The Theatre Bizarre

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.

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.

This movie is really a very bizarre one, even in the context of bizarre / horror movies. It is no ordinary horror however - more or less it is unusually deep trip into the darkness. Forget "positive heroes running from demons or killers". This is way way darker and definitely not suitable for typical viewer.

The first story almost seems lame but the darkness increases from the this very point on. When it reaches "Vision Stains" you may be sure you are watching something so dark it may just come from Hell itself. Yet these stories are no gore flicks, they have their wicked souls, their own twisted logic. Some of them like the "Vision Stains" are really hard to watch.

I absolutely do love "The Accident". It is basically not a horror story, but more poem or "experience". It is very slow, gentle, almost tender story about the dying and the meaning of life and death. It is absolutely mesmerizing, brilliant example of storytelling mixed with great soundtrack and the editing. It is pure 10/10 and alone makes the whole movie worth watching. It does not fit here however - it is not dark, not twisted and in some ways almost zen-like positive. It is really beautiful.

I could not recommend this movie for everyone - the only really accessible story is "The Accident" which is the weakest in the terms of gore and the most powerful in the terms of philosophy. The other stories could be way too much disturbing for ordinary viewer - not because they are full of gore, but because of twisted and elaborated evil, abuse, loss, suffering and despair depicted here. It is very powerful and dark anthology, definitely no ordinary teenager slasher movie. No fun is here, no light at the end of the tunnel. You have to have right mood to watch this anthology or you will end up really depressed.

Theatre Bizarre [8/10] - The wrap around story takes place in a strange theatre (thus the name). Each Segment is introduced using paper mache type people acting like puppets or something. It is somewhat unsettling and each time it gives a little hint as to what is going to happen in the upcoming story. Udo Kier is fantastic and creepy as his roll as our guide. I feel this wrap around story should have had more of a point to it, but in the end, it only serves as a conduit to get us to the actual segments of the film.

The Mother Of Toads [5/10] - This segment takes its influences from HP Lovecraft, and has some really cool and unsettling imagery in them. Because of the short nature of anthology movies, we were never really given enough time with the characters to really care about them and it also feels as though they had to just wrap it up before being able to do anything. Nice makeup though.

I Love You [6/10] - Relies more on the acting chops from its stars for the majority of this part. It does not go anywhere until the last 2 or so minutes, but it does deliver one heck of a finale.

Wet Dreams [5/10] - Being directed by Savini, you know it is going to have good effects, which it does. The real question is whether it has any substance. To its credit, it does make you question what is going on, but it still feels hallow and never really crosses the line into greatness. Not bad, but not good either.

The Accident [9/10] - It feels out of place next to all these segments of horror and gore. It has a great atmosphere and you sit there wondering just what exactly is going to happen that will make you disgusted. While this never comes, you find the director knows how to set an atmosphere, and you will get a feeling from this segment you will not find in any horror movie.

Vision Stains [9/10] - The best of the entire movie. I will not go into the story, as it is best to not know anything. All I will say is that the effects are fantastic, the music brilliant, and the story original and clever. I will be thinking about this for many weeks to come. Even if you don't like these kinds of movies, you owe it to yourself to check this segment out.

Sweets [8/10] - The most artsy out of all of them. It lacks a bit of substance and you are left wanting a bit more, however the ride it takes you on is fun. There are lots of colors and artsyness that make this short stand out from the rest of the pack. I really liked it, even if I wanted more.

In the end, this is a flawed, but ultimately worth it anthology, that I hope to see more of in the future.

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?