Welcome to another opportunity of mine to return to past horrors, and honestly I am watching these movies and reading the reviews, and while sometimes I do still agree with my assessment there are those films with I tend to reflect with a negative view. It might be due to my increasing knowledge of the genre and coincidentally the subgenres and learning of the techniques that independent filmmaker often takes to enhance their features with limited funds. Regardless, the adventure is fun mainly because of the memories.
Mrs. Claus (2018)
SUMMARY: A group of college students attending a Christmas party at a sorority house that has a sinister past are stalked by a bloodthirsty killer disguised as Mrs. Claus.
WHEN I SAW IT DATE: January 2018
THE IMDB RATE AT TIME OF REV: N/A
MY RATE THEN: 5.5/10
HAS MY VIEW CHANGE: Yes, at the time of viewing this movie, I was excited to have an advance screener, then called Stirring, and since changed to Mrs. Claus because outside of United States the original name doesn’t make much sense, so that is a brief positive. I had seen director Troy Escamilla’s Party Night [2017] and a brief chat with him about his love for the Christmas horror subgenre I thought would be really good. However, seeing it again with so many other films filling this grouping since then I reflect heavily and need reelevate the standing to 3.5/10 because it felt dull, boring just ‘eh’ rather a standard and average slasher.
***** ****** ******
Rabid Love (2013)
SUMMARY: Five recent college grads go for one last vacation in the woods during the summer of 1984 and one of them is infected with a mad scientist’s synthetic rabies virus.
WHEN I SAW IT DATE: Likely July 2014.
THE IMDB RATE AT TIME OF REV: 3.1/10
MY RATE THEN: 3.0/10
HAS MY VIEW CHANGE: First, my view hasn’t changed I would still keep this rating, that opening 40-minutes is so dreadful a sluggish pacing feels if a storyline wasn’t evenly flowing a few more rewrites could helped, likely as the film hatched from a 10-minute short in 2012 was to serve as the proof of concept for the funding. Secondly, I went back to my actually review and my sincere apologies, it was likely one of earliest review from August 2014 and was still search for my voce, as I concluded with the intend of finding some positives rather than being straightforward to the readers.
***** ****** ******
Willow Creek (2013)
SUMMARY: Jim and his girlfriend Kelly are visiting the infamous Willow Creek, the alleged home of the original Bigfoot legend – the tale of huge ape-like creatures that roam the forests of North America. It was there that in 1967, the legendary beast was captured on film and has terrified and mystified generations since. Keen to explore more than 50 years of truth, folklore, misidentifications and hoaxes, Kelly goes along for the ride to keep Jim happy, whilst he is determined to prove the story is real by capturing the beast on camera. Deep in the dark and silent woods, isolated and hours from human contact, neither Kelly or Jim are prepared for what is hidden between the trees, and what happens when the cameras start rolling…
WHEN I SAW IT DATE: Since I reviewed it in November of 2015, I suppose it was in October of that year.
THE IMDB RATE AT TIME OF REV: 5.1/10
MY RATE THEN: 5.0/10
HAS MY VIEW CHANGE: Not really it’s a found footage type of film, with really slow burn for about 30-minutes, and if you can get past that without turning off the film, or at least paying partial attention then you likely to enjoy most of the latter second act and into okay conclusion. This is for all the Bigfoot thrill fans, who have enjoyed similar movies like Bigfoot: The Lost Coast Tapes [2012], Exists [2014] and Hoax [2019].
***** ****** ******
Well, I hope you all enjoyed that trip down memory lane and join me again when I revisit movies the good and bad for May of 2023.