The Carrier (1988)

Director: Nathan J. White

Starring: Gregory Fortescue, Stevie Lee, Steve Dixon

The main character is stricken with a horrible disease, but it doesn’t affect him. It spreads to every inamimate object that he touches, and then if another person touches the object, they are dissolved into it. No one knows that Jake is the carrier except him.

Judging by the fact almost no-one involved in this film had previous experience, and pursued an acting/directing career, I can only assume ‘The Carrier’ was a home movie project. This awful film also looks and feels like one.

From the silly premise to the bad execution, ‘The Carrier’ is a (bad) B-movie on every level. The main character is Jake (note that I don’t refer to him as the protagonist) who lives on a farm outside of town. Story goes he started a fire which caused the death of his parents, and is accused by the townsfolk for murdering his parents.

One night while at home he is attacked by a ‘black thing’. Yes, in the movie it is actually referred to as the ‘black thing’, as if the writers themselves didn’t know what it was supposed to be and had no explanation for the stupid events that were to follow. So, after the attack, everything Jake touches becomes ‘infected’, and those who touch these objects start to melt.

The film doesn’t make it very clear that Jake touched the objects that cause people to melt. These events seemed random and (for me) didn’t always link to Jake, almost as if whatever caused objects to become infected was airborne.

The townsfolk first use chicks (and I’m talking about baby chickens here and not the slang word for women!) to test for infection, and then cats! I mean, seriously, could this film be any more stupid or demented??!! I’m not even going into the details as to what happens next, or the conclusion. This is just a really dumb movie and most of the time I had no friggin’ idea what was going on.

Nothing is explained. What was the ‘black thing’, where did it come from and why did it just disappear again? Why was Jake immune to the ‘disease’? I didn’t care about ANY of the characters. Ugh, this was just plain horrible!

Would I watch it again? Enough said!

Return of the Living Dead Part 2 (1988)

Director: Ken Wiederhorn

Starring: James Karen, Thom Mathews, Michael Kenworthy

Curious kids unearth the barrels that previously helped revive the dead, which proves the second time’s an undead charm.

‘Return of the Living Dead’ was a bad movie, but it was a good bad movie that turned out to be entertaining and understandably became a cult classic. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for ‘Return of the Living Dead 2’. This was just a bad movie.

The humour in ‘Return of the Living Dead 2’ is more stupid than funny and the film suffers badly from intentional over-acting. Uhm, come to think of it; maybe it wasn’t over-acting…maybe the acting was just plain bad. James Karen and Suzanne Snyder, especially, were annoyingly bad. I swear, Suzanne Snyder will never go down in film history as a scream queen! Ugh, enough already! Dana Ashbrook was by far the film’s biggest asset – as TV repair guy Tom Essex, who also becomes the film’s protagonist. Ok, young Jesse Wilson (Michael Kenworthy) also served as a protagonist.

So, what’s it about? When an army container filled with experimental substance falls off a truck and lands in a river, three kids find it. Out of pure curiosity, one of them manages to open the container, releasing a gas that covers a nearby cemetery like a mist – bringing the dead to life. As it turns out, those who inhale the gas also eventually becomes living dead.

This is an incredibly noisy film with all the irritating screaming from the cast – so much so that I had to turn the volume down a few notches. This together with the over-acting and silly humour made the film almost unbearable. I honestly couldn’t wait for the film to end.

Action sequences and good practical effects were added during the final act, which made it a bit more tolerable. Even so, the film in general was more annoying than entertaining.

Would I watch it again? No.

Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989)

Director: Richard Friedman

Starring: Derek Rydall, Jonathan Goldsmith, Rob Estes, Pauly Shore

A man loses his home and suffers life-threatening burns from a fire deliberately set by commercial real estate developers vying for his property. One year later, a shopping mall opens on the land, and a series of murders begins.

Developers of a new shopping mall wants Eric’s property. I was waiting for events to unfold which would lead to Eric’s reason for revenge, but unfortunately I waited in vain. His story was merely told in back flashes. Being such an important aspect of the film – and the very reason for Eric’s revenge – why was this not shown in the beginning? (like in the 1981 movie ‘The Burning’, for instance.) Also, if this is a vengeance story, the culprits should have been shown so we could have an idea who were to be avenged.

Instead, after a short intro establishing the characters, the film jumps ahead one year to the opening of the Mall. Eric now hides and lives in the Mall, and starts killing people. But if its about revenge, then why is Eric killing innocent people – like the piano player for instance? Did he have to die simply because he is employed by the Mall? And what about the security guard? Also simply because he works at the Mall? And the Mall owner’s son? Just because he was being a dick? If Eric is killing innocent people, why should I root for him? If he was a maniacal killer like Jason Voorhees, then it would have made sense. But this is supposed to be about vengeance.

I’m about to do spoilers, so stop reading if you intend watching the movie still. Melody was Eric’s girlfriend, and believing he is dead she is trying to move on. So, when she meets reporter Peter there is a spark between them, and this causes Eric to become jealous. But what did he expect? Why did he never try to contact Melody, since we learn he never died in the fire? To a certain extent I suppose I can understand he didn’t want her to see him all scarred and looking like a monster, but then why not allow her to move on? Instead – after a year!!! – he suddenly wants her with him and wants to keep her locked up like a prisoner! Oh, pfff!!

From the shallow characters to the very bad script and the equally bad execution, ‘Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge’ is not worth it, and forgettable, actually. When all was revealed I had more questions than answers. ‘Chopping Mall’ from 1986 – also set in a shopping mall – is by far a better option. Rather give ‘Phantom of the Mall’ a skip.

Would I watch it again? Enough said…

Dolls (1987)

Director: Stuart Gordon

Starring: Ian Patrick Williams, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, Carrie Lorraine

A group of people stop by a mansion during a storm and discover two magical toy makers and their haunted collection of dolls.

Before ‘Puppet Master’ and ‘Child’s Play’, Stuart ‘Re-Animator’ Gordon made ‘Dolls’. Therefore, ‘Dolls’ is perhaps the film that propelled the killer dolls genre into mainstream cinema.

I loved the setting in the gothic mansion. The confines of the mansion made it that much more creepier. I also enjoyed the very different characters. The film also illustrates how incredibly ungrateful some people can be at the hands of good Samaritans. Probably the most unlikely of heroes is Ralph (played by Stephen Lee), who stole the show for me. He was sincere and affectionate (to a point) and one of the most likable characters. Ian Patrick Williams was also very good as house master David Bower.

Unfortunately, the acting from most of the other actors deemed the film more comedy than horror. Even if intended as a horror comedy, the humorist elements outweighed the horror elements by far. Thus, the similar ‘Puppet Master’ was more enjoyable and more memorable. The Puppet creations were also more realistic. In closing, although ‘Dolls’ was an entertaining film, I prefer ‘Puppet Master’, and off course ‘Childs’ Play’ but the latter is on a completely different level, and far more superior.

Would I watch it again? No.