Night of the Creeps is again a title I’d heard many times without actually knowing anything about the film. Written and directed by Fred Dekker (who directed a great film that will appear later this Shocktober) Night of the Creeps is a tongue and cheek homage to 50s B-movies. In fact, the movie begins in the 1950s before making the transition to a stereotypical 80s setting. It’s a sci-fi movie, combined with a zombie movie, in-between puss, blood, and guts. What do I have to say about all that? Meh.

The film opens with a laughable scene of little people in alien costumes chasing each other on a spaceship. I’m not sure if this is supposed to be funny or if it’s just low-budget but it’s not interesting or entertaining. One of the aliens (who’s being chased by the others) then takes a canister and shoots it into space. The canister crashes on Earth in the year 1959. Here we are introduced to a lovey-dovey couple necking in the classic “makeout point” style setting. Of course the guy “Hears something” and goes wandering around. Meanwhile the girl is listening to the radio that says a deranged axe-murderer has escaped. Okay that’s kind of funny, combining classic urban legend cliches with sci-fi cliches. So the guy finds the canister, gets infected with what’s inside, and the girl gets chopped up. This bizarre sequence somehow segues into modern day (1986) where even hornier college kids now inhabit the same small town.

If I haven’t given you enough plot there’s more! We meet Chris Romero (Jason Lively) and his annoying friend J.C. (Steve Marshall) two nerds that have little luck with the ladies. How do they decide to impress college chicks? Join a fraternity. How do they join a fraternity? They attempt to steal a cadaver. So Chris and J.C. break into a medical school and yadda, yadda unleash the dead body of the guy who was originally infected by the canister. This leads to the infected guy infecting other people through alien slugs and turning them into gross alien zombies. Woo… A lot to explain for a movie that probably doesn’t even deserve it.

I’m usually up for movies that pay tribute to the campy style of 50s B-Movies. The main problem here is that Night of the Creeps plays it too straight. The film should’ve been an all out comedy or a full on drama, instead it occupies an iffy place in the middle. Tom Atkins (Creepshow, Lethal Weapon) is also thrown into the mix as a disgruntled, one-liner spewing detective but he’s neither humorous or likable. Frankly, I’ve never thought Tom Atkins was a strong or even remotely interesting actor. They do manage to tie him into the girl who was murdered by an axe-murder, but his character is mostly set up for laughs that just don’t happen.

One interesting note is the 2006 film Slither’s similarity to Night of the Creeps. James Gunn’s Slither was another parody/homage movie essentially about the same thing. Both films have slug-like creatures that infect hosts, make them gross, and attack people. The big difference being that Slither is an all out comedy, so it works much better than this film. I feel the energy behind Night of the Creeps but it’s all over the place. Nice effects but not enough affection.

“My boyfriend’s back and you’re gonna be in trouble.”

You may know The Hitcher from its awful 2007 remake with Sean Bean. Unfortunately, I’ve seen that and can never un-see it. Though at least I can still go back to the original which is one of the best “Creepy stranger that just wont leave you alone” movies I’ve seen. The film was written by Eric Red who wrote one of my favorite vampire movies Near Dark (1987) and the underrated werewolf film Bad Moon (1996). The Hitcher combines the road movie with a stalker movie in a nonstop series of suspenseful altercations between good and evil.

Jim Halsey (C. Thomas “Soul Man” Howell) is delivering a car from Chicago to San Diego. Along the way he meets John Ryder (Rutger Hauer) a soft-spoken drifter. Ryder seems normal at first but once he steps in Halsey’s vehicle we realize he leans closer to abnormal. Ryder explains that he got stranded because he murdered the last person he rode with and plans to do the same again. Ryder taunts Jim with a knife until Jim realizes Ryder hasn’t buckled his seat belt and that the door was left ajar. So Jim pushes Ryder out and escapes, or so he thought. From there on out, Ryder finds ways to catch up to Jim and do his dirty business. The Hitcher is a suspenseful game of cat-and mouse across the American southwest that takes some dark twists and turns.

Later, Jim is somehow blamed for one of Ryder’s murders and finds himself on the wrong side of the law. So now he not only has to evade Ryder but the police as well. Along the way Jim meets
Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a waitress who Jim convinces of his innocence. Of course Ryder gets between the two and later gets Nash tied between two trucks and well, let’s just say it’s not pretty.

The Hitcher is a razor-sharp thriller that never lets up. Hauer is undeniably disturbing and Howell is sympathetic enough. The fact that his character Jim is not only pursued by a killer but also the police is what makes this movie. The stakes are so high and always getting higher. It could have just as easily been a film where very little happens but it keeps a good momentum. Although The Hitcher opened to mixed reviews it’s definitely on the better end of films I’ve reviewed for this Shocktober. If anything it’s an invaluable lesson on picking up hitchhikers.

Rutget Hauer explains to C. Thomas Howell why he wont have a career after the 80s.

How appropriate to follow Day of the Dead with Return of the Living Dead? For those who don’t know, there is a connection between these films. The original Night of the Living Dead was written by George A. Romero and John Russo. After the film’s success, Romero and Russo split up with different views on where the series should go. Once the film fell into the public domain both went their separate ways with the franchise. Romero went on to make the classic Dawn of the Dead and then Day of the Dead, while Russo delved into literature with his 1977 novel Return of the Living Dead. Years later, Return of the Living Dead was adapted for the screen by Dan O’Bannon, the same writer behind Alien and later Total Recall. Also taking the reigns as director, O’Bannon’s adaptation resulted in almost slapstick departure from Russo’s novel. Still, it resulted in a film that’s incredibly entertaining.

The film begins one night at a medical supply warehouse in Kentucky. Frank (James Karen) wants to impress Freddy (Thom Matthews), the new employee, by showing him something truly shocking. So he leads him into the basement and shows off a toxic drum containing the remains of an ill-fated experiment. The drum is accidentally opened releasing a toxic gas and a body that escapes in the warehouse. Fred contacts the warehouse owner Burt (Clu Gulager) and the three search for the body. The body then reveals itself in the warehouse as a zombie that cannot be killed (a funny sequence). Burt decides the only option is to burn the corpse, but when they do it releases toxic fumes through the smoke. The smoke makes its way into the rain and boom! Corpses at the nearby graveyard are reanimated.

The film also follows a group of Freddy’s mischievous punk friends. These punks most notably include scream queen Linnea Quigley as Trash and Miguel A. Nunez Jr. as Spider who would go on to star in the horror classic Juwanna Mann. The punks eventually team-up with the warehouse guys and fight an all out battle against hordes of the living dead. The tone is comedic but still disturbing in a film that captures the best of zombies and the best of the 80s.

What makes Russo/O’Bannon’s zombies interesting is their almost ridiculous invulnerability. Shooting them in the head does nothing. You can also chop them into small pieces and the pieces will still come after you. They cannot be killed and that’s damn scary. Additionally, they can talk, which leads to some comedic exchanges between zombies and humans. Overall, it’s a film that embraces its own ridiculousness. Return of the Living Dead may just be the best non-Romero zombie movie.

Oh, and here’s a clip of the scariest zombie I’ve ever seen.

The most 80s group of people you’ll ever see.

Though forsaken to live in the shadows of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead is nonetheless a fantastic zombie movie. Arguably the scariest of the series for taking gore effects to new heights, Day of the Dead is also a commentary on extreme militarization. Could this be some sort of jab at Reagaonomics too? Whatever it means I hope we can all agree on one thing, Day of the Dead is the grisliest portrait of a post-zombie apocalypse world.

Sometime after Dawn of the Dead (though none of the movies directly connect) we are introduced to a world where zombies are now the dominant species. We follow a group of survivors held up in an underground military base. The group is made up of both military and science personnel but primarily focuses on Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille). Bowman is working alongside several researchers in an attempt to reverse the zombie process but no real ground has been made. If that wasn’t a problem the group must also deal with the tyranny of its iron-fisted leader Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). Tension grows between the two parties as dwindling supplies and conflicting beliefs tear the group apart. Eventually, the group suffers a complete collapse leading to anarchy, violence, and of course a helluva lotta zombie action.

The film is a lot deeper than I think most give it credit. Its message may not be as clear as Dawn’s commentary on consumerism, or Night’s nihilist view of humanity in a Vietnam-ravaged America, but there’s something here. It can be seen by the long gaps in-between Romero’s zombie movies. He only makes them when he has something to say about society. How else would you explain the ten-year gap between the first two films? The seven-year gap between Dawn and this film? And then the twenty-year gap between this film and Land of the Dead? Romero likes to scare people but he also likes to give them something to think about.

Of course you couldn’t have a compelling story without a colorful collection of characters. Day of the Dead has some of Romero’s strangest yet most memorable. You have John (Terry Alexander) the Jamaican pilot, Bill (Jarlath Conroy) the alcoholic Irishman, Miguel (Anthony Dileo Jr.) the guy that goes crazy, Dr Logan (Richard Liberty) whom the group refer to as “Dr. Frankenstein”, and of course there’s Captain Rhodes, one of those characters you love to hate. Day also has one of the most memorable zombie characters in Bub (Sherman Howard) a zombie that Dr. Logan has trained to be docile towards humans… Well, some humans.

Though Day of the Dead will never be as famous or notable as it’s predecessors, it easily takes the bronze for the third best zombie movie ever made. In my eyes, it’s the scariest zombie movie ever made. If you like an old-fashioned spooky-fest check out Night, if you want a brooding character-study watch Dawn, if you want off-the-wall violence and ridiculous amounts of zombies watch Day. I know Romero went on to make three more zombie movies after Day, but I’ll always think back to Romero’s first three zombie films as the ultimate horror trilogy.

Captain Rhodes feels a little torn up inside.

I am very seasonal with my movie choices. For instance, I refuse to watch movies with snow in the summer. So Horror-Christmas movies really mess me up. I still don’t know the appropriate time to watch The Nightmare Before Christmas. Thus I’ve never had much interest in this bizarre sub-genre, that was until I saw Black Christmas. That film was a 1974 holiday slasher from director Bob Clark (A Christmas Story) that actually beat Halloween to the punch conceptually. Black Christmas was a film that gave me hope for Christmas-Horror movies. So did Silent Night, Deadly Night live up to that hope? No, it was not good. Rather, it was quite naughty.

SNDN begins on Christmas Eve 1971. A young boy named Billy and his family are driving to visit his grandfather in a mental hospital. When they arrive, Billy is shocked to see his grandfather in a zombie-like state. Once Billy’s parents step out of the room, Gramps comes out of his cationic trance to warn Billy about Santa Claus. “You see Santa Claus tonight you better run boy, you better run for ya life!” He says. Later that night we see a man dressed as Santa robbing a convenient store and murdering the cashier. The robber’s path crosses with Billy and his family driving home and Billy then must watch as his mother is raped and killed and his father is shot in the head. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s presented in an effective way. The story picks up with Billy a few years later living at a strict Catholic Orphanage. Still traumatized by Christmastime, Billy acts out in violent ways and is disciplined several times with a belt by the Mother Superior.

I liked all the characterization in the early setup scenes, but once the film reached modern day it became a heaping hunk of coal. Eventually, we are introduced to Billy as a strapping 18 year old working in a toy store. This is followed by the lamest montage ever. The new squeaky clean Billy is a little corny but still likable, especially when you consider his harsh upbringing. Still, Billy can’t quite handle himself around the holidays and that’s when he decides who is naughty and who is nice. It’s pretty hilarious to see a guy thrown into a fit of rage anytime he sees a man dressed like Santa. That would have worked great for a comedy. Sadly this film addresses the matter of Santa psychosis seriously. Billy is also brought to the edge anytime he sees a man and a woman having sex, which happens more than you would expect. So Billy goes on a bizarre killing spree dressed as Santa Claus.

Everything up to the point of Billy becoming a slasher Santa is entertaining enough. It’s interesting to delve into the mind of a guy who has a phobia of Jolly Saint Nick. I just don’t understand why it would lead him to murder. It’s like one day it sets him off just cuz… Or should I say “just claus”? The last fortysomething minutes are basically just Billy going around killing people and then heading back to his orphanage for a ‘lil bit of slaying. The cops come after Billy, which leads to a hilarious scene where they shoot a completely innocent man also in a Santa suit. Eventually Billy is shot down by the police at the same orphange where he was raised. Though it’s in his last moments that we see another young boy clearly affected by the event. Will this boy also be a killer Santa? Probably, if I’m following this movie’s logic correctly. Ultimately, Silent Night, Deadly Night is kind of dumb fun, but it loses steam at the point where it should be the most entertaining (the kills). So to all of you I say “Seasons’ Beatings, and have a horrific holiday season!”

There’s excitement in every frame of Silent Night, Deadly Night.

I can’t imagine there’s anyone who sincerely likes C.H.U.D. It has to be one of those movies that people only love in an ironic way. What’s the appeal exactly? First of all, I think it has something to do with that title. It has a nice ring to it and once you find out it stands for “Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller” it only becomes that much nicer. I’d heard jokes made at this movie’s expense for years, most notably on The Simpsons. So it was a special day when I sat down to watch C.H.U.D. Too bad it’s a really boring movie.

Basically, homeless people are being mysteriously murdered by unseen creatures inhabiting the bowels of New York City. George Cooper (John Heard) is a photographer on a current assignment to photograph the seedy homeless population and is eventually brought face to face with the creatures. Meanwhile, “The Reverend” (Daniel Stern) who runs a local homeless shelter believes the disappearances are part of a government cover-up. So he goes out to unravel the mystery. What follows is a series of peek-a-boo scare moments and drawn-out conversations that go nowhere.

I wonder, does anyone see C.H.U.D for any other reason than wanting to see monsters? I don’t think so. Which only makes it worse when you realize the CHUD’s are barely seen in the movie. All we ever get are quick glimpses and even then they don’t look that great. It’s like a monster movie without monsters. So then all we have are the conversation scenes with John Heard and Daniel Stern. Interesting that they both went on to star in the hit blockbuster Home Alone. I don’t know what that means but for some reason it’s kind of funny.

Another future notable in C.H.U.D is John Goodman as “Cop in Diner”. He doesn’t say or do much but it’s probably the best part of the movie. Sadly, it’s not enough for me to recommend this movie. But if you’re a Simpsons fan and want to know why Homer is always mentioning CHUDs then by all means, see this movie. If not, don’t waste your time with this underwhelming under dweller.

John Goodman. More like John Great-man.