CHILDREN OF THE CORN: RUNAWAY (2018) **

Marci Miller stars as Ruth, a former child of the corn who got pregnant, burned down the cornfield, and left the town of Gatlin with her baby in tow.  Thirteen years of drifting from place to place go by and Ruth and her son (Jake Ryan Scott) wind up flat broke and stuck in a small hick town.  Ruth gets a job as a mechanic to make ends meet and soon starts having visions of corny kids everywhere.  She suspects the children of the corn have come after her son and she'll stop at nothing to keep him safe. 

I know it’s only March, but I think Marci Miller is a lock to win the award for Best Actress in a Shitty Dimension DTV Sequel.  The sign of a good actress and yes, even a star in the making is the ability to not only survive a bad movie, but to elevate the material.  Miller, who was equally impressive in Death Race 2050, makes an otherwise forgettable and lame entry in the long-running series watchable based on the strength of her acting alone.  There are times where she evokes Amy Steel in Friday the 13^th 2, Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, and Sissy Spacek in Carrie.  It’s unfortunate she’s trapped in a narrative that only allows her to have cliched mother-son dialogue scenes and mental breakdowns while experiencing bizarre visions.  Imagine what she could do with a script worthy of her talents.

Directed by John (Feast) Gulager and written by Joel Soisson (who also wrote the last entry in the series, Children of the Corn:  Genesis), Runaway doesn’t have the go-for-broke nuttiness Gulager usually brings to his films.  The script is weak, and the twist ending is predictable.  It almost feels like with one or two tweaks it could’ve been a standalone movie, which might’ve been for the best. 

Runaway is ninth in the Children of the Corn series (or tenth if you count the SYFY Channel remake).  As far as Dimension DTV sequels go, it’s better than your average DTV Hellraiser sequel.  Just don’t expect a lot of rampaging Corn Kids brandishing farm implements.  With measured expectations, you might even find it enjoyable.

All things considered, this is the best Children of the Corn movie in twenty years, although that’s not saying much.  99% of the credit has to go to Miller, whose performance is far and away the best thing about it.  I know one thing, I’d pay good money to see her in a DTV sequel to mother!

Gulager and Soisson previously teamed up for the much better Piranha 3DD.

THE GODSEND (1980) *

A couple with a gaggle of kids meet an innocent looking pregnant woman (Angela Pleasence) in a park.  They take to her immediately and invite her to dinner.  Shortly thereafter, she goes into labor and gives birth in their home.  The next morning, she disappears, leaving the baby with the family.  They’re smitten with the child and decide to raise it as their own.  Over the years, each of their children dies an accidental death.  The husband slowly suspects his adopted child is the killer, but of course his wife won't hear of it. 

Usually, a horror film can be undone by one of the Three D’s.  They are:

1) Dumb.  Most horror movies are by their very nature dumb, but sometimes an extremely dumb premise can be its undoing, which is exactly what happened with The Godsend.  

2) Depressing.   The death of a child isn’t exactly the sort of thing that brightens a movie up, let alone the death of several children.  Still, if the film in question is about a depressing topic, it can be made worthwhile if the director infuses it with a little style.  This is not the case here.  

3) Dull.  This is the deadliest of the three D’s.  If your movie is boring as shit, no amount of directorial flair (which there isn’t any) or acting ingenuity (of which there’s none to be found) can save it.

There are ways to make a killer kid flick work.  You can always make the victims unlikeable adults or bratty kids who are getting what’s coming to them.  The victims in The Godsend are all young defenseless siblings, so it's no fun whatsoever.  This might’ve worked if the filmmakers played up the disturbing aspects of the story.  However, the murders lack even the most basic comprehension of how suspense works.  It also doesn’t help that the parents often conveniently leave the murderous brat alone with a sibling frequently.  

The psychological aspects could've been interesting if explored properly.  We could’ve seen how the death of multiple children shattered a family unit.  Instead, what we get is a lot of scenes of the husband yelling at the wife because he’s right and she’s wrong. 

In the right hands, The Godsend could've been a slow burn psychological thriller.  Instead, what we get is an extremely boring, belabored, and repetitive yawn-fest.  The open-ended ending is especially frustrating and unsatisfying.  

The only aspect that works is Pleasence’s character.  She looks kind of creepy, mostly because she has an eerie resemblance to her dad.  Once she disappears, the movie goes into a nosedive and never recovers. 

AKA:  Horror Baby.

Craving more horror reviews?  Well, I just wrote a new book chockful of them.  The Bloody Book of Horror contains over 150 reviews you won’t find anywhere else.  You can get your copy through Amazon here:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/1542566622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520113366&sr=8-1&keywords=mitch+lovell

VICE (2015) **

Bruce Willis stars as an arrogant entrepreneur who’s created an artificial environment called Vice where users can live out all their violent fantasies.  The people they cheat, rape, and kill are nothing more than robots whose memory get erased every time they “die”.  One of the robots (Ambyr Childers) escape into the “real” world and Willis stops at nothing to bring her back.  Thomas Jane is the detective on the case who’s been itching for an excuse to bring Vice to its knees.

You know when you play Grand Theft Auto, and you go around killing and stealing?  Well, Vice is sort of the next step in the evolutionary chain.  Imagine if one of the helpless extras in the video game became self-aware.  How would they feel about being treated as a human target?  It’s an interesting question, but the movie clumsily answers it.

I just don’t think there was enough of a budget here to fully flesh out the admittedly OK idea.  There are too few shootouts and car chases to qualify it as an action flick and the sci-fi elements are rather low rent.  It often feels like a half-assed version of a Phillip K. Dick story, and no one wants half-assed Dick, trust me.

Willis is sorely miscast as the suave and sinister owner of Vice.  It’s also hard to buy him as this genius tech wizard/asshole billionaire.  The character is essentially an egomaniacal Bond villain and the role really needed someone like John Malkovich or Willem Dafoe to make it work.  

Jane does a solid job in the hero role.  He brings a sense of world-weariness to the character that suits it nicely.  He’s also pretty funny too.  I particularly liked the scene where his captain says, “You’re one step away from losing your badge” and Jane starts fumbling around in his pockets looking for it.  Maybe with more injections of humor here and there, Vice would’ve been a fun time.  As it is, it’s about as generic and forgettable as they come.

NIGHT VISITOR (1989) ***

A Satanist in a black robe is going around murdering hookers.  Derek (Phantom of the Mall:  Eric’s Revenge) Rydall is a troublemaking teen who has a history of telling tall tales.  When a sexy woman (Shannon Tweed) moves in next door, he sets up his trusty telescope to spy on her.  It doesn’t take long for him to deduce that she’s a high-priced call girl.  One night, he watches her get murdered by the Satanist, who just so happens to be his history teacher (Allen Garfield).  Naturally, no one believes him, and his teacher takes pleasure in tormenting him endlessly.  He even goes so far as to capture Rydall’s girlfriend (Teresa Van der Woude) with the intention of making her his next sacrifice.  Eventually, Rydall is able to convince an alcoholic ex-cop (Elliott Gould) to help him rescue his girlfriend.

Night Visitor plays like a Satanist version of Fright Night, except with Elliott Gould in the Roddy McDowall role.  Our hero even has a dorky, but likeable best friend (Scott Fults) and has to save his girlfriend from the bad guy in the end.  Like I always say, if you want to rip off someone, rip off the best.

Director Rupert Hitzig (producer of Jaws 3-D) does a fine job establishing the characters and setting up the fun, if derivative, premise.  Once the killer has been unmasked, the tension curiously zigs when it should zag.  When Garfield begins toying with Rydall, it never feels very menacing.  I mean there’s one scene where he threatens him while giving him a haircut.  Huh?  

Things heat up in the last act though when Rydall gets Gould to help him rescue his girlfriend from Garfield’s clutches.  This sequence is genuinely suspenseful and has at least one great jump scare.  No matter how spotty the rest of Night Visitor is, I can’t hate any movie that features Michael J. Pollard attacking Elliott Gould with a chainsaw.

The cast is so good that it’s easy to dismiss some of the movie’s lapses in logic or squandered opportunities.  Garfield always had a weird energy about him, and although he’s a bit miscast as the killer Satanist, he still seems to be having a lot of fun.  He has a lot of chemistry with Michael J. Pollard, who plays his dim-witted brother/chauffeur and their scenes together are highly enjoyable.

Rydall is genuinely funny and charismatic without being a goofball or acting like a typical movie teen.  The supporting cast is also fun to watch.  In addition to Tweed (who oddly enough doesn’t get naked, even though she’s playing a hooker and has numerous sex scenes), we also have Henry Gibson (as a shrink), Richard Roundtree (as a detective), and Playboy Playmate turned porn star Teri Weigel (who has two topless scenes) as a hooker victim.

AKA:  Never Cry Devil.

Craving more horror reviews?  Well, I just wrote a new book chockful of them.  The Bloody Book of Horror contains over 150 reviews you won’t find anywhere else.  You can get your copy through Amazon here:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/1542566622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520113366&sr=8-1&keywords=mitch+lovell

KICKBOXER: RETALIATION (2018) ***

People assume I see movies at random, but I assure you I have a strict guideline I follow before selecting a film to watch.  For example, if Jean-Claude Van Damme is in your movie, chances are I'm going to watch it.  Put Christopher Lambert in there, and the chances have doubled.  You add Mike Tyson in the mix, and I'm there with bells on.  You put all three of these titans together in one place and you can bet your ass I’m going to watch it.

Kickboxer:  Retaliation picks up about eighteen months after Kickboxer:  Vengeance.  Kurt Sloane (Alain Moussi) is married and enjoying his rise as a prominent MMA fighter.  More (Lambert) is the brains behind the underground fighting tournament from the last movie who wants to see Sloane defend his title.  Sloane refuses, and More has him thrown in a Thailand hellhole prison where he constantly fights inmates and is whipped by guards.  When More kidnaps his wife, Sloane teams up with his old mentor (Van Damme) to train for the big fight.  

Kickboxer:  Retaliation gets off to an awkward start with a weird scene where Moussi does a tango on a train.  It all turns out to be a dream/premonition that acts as his personal Spidey Sense/déjà vu from The Matrix that lets him know danger is near.  Once the focus shifts to the prison, the movie really gets into gear.  There’s one scene where Moussi kicks the crap out of dozens of inmates set to an old blues ditty that is done in one long take that serves as a reminder of just what a talent he is.  When he accidentally disturbs Tyson’s mediation (!!!), they get into a huge brawl.  Later, Tyson teaches Moussi a trick to heal and they become friends. 

Just when you think it can’t get any better, Van Damme shows up, only this time, he’s blind!  He even gets a brief Zatoichi-style swordfight against Lambert!  (I hope Van Damme and Lambert rematch in a Highlander reboot very soon.)  Van Damme then trains Moussi and exchanges words with Tyson.  Then Van Damme and Tyson fight, albeit briefly.  It’s like the movie keeps checking off things from my cinematic bucket list.

There’s more.  Remember David Bautista’s Tong Po in the last movie?  Well, this new guy, Hafpor Julius Bjornsson is like twice his size.  Not only that, he was created in a mad scientist lab.  Remember when Drago got shot up with steroids during training in Rocky 4?  This guy gets shot up with rejuvenation serum in between rounds!

Lambert gives a funny tweaked performance.  I especially liked the part where Moussi threatens him, and he shrugs him off like, “Yeah, I get it.  We all die if we hurt your girl”.  Van Damme delivers yet another late-era acting gem.  Should the series continue, I hope they’re able to explore his character further.  Tyson lends the film a lot of energy and swagger, although you really wish he was given more to do.

The bad news is director Dimitri (Slaughterhouse Rock) Logotheits is no John Stockwell when it comes to staging the action.  While some of the fight sequences are quite good (like the scene where Moussi beats up a bunch of dudes to the tune of “Wipeout”), they would’ve been sterling had the camerawork and editing been more precise. 

Then again, Kickboxer:  Retaliation is so damned eager to please that it's easy to forgive it for its sometimes-sloppy execution and bloated running time.  I mean, what if I told you Moussi goes into the last round of the final fight aided by a blindfold, inspirational quotes from Mike Tyson, AND an injection of Herbert West’s Re-Animator serum?  Most movies would’ve been content to have only one of those things happen during the finale.  This one gives you all three.  In short, it’s a blast.

If you’re wondering why I haven’t reviewed Kickboxer:  Vengeance, it’s because that will be featured in my next book:  Kung Fu Companion:  The Chopsocky Movie Guide later this year.  In the meantime, you can check out my latest book, The Bloody Book of Horror here:   https://www.amazon.com/dp/1542566622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520113366&sr=8-1&keywords=mitch+lovell

REDNECK (1975) * ½

Despite the title, this isn’t a Good Ol’ Boy movie set in the south.  It’s an Italian crime flick starring Franco Nero and Telly Savalas.  I know what you’re thinking:  Neither of them are rednecks.  It’s Telly who plays the redneck, which should immediately raise a red flag.  Hearing his god-awful southern drawl is initially good for a laugh, but it only becomes more grating as time wears on (the same can be said for the film itself).

Telly and Franco plan a jewelry heist together.  During the robbery, they are forced to kill the store manager and have to make a hasty getaway.  In the confusion, they accidentally kidnap a young boy (Mark Lester, from Oliver!) who complicates their escape. 

The opening getaway scene is a real doozy.  Franco and Telly steal a car and naturally collide into all the cars and fruit carts you'd expect them to.  What makes this sequence special is the part where they crash through a funeral and the casket winds up going through their windshield.  No matter how crummy the rest of the movie is, this sequence alone is enough to prevent it from getting a One Star rating.

After they discover Lester in their backseat, Redneck goes into the shitter fast.  Things get dull once the hot pursuit grows tepid, and the annoying kid dissipates the tension instead of adding to it.  Oh, and the less said about the inexplicable scene where Lester gets naked for no good reason whatsoever, the better. 

It also doesn't help that there is no chemistry between the two stars.  I usually like Savalas, but this has got to be one of his all-time worst performances.  He's sorely miscast as the redneck of the title and his southern accent often feels like nails on a chalkboard.  Nero fares slightly better as the more level-headed one of the duo, although he’s clearly seen better days.

LOVE (2015) *** ½

Love is a hardcore love story.  It’s an unflinching look at how relationships are fueled by sex, not love.  Director Gaspar (Irreversible) Noe has never been one for half-measures.  In Love, his camera never shies away from his characters’ highs, lows, and excesses.  It doesn’t shy away from their private parts either.  Because of that, the characters (and actors) are naked in both senses of the word. 

The title might be misleading, because the characters rarely say it or show it.  Most of the sex in the movie is comprised of carnal humping, lustful cheating, misguided experimentation, or make-up/break-up sex.  Maybe that's Noe’s point.  Sex is something you do.  Love is something you strive for.

The most annoying think about Love is that most of the characters speak below a whisper.  Several times, I had to turn up the volume to hear what they were saying.  Then, in the next scene, they’re screaming and hollering at the top of their lungs while humping.  Again, maybe that was intentional on Noe’s part.  What they say is unimportant.  What they do is. 

I liked that Noe wore his inspiration on his sleeve.  The main character (Karl Glusman) is a film student who has posters of everything from Salo to Taxi Driver to The Defiance of Good on his wall.  I had to admit I had a tinge of jealousy.  The best part though is the sex club scene where Glusman and Aomi Muyock participate in an orgy set to John Carpenter’s score from Assault on Precinct 13.  You don’t see that every day.   

The structure is unique too.  It moves more or less backwards.  That way, Noe leaves things on a happy beginning, instead of the typical happy ending.  (Don’t worry, there are plenty of “happy endings” throughout the film.)

I wish I could've seen Love in its original 3-D version.  There is one scene that nicely preserves the format in such a way that it doesn’t lose its impact, even in 2-D.  I won't spoil it for you, but you'll certainly know it when you see it.