Breeders (1986) - 1/5

"Breeders" is Tim Kincaid's second of three direct-to-video (a new trend at the time) of horror/sci fi hybrid films he directed for producer Charles Band's Wizard Video line (though Band did decide to give "Breeders" a very limited theatrical release). Out of all three (also including "Robot Holocaust" and "Mutant Hunt") this is the most tasteless, vulgar and the downright repulsive. Then again a horror 'monster rape' film with a title like "Breeders" one can't expect a film with any sort of class or respectability.

Virgin women are a small commodity in New York City to begin with but they become even more rare with a slimy underground space creature decides to procreate it's race by mating with New York's most coveted citizens. Now it's up to a dim-witted cop too young to grow facial hair and an over-made up doctor to kill the creature before it's offspring can cause the end of the human race.

What "Breeders" is as an extremely cheap knock-off in the questionable 'monster rape' subgenre of films that is desperately trying to mimic the success of "Humanoids of the Deep", made by Charles Band's more respectable partner in crime Roger Corman. Unlike that film which had a competent director and suitable actors, "Breeders" is just shit filmmaking all around.

The 'actors' (a term I like to use loosely) are just above porn level which should be no surprise since the director got his start in the genre. His banal directing also reflects his questionable background in filmmaking as his none-existent style focuses largely on female skin... which tries to be titillating but it just comes off as creepy and unpleasant when sandwiched between violent and disgusting rape sequences.

The casting is also odd as Tim Kincaid no doubt cast young women based on beauty and not if they fit the description as a virgin. One snorts cocaine, one dances nude in a photography studio, etc. Drug use and openness to nudity is all elements of quote, un-quote 'virgins'. Trust me, these girls have been around the block.

It's not just the acting and directing, but the monster suit, writing and even the sound quality is absolute rock bottom. Some of the dialogue is hard to make out thanks to the cheap sound recording that causes a hiss whenever someone speaks. Then again hissing is more pleasant listen to than compared to some of the crap dialogue. The monster suit also nothing more than a cheap rubber costume with glowing bug eyes covered with slim (I will admit that some of the gore effects are impressive and ghastly).

Tim Kincaid's writing is also porn level as there are plot holes big enough that this alien can't even get his cock into. Seriously how is this alien able to take the form of normal everyday people? What's the point of all this work when it just breaks out of their bodies in a mess of gore and blood when it has proven again and again that it rapes women without having to go to this extra trouble. It just seems to me like an excuse to load the film up with some gore.

"Breeders" was a trying film experience. It could have had some B-movie chuckles with its horrid filmmaking if it weren't for the offensive subject matter, which comes to a head in the climax when all our women swim around in a vat of what looks like alien semen.... barf. "Humanoids from the Deep" had respectable qualities... "Breeders" does not and fails to entertain even on a bad film grade scale. It's amazing that a film of this nature got re-released on video and DVD by a respectable company such as MGM and even inspired a loose remake in 1997 under the same title.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

51 (2011) - 1/5

After being pleasantly surprised with "Seconds Apart", my faith in the After Dark Originals was rising...only to be crushed by the science fiction/horror atrocity that is "51". As with "Scream Of The Banshee" I was instantly discouraged by the SyFy logo that graced the beginning of the film and nothing from that point on lead me away from those assumptions. In fact, it may only go downhill from there as any hope of legitimate science fiction or horror is swept away in shoddy special effects, horrid acting, and a knocked off script from far better films. Yeah, it's that good.

Due to commercial pressure from the news and the people of US, the government has decides to let two very invasive reporters spread the word about what's truly in Area 51. With the military on half patrol and a plan to let them see everything but the actual aliens in the facility, the tour seems to be going fairly smoothly. That is until a shape shifting alien called Patient Zero decides to let loose a few of his pissy alien friends...

It's always refreshing to have to push one's way through a film, knowing by half way through that it isn't going to get better. "51" is exactly how that is. From its poorly designed sets, lacking vision of the story, and its horrendous acting it was borderline stressful watching this film wash down a perfectly hilarious concept. Hilarious in all the wrong ways, I do mean to say. Our actors seem half assed in their dedication to the characters as the characters are written and the plot progression is about as by the numbers as one can get, only separating itself long enough to throw in some completely random details that rarely make sense (the purple vapor for Patient Zero is actually a mixture of bloods....why? Who the fuck cares?).

On top of being completely idiotic in its plot and characters (who puts that many inept soldiers on the most top secret base anyway?), the film itself blatantly steals from other far superior science fiction horror films. The military and alien battle with the two insectoid like monsters obviously steals moments and ideas from "Alien" and our survivors below with the shape shifter has far too many stolen ideas from John Carpenter's "The Thing". This is executed with reluctant dedication to the special effects that look as cheap as the SyFy original it became.

Fan of science fiction horror films? Don't bother with "51". It's cheap, silly, poorly executed, and down right burdened with trying to sell a half thought through script. Only good for unintentional laughter of which there is a few good moments. That's about it though. Not worth the time nor money unless one is intentionally looking for the bad. In that case, eat up.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Dawn Of The Dead (2004) - 3.5/5

Despite my everlasting and immense love for George A. Romero's classic zombie film "Dawn Of The Dead", I have to admit that Zack Snyder's more intense remake doesn't make me want to vomit obscenities and curse the name of Hollywood like some of the bigger horror remakes. In many ways, I respect this film and what it did quite a bit. Dare I say this without the zombie elite feedback...it's a pretty solid film. It's intense, fun, and an overly stylish new vision of the classic tale that modernizes it with relative ease. It's not as good as the original (few zombie films are), but it works the nerves and connections just enough for a rather enjoyable horror time.

When a rapid spreading affliction begins turning the people of the world into flesh craving zombies, a group of survivors lead by a nurse (Polley), a police officer (Rhames), and an TV salesman (Weber) take shelter in a mall to sort out what their next step is. As the zombie chaos spreads, the group will have to make decisions about their future that may leave a few of them joining the hordes out to eat them.

For the most part, film fans hate remakes. At this point in my life, I could care less if its a remake or not. In fact, "Dawn Of The Dead" does the remake right. It takes the heart and concepts of the original, but twists it in new and modern ways. That's right, its not a shot for shot remake. Keeps it fresh and fast, something that I sincerely appreciate.

On the plus side of things, "Dawn Of The Dead" certainly makes things exciting. Running zombies that flash across the screen with blood, teeth, and creepy eyes are the intensity of the film adding a new layer of modern "speed" to the zombie craze. The plot progresses relatively quickly too as our zombie outbreak descends within a matter of minutes on film - including a fantastic opening sequence that throws the viewers into the chaos head first - and from there the film spends little time on punching through the motions even ending on a wicked cool ride in armored vehicles through hordes of the dead complete with chainsaws, shotguns, and flaming propane tanks. Zack Snyder certainly knows visual flair too and adds a nice modern touch to the film really giving us one intense ride.

On the downside of things, "Dawn Of The Dead" severely aches for some great characters. Occasionally the writing loves to lower its IQ for the sake of the intensity (like an asinine sequence where a young woman drives a truck into the streets to save a dog), but mostly this film lacks strong character work. The acting is fine and many sequences are piled in to serve as our window into the survivors, but there is simply too many characters to get it all in. There is really no lead in the film and the few we do follow rarely emote the sympathetic tone needed for us to truly root for them to kick ass and survive. By the end of the film, I was more or less rooting for the mall security guard C.J and his anti-hero tactics just because he seemed to have a bit of faux depth.

"Dawn Of The Dead" remains one of the better remakes out there of a classic horror film because it wasn't afraid to deviate its story while retaining the mindset of the original one. Some of the deviations work, the higher intensity and the rather ill thought through final run for the dock for example, but some of them find themselves running into issues like too many characters or a dumb ass subplot featuring a zombie baby (you read that right...). In the end, the film is immensely enjoyable with its fast paced chaos even if it never touches the glory of the original one. Fans might enjoy it, but its more or less best to get the younger audience into the idea.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Attack The Block (2011) - 4/5

"You discovered a species hitherto unknown to science, possibly extra-terrestrial in nature, and you kicked its head in." - Ron

There is a certain aura or atmosphere that was embraced by fantastical 80s films that have knocked socks off of an entire generation of movie goers. This aura, somewhat of an unexplained phenomenon that mixes a slew of genres into one, has been revived in the last few years. "Attack The Block" is a film that not only crafts this same feeling, but does so without ever having to blatantly use inside jokes to do so. Nothing says fun quite like inner city London teens having to fight off an alien invasion. It helps that the film is not afraid to take it to its limits either.

Moses (Boyega), a young gang leader in south London, may have had a tough night to begin with when he and his gang rob a young woman (Whittaker) for spare change, but when a creature falling from the sky decides to attack his posse he takes matters into his own hands. Now Moses and gang are going to have to protect their block and what is theirs from an seemingly endless force of glowing fanged 'wolf-gorilla motherfuckers'...

The respect has to be given to "Attack The Block" and its rather endless surprises. On the surface it feels like "The Goonies" meets "Critters" (which on this site is one of the highest calibers of praise) with its collection of young kids crafting weapons out of everyday objects and being thrust into a fantasy like world of adventure and danger, with the danger being giant blackest of black aliens. In many senses, this is what carries the charm of the film. A strong cast of youth partnered with a rather childish idea of 'less is more' when it comes to over explaining itself  and really "Attack The Block" is a simple adventure story. It works with passion. We cheer for our heroes, hiss at the baddies, laugh at the witty dialogue, and constantly throw ourselves at the whim of its basic plot progression. It's heartfelt and entertaining.

What "Attack The Block" does differently than say its counterparts from the 80s, is that it pushes itself with modern style to rather intense moments. Horror themes run with some well crafted tense moments and moments of striking gore (including a face removal scene), the dialogue does not shy away from being offensive at times with swearing and pop culture references, and our heroic team is not all that shiny and upstanding. In fact, our lead Boyega is down right brutal and efficient in his delivery of the character Moses - which does pay off in the end as we begin to really root for the kids and a final showdown climaxes.  It's these more extreme elements that modernize the film and place it firmly in this day and age even with its 80s style foundations.

"Attack The Block" might not be for everyone with its quick dialogue, extreme moments of terror, and dark characters, but for those willing to see past the surface level and down into the heart of this film - it's easily one of the best of the year. One that twists itself in such entertaining ways, its hard to wipe the smile from your face by the time the credits roll. A must see for genre fans.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) - 3.5/5

Marvel just keeps rolling 'em out, don't they? Two superhero movies in one year (the other being "Thor")? Although neither of them are the best of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has been building towards the highly anticipated "Avengers" film, the fairly high quality that "Captain America" and its horrible sub-title "The First Avenger" presents is still a bit surprising. A hero created as World War II propaganda for the US is ably visualized for the modern audience, creating a romping fun time that utilizes its cast and visual flair to the full benefit, even if the script is hit or miss. One that fans and those willing to suspend the logic unit for two hours are certain to enjoy.

Steve Rogers (Evans) was born not to fight. His frail physique and medical issues prevent him for fighting for his country as the Nazis roll over Europe. It never kills his spirit or his dire need to defend those who fight for freedom. This is what sparks a scientist (Tucci) to offer him the chance to do what he always wanted to. A serum that would give him superhuman strength, speed, and agility to be able to help out the Alliance. For every great hero though, there must be a balance and the rising Nazi section Hydra lead by the brilliant and vicious Red Skull (Weaving) must be stopped.

Although "Captain America" might not be the most waterproof of stories, the sheer fun that it portrays is infectious. The 1940s set pieces and art designs gives a new and very inspired setting for the now well worn superhero film and this is augmented by director Joe Johnston's rather well paced and visually arresting style that gives the film the same charm he brought to his highly underrated "Rocketeer". Although the film certainly lacks a bit of the focus needed to really see its larger scoped story through to the end (leaving far too many allies and plot holes - that I'm sure will be later filled in with "Avengers" and the eventual sequels like the rather anti-climactic final showdown with Captain America and Red Skull), its unique balance of heart, humor, action, and fantasy elements plays with the childish intrigue of the audience. 

The highlight of "Captain America" though, as with the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is the impressive casting choices. Chris Evans evokes that rough all-American young man with vigor and charm (almost making us forgive him for being in the awful "Fantastic Four" films...almost) and Hugo Weaving is the perfect casting choice for the infamous Red Skull - delivering thick German accents and sinister glares all over the place. The supporting cast is solidly built, but as with "Thor", their lacking screen time and character builds leaves a bit too much to be desired. Captain America's team is poorly developed and the rather quickly rushed love story for our lead seems to bloom from just the slightest bit of nurturing.

It's hard to deny the many little faults in "Captain America" with its unfocused delivery and poorly built supporting cast, but the sheer charm and visual prowess of watching a superhero fight Nazis (is there really any better villain to have?) certainly delights to no end. Fun for the whole family with its heart and fists. Not the best Marvel out there, but another solid addition.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Bridesmaids (2011) - 3/5

I'll be the first to admit: I'm very picky with my comedy. Great comedies are rare and succeed usually due to the alignment of three things - a funny script, an able cast, and a director with timing. These three things seem to rarely come together in the perfect ways, but from the highly regarded way that "Bridesmaids" was receiving praise I felt I was obliged to see if this was going to be the surprise that "The Hangover" was in how it was crafted. It's not. My disappoint in the film wakes not because it is missing one of these three items like so many films do, but because it rarely seems to get them out of the "vulgar with a gold heart" arena that has become so common place since Kevin Smith began to make it an art-form.

Annie (Wiig) has just discovered that her long time friend Lillie (Rudolph) has become engaged. Not only this, but she will be the maid of honor and have to begin planning a slew of wedding events for her long time friend. This, coupled with her slowly sinking life of being broke, alone, and having no ambitions, may just lead Annie into a full on competition with another bridesmaid (Byrne) for redemption.

I heard it repeatedly. How hilarious "Bridesmaids" was. How vulgar it was. How unique it was. On surface levels this is true. It is rather intriguing to have a comedy where the women in the film are the vulgar ones who swear, make sex jokes, and generally act like children. In some extents it's even funny. Wiig portrays the lead character, for whom we follow through the trials and tribulations, in relative solid form giving us someone to root for through the blunders of her life and the supporting cast more than makes up from the punch line laughs set up through the various situations that arise as our bridesmaids stumble through this wedding process. The script gives us enough situations to ponder and just enough set ups to get the point across, but the true highlights of the comedic element come from the rather quick banter and odd offbeat moments (with definite praise towards McCarthy and her straight up and often odd supporting bridesmaid Megan).

Yet, strip down "Bridesmaids" from the rather gimmick laid premise of women swearing and shitting in the middle of the street, and what is left is the exact same "heart of gold with vulgarity" film we've been repeatedly bashed in the face with first with Kevin Smith and then with Judd Apatow. It's by the numbers with its progression, easy to predict in how things will play out, and rarely deviates from the now patented formula to give us anything truly clever or unique. This is what is so massively disappointing with this film. The concept could have be ground breaking and genre defining, but the film's penchant for not taking the concept to its full lengths or to more or the more awkward moment leaves it oddly tasteless for the sweetness of its ideas. It succumbs to its "hit rock bottom, find the flaw, rise up" main plot and its random romantic sub plot with such force that its true highlights, that being its caricature like supporting cast and their interactions, are lost in fray.

"Bridesmaids" might be a great film for those who can't possibly get enough of Apatow and his upheaval of the comedic cinema spectrum, but for those looking for a bit more in a comedy might be a bit disappointed as it simply follows the formula to an almost perfect "t" - lettings it's rather clever idea fall a bit flat.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Mutant Hunt (1987) - 1/5

In the mid-80s home video revolutionized how people saw movies. Along with the home video market soon came idea of making films that would be made-for-video without the luxury of a theatrical release. Though producer Charles Band was busy making theatrical films with his Empire Pictures production company, he was at the head of the pack producing cheap pieces of direct-to-video junk for his Wizard Video outlet. With marketing gimmicks such as "too gory for the silver screen" printed on their eye-catching box artwork, Band suckered in horror and cult movie buffs to see these trash pictures that had no chance of living up to the glorious paintings that adorned the cover. "Mutant Hunt" is one of these releases that's artwork attracted my attention as a child that didn't live up to my trash loving expectations.

In the near future, a psychotic madman injects three cyborgs with a drug that causes them to be psycho sexual killing machines that mutate at an incredible rate and become ten times stronger than a normal human. Now a mercenary, which I like to refer to a cheap-jack "Blade Runner", must stop 'em before they brutally rape and kill the entire region.

With a title like "Mutant Hunt" one can't expect art. The acting is just above porn level, the sets are non-existent, the music is lifted from "Breeders" and Tim Kincaid's directing is again uninspired. Hell the plot even leaves too many doors open such as why the hell does our villain inject these cyborgs with a mutation psycho drug? His intentions is unbelievable. The one highlight is the practical special effects which includes some gore and tops out when a cyborg starts ripping his face apart. Does it live up to the marketing gimmick "too gory for the silver screen"? Not by a long shot but the effects at least keeps the film trucking along.

Not that I was expecting anything spectacular with a title like "Mutant Hunt", but for a film that not only has 'mutants', but 'mutant cyborgs' this should have been a lot more entertaining than it is. The formula for a great trash classic just doesn't compute thanks to the atrocious acting and bland direction making "Mutant Hunt" far below the loveable flaws of Charlie Band's theatrical efforts at the time. You think that Tim Kincaid would have learned a thing or two about making enjoyable bad movies after helming both "Robot Holocaust" and "Breeders" prior to this but nada.

Still "Mutant Hunt" has it's small, very small legion of fans and Charlie Band finally finagled the rights to the film away from MGM and recently released it on DVD. Don't get your hopes up though as this isn't comparable to the "stellar" DVD release MGM gave to Kincaid's previous direct-to-video trash venture "Breeders". That release was transferred from original film elements. What you get with "Mutant Hunt" is an old VHS transfer. Watchable but still on the blurry side. Still it's better than hunting down an over-priced worn-out VHS ex-rental.

Written By Eric Reifschneider

Wrong Turn 3: Left For Dead (2009) - 1.5/5

Let's hit the recap button: "Wrong Turn" was a solid enough if not cliche ridden return to your basic 80s slasher film. "Wrong Turn 2" kicked that in the ass of ridiculousness and wowed with its campy execution and perfectly outrageous story. "Wrong Turn 3" starts off seeming to follow Joe Lynch's brilliant move on "2", but then decides that it needs to be more serious and the film sinks back to levels below the original one. One were the film is worse on almost every level and rarely redeems itself with anything one looks for in a slasher.

A group of inmates and prison guards being transferred through hellbilly country on a quick and alternate route, find their bus topsy turvy and a genetically altered cannibalistic hillbilly hunting them down. Can society's worst find a way to work with each other or die on the worst night of their lives?

The opening sequence (no, not that long ass rafting sequence...the one following) had my hopes up for this film. It was horribly written, threw in gratuitous gore and nudity, and brought out the silly characters into the limelight - and it was a riot to watch. It was almost like what Joe Lynch did with "2". It grabbed the concept by the hair and drug it through its ridiculousness kicking and screaming.

After that the film tanks. I mean tanks. "Wrong Turn 3" takes what was going well in the first handful of minutes and just...leaves it to die in the woods. Our new protagonists (both cops and crooks) get too serious, the writing is still just as bad - particularly the dialogue which is pretty bottom of the barrel, and the special effects go into "made for TV" territory. It's like watching your favorite drink slowly swirl down the sink drain after you only had a sip. It's simply sad.

Really though, one expects a straight to DVD slasher about inbred/mutant hillbillies (or one hillbilly and random hillbilly kid as it would turn out for this one) to be rather bad. A few things though make "Wrong Turn 3" abysmal. It takes itself far too seriously with its characters and plot progressions and never has enough good writing or actors to sell either. It also lacks the special effects required to see it through as a good slasher. There is extensive use of lame looking CGI gore and despite some clever death sequences, most of them are ruined by poor builds and the film's inability to blend the serious plot with its ridiculous kills. It's disappointing all the way around.

This horror franchise kicked from mediocre to surprisingly awesome to deceivingly bad. "Wrong Turn 3" reminds us how bad low budget slashers can be without a creative force behind it. It rarely inspires enjoyment (sans some of the unintentional humor of its awfulness) and its poorly executed slasher elements don't even give slasher fans what they come to expect from one of these films. Let's just hope the next installment...a prequel from the same director...can redeem this franchise from this low point.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Seconds Apart (2011) - 3.5/5

There is something to be said about the results of low expectations. Let's be honest, "Seconds Apart" didn't seem to have a lot going for it on paper. The After Dark Originals thus far have more or less been misses, the film has Orlando Jones in it (you know, "Make 7...UP YOURS!" guy), and it's about twins with the power to control people's minds. There's not a whole lot that would indicate a solid independent film. Ironically, it is. Surprisingly solid acting, a story that rise above the gimmick, and a well structured storytelling process makes "Seconds Apart" the best After Dark Original thus far.

Seth and Jonah (Entin and Entin, respectively) are two very strange twins. They are almost identical in every way and they creep their classmates out. It's a legit felling since the two have some very creepy abilities like telekinesis and telepathy and they get their kicks by making their fellow students do creepy things, record them, and then wipe their minds. When a detective (Jones) begins to suspect the twins in a strange suicide case, he finds himself spiraling down into a long tunnel of deceit, danger, and creepy twins.

"Seconds Apart" does a surprisingly effective job at rising above its gimmicky premise. Granted, it has some moments that fall prey to its concept and its oddities, but this film tries its ass off not to feel that way.
The writing is clever enough to not treat itself like a made for SyFy original film (particularly with its rather intriguing twist ending that caught me off guard...even if it doesn't really make sense) and even though it runs into a few cliches along the way like its tragedy stricken detective, it pushes for the sky and it pays off.

This is also helped by the higher end quality of the film. It looks like a theatrically released horror film. It's got great production values with some solid enough special effects and the acting is surprisingly well done considering its real life twins who own their roles and Orlando Jones doing his best to sell a serious detective character. The directing is also solid enough to sell the concept with vigor for some of the higher intensity moments. The film all around succeeds at selling the story.

This is not a film for everyone as the concept just might run a little illogical, but if you let the film sweep you for the ride, it's a fun trip with surprisingly good execution. It has its flaws, but it's still the best After Dark Original I've see thus far.

Written By Matt Reifschneider

Howling: Reborn, The (2011) - 2/5

Out of all the recent horror sequels to long dead franchises, such as "Children of the Corn" and "Hellraiser", the last I would expect another entry in is the damn "Howling" series. Seriously who thought this was a good idea? Did they see the seventh film "Howling: New Moon Rising"? As cliché as it may be I am being completely honest in saying it is one of the worst films I have EVER seen. That entry should have welded the door of the "Howling" franchise shut for good but low and behold, sixteen years later part 8 quietly emerges on the sales racks, with distributors hoping the bad aftertaste of a number of the last sequels has faded with the older horror film fan crowd leaving the young, "Twilight" inspired viewers to lap this bandwagon effort up.

Well we get introduced to a young nerdy high school student right before graduation that has a hard-on for the local bad girl in his class. He somehow manages to win her over but not before his dead mother comes back from the grave, showing her son that he has a really hairy situation on his hands. You see, she's a werewolf and she's come back for her son to tempt him to the animal side. He will have none of it and whilst locked in a high security high school, he must protect his true love from his mother and her legions of the hairy killers.

I will admit that the production values shocked me at first as they are very reputable for a direct-to-video feature. The special effects are impressive (without an overabundance of CGI) and director Joe Nimziki gives the film a unblemished, sterilized look with its polished white and black color spectrum. The acting by the young cast is also commendable by our two little lovebirds Landon Liboiron ("Teranova") and cutie Lindsey Shaw.

The problem I have with this film is that that it's a "Twilight" knock-off complete with a story that's focus is on love and throws in werewolves for good measure. This is a fucking "Howling" sequel... not "Twilight" so let's see werewolf carnage without the PG-13 "Twilight" crap! Hell there is even a character that takes a jab at the recent "Wolf Man" remake by stating that werewolf movies always star 40 year old fogies. Fuck that, give me my 40 year old fogies as opposed this teeny bopper crap. Hollywood's obsession with youth drives me bonkers!

Not only does our plot take inspiration from the dreaded "Twilight" series but it's got tons of ridiculous plot holes and conveniences. First of all this high school has a security system that would make the Umbrella corporation from the "Resident Evil" franchise cum. Seriously, giant metal doors for lockdown? Also how the hell is our hero werewolf able to build a flamethrower in his chemistry lab? Why does the chemistry lab stock silver nitrate? Why does the security guard have hollow point bullets? Why does his mom abandon him, fake her own death only to show up on his graduation? How the hell is he able to bring his girlfriend back to life by shocking her with power cables from the elevator? It's enough for the beast to come out within me!

"The Howling: Reborn" is a sequel I'm really torn about. The fact that the plot has no connection to any of the other "Howling" film has no merit as most of those were standalone plots that just happen to have werewolves. From a filmmaking standpoint this is the best sequel as the acting is good and so are the effects. What burns my bacon is at least the other entries were at their roots horror films through and through, unlike this "Twilight" inspired love plot. It's like the producers got the rights to the "Howling" name, hired a writer to make a film like "Twilight" with werewolves and hope the title would suck in horror fanatics to see it. It worked on me, I'll admit, as no way in hell would I have ever watched it without the word "Howling" in the title. Due to that it fails to rejuvenate the franchise as horror fans hate "Twilight" and "Twilight" fans wouldn't watch a "Howling" sequel. That leaves "The Howling: Reborn" in purgatory, a film without a clear definition on what it wants to be. Hey, look on the bright side... it's better "Howling: New Moon Rising."

Written By Eric Reifschneider