wormtheace

You can tell from the title alone that "Under the Bed" is attempting to pay homage to the host of other child-horror movies that proceeded it in the eighties. You can see there is real love for films like "Gremlins" "Monster Squad" and even "Poltegeist." The story starts out well enough with a teenage boy returning home years after a tragic event took his mother's life. His younger brother is happy to see him back, but old wounds from the past resurface and both boys are put in a position where they must choose to finally confront the monster that has been plaguing their family for years. The major problem with "Under the Bed" is that it really has no idea what kind of movie it wants to be. Moments in the movie have an innocence long lost throughout the years of horror, but at other times it attempts to be too grown up for its own good by using profanity and generous amounts of fake blood. If this was the movies only sin, we could probably give it a pass, but it is not. The script is shaky to say the least, while many parts throughout simply do not make sense. It also does not help that the shoestring budget is very evident up until the last 20 minutes of the movie. I certainly respect the guts of all involved in trying to accomplish this feat on what little they had to work with, but there are much more suitable, and frankly better child horror movies to sit down and watch for ninety minutes.

I've been a horror lover all my life. I especially enjoy anthology films like "Creepshow." I was super excited to see some up and coming filmmakers showcase their talent. Little did I know that this is what would happen. There are maybe two to three decent shorts in here, but for the most part this is embarrassing. Rather than concentrating on telling interesting horror tales, the filmmakers here have decided to make crude and incomprehensible films. Most of the stories concentrate on sexually perverse imagery. The few decent (when I say decent I mean up to the level of an amateur) shorts are surrounded by absolute garbage. There is no artistic merit to be found. Most of the stories are lazy and inept. It's sad to say that most of the amateur shorts that were made for the contest leading up to this film are far superior. This is embarrassing. I am ashamed that I paid to watch this movie. If most of these shorts were introduced in an introductory film school class, they would be torn to shreds. This is quite possibly one of the worst films I have seen in my life. I'm sure people will jump to the movie's defense and say things like "they were given creative freedom" or "this is art, you just don't get it." Sorry, this is trash! This is bottom feeder garbage. Don't pay to see this movie and don't waste the two hours watching it.

In my opinion "The Collector" was a very underrated film. "The Colletion" is a worthy sequel, but it is far from perfect. Dunston and Melton came up with a great way to continue the story, but the cracks show in this follow up. They decided to go the "Aliens" route and introduce a band of mercenaries that attempt to track down the collector, save the life a young woman, and put an end to his crimes. They bring our hero Arkin, fresh off his escape from the hands of the collector, to guide them through the collector's maze. The story itself is awesome, but shoddy dialogue slightly derails the story. The practical effects are great, but many of the traps seem recycled. Josh Stewart, as Arkin, is enjoyable as always. Don't get me wrong, this is an fun movie, but at only around 75 minutes, the story is too fast paced and a lot of the creepiness is lost in favor of "gruesome" death sequences. Not having Randal Archer return was also a mistake. It was nice to them revisit the story, but hopefully if they do it again they will take a little more time fleshing out the characters and getting rid of some of the dialogue. If you do see this movie you will at least walk away saying "Arkin is hardcore!"