo related because of an ex who put a curse on him, and so on and so forth on down the line. The crazed nurse comes back to town and uses the fear of each against them and plots their demise accordingly.


Sounds like a decent premise right? The worst part about the film is that there is no ingenuity in the kills, no genuine tension or build-up to each one and the characters are so thinly constructed that you could care less once the onscreen 'carnage' starts up (which takes over a half an hour to get going after the openinig scene). I say carnage sarcastically as its anything but. Kills happen offscreen, with zero to no blood and worse yet, no gore.

Setting aside the painstakingly slow pacing and buildups is the most atrocious dialogue I've ever heard, which is clearly intentional in its ernestness. Get a load of these beauties:

The radio DJ to his listeners: How many people out there are doing the old 'razor blade in the apple' trick? A show of hands. Huh?

The radio DJ after the killer calls in and gets off on him using the word 'knife' as a metaphor for a man's dingus: Well I hope that satisfies all of you audio voyeurs out there. Websters Dictionary much?


These are examples of the two most grievous errors but there are tons more that abound. Not too be outdone, every utterance that comes out of the mouth of the killer is incredibly cliched. And did I mention a motive is never given? I might accept the explanation that not having a motive was intentional and that the ending was meant to be a complete 'shocker'. But for a film that had no emotional connection throughout, if this is the case, its intent was never fully realized.

I've already talked about this film for far longer than I've wanted. I was going to claim ignorance on the part of the filmmakers but when the friends first meet, they are all quizzing each other about famous horror film quotes so a tacit understanding of the genre is displayed. Sadly, this didn't translate into the least bit of an enjoyable movie watching experience whatsoever and it ultimately lends itself to feeling as if they had no idea what they were doing.

Avoid this film at all costs. Unless you want a 90 min. case of tourettes. If my fiance (who despises horror movies) says that this is one of the worst movies she's ever seen, you know its truly terrible. Oh and don't let any of the IMDB.com reviews sway you either. They're horseshit.

Cortez the Killer

Darkness: The Vampire Version (1993)

Fear 0/5
Gore 5/5
Entertainment 3/5
Creepiness 1/5

High on gore, cheese and metal (three combinations which make for a delectably delicious treat), Darkness is a film that starts off with a bang but kind of faulters around the 3rd act. Still, the film recovers at the end and is worth a viewing for one scene in particular.

After watching vampires slaughter his friends at the local gas station, a teen duder named Tobe returns home to find his trailer park turned upside down and inside out. He tries to get his mom and sister out of dodge but only gets so far before they 'turn.' Armed with a gun, knife and some holy water, he becomes a one man (teenager actually) wreaking crew and avenger.


He aimlessly wanders until he comes upon a house and its here where the 'rules' of a vampire film are broken. He finds kids who appear to be dead but soon awaken from their slumber, in a well-lit house during the middle of the day. But you kind of through out all sensiblity when the thrash metal soundtrack kicks in, and he waxes girls and dudes wearing Metallica and Iron Maiden threads. What's not to love about that?


As he continues on, he comes across a group of teens that are also on the run, barreling around town in their van blaring only the finest in devil music. They try to hole themselves up in friend's houses only to have the inhabitants turn on them. They then hop from house to house and this continues on for awhile. And after about the third or fourth narrow escape, the film feels like there was a lot of filler thrown in. But you don't really mind so much as the gorefest continues and a gnarly scene at a car wash transpires as one of the guys is overcome by a group of blood thirsty vampires.


A final showdown occurs with the head vampire (who never says a word throughout the film) and a group of rampaging vamps that forget what time of day it is as dawn breaks. What follows is one of the most epically awesome scenes ever committed to film:






All in all, a goofy film that has its charms. It does get mired by a sense of lost direction and feelings of 'OK, where do I take this next?' But the vamp explosions at the end are worth the price of admission alone. And how can you not love a film directed by a dude named Leif Jonker?

BTW, if you're wondering about the silly title of the movie, it was originally called Darkness. My guess is that when it was released on DVD, they added the new title to distinguish itself from the terrible film of the same name starring Anna Paquin.

Cortez the Killer

The 2009 Cyber Horror Awards Are Here!

The winners of the 2nd annual Cyber Horror Awards have been announced. Clicky here.

Many thanks to the illustrious B-Sol over at The Vault of Horror for asking us to participate.

BTW, I was disappointed to see Trick R' Treat win best film. I was terribly underwhelmed by it even though it did a great job of capturing the 'spirit' of Halloween. We voted for Grace.

Anywhos, congrats to all of the winners!

Cortez the Killer

AntiChrist (2009)

Fear 3/5
Gore 3/5
Entertainment 3/5
Creepiness 5/5

I have long wanted to see this film. With reports at Cannes of people yacking and running out of the theater, how can you not? Praise be to Satan for Netflix instant watch.

Our film kicks off with a dramatic sex scene between a couple, done in slow-mo with orchestral music blaring and gratuitous close-ups shown mid-coitus. As husband and wife move from the shower to the laundry room, their toddler son scales down the side of his crib and makes his way to the kitchen. He takes a chair and climbs up to the kitchen table, walks over to an open kitchen window and inadvertently steps out and plunges to his death below. After mommy and daddy finish banging nasty bits, they discover the tragedy which took place.

Heavily grieving and throwing many a guilty dig into her husband, the wife references a trip out to the family cabin in the woods the previous summer. The summer spent away with her son and without her husband to work on her thesis, seemed to reignite her pre-existing erratic and questioning behavior. She even goes so far as calling her husband aloof, distant, and un-loving. Couple that with whats only described as a strange event, you have the basis for a woman who's perceived as being very unstable.

As the wife spirals further into depression, she questions her husbands decision to be her main psychiatrist. Even though he has his own respected profession, she thinks that there's a conflict of interest and states that even his friend advised him not to pursue taking up her care. The husband insists and despite his multiple efforts in trying to be practical, the wife's only way of dealing with pain and confronting her fears is to throw herself at him in an attempt to make the act of sex wash away everything. The husband relents on several occasions despite his efforts in getting her to sensibly rationalize her fears. When things don't go well at home, he drags her out to the only place he believes will get her to confront everything head-on: their cabin called Eden.

Almost as soon as they arrive, strange occurrances take place. With each passing day, these occurances wratchet up in intensity and run in parallel to the different chapters which comprise the film (i.e. Chaos, Despair, etc.). An increased sense of impending doom is invoked with every event: a deer is shown with a partially stillborn fetus hanging from its backside, a talking fox gives a warning, and a tall oak tree falls over after the couple has a lengthy discussion about life, death and the role of the great oak in the forest. As the bleak picture is painted, the wife's outlook on things follows suit and she soon hits rock bottom.


We come to find out that the summer she had stayed in the cabin, the subject of her thesis involved witchcraft and the topic of women being persecuted. So consummed by the subject matter, the woods seemed to reach out to her while taking on a life of its own. And its here where the wife tells of her fearful experience. She further intimates that because of the experience, she has re-thought her thesis, giving us belief that the woods now hold some sort of power over her. Combined with her downward spiral into the utter depths of despair, this perceived power leads her to commit a series of heinous acts against herself and her husband.

This movie works on so many different levels. Many have commented on Van Trier and his pretentious nature and there certainly is a grandiosity to his work. But once you get past that, what you'll find is a richly painted, visually powerful and completely unnerving horror film. A film that is also shocking, both in terms of onscreen acts committed and actual concept. At its heart, lies the idea of the devil residing in nature and he has complete influence over all living things which stem from it, including those which bear life.

Also. during certain points, I couldn't help but think that the director had a less than stellar view of the fairer sex. Willem Dafoe's character was consistently painted as the victim even though he was battling with his own grief. Anyways, that doesn't detract from this being a truly remarkable and effective picture. And it contains two of the most disturbing scenes EVER committed to film (which subsequently had me curled up in the fetal position on the couch). What did you think?

(Ed. note: Doing some research on the film, apparently there is a great divide between folks who think this a unique and remarkable film and those that believe its overly misogynistic and needlessly violent. And apparently it was plagued multiple times by Von Trier's weakened mental state).

Cortez the Killer

Interview: James Spanos, Writer/Director Maidenhead

A few weeks ago, I reviewed an incredible indie horror film that defies genre conventions (clicky here). The tale is about a son taking care of an invalid father who has a life consuming disease: vampirism. Conceptually, using the sub-genre of film as an allegory to one's own physical or mental health is nothing new. But what writer and director James Spanos does is bring things down to a much more human and emotional level, evoking the strain and wear of taking care of a family member who is afflicted with a life threatening illness. Our central character is taking care of a father who's grown tiresome of being confined to a bed and who's increasingly becoming more and more unappreciative of the sacricifices that his son has made. The son's chosen role in life comes into question when he falls for a girl and has to make a choice between his father and his new found love. This decision becomes easier for him to make after his father commits a particularly gruesome act.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with James. We talked about why he chose vampirism as the main vehicle for his film, the emotional connection it reaches out and makes with the viewer, as well as his thoughts on film remakes.

Cortez the Killer: We had talked via email about our mutual (at least for the most part) dislike of the vampire sub-genre of film. Why did you ultimately choose it as the vehicle for yours?

James Spanos: Partially, I had always wanted to make a vampire movie specifically because I don't find them scary. I sometimes like them, but that's usually when it has a metaphoric value. Almost never because they're frightening. I always liked Romero's Martin because it was so much like a real movie. It was a real creation of the 1970's. Like many of the great genre works of that decade, it attacked a genre standard from a sort of deconstructionist art-film point of view. It's genuinely unsettling, but it's also about horror and about the idea of vampires. I also love it when 'genre' and 'literature' blur. Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay is not, strictly speaking, a book about superheroes. But it's so steeped in a love of comic books that you almost forget you're reading literary fiction. I love blur. I hate classification. Anyway, I figured if I ever made a vampire picture it would be really un-vampire-picture-like. But Maidenhead sort of chose its own genre. About five years ago I was attending church because a friend had invited me, and I felt guilty because I was treating church as a meat market (Ed. note: our lead in the film uses church as a means to get close to a potential 'victim'). Then I thought about how funny the expression 'meat market' was in that context. Then I thought, 'A fella with bad intentions could really do some damage in a place where people are encouraged to be sheep.' Not that all Christians are sheep, but you know what I mean. Anyway, from that point I just followed my nose. About a year later I had a script.

CTK: Parallels can definitely be seen in the film, and are subsequently allegorical in a sense, to people who are afflicted with some sort of terminal disease. Without getting too personal, did you draw on any real life experiences in the process of writing and filming this story?

James: Yes. My Grandmother got very sick and spiraled rapidly. My Dad took care of her for a year before she passed away, and toward the end, she just wasn't herself anymore. And it took a horrible toll on my Dad. It was horrible. That situation provided the heart of the movie.

CTK: The relationship between Martin and his father was extremely realistic in part due to the writing but mainly due to the phenomenal acting onscreen. In their performances (again without getting too personal), did they also draw on real life experiences? I know for myself, their interactions and battles back and forth resembled that of my Grandmother and Grandfather when he was dying of kidney failure. The love, hate-hate, love dynamic was so realistic that it really hit home with me.

James: I honestly don't know what Mr. Parks (Michael) and A.J. (Bowen) drew on for their performances, but they are awesome, aren't they? They must have related to the script, otherwise they would never have agreed to do the picture. I mean, this is my first. I had no right to expect such great actors. By the way, my Grandma's death was kidney related too.


CTK: Truly amazing performances. They were so realistic that I thought that they had to have drawn on some sort of real life experiences. Shifting gears out of the doom and gloom for a bit, tell me about your filmmaking inspirations. What are some of your favorite films and filmmakers, past and present?

James: Wow. So many. I love Hitchcock, The Third Man, Seconds, Night of the Hunter, Alien, lots of Woody Allen especially Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanors, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Mr. Kubrick, John Landis, Hal Ashby, Roman Polanski. The Conversation, Unforgiven, Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz. A lot of John Ford, especially The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and My Darling Clementine. The first 15 years of Mr. Spielberg's oeuvre are just gold. Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies director Robert Clampett. Bridge on the River Kwai. The first James Whale Frankenstein picture. I said The Conversation before, but I really should have said all four of Mr. C's 1970's output. They're so good it's a cliche. Max and Dave Fleischer. Miyazaki. Wow. Kurosawa, especially Throne of Blood, Sanjuro and Ran. The Exorcist was a huge influence. Star Wars, American Grafitti, and THX1138. And gosh, the Coens are so good I just watch their pictures over and over. Taxi Driver. The Contender. Rocky. I'm missing so many. I love them all like friends. Oh, I've seen Wrath of Khan about two million times.

CTK: A lot of talk lately has been made about remakes. What is your stance on remakes (horror films or not) and do you think they have anything new or different to add to the genre of film they are ultimately attempting to contribute to?

James: I don't like to make blanket statements, but I guess it depends on how interesting it is. I mean, the Coens are remaking True Grit with Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn! How can I not get behind that? Of course they're not remaking the Wayne picture really, but are going back to Portis's novel, and I dig Portis. I mean, Ben-Hur was a remake. It just depends what they do with it. But, yeah, it does seem like originality is being sacrificed for the illusion of safety found in repetition. And, of course, no risk, no gain.


CTK: The relationship between Martin and Meredith is so touchingly done. Martin’s trying to live as normal a life as possible and would give anything to get out of his cycle of seduction and using bodies as a food supply for his father. Here comes along unassuming and charming Meredith who completely turns him on his head. She’s not like every other girl and Martin knows this. There is an awkwardness there but it grows into a genuine care for each other that is done in such a way that isn’t too overly gushy or hammy. Talk a little bit about the chemistry between the two actors and how you got them to interact in such a real and believable way.

James: Again, Lorri Wilson, who plays Meredith, is just a cracker-jack actor. Either I got lucky or I have a nose for casting. She's wonderful and she, Bowen and Parks were great together. Casting is just the most important thing after the script. If you get the right great actors, they will search until they find that magic. There's no replacing great actors.

CTK: When the climax hits, it ultimately is a gut wrenching but at the same time, somewhat of a redeeming experience. Without giving too much away to our readers who may have not seen the film, in your mind, does Martin ultimately get the girl or is he thrust back into another cycle? In other words, has he accepted his lot in life?

James: Hmmm. I think it's probably two steps forward, one step back. I mean, he grows up a bit, but maybe not enough. Most people don't really change, you know?


CTK: Any upcoming screenings of this phenomenal film that you’d like to alert our readers to?

James: No big fests on the horizon right now. Genre is tough to program at non-genre festivals, and Maidenhead is not a very horrifying horror picture, so the horror festivals haven't really embraced it. But the movie is its own man, and I take its long road to getting seen as a testament to its difficulty to swallow. I think it's sort of a compliment, in a way. Little by little, it'll get seen. Everything works out the way it's supposed to.

CTK: I completely agree. Nothing but the best of wishes to you in getting this film out there. I have no doubt it will get the recognition it deserves.

James: Thanks. I appreciate your kind words.

CTK: Thank you for your time and again, best of luck.

For more information regarding Maidenhead, visit the film's website.

To contact James directly, he can be reached at the following email address: spanosjim@hotmail.com

Cortez the Killer

Why I Find Martyrs To Be Truly Horrifying

This is probably the most personal post I've ever written on this blog in its almost 4 years of existence. I was inspired to do it by the fabulous Rachel, the proprietor of Rach's Media Opinions. Her outstanding review of Martyrs spurred additional thought and I came to the realization why it is that this film is one of, if not THE most horrifying film I've ever seen. Before my thoughts on that, a little background on me.

I was born and raised in a pretty conservative Catholic household. Not overly beat you down conservative (my love for all things horror and rock n' roll came from my father) but I was certainly spoonfed a large serving of the religion and its belief structure every Sunday. And when I was of age, I went to a Catholic grade school where religion continued to be spoonfed. But instead of a message of a caring and loving God, I got word of a wrathful and punishing one. And I was instilled with something else that all of us Catholics have to deal with: Catholic guilt. If that wasn't enough, I went on to an all boys Catholic high school where I continued to receive ample heapings of dogma. I was looked at cross eyed when I raised my hand in Old Testament class one day and asked 'So if some kid lived out in the middle of nowhere, secluded from civilization his entire life and never came to find Jesus but ultimately lived a good life, then he'd go to hell?' To which an administrator of 'higher' education replied with a resounding 'yes'. My question extremely hypothetical? Yes. Ultimately revealing in the narrow minded 'my way or the highway' mentality that is organized religion? Yes. So began my disenchantment with structured faith and spoonfed prophecies.


Continuing onwards up until now at the ripe old age of 31, I've become increasingly more disenchanted with organized religion. I see televangelists every Sunday (increasingly more so now that I live in Texas) getting crowds worked up into a frenzy. Asking for money and 'charitable' donations so that God will be pleased. Going beyond that, I've seen and heard many a people in my lifetime put someone down or immediately judge someone who's of a different faith and hasn't taken Jesus as their personal savior. I've seen far more uglier sides of religion than good. Not to mention the institution itself taking its lumps over the last few years with money laundering men of the cloth and molesting monsignors.

I would go so far as saying that I now seriously doubt the existence of God. But something in the back of my mind says that there might be something else out there. What it is I don't know. Is it the ghosts of years of having word and gospels ingrained into my fiber? Maybe I actually want to believe there is something else out there and proof that 'it' exists. And that is where the completely mind melting horror of Martyrs steps in.


What this movie represents is the penultimate expression of trying to prove the existence of God (or the existence of an afterlife), at whatever cost, in order to have a closer 'oneness' with your faith. What else do you do when you have everything? You have the legion of followers, the money, and what you deem a 'personal connection'? What's the next logical step in justifying your faith? Your existence as a human being? How this movie frames and presents this concept is truly horrifying on every level imaginable. And it doesn't matter whether or not you are a firm believer or have previously ascribed to a particular religion or belief structure. When this idea hits, it hits hard and its difficult to walk away from this movie watching experience without thinking about it for days. The lengths to which the characters in the film go to, in torturing and pushing victims to the very limits of what their body can handle, coming within mere inches of actually dying, is the single most heinous act (in my mind) that one human can inflict upon another. Mutilation and torture of another to prove the existence of THEIR creator? To justify THEIR existence and everything THEY'VE believed in during THEIR entire life? I don't think for a second that its not possible for something like this to take place or quite possibly, it could be happening already. Afterall, I think people are the most self-centered and self-serving creatures on the face of the planet.

This movie shook me to the very core and it will do the same for you. Whether you are a firm believer in something greater or not.

Cortez the Killer

The Dead Next Door (1989)

Fear 0/5
Gore 5/5
Entertainment 3/5
Creepiness 1/5

The Netflix sleeve boasts that this is the most expensive 8MM zombie film ever shot on camera. I'm guessing they are referring to the effects and copious amounts of Karo syrup that at times rivals the epic-ness of Dead Alive. Certainly, there is enough gore here to keep the hounds happy. But its the never ending strings of self-referencing that really wears on you and drives you completely batty about midway through. And the films running time is only an hour and twenty minutes.

We begin our film with a requisite zombie horde sweeping through an east coast town. They attack people left and right and even head to the local video store to do some research. This concept alone made me laugh out loud and I thought it was hysterical and brilliant. Zombies. Stopping at a mom and pop video store. To do research. On how to be zombies? Hi-larry-ous!


A group of exterminators called the Zombie Squad arrive into town and start going house to house. Its here where our initially amusing self-referential names of famous horror types is welcomed (Officer Raimi, Commander Carpenter, etc.). They take care of one person's pest control problem and learn about a doctor in town who's experimenting with different types of serums that will hopefully cure the infected.

Talking to the doctor (who's name is Savini), they learn that there is another doctor in Ohio who has been working on another serum, purported to be much stronger and more effective than his. So the Zombie Squad head out in their zomobile (which has a painted cardboard emblem adorning the side) to Ohio. After getting into town and talking to the doctor, they find out from a kid who's begun hanging around them that the local pastor has a special place in his heart for zombies. Only he's not really a pastor but a leader of a cult who believes that zombies are special avengers sent to carry out God's will!


So as the zom squad hold off the pastor and his captive zombies (he keeps them and sacrifices people to 'appease' them), the doctor finishes his revolutionary serum. And just before he announces the 'secret' for how to properly inject the infected to the doc back on the east coast via phone, he succumbs to a hungry horde of the living dead.

Some great practical effects on display here and as mentioned, a lot of splatterific-ness to make the goriest of gore hounds happy. But the dialogue gets really old and grating with the continual self-referencing. And after about an hour, you begin to look at your watch. For a film thats not even an hour and a half, thats not a good thing.

Cortez the Killer

One, Two, You Know The Rest....

If you haven't seen it yet, the new trailer for A Nightmare on Elm Street has been posted online and below. For those doubters, it may give some hope that this will turn out to be better than expected. I like the fact that Freddy is getting back to being meaner and nastier.

But I do have to point out one fault. Whoever cut this trailer should be shot. Why would you reveal a major plot point in it? The concept of being so delirious from a lack of sleep that the body goes into a quasi-REM like state while technically being awake so Freddy can STILL come and get you, is freakin' brilliant and terrifying. Why the hell would you reveal this in a TWO AND A HALF MINUTE trailer?

Cortez the Killer