October Positivity: Gramps Goes To College (dir by Chip Rossetti)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The title character of 2014’s Gramps Goes To College may be known as Gramps but his actual named Ty Bounds. Played by Donald James Parker, Ty is a sixty-something resident of South Dakota who has recently retired from his job as a computer programmer. Despite being retired, Ty is not ready to fade away. In fact, he’s decided that it’s time to start a new chapter in his life so he enrolls in a college that is located in Tennessee. He hopes to eventually get his Master’s Degree in Biology.

Good luck with that, Gramps!

Gramps, you see, is a Christian and a believer in creationism. No sooner does he step into his Into to Biology class than he finds himself arguing with Professor Tucker (Carol Anderson). Tucker takes pride in turning religious students into atheists. She sees Ty as a challenge. She invites him to lunch. She invites him to dinner. She tries to seduce him. Nothing that she does can convince Ty to believe in evolution. Darwin wasn’t evil, Ty explains at one point. He was just misguided by the Devil.

Ty becomes a hero on campus and he even starts his own team of Christian athletes so that they can compete in the school’s Intramural competition. He becomes a mentor to his roommate, Brad (Rusty Martin). Ty worries that Brad is bein led astray by Stephanie (Courtney Lee Simpson). When Brad comes back to the dorm after a party, Ty demands to know why Brad reeks of alcohol. Can you imagine going away to college and discovering that your new roommate is not only old enough to be your grandfather but that he’s also going to scold you whenever you stay out late? Yikes!

(As I watched this movie, I was reminded of how, when I was in college, there was a student who was in her forties and who lived in the dorms. I always felt a little bit sorry for her. She was given a private room and people treated her respectfully — certainly more respectfully than they treat Gramps in this film — but I always wondered what it was like to be an adult, trying to finally get a degree, and finding yourself living in a dorm occupied by brats like …. well, like me. I’ve always told myself that if I ever run into her again, I’ll apologize for all those nights I played my music too loud. I’m older now so I understand why that would be annoying.)

Eventually, Stephanie dies of alcohol poisoning but she’s revived. She talks about how, while she was dead, all she saw were the flames of Hell. Well, that’s one way to get someone convert.

Gramps Goes To College is a fairly amateurish film. That’s not really a surprise. If anything did surprise me, it was how wrathful Gramps came across as being. To be honest, I was expecting a corny “old person” comedy. Instead, Gramps spent a lot of time suggesting that different people and ideas had been sent by the Devil. In the film, Gramps becomes a beloved celebrity on campus. He even gets Professor Tucker to doubt her atheism, despite the fact that none of his arguments seem to be anything that Tucker would not have heard before. To be honest, Gramps kind of comes across as being kind of a crank. His intentions may have been benevolent but he was so preachy and so frequently angry that he was often more intimidating than inspiring.

Myself, I’m just glad that I went to a party school and I didn’t actually have to pay attention in any of my classes. That’s the best way to do the college!

Horror Film Review: War of the Satellites (dir by Roger Corman)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1958’s War of the Satellites opens with a tragedy.

The United Nations is leading the way in humanity’s attempt to explore space. Unfortunately, ten manned spaceships (or “satellites” as they’re called in this film) all run into the same problem. There’s a “space barrier” around the Earth, one that traps any ship that flies into it. On Earth, Dr. Pol Van Ponder (Richard Devon) is forced to remotely blow up both the ships and the UN’s astronauts. It looks like the the UN’s space program is coming to an end.

Or, at least, it does until an unseen group of aliens drop a missile on Earth. The missile, when it’s discovered by two “teenagers” who appear to be in their 30s, doesn’t explode. Instead, it simply carries a message. Don’t try to explore space, the message says. A group of snooty aliens have decided that humanity is not ready to leave the planet. The message is read at the UN. In a scene that warmed my heart, the American delegate replies that no one tells humanity what to do. The aliens don’t want us in space? Well, guess where we’re going, baby!

(Woo hoo! I love my country!)

Unfortunately, Dr. Van Ponder is in a serious car accident and is killed. Or, at least, that’s what everyone believes until he shows up at the UN without a scratch on him. Van Ponder explains that he miraculously survived the accident and he’s now ready to lead the UN mission into space. The UN takes his survival as a sign that Van Ponder is meant to take humanity to the stars.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Dr. Van Ponder actually was killed in that accident and the man at the UN is not Van Ponder but instead just an alien pretending to be him. A few people notice that Dr. Van Ponder is acting strangely. He speaks without emotion and uses curious phrases. When he burns his hand during an experiment, he barely seems to notice. When he’s alone in his office, he creates a second duplicate Van Ponder so that he can be two places at once. Everyone who suspects that Van Ponder is actually an alien ends up dead. Once the satellite takes off, it falls to crewman Dave Boyer (Dick Miller) to not only thwart Van Ponder’s evil scheme but to also convince Sybil Carrington (Susan Cabot) that Van Ponder is no longer the man who she thinks she loves.

Reportedly, a day after the Russians launched Sputnik, Roger Corman met with film producer Steve Broidy and said that, in return for $80,000, he could have a satellite movie ready to go in 90 days. Broidy asked him what the film would be about and Corman replied, “I don’t know but I will have the picture ready.” Broidy handed over the money and Corman shot War of the Satellites over the course of ten days. Corman also said that Broidy was so impressed with the film that he gave Corman an extra $500 to throw a party for the cast and crew. Corman never threw the party.

As for War of the Satellites, it clearly a rush job. The interior of the space ship is basically two rooms and a couple of chairs. The idea of the UN having a space program feels ridiculous today and I imagine it probably felt just as ridiculous in 1958. (We should have kicked the UN out of New York decades ago) That said, I have to admit that I really enjoyed this film. Richard Devon gives an appropriately off-center performance as Dr. Van Ponder and this film actually features Dick Miller in a rare heroic starring role. Even though he’s playing an astronomer, Miller still comes across like a New York wiseguy and my favorite scenes are the one where he gives Van Ponder a look that just seems to shout, “What are ya talking about, ya putz?” There’s something really enjoyable about watching scrappy Dick Miller play the type of role that would usually go to someone like Peter Graves or Kenneth Tobey. In an interview, Miller said that he felt miscast as the hero because he was only 5’5 while Devon was 6’1. But the fact that Devon is actually so much taller than Miller only makes us rooft for Dick Miller even more. As played by Dick Miller, Dave Boyar becomes the type of underdog that you can’t help but cheer for.

The best thing about this film is that it loudly declares that no one, no matter how scientifically-advanced or snooty, gets to tell humanity what to do. You want us to stay on Earth? We’re coming for the moon!

No one puts us in a corner.

October Hacks: Slashlorette Party (dir by Paula Ragsdale and Angelica de Alba)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in 2020, Slashlorette Party is a decent indie slasher. It isn’t totally successful, but it deserves credit for respecting the rules of the genre while using those rules to explore something more than the usual hacking and slashing. This is a film that never apologizes for being a slasher, and I appreciated that. I’m tired of horror movies made by people who think they’re better than the genre. At the same time, this is a film that not only has blood on the floor but thoughts in its head. There’s something to be said for that.

Molly Souza plays Brie, who is engaged to Dolph (Andrew Brown). The wedding is just around the corner, but there’s one big problem: Brie has just realized that she doesn’t really like Dolph that much. In fact, Dolph is such a jerk that he almost feels like a parody of the bad boyfriend who always shows up in romantic comedies so the sweet, sensitive guy will look even better as he encourages the female lead to dump him. (Strangely, no one ever asks, “What did you ever see in someone like that to begin with?”) Brie’s therapist (Ginger Lynn Allen) thinks Brie should consider ending the engagement. Meanwhile, Brie’s friends Alexa (Brooke Morris) and Nia (Nina Lanee Kent) want her to stay engaged at least long enough for them to throw her a bachelorette party at a remote cabin in the woods. You know who else loves parties in remote cabins in the woods? Homicidal maniacs!

Slashlorette Party is about more than just people being murdered in the woods. Absolutely no one in the film seems to believe that Brie should marry Dolph. Dolph is such a jerk that even when Brie disappears in the woods, he responds by sitting around and drinking a beer. Brie can barely stand Dolph, but she feels that she’s obligated to marry him because he asked and that otherwise she’ll run the risk of being forever single. Meanwhile, Dolph and his friends spend their time talking about how easy they believe women have it compared to men. In their worldview, all women are teases and all men are victims. (Ironically, the dumbest and most outspoken of the men actually does end up getting teased by one of the women shortly before getting his hand cut off by someone who is even more misogynistic than he is. His prediction of being both teased and victimized comes true, even if he’s too stupid to appreciate it.) When the deaths occur, they feel like a commentary on incel self-pity. Brie and her friends are targeted because of the male gaze. The men fall victim because they’re too hopelessly whiny and beta to defend themselves.

Slashlorette Party is a low-budget indie horror film. At first I didn’t have much hope for it. It seemed like just another movie that would feature a lot of bad acting and maybe some semi-decent gore. For the first half, the pace does feel off, and I spent a lot of time wondering if anyone was actually going to die. In the second half, though, things pick up. There are a few memorably bloody deaths. There are a few interesting twists. It becomes obvious that the film is meant to be more than a typical wilderness slasher. There’s some bite to the dialogue. There’s a funny joke about a male stripper who shows up as a policeman and finds himself stumbling onto a real crime scene. When the film started, I thought Dolph was too much of a lout to be believed, but the movie has a few surprises up its sleeve when it comes to his character. It ends with a final twist you will either love or hate. I always appreciate a film that’s willing to risk being hated.

I’ve been to enough bachelorette parties that I could relate. It isn’t really a bachelorette party until at least one person has said something they shouldn’t have and the bride-to-be is locked in the bathroom having a panic attack. If nothing else, this film captures the feeling of a bunch of people realizing their friend is about to make the biggest mistake of her life and deciding to throw a party to celebrate.

SOV Horror: Psycho Scarecrow (dir by Steve Galler)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In an alley in the middle of a big city, a junkie puts a human-sized mirror on the ground so that he can snort one tiny line of cocaine. Suddenly a disturbing image is reflected in the glass: a young woman (Tracy Rankin) plunges to the ground and crashes straight into the mirror. The mirror is shattered. So is the woman. The cocaine? Presumably it’s scattered to the wind. There’s probably a lesson for us all there.

So starts Psycho Scarecrow, a surprisingly enjoyable shot-on-video horror film from 1996.

The woman is named Sheila Murphy. When two detectives (Tim Vince and Joe Parro) arrive at Sheila’s apartment, they debate whether she committed suicide or was thrown to her death. The veteran detective thinks it is a clear case of suicide. It’s late, and he just wants to wrap up the investigation and go home. The younger detective, however, insists that they listen to the message Sheila tape-recorded before her death.

The rest of the film switches back and forth between the past and the present. Sheila’s final message tells the story of how she and her friends decided to go camping for the weekend and, after their car broke down, ended up spending the night in a cornfield. When one of the friends was accidentally killed, they decided to cover up the death by dressing him up as a scarecrow and leaving him in the field. Unfortunately, the field was cursed. Soon Sheila and her friends found themselves being stalked by a heavy-set scarecrow that had a pumpkin for a face. He also rides a motorcycle.

Psycho Scarecrow took me by surprise. This is a low-budget, shot-on-video horror film that actually features clever dialogue, a lot of atmosphere, and a villain who should be silly but is actually pretty creepy. Psycho Scarecrow pokes fun at the conventions of the horror genre while also showing that it understands how to use those conventions to tell an effectively spooky story. It plays out like a story you might hear while sitting around a campfire, or maybe in your living room when a storm is raging outside and the electricity is out. (Sheila’s taped narration definitely helps as far as that’s concerned.) It’s a story that will occasionally make you roll your eyes or even laugh, but it’s still told effectively enough that you’ll look over your shoulder before walking off on your own.

What makes this film so effective is that the filmmakers obviously understood the limitations of the shot-on-video (SOV) genre and, instead of being imprisoned by those limitations, used them to their advantage. The majority of the film is shot at night. Actually shooting at night is a dangerous thing. I’ve seen so many SOV films where the night scenes were so dark that you couldn’t even see what was happening on screen. (There’s a reason Hollywood developed the day-for-night shot.) In Psycho Scarecrow, the night scenes are dark but still lit enough that you can actually see who is in the scene. The background darkness becomes a character of its own. Characters emerge from and disappear into the darkness, and we’re always aware that there could be anything hiding in the shadows.

I assume the cast was made up of amateur and local actors, but everyone does a good job of bringing their characters to life. Even the scenes with the two detectives don’t slow down the action, and it’s hard not to smile at how the veteran detective refuses to accept that Sheila was murdered despite all of the evidence his partner easily uncovers.

Ultimately, what makes the film work is its rural atmosphere, which is both intriguing and ominous at the same time. Watching the film, I was reminded of the times I’ve spent in the country. I remembered walking through fields of high grass in shorts and a T-shirt and freezing in place because I heard what sounded like a snake slithering nearby. I remembered stopping to use my inhaler and trying not to think about how easy it would be for someone or something to hide behind the round bales of hay that decorated the landscape. I remembered the feeling that anything could be out there. It was scary and exciting at the same time.

Psycho Scarecrow is an enjoyably creepy SOV production. It’s the type of film that deserves to be rediscovered this Halloween.

The TSL Horror Grindhouse: Amityville A.I. (dir by Matt Jaissle)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Let’s give some credit to the Amityville franchise. It simply does not stop.

In November 1974, 23-year-old Ronald DeFeo Jr., a heroin user, murdered his entire family in their home at 112 Ocean Avenue in Amityville, New York. After realizing no one was going to buy his original claim that the Mafia killed everyone but left him alive, he eventually said a demon had possessed him. Some people believed that story because some people will believe anything that involves demonic possession.

A family called the Lutzes moved into the Amityville murder house, lasted a few weeks, then fled and claimed they’d been haunted by the same demons that drove DeFeo to kill. It was a stupid story, but it fed the 1970s obsession with the apocalypse and demonic possession. That was the decade of The Exorcist and The Omen. A “non-fiction” novel was published and became a bestseller. In 1979 a movie was made and became a hit. In the years since, there have been dozens upon dozens of films with “Amityville” in the title. Some are actual Amityville films. Most are generic low-budget horror that just borrowed the name. What they all have in common is the claim that DeFeo was possessed by Satan and that the Lutzes weren’t lying about the house being haunted. If there really is an Amityville Demon, it’s probably furious by now. These films do not make it look good.

In 2024’s Amityville A.I., Stuart Birdsall (William Childress) is the latest person to move into a house in the Amityville area. (It doesn’t appear to be the original house, though a few shots suggest they share the same attic windows.) Stuart is developing an A.I. and he’s convinced he’ll get the work done in the new place. Unfortunately the house is possessed, and soon so is his program. Even worse, the demon starts possessing the other electronic devices in the neighborhood. Stuart’s neighbor owns a sex doll that is soon running around saying, “Do you want to have sex?” while flashing a knife.

Amityville A.I. mixes demonic possession with the current moral panic around artificial intelligence and data centers. To be honest, Stuart’s A.I. doesn’t seem particularly practical. Its name is VIC 3000 and it is clearly riffing on HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Setting Vic up means lugging around a lot of bulky equipment. There are several scenes of Stuart staring at diagrams on his laptop, and it’s never quite clear what any of it has to do with VIC or why anyone would pick VIC over the other A.I. options out there. Perhaps that’s why the demon starts messing with him. Hubris, not artificial intelligence, will be the downfall of .… well, it feels a bit too dramatic to say humanity. How about Amityville? Hubris will be the downfall of Amityville.

That said, I actually enjoyed Amityville A.I. It’s a low-budget movie that looks like a low-budget movie, but it commits to the bit. The sight of Stuart being chased by a psychotic, smiling sex doll belongs in the Amityville Hall of Fame. Whether it’s the demon, the A.I., or just his own twisted mind, Stuart is put through the wringer, and the film does tap the fear a lot of people have right now: that A.I. is both convenient and destined to destroy us.

If the first Amityville film’s message was that you should just leave the house, this one suggests you should consider disconnecting. Good luck with that.

Previous TSL Amityville Reviews:

Steel (1997, directed by Kenneth Johnson)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Jedadiah Leland

John Henry Irons (Shaquille O’Neal) is one of the Army’s top weapons designers but, after a malfunction at a demonstration leads to the death of a senator and the crippling of Irons’s closest friend, Sparky (Annabeth Gish), Irons resigns and goes to work at a steel mill. Irons wants nothing more to do with violence and destruction, but then he discovers that a former colleague, Nathaniel Burke (Judd Nelson), has set himself up as an arms dealer and is selling Irons’s weapons to the local street gangs. With the help of Sparky and his Uncle Joe (Richard Roundtree), Irons descends into the local junkyard and returns with a clanky suit of armor and an electromagnetic hammer.

“Hammer time!” Irons announces.

“I love the shaft!” Uncle Joe says.

Now known as Steel, Irons sets out to save Los Angeles from Judd Nelson.

Steel is a good example of what comic-book movies used to be like. In DC Comics, John Henry Irons was a steelworker who became a hero when it appeared that Superman had been killed by Doomsday. He wore a cape in honor of Superman and fought to keep Superman’s ideals alive. In the movie version, Steel is a former weapons designer who doesn’t wear a cape and looks really silly in his clunky suit of armor. The special effects are noticeably cheap and the villain’s plan is simplistic. Burke wants to sell weapons and, coincidentally, he does it in the same neighborhood his former coworker moved to. Watching the movie, I had to keep reminding myself that this was actually released in theaters. (I saw it in a theater!) The whole thing has a made-for-TV feel.

Of the cast, Richard Roundtree gives the best performance and appears to be having a good time as Uncle Joe. Judd Nelson is hammy as the villain, but that’s the way the role was written, and at least Nelson didn’t try to pretend Steel was something it wasn’t. Shaquille seems to be trying really hard as Irons. Shaq has never been a great actor, but he’s got enough natural likability to carry him through. Unfortunately, he looks ridiculous in the armor. In a comic book, donning a costume is what transforms an average person into a superhero. But Shaq is already 7’1″, so the costume doesn’t even feel necessary. Just give him the hammer and let him call himself Thor.

Released at the same time as Batman & Robin, Steel was a box-office bomb and contributed to the general feeling that, unless a film featured Batman or Superman, the public didn’t care about comic-book movies. Three years after Steel came and went, the first X-Men film would prove the doubters wrong.

Legion (1998, directed by John Hess)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Jedadiah Leland

The year is 2036 and the world is at war. Col. Flemming (Troy Donahue) assigns his protégé, Major Agatha Doyle (Terry Farrell), to infiltrate a facility with a group of specially selected soldiers. All of the soldiers were previously on death row and will be given a full pardon if they complete their mission. Siegal (Corey Feldman) is the neurotic hacker who was convicted of desertion. Cutter (Trevor Goddard) is a straight-up psycho. Ryan (Rick Springfield) wishes he had Jessie’s Girl… no wait, he’s a demolitions expert. Sorry, my mistake. Dr. Jones (Audie England) is a doctor who is also a religious fanatic. Koosman (Richmond Arquette) is probably on death row for having an embarrassing name. Captain Aldrich (Parker Stevenson) is the most competent officer on death row and also the only one of the soldiers who isn’t a complete lunatic. Poe (Elston Ridgle) is the soldier who initially gets blamed when members of the team start dying inside the facility. It’s actually not Poe’s fault. There’s something in the facility and it’s not human.

Though the movie starts out as a rip-off of Aliens, with its collection of cocky soldiers coming up against an enemy that’s greater than all of them, it soon settles into being an Alien rip-off, with plenty of scenes of people being stalked while walking down dark, pipe-lined hallways. Not surprisingly, it fails to capture both the kinetic energy of Aliens and the heart-pounding suspense of Alien. The entire film feels very familiar, and the decision not to show the monster until the final few minutes feels cheap.

The cast is probably the most interesting thing about the movie, with Audie England, Rick Springfield, and Trevor Goddard actually committing to their roles. Parker Stevenson looks embarrassed, and Terry Farrell is one of the least convincing military officers that I’ve ever seen. (Her dialogue largely consists of shouting “MOVE!” whenever one of the convicts tries to get out of being sent to their death.) Corey Feldman overacts as Siegal, making him so nervous that you wonder why he was selected for the mission.

Legion steals the plots of Alien and Aliens but not the quality.

Horror Villain of the Day: Pinhead (Hellraiser)

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Arleigh

“Explorers in the further regions of experience. Demons to some. Angels to others.” — Pinhead

Doug Bradley’s Pinhead remains one of horror cinema’s most enduring villains because he does not behave like a conventional monster. He is not a snarling animal, a mute slasher, or a madman driven by simple revenge. Instead, Pinhead arrives with the bearing of an officiant: calm, articulate, composed, and utterly certain of his authority. His voice is measured, his movements deliberate, and even his cruelty is administered with the ceremonial gravity of a sacred rite. That contrast is the essence of the character. Pinhead is demonic, certainly, but he is also refined—a figure who makes damnation sound almost like an invitation to an exclusive, terrible experience.

Bradley’s performance gives Pinhead a distinctly British quality of restraint and formality. His diction is elegant, his tone often dry or even faintly courteous, and he approaches his victims with the manners of a gentleman receiving guests. Yet this refinement does not soften him; it makes him more disturbing. Pinhead’s civility is separated from human empathy. When he speaks of pain and pleasure, he does not sound lustful in an ordinary sense, nor does he appear personally enraged. He speaks as someone explaining the rules of a world beyond ordinary morality, where sensation has become the only remaining truth. The politeness becomes a mask not for kindness, but for a cold and absolute spiritual corruption.

In that sense, Pinhead almost feels like an amalgamation of British refinement transformed into an avatar of excess—of emotion, sensation, obsession, and infernal desire. His leather-and-flesh regalia evokes bondage, ritual, military uniform, and religious vestment all at once, while the geometric precision of the pins in his head makes him look less like a chaotic demon than a meticulously designed icon. He represents a kind of order within depravity. The Cenobites are not merely monsters who enjoy hurting people; they are explorers of sensation who have traveled so far beyond human limits that pleasure and agony have become inseparable. Pinhead embodies their philosophy with an eerie dignity: damnation is not random violence, but transcendence through unbearable experience.

That philosophical quality separates Pinhead from many horror antagonists. He is frightening not simply because he can kill, but because he challenges the victim’s understanding of desire and consequence. The puzzle box does not just summon a predator; it opens a door for those willing—or foolish enough—to seek forbidden experience. Pinhead’s most memorable lines carry this sense of judicial finality. He is not usually chasing people through hallways; he is passing sentence on those who have crossed a threshold they cannot fully comprehend. Even when later entries in the series pushed him closer to a more familiar slasher role, Bradley’s portrayal retained the character’s most compelling feature: the feeling that Pinhead is not merely evil, but the representative of an alien moral order.

This is why Pinhead became such an iconic horror villain. Doug Bradley turned a visually extreme creature into a character of intelligence, poise, and dreadful charisma. The design is unforgettable, but the performance is what gives it permanence: the soft, resonant voice; the ritualistic stillness; the sense that every word has been chosen with precision. Pinhead is terrifying because he makes hell seem cultured, disciplined, and seductive. He offers not mindless destruction, but an abyss dressed in ceremony—an infernal gentleman who promises wonders, suffering, and revelation in the same breath.

Villain of the Day

Brad reviews WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU (1980), directed by Tsui Hark!

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Bradley Crain

WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU (1980) is the story of Agent 999 (Norman Chu), an agent of the Central Surveillance Agency, who comes to a remote island to catch the notorious criminal, Rolex (Melvin Wong). Once he gets there, he discovers that the island is overrun by crazed cannibals and is ruled over with an iron fist by a power mad Chief (Eddy Ko). Chief hoards the human meat of unsuspecting travelers who happen upon the island for himself and his soldiers, leaving the villagers to starve. As Agent 999 continues his investigation and tries to avoid becoming lunch, he finds out that the repentant criminal Rolex has become the Chief’s aid in order to expose the evils of the island to the authorities on the mainland without having to go back to jail himself. When Rolex’s plans don’t work out, Agent 999 must then team up with a goofy thief (Hon Kwok-Choi) to fight off the cannibals, save his newfound love (Michelle Kim), and get the hell off of the island in one piece!

The second film to be directed by Hong Kong icon Tsui Hark, WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU is a wild hybrid film that leans heavily into horror, comedy and martial arts. It’s an odd mix that contains jarring shifts in tone, a staple of Hong Kong Cinema of the 80’s. One minute we’re watching men have their arms cut off and their guts ripped out, only to immediately shift to slapstick rape humor, before shifting to badass martial arts / roller skating kung fu action choreographed by a young Corey Yuen. Completely unpolished in terms of production values, it’s acquired somewhat of a cult classic status due to its raw energy, gory subject matter, directorial pedigree, and anti-communist political themes. I thought Norman Chu was good as Agent 999, even if his charismatic agent isn’t always as observant as we’d hope he’d be. Eddy Ko, who is in one of my favorite Hong Kong films, THE MISSION (1999), can be both menacing and goofy as the Chief who will pretty much do anything to preserve his power and supply of meat. The island village puts off its own scary vibes with its creepy slaughterhouse and masked cannibals, always at the ready to hack off a body part. It adds up to a rather unique viewing experience.

While WE’RE GOING TO EAT YOU is certainly not for everyone due to its subject matter, those who appreciate the frenetic action of Hong Kong cinema will enjoy this film. It will also fit the bill for those who like kung fu action mashups served with sides of gory gore and silly giggles. Just don’t expect it to have the polished look of Hark’s later films such as PEKING OPERA BLUES (1986) and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA (1991).

Horror Book Review: The Funhouse by Dean Koontz, writing as Owen West

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1980, Dean Koontz was hired to write a novelization of The Funhouse. At the time, he was not yet a household name. He still regularly worked as an author-for-hire under a string of pseudonyms; for this book, he originally published as Owen West. While Tobe Hooper was in pre-production, Koontz was assigned to turn Larry Block’s screenplay into a fast, accessible novel. He was not particularly impressed by Block’s story, but he liked the idea of writing about a carnival. Production delays meant the novelization reached stores in late 1980, months before the film. It sold well at first. When the movie finally opened in 1981 and did disappointing business, the book’s sales collapsed. Years later, after Koontz had become a bestselling author in his own right, The Funhouse was reissued under his real name.

The first thing that stands out is how little the novel has in common with Hooper’s film. The movie, of which I am a fan, is a fairly straightforward, atmosphere-heavy slasher. Teenager Amy and her three friends hide in the funhouse after the carnival closes, witness a murder, and find themselves hunted by a carny and his son. Those elements are all present in Koontz’s book, but he adds a large amount of backstory, most of it centered on Amy’s alcoholic mother, Ellen.

In the novel, Ellen is the ex-wife of Conrad the carny. A runaway, she married him without realizing he was a Satanist who hoped she would give birth to the Antichrist. When their demonic infant attacked her, Ellen crushed the baby. Conrad swore revenge: he would let her go so he could hunt her down later and destroy whatever family she built. What plays as random bad luck in the film becomes something very different here. Over the years, Conrad and his second son, the deformed Gunther, take their carnival from town to town in search of Ellen and her new family. The other carnival workers are drawn as sympathetic figures, people on the margins who have formed a family of their own and have no idea how depraved Conrad and Gunther really are.

Family is the novel’s real subject. Ellen has remarried and has two children, Amy and Joey. In the film, Amy is a typically naïve final girl, and Joey is an annoying brat who sneaks out to the carnival. Ellen appears only briefly and makes little impression, though she is seen drinking as Amy leaves the house. In the book, Ellen hits Amy when her daughter says she is pregnant, then pays for the abortion because she fears Amy might give birth to the Antichrist. Joey is terrified of Ellen and runs away to the carnival because, like Ellen before him, he wants an escape from a dysfunctional home. The contrast between the carnies’ supportive found family and Amy and Joey’s abusive “respectable” household is easy to spot, but it still works.

Koontz’s eye for detail and his gift for vivid characterization lift The Funhouse above the usual horror novelization. The plot is occasionally stretched thin. Conrad’s revenge scheme never quite makes sense. What if Ellen had stayed unmarried and never had another child? Even so, Koontz keeps the action moving and is smart enough to lean into the melodrama without apology. He even lands a surprisingly moving final scene.

This is a case of a novelization that diverges sharply from its source. I like both Hooper’s film and Koontz’s novel. They are both wonderfully macabre. The film is true to Hooper’s aesthetic. The novel is pure Koontz.