STRAIGHT FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE DISCOUNT HORROR BARREL.

a pick six

by Hunter Jon

I’ll give any movie a chance. Even if everything imaginable points towards it being awful. Because you just never know, do you? I’m happy to report that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by a handful of titles in my long history of watching bottom of the barrel, straight-to-video/VOD horror fare. And not because they’re so-bad-they’re-good, either. These are extremely rare examples of movies being just a tiny bit more tolerable than they have any right to be. It’s usually a case of them having a cool concept and harbouring genuine personality and/or character, but lacking literally everything else. As Jules Winnfield reminded us - personality goes a long way. And as Winston Wolfe taught us - just because you are a character, doesn’t mean you have character. If you go into any of these ready to take them seriously or, for that matter, with any expectations whatsoever, you’ll most likely turn them off within minutes. Probably based on production value alone - a few of these were made for millions, a few for hundreds of thousands, but some are the definition of micro-budget and practically resemble home movies. However, if you go in assuming the absolute worst, like I did, you might find yourself satisfied just enough to watch through until any given end.

Here are six horror movies that I don’t think were quite as bad as they should have been.

(I’ve included the appropriate amount of honourable mentions)

Most of these killer clown movies feel like they’re shot off the same assembly line. They make seemingly zero effort to feature anything unique or original, leaning into clichés and tropes. There’s either one killer clown stalking a young woman and hacking through anyone standing in their way, or you’ve got triple the budget and therefore a clan of killer clowns picking people off in some kind of funhouse/carnival/scarehouse setting. This one’s basically the former and you mostly get what you expect, keeping in mind the extremely low budget. Just mostly, though. Because there’s an unexpectedly adorable, endearing relationship between the two leads in this that is genuinely well played. I honestly got invested in it/them, easily making this the most memorable of its kind that I’ve seen.

It’s ambition. I think that’s what makes it almost, kinda, sorta, maybe work. I admire the fact that this not only got made, but that it’s the final chapter in a trilogy of “Ninjas vs…” movies. This bites off what would normally cost literal millions to chew and does so with, from the looks of it, a budget in the tens of thousands. Which shows. But they knew exactly what this was going to look and feel like and, rightfully, never once apologize for it. And the attempt at Kevin Smith and/or Tarantino style dialogue reminds me of how I wrote as a teenager, which makes me smile. Plus, I’m up for anything featuring the classic line-up of Universal monsters.

Before he was a medium-time director of horror movies that you either love or hate, you could find Oz Perkins stealing the show in this little charmer. That’s not sarcasm. I find this movie charming and think Perkins is the stand out in it. The title more than suitably sets the stage here. If its tired pun made you roll your eyes than stay away. If it made you, despite your usual superior taste, crack a smile, than at least give it a try. It’s also worth noting that this was made just a hair before “Shaun of the Dead” came out, which means it was no attempt to cash-in. Everyone here was ahead of their time in just really wanting to make an irreverent zombie movie, which couldn’t have been an easy sell. If you ask me, they kinda succeeded.

Obviously, anything is going to look good compared to the first. But once that’s out of the way, there really shouldn’t be anything worth watching here. Yet the premise is mildly intriguing… Emmanuelle Vaugier and James Parks are pretty good… it covers most of the bases that it sets up… and it’s got Sid Haig. As for the actual zombie material - most of this ilk gleefully favour the gore and carnage that the concept allows for. And under circumstances like these, where you can’t quite afford impressive effects, they’d normally go ahead with them anyway and end up exhibiting some pretty sub-par stuff. What surprised me here was the choice to steer clear of effects they couldn’t afford and instead use the zombie concept to create unrest and uncertainty, and therefore tension, between the characters. I wonder how director Michael Hurst would fare on a project with a bigger budget, because he managed to impress me here despite what he was working with. If you’re a fan of the genre and don’t mind the cheesier, lower budget offerings, don’t pass this one up simply because of its possible ties to Uwe Boll - there are none.

I’m a fan of Misty Talley movies and this is my second favourite. You get everything you usually get from these, but Talley brings to life two specific things here that raise the bar. First is just the general tone and plot - it’s a movie-within-a-movie kinda movie (Jason London plays, and pokes lots of fun at, himself), and the movie they’re making is a B shark movie. So it’s plenty meta and endlessly self-aware. Which I think these movies ought to be. If the effort is too earnest, watching them can be pretty lugubrious. The other thing may seem small, but some would say the most important part of a movie is its opening and others would argue it’s how it ends. Well, the final moments in this are a sweet hearted call back to the first ones. It’s how well Talley realizes these bookends that perhaps proves she’s putting far more thought into these things than anyone else is.

I guess once the hype dust settled I was one of the few left who actually enjoyed the first one. However, the second one, despite the initial premise showing promise, left everything to be desired in the end. But I found this one fun. It’s got more of a party-weekend-gone-wrong/slasher kinda feel, so it’s not nearly as deadly serious as the first. Yet not bad for a straight-to-VOD threequel (although, for the record, neither of the sequels were originally made with any connection to “Open Water” - the distributers just slapped that onto the titles for marketing purposes). There’ve been a few other ‘cage dive’ shark movies recently. I enjoyed this far more than those, despite there being very little actual cage action. Once they’re afloat and stranded, it offers more than just bickering characters and the occasional shark scare. Example? It features an awesome and seriously bleak inflatable-raft-on-fire sequence.

Bousman has his fans, and this, more than anything, might be proof that they’re on to something. I was pleasantly surprised by almost everything here, particularly the writing - the ice cream scooping dialogue and enforced dilemma at the ATM are especially caustic and wicked. It’s paint-by-numbers, to be sure, but it’s no amateur behind the brush. He knows this genre all too well and executed this all too adequately.

Throw a rock and you’ll hit a bad Bigfoot movie, most of which will be found-footage. But leave it to one half of the duo who popularized that sub-genre in the first place to make one that, in my opinion, stands head and shoulders above the rest. Most of which can be attributed to its tongue being planted firmly in its cheek the entire time. It also never lags, which seems to be a major complaint when it comes to these types. There’s always something worthy of your attention happening and the narrative takes some delightfully bizarre, albeit ludicrous, turns. If you’re not along for the ride by the time the ‘goofy’ character is wielding the camera outside a cabin, provoking the yet-discovered Sasquatch with impudent howling while smoking a joint, then I can’t help you… and you probably shouldn’t have bothered reading this list.