The Theatre Bizarre

Not since the original Creepshow has there been a horror anthology as amazing as this. Comprising of six different short films, each with a different director and introductory segment, every short film is entirely different and unique in their own way and even the segments in between with Udo Kier and extremely entertaining to watch. Mother of Toads is a great B-movie throwback, I Love You is like a violent version of The Room, Wet Dreams has Tom Savini, therefore it is automatically gold, The Accident is harrowing and haunting, Vision Stains is interesting and engaging and Sweets is disgusting fun. Best horror of the year.

THE THEATRE BIZARRE is refreshingly blunt. It's a gutting, dismembering, and reassembling of the horror anthology film.

From the Lovecraft-inspired doom of MOTHER OF TOADS, to the gluttonous, cannibalistic overload of SWEETS, this movie is filled to the puking-point with grisly chills.

MOTHER OF TOADS- Features a couple that runs afoul of an old witch. The title comes in in demonic fashion. There's a pitch-perfect sense of overarching doom.

"I LOVE YOU"- A wicked tale about a truly obsessive, psychotic relationship.

WET DREAMS- Subjects us to a series of emasculating nightmares.

THE ACCIDENT- A meditation on the nature of death.

VISION STAINS- A unique take on the vampire / addict story. This might make you wince!

SWEETS- The ultimate breakup story, and an homage to movies like BLOOD FEAST. This might make you sick!

THEATRE GUINGOL- The wraparound segments that hold the whole bloody mess together.

Highly recommended for the non-squeamish and the openminded...

Overall, mostly meh.

The Mother of Toads (Stanley's contribution) is apparently a Lovecraft riff, but I was getting Argento vibes from the witch mother, the medieval European setting, and the music. It's just alright with some icky special effects and a bare bones story.

I Love You is about an obsessive guy who can't stop loving his cheating hateful wife. Also just alright, though the two leads are solid.

Wet Dreams, the Savini segment, is about a cheating man this time who gets his comeuppance from a wife who has been scorned one too many times. It's nasty though also lacking a certain danger or sense of pure chaos. It's kinda funny, kinda gross, kinda alright.

The Accident is completely out of place tonally and even so it's not very good. Airy pretensions and a somber mood don't mean much here.

Vision Stains has an interesting premise and some good moments but isn't exactly great.

Sweets is a nasty, gross, icky flip off of a segment. It's nothing but a punchline but it kinda works.

I briefly tasted the extravagance of "The Theatre Bizarre" nearly one year ago, during a modest genre festival in country. Halfway the second segment, however, there were some technical issues and everybody got reimbursed and had to leave the theater. It took me until now to re-watch the whole thing, but my expectations were quite high because I remembered quite a number of good things from my abruptly ended first viewing. "The Theatre Bizarre" is an anthology, and the one element that immediately determines whether or not an anthology is worthwhile is the wraparound story! This film features one of best wraparound stories, with some of the grimmest and most macabre scenery ever seen. A timid young girl is lured to the sinister and seemingly abandoned Grand Guignol Theater across the street of her apartment, where she's "friendly" welcomed by a marionette version of cult legend Udo Kier and numerous other grisly dummies. As the presented stories pass by, both Udo and the girl undergo a nightmarish metamorphosis. The wraparound is courtesy of Jeremy Kasten, the underrated director of one of the better horror remakes of the decade, namely "The Wizard of Gore". As usually the case with horror omnibus movies, some of segments are good, some of the segments are bad and some of the segments are just too plain weird and flamboyant to judge properly. Unfortunately none of the six tales qualifies as truly outstanding, but at least the segments "I love you", "Vision Stains" and "The Accident" rate as well above average. They are diverse stories with either original basic concepts or uniquely tense moments. "I love you" is a prototypic mini psycho-thriller, but benefices from the ravishing Suzan Anbeh and her monologues that will make every male viewer cringe. "Vision Stains" is about a woman who kills homeless/troubled women and injects their eyeball-fluids in her own veins to live their memories… Until she witness things she didn't want to witness. This little plot is inventive and genuinely horrific, but it could have used a better climax. "The Accident" is somewhat of an alien segment, as it's more of a melodrama instead of a horror story, but it features a wonderfully grim atmosphere and a couple of harrowing moments. The other three tales vary from mediocre to inferior. The first segment "Mother of Toads" is very H.P Lovecraft like, with creepy monsters and nasty make-up effects, but writer/director Richard Stanley totally forgot to tell a story. Tom Savini's "Wet Dreams" contains a few solid moments, but the plot is derivative and rather nonsensical. The final chapter "Sweets", somewhat a crossover between "La Grande Bouffe" and "Delicatessen", tries very hard to be artsy and controversial, but it's actually just ridiculous and preposterous. Recommended viewing for experienced and open-minded horror fanatics.

Down a seedy city street in her neighborhood, young Enola Penny (Virginia Newcomb) is obsessed with what appears to be a long abandoned theater. One night, she sees that the front door is slightly ajar and impulsively decides to sneak inside.

This film is just one disappointment after another. I generally enter into a movie with low expectations, and this is no exception. But I had a bit of hope that this could be a decent anthology. The stars are respectable: Debbie Rochon, Udo Kier, Catriona MacColl. The directors have talent: Richard Stanley, Tom Savini, Jeremy Kasten. What went wrong?

I feel like a variety of problems plagued this one -- but it can be summed up in two basic categories. Either the story was not thought-out enough or the segment was not long enough to develop the characters, or both.

Tom Savini's segment was just too confusing, and revolved around an unfaithful man. I feel like the cheating was never made clear. And we are not given time to sympathize with him or his wife or anyone. Should I care about either of their problems?

The concept of stealing memories through eye fluid was brilliant. While the concept is clearly impossible, and it is not clear how someone would have discovered this secret, it is a remarkably good idea that could have been its own film. But even with that one, it went downhill towards the end. I was completely deflated.

The "Sweets" segment was the most visually appealing... but what was going on?