Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Zeegrade A decent no-frills horror anthology that begins with a cheating husband know only as Talmudge trying to locate his hotel in a taxi during a downpour. When the driver drops him off on a darkly lit street that apparently is not the correct address he drives off leaving Talmudge to fend for himself on a very wet evening. Stumbling upon a residence he encounters an elderly individual who invites him in from the rain which Talmudge nervously excepts. He learns that the old man is a mortician who seems interested in showing him some of his "clients" along with a little backstory on how they met with their respective demises. With an apprehensive Talmudge as his witness the mortician begins. The first story is a short one about a teacher that hates children (I had quite a few of them). When she arrives home she is harassed by what seem to be small children in Halloween masks who turn out to be anything but. The second story is also short and is by far the weakest of the four, concerning a man who likes to videotape himself murdering women. This story literally goes nowhere. Next is a pleasantly engaging number about two of the world's best criminologists, one from New York the other from England, engaged in a spirited investigation when one of them receives a rather cryptic note concerning murder. The ending, though no surprise, is still quite satisfying. Last is sort of an early and gore-free "Saw" as a pompous office worker who has no time for anyone else gets himself trapped in an abandoned store that has been turned into a trap complete with a wall of nails as he is held captive with only a bottle of wine occasionally rolled into his prison by a faceless person. Upon his mysterious release he is transformed into the very blight on society that he himself so loathed. When the stories are finished it is time for Talmudge's come-uppance as this is about punishing people for their sins and he is after all an adulterer to which the mortician has his coffin at the ready.You won't recognize anybody in this movie nor will the made-for-t.v. feel instill any genuine fear while watching it. However, I do think that for the most part the stories were pretty interesting considering this was made before both "Creepshow" and "Twilight Zone the Movie" which had bigger budgets. Sadly, when one thinks of "House of the Dead" they more than likely associate it with the Uwe Boll abomination based on the video game rather than this film which is tragic. Why anyone would name this "Alien Zone" is a mystery to me as there isn't a hint of aliens to speak of. I did see the heavily edited 74 minute version as the running time on the DVD jacket said it was 100 minutes long. Twenty six minutes is a lot to cut out so who knows maybe there are aliens in that one. Might be a little too light for hard core horror fans but never the less I recommend giving this flick a shot.

Coventry Whenever the title "House of the Dead" is mentioned nowadays, people – and horror fanatics in particular – automatically link it to that hag Uwe Boll's AWFUL video game horror adaptation about UN-frightening looking CGI zombies on an island. Another movie with the same title existed already since the late 1970's, though it's also known under the completely irrelevant title "Alien Zone", and that one is a lot better! It's a low-budget exploitation attempt to create a horror anthology similar to the contemporary successful British films, like "Tales that Witness Madness" or "Asylum", complete with a detailed wraparound story and a sinister host. Whilst on a business trip in an unknown city, a guy named Talmudge cheats on his wife and gets lost on his way back to the hotel. Since there's a heavy thunderstorm going on, a seemly friendly mortician invites him in and informs him abut the background stories of four "clients" of his. None of these horror mini-tales is groundbreaking or particularly shocking, but they all feature an admirably dark atmosphere and revolve on rather inventive topics. The first story is extremely short and introduces a lonely female schoolteacher with a clear aversion towards children. When she goes home one night, she senses a strange presence in her house and subsequently gets attacked by a large collection of eerily deformed and mask-wearing children. I'm not quite sure what the deeper meaning of this short story was, but those kids sure looked creepy! The second story is – once again – a very short reworking of the classic film "Peeping Tom", with a perverted man inviting girls to his apartment and murdering them for the eye of the camera. The tone of this segment is definitely disturbing, but it has no satisfying ending, since it just cuts back to the mortician who explains the culprit got executed for his crimes. Huh? What's the point? Then comes the third and unquestionably best chapter of "House of the Dead", about an intellectual criminologist competing with his overseas colleague of Scotland Yard for the honor of most deductive police investigator in the world. This segment has an incredibly predictable climax, but it's very enjoyable thanks to the wit dialogs and convincing on screen chemistry between actors Charles Aidman and Bernard Fox. The fourth and final segment hints at some really horrific themes, but unfortunately the elaboration is poor. It's about an egocentric man who gets terrorized by unseen forces and eventually becomes everything he detests himself. Namely a needy and filthy individual who blindly gets passed by on the streets. It's a curious little tale that definitely deserved some more plotting and perhaps a slightly longer playtime. Naturally the film ends with an unmerciful fate for Talmudge (adultery, remember…). The late 70's definitely brought forward better horror films than this, but "House of the Dead" is nonetheless a worthwhile and entertaining little chiller that offers a handful of frights and delightful genre clichés. It's a film for undemanding trash-fans.

BaronBl00d John Ericson ventures out in the rain after having been left off by a cab at the wrong street. Soon he finds refuge in an old building with a friendly mortician that gives him tea and shows him some of his "clients." There are some easy clues early in the wrap-around story for this anthology to tell you where that story is going, especially after having just seen the man prior to getting in the cab have an adulterous pleasure period with someone else's wife. But the frame story is really just a means to allow mortician Ivor Francis to tell his stories about his clients. I always liked Francis for his calm presence and subtle humour, yet here he is given some really bad dialog but does manage to put some life into this otherwise drab little film. The problem with this, also known for some inexplicable reason as Alien Zone(I saw House of the Dead copy), is that the budget here is really minuscule and the stories, what special effects there are, and acting quality are all directly affected. Nothing is shown. I was shocked that we never even got to see the faces of the dead corpses in the coffins - now that is low budget! The first story deals with a teacher who it seems dislikes children - based on one scene of her walking from her car scowling. She then goes home and the supernatural effects of red tinting children wearing masks and wearing what appear as shark teeth begins. Truly terrifying. (Yawn.) The second story has some real bad actor lure women into his apartment so he can film them being killed. It's done in an almost comedic fashion and has virtually no substance at all. Then there is the one story that I did really like and does have a bit of budget and real actors. The third story has Charles Aidman and Bernard Fox as two great detectives out to outwit the other and become the leading criminologist in the world. This episode has some humor and clever dialog and of course both Aidman and especially Fox have acting ability. You get an idea where it is going but should enjoy it nonetheless. It ends way too abruptly though. The last story is pretty decent too as we see a man who seems to be a person that doesn't care about the society around him get locked into an abandoned building and fed on booze until he becomes a boozer like the one he snubbed earlier. Despite its ridiculous story, the effects of despair are not all that bad. Then of course there is the obvious conclusion to the frame story. This movie was cheaply made and has that real cheap feel to it, but it isn't that bad and a couple of the stories are relatively interesting and none so bad as they are not watchable.

Steve Nyland (Squonkamatic) I still remember seeing this as a teenager on late nite Creature Feature when in an altered frame of mind and being totally freaked out by what now watching as an adult is a pretty interesting 1970's Amercian made "Anthology Horror" bit -- Which I saw in the form known as HOUSE OF THE DEAD. And, amazingly, a budget line DVD company called Treeline Films has a nice little tape sourced $5 DVD release of the film for sale as part of their "Chills Pack" collection. It's worth a look.Made in 1978 by a woman director named Sharon Miller (who had begun her career as an assistant editor on some of Ralph Bakshi's films & would later direct countless episodes of shows like KNOTTS LANDING and BAYWATCH), HOUSE OF THE DEAD has a decidedly "Made for TV" movie feel to it even though I have been assured that it did play theatrically & is endowed with an MPAA rating for some violence. Treeline's DVD appears to feature an edited for TV full frame version which does look edited for content in a couple of spots with violence though it's nudity-free & relatively staid demeanor as a film speaks to me of what might have been a failed TV pilot episode.The film is made up of four stories linked together by a central piece about a philandering husband (John Ericson, who looks familiar) who gets lost on his way back to his hotel from his mistresses' house while in an unfamiliar city for a plumbing convention. Right. Through a series of mishaps too mundane to outline, Ericson finds himself brought in from the rain by a man who turns out to be a mortician, played by ubiquitous 70's & 80's television character actor Ivor Francis, who's sleepy, macabre demeanor is the film's most redeeming quality. I always loved him on BARNEY MILLER, and his presence also underscores the "TV friendly" nature of the production. Francis proceeds to relate four stories about the occupants of four caskets in his parlor, each of which has a "Poetic Justice" twist ending that is very reminiscent of Rod Serling's NIGHT GALLERY series.And like NIGHT GALLERY the stories shown are more sort of macabre fables on human qualities by shorthand sketches of characters who might deserve having something horrible happen to them in a way of having the world pay them back for being such insufferable bastards. The first sketch is probably the most "horrifying" in the traditional sense, with a shrew-like schoolteacher literally haunted in her own home by mutant green lighted children who appear with Halloween masks on their faces in the film's single best image. Watching her scurry around like a frightened rodent with her hair mussed under a cap from an aborted shower is actually quite amusing, though the absence of a proper "splatter" conclusion for the piece is disappointing -- Even though director Miller does go all out for the 70's Psychedelic Effect during certain scenes, and I can easily see how it blew my mind. Like, wow.Part two is also an interesting quasi-horror bit that anticipated HENRY - A PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, Buffalo Bill from THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and every other personable serial killer while ripping off PEEPING TOM in presenting us with the ironically amusing tale of a young schlep who invites young women over to his very neat bachelor pad where he murders them while filming the fun on a camera that he, his victims and the police all address at various times. It is short, funny and to the point, though it really isn't that scary, with the most interesting quality being that it is all shot from the single, unmoving perspective of the murder camera. Part three is the best acted section, telling the tale of two world class criminologists (played by likewise ubiquitous 70s/80s character actors Charles Aidman and Edward Fox) who pit their wits against each other in a deadly game of detective work, that while not that exciting gets the job done in padding out the length of the whole film to feature form & maintaining our interest with a clever little story. I definitely got a bang out of the end.The last section is the one that really freaked me out and why I sought the film out at all: An office worker Ebenezer Scrooge type who thinks everyone else is an annoying time waster gets subjected to a bizarre series of psychological tortures after wandering into a vacant store and falling into a trap -- Just who puts him through his ordeal is never revealed, but at the end he emerges as a disheveled street person. I'm not sure exactly just what lesson was supposed to be learned, but then again I am not sure exactly what the motivation for the entire movie was, and hence the suspicion that it was a TV pilot for a related series (possibly intended to be called ALIEN ZONE) that was aborted, and the whole thing was shoved onto movie screens instead as HOUSE OF THE DEAD in an effort to tap into the LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT infamy, still quite potent in 1978.I am honestly not sure what to make of the film as a single piece and can understand why some of the other commenter's may have objected strongly to the film -- It seems to exist without real purpose, not being frightening enough to really be called "horror" and too bizarre, warped & twisted to be thought of as standard drama. I "like" the movie because of my personal history & how it intersected with me at the right moment, stuck with me for two decades after wards, and now seeing it as an adult find it to be interesting enough to watch again and write about. If that doesn't qualify a film for some sort of cult status I have no idea what would.