Insidious: Out of the Further

Today, while exercising, I finished watching “Insidious: Out of the Further,” which came out theatrically in August but was available for digital download at the beginning of the month. As everyone knows, I am not a fan of this franchise. However, seeing how this is “Halloween Month 2026,” and this film became available for digital download, I thought of checking it out. Will this one win me over or not?

If you find yourself feeling so terrified when someone advises to visit the dentist’s office or you immediately react with disgust when seeing old people legitimately enjoying their afternoon, guess what? Producers James Wan and Jason Blumhouse along with writer-director Jacob Chase have made the film for you to not see or run from if you’re brave enough to spoil your fears.

However, you have only a mild-to-moderate dislike to dentists and old people we see who’ve done their amount to enjoy a somewhat-comfortable retirement, then “Insidious: Out of the Further” might just bore you with the awareness. Besides a few closely suspenseful set pieces, this horror sequel gives another trauma-driven storyline with ugly looking ghosts, ghouls, and demons.

Mel Valentin said in his review, “Either way, Insidious: Out of the Further again centres on a family brought low by generational trauma. Like their predecessors, they’re attempting to escape the clutches of relentlessly tiresome supernatural beings and enjoy what passes for normal lives.” No luck, however, as the beginning starts in 1999 tells of the new protagonist’s childhood: Gemma (Charli Penton), a somewhat-neglected, not really savage child, comes home to find her mother, Ingrid (Laura Gordon), with her head down on the dinner table. However, dinner is not made, leaving the child to make it for herself. When she’s done, she quietly goes upstairs to her room where she can complete the next day’s homework away from her mother’s sight or hearing.

As you can tell, Ingrid isn’t really sleeping, at least not completely. Valentin said, “She’s borderline incomprehensible, looking like someone who spends too much of her waking and dreaming lives with hungry ghosts. It’s meant to be a metaphor for mental illness, but ghosts or potential afflictions aside, it doesn’t end well for Ingrid, who leaves this mortal plane for the next. The same goes for Gemma, who carries her mother’s inexplicable demise with her like an invisible backpack loaded with 50lb weights.”

Looking like she’s copying her mother’s habits, the now adult Gemma (Amelia Eve) continues to live in her childhood home, has a daughter of her own, Maya (Island Austin), and has bad nightmares. However, they’re not nightmares. Valentin said, “When Gemma nods off, she enters the Further, the purgatorial realm where the aforementioned evil spirits spend eternity, presumably waiting for wayward souls to torture or finding a way back onto the mortal plane.”

Even though the nightmares are getting worse, Gemma flat out refuses to get any sort of therapy. She mainly depends on the ethics from her longtime boyfriend, Nick, played by Brandon Perea, the town’s only police officer. She has a full-time job as a dental hygienist at Second Smile’s downtown office. Valentin said, “It’s there that Gemma encounters one of her new neighbours, a decrepit old man with a gnarly mole under his nose and a rotting set of chompers. Even for the strong-of-stomach Gemma, just looking into his bacteria- and plaque-filled mouth sends her into shock.” After that, she slips, falls, and hits her head, which takes her into the Further.

After finding out that she’s apparently a “Traveler” who can move between the real world and the Further on demand, Gemma finds out she’s something very rare: a “Courier” who can bring objects to and from the Further. This rare ability brings Gemma to Cyrus, played by Sam Spruell, a Further-living cult leader wanting to bring himself and his followers back into the world of the living where they’ll cause havoc and chaos.

Valentin said, “Another routine, by-the-numbers entry in the Insidious franchise (the sixth overall), Out of the Further rarely strays from its comfort zone in. The already mentioned dental visit gone horribly wrong stands out, in large part for its rarity, as does Gemma’s encounter with a pillow fort that’s significantly larger on the inside than it is on the outside. The latter’s welcome dip into liminal horror, however, doesn’t last.” Before long, we’re back on well-firmed territory, with Gemma, helped by a telepathic, Claire, played by Maisie Richardson-Sellers), in the “real” world. Series veteran Elise Rainier, reprised by Lin Shaye, also shows up in the Further, improving a plan spontaneously to stop Cyrus and his crew.

Valentin ending his review by saying, “Unfolding in lugubrious, deliberately under-lit scenes typical of the genre — and this supernatural series in particular — audience members will be fighting two distinct battles as Insidious: Out of the Further heads into its homestretch: Trying to keep alert and suppressing the increasingly unavoidable desire to check the time and find out how close they are to the exits.”

As you can guess, I didn’t like this film at all. This is probably the worst in the franchise. I don’t understand why they want to keep making sequels to this franchise when it just falls the same formula. Someone has some traumatizing past; they find out they are connected to the Further and must save themselves and their loved ones from the dangers that would happen that may either trap them or set some spirits free. This is starting to get old and honestly, they need to stop with the sequels. Just end the series and never make another sequel. Avoid this one because I don’t think this one will be loved, and if it does, I don’t see how. Only one or two parts made me jump, but other than that, I wasn’t scared.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Halloween Month 2026.”

Scream 7

Mel Valentin started his review by saying,

After several, media-fed controversies, the abrupt departures of Scream and Scream VI co-stars Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera, and three directors, the studio behind the Scream franchise settled on original series writer Kevin Williamson to co-write the screenplay and direct the latest entry, Scream 7.

It was — and is — a decision that felt slightly desperate and very risk-averse to protect the franchise’s viability. Bringing back original star Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott, murder magnet and Ghostface’s number one target, only buttressed the calculated decision by the Powers-That-Be to return the series to what it once did better than any of its competitors or imitators: Deliver meta-horror humor, taut, mystery-thriller plotting, and gorily inventive, ultra-gnarly kills.

Scream 7 certainly succeeds in delivering one element of the meta-slasher formula: inventively gory kills. The Ghostface killer isn’t a single individual, alive, dead, or supernatural, but a rotating carousel of murderous psychos, thrill-killers, and obsessive slasher fans. Each one hopes to join their long-gone predecessors in the iconic mask and flowing robes, and wield the ultra-sharp, carved knife.

If anything, the series has somehow failed to take the “many killers” story to its logical end. Valentin commented, “Rather than have just two (or more) killers per entry, Scream could go all out and turn Ghostface into a death cult, sending waves of masked killers at the protagonists and end the series in a literal, figurative, and metaphysical conflagration before rebooting it.”

Valentin continued, “Not surprisingly, Scream 7 give audiences a “burn-it-all-down” conflagration in the opening moments. Taking a broad, unsubtle knife stroke at obsessive meta-slasher fans, the seventh entry immediately introduces the audience to a Scream -themed AirBnB rental in Woodsboro, California.” As a completely obsessed couple (Jimmy Tatro and Michelle Randolph) enter into the house from the first film, Ghostface shows up, as guessed, knife in hand, murdering both of them after a few minutes of their introduction.

That’s how the series has always started, right? Valentin noted, “Most of the characters in the Scream franchise fall into two distinct categories: 1) fodder for Ghostface to stab, slice, and dice into piles of meat and viscera, and 2) suspects.” Only Sidney Prescott-Evans, Tatum (Isabel May), Sidney’s daughter, Mark (Joel McHale), Sidney’s husband and Pine Grove, Indiana’s police chief, series veteran Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), and sister-brother duo Mindy (Jasmin Savoy-Brown) and Chad Meeks-Martin (Mason Gooding), Gale’s interns – all who are not on the “suspect” list.

Everyone else who appears in the film either are victims or suspect. Those characters include Sidney’s overly considerate neighbors, Jessica (Anna Camp) and her slasher fan son, Lucas (Asa Germann), friends and/or irrelevant people, Hannah Thurman (McKenna Grace), Chloe Parker (Celeste O’Connor), Ben Brown (Sam Rechner), and Marco (Ethan Embry), an employee at a mental asylum. Any one of them could be the killer until Ghostface abruptly murders them from the film.

This is the same as it always has been for the franchise, and that’s the main problem with “Scream 7,” released theatrically in February. Valentin noted, “It’s run out of juice; it’s woefully short on ideas, meta-slasher-related or otherwise; and it’s creatively bankrupt.” Nothing, not even the return of Neve Campbell, missed by the fans in the last film, or series originator Kevin Williamson, strangely proving himself a better director than screenwriter this time around, could save a series that should have ended or given the proper restart.

Sure, some of the murders deserved to be mentioned. One involves Sidney and Tatum hiding behind a hollow wall as Ghostface tracks them down throughout their home. Another one involves Tatum’s friends, played by Grace and Cyle Winters, being murdered, with Grace being brutally stabbed while suspended in a harness. Valentin said, “Outside of those two set pieces, though, the remainder feel utterly perfunctory, negligible twists on familiar slasher tropes, forgettable moments after the latest Ghostface victim bleeds out from copious knife wounds.”

Valentin continued, “Story-wise, Scream 7 makes a stab (sorry, not sorry) at contemporary relevance through an AI/deepfake-related plot point, but even that feels less like an essential narrative element and more a sign of franchise-related necrophilia. It resurrects long-dead characters (and their respective actors) for a nostalgic hit of dopamine.” With so much nostalgia, sadly, the effects begin to wear off. With “Scream 7,” that’s long before the credits in the too long, too kind recap.

As everyone might have guessed, I am not a fan of this latest installment of the “Scream” franchise. Every single one of the sequels have been terrible, with this one possibly being the worst. Why do they keep making these terrible sequels? Because the franchise is making so much money that they feel to keep making the sequels? Why don’t you just end the franchise already? Each one is getting negatively received, so why bother? Because the fans are loving it? For how long though? I think they are planning to make another sequel, but when will they end the franchise? How much longer are they going to keep making sequels until they run this franchise to the ground? I didn’t see this in the theaters, but waited for it to be released on Paramount+ so I could watch it while exercising. Just avoid this one because you will not love it. If you do, then I won’t question you.

Next week, I will be ending “Halloween Month 2026” with another latest sequel that was released this year that is terrible. Sorry for the last posting. I went out to see the new “Street Fighter” movie, then had to go pick up my mom who was seeing my aunt in the hospital. Review on the new “Street Fighter” to come tomorrow, as I am tired right now.

Evil Dead Burn

Today while exercising, I finished watching “Evil Dead Burn” on HBO Max. The film came out in July, but came out on HBO Max two weeks ago. After liking the last one, I decided to watch this, seeing how this is the right month to be watching. How is this new sequel? Is it better or worse?

An ancient demonic curse is put on a family, the first victim being the son, George. When his widow, Alice, joins her in-laws for Will’s funeral at their isolated home, the family members, one by one, turn into Deadites. Will she survive the damage?

The familiar territory of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, or the Book of the Dead, and the cursed pages that release Kandarian spirits turn with relentless gore in director Sebastien Vanicek’s film. Joseph, played by Hunter Doohan, a writer trying to make a book, unknowingly opens his grandfather’s copy of the Book of the Dead, freeing the demons.

The pre-credits scene makes the mood with a demonic being (Greta van den Brink) rising from a lake and hooking two men (Keanu Karim and Victory Ndukwe) with tackle, line, and fishing hooks. The story then goes to Will (George Pullar), an abusive husband who speeds off after a heated argument with his French wife, Alice (Souheila Yacoub), at a bar. He becomes the next victim of the Deadite, also connecting to his grandfather’s journey for a Kandarian dagger that the Deadites want and can destroy them. As he family fathers to mourn him at their isolated home, the damage begins.

Dhaval Roy said in her review, “Vanicek and co-writer Florent Bernard deliver a splatter horror that is as mean, cruel, and frenzied as one would expect from the franchise. If the previous instalment, Evil Dead Rise, got the bloodfest right, this chapter goes a step further. The gore and brutality are relentless and splendidly staged in a macabre way. There are demonic elements, but only a few traditional supernatural jump scares. Instead, the film relies more on sudden attacks, mutilation, bodily horror, and the sheer shock of violence to make you gasp and turn away.”

Roy continued, “Philip Lozano’s cinematography stands out not only for capturing the carnage but also for framing the desolate house and bleak landscape. The practical effects are masterfully done, adding a nauseating realism to the blood-soaked set pieces.” While most of the scenes are disgusting, a handful are actually terrifying, especially the possessed father, Edgar, played by Erroll Shand, repeatedly shooting himself in the face.

Roy said, “The tension remains constantly escalated, if not through horror, then through the family’s equation.” Will’s parents blame Alice for his death, while his mother, Susan, played by Tandi Wright, is a tired woman who has sacrificed so much for the family. The movie also gets a few depressingly funny moments through the grandmother, Polly, played by Maude Davey, who suffers from dementia. At a little under two hours, the film moves at a fast pace, though it weakens during Alice’s final act.

Roy credited, “Souheila Yacoub is brilliant as the resilient Alice, not only for facing the Deadites but also for the hatred that comes her way and stoically hiding that Will was, in fact, an abusive husband.” Tandi Wright is outstanding as Susan, a mother strongly devoted to family values. Erroll Shand is really scary as the angry father and violent Deadite. Maude Davey, Hunter Doohan, George Pullar, and Luciane Buchanan give good support.

Roy ended her review by saying, “While Evil Dead Burn is visceral and gets the gonzo gore perfectly, it will appeal only to those who like splatter horror. Those who get squeamish at the sight of innards and flesh are better off skipping this one.”

I will admit that I didn’t like the way the film started. I didn’t understand what was the point of the opening, but after the Deadites showed up in the family, it started going from there. This was legitimately scary and I think everyone will like it starting at that part. Check it out on HBO Max if you have been a fan of this franchise. There are some very gory and bloody moments in here, when you see everyone in the family getting possessed, but that’s what this franchise is all about. Also, make sure to check out the mid-credits and post-credits scene with Coco White and Alyssa Sutherland. I wonder if they’re going to make another sequel, which I will be looking forward to.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Halloween Month 2026.”

From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter

In the “From Dusk Till Dawn” trilogy, everything leads to the bar that was famous for the climactic fight with vampires in the first movie. Unfortunately, it has been very uneven. The first was memorable, the second is stuck in the middle of a desert, and the third, “From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter,” released in 1999, is a rocky but passable path that will leave some pains but that’s preferable to the death trap that is the middle stretch. Martin Liebman said in his review, “For those not keeping score at home, the first film in the series may be considered a borderline classic of the macabre, a movie that's brilliantly split between exemplary exposition and character development and human-versus-vampire ultra-violence within the confines of a seedy border town bordello. The sequel, well, just forget that it even exists. As for the third entry, it's not a particularly good movie when taken at face value. It's a total loser next to the original From Dusk Till Dawn, and it's an Oscar contender compared to Texas Blood Money. The truth is that it falls somewhere around that "not particularly good" observation. It has its moments -- as few and far between as they may be -- but it also has its fair share of problems, making it best enjoyed by series completists and fans of relatively bad and pointless moviemaking.”

Following the termination of conflicts of the American Civil War, noted author Ambrose Bierce, played by Michael Parks, disappeared into Mexico with the intention of joining Pancho Villa’s revolutionary forces. He was never heard from again, and this is his story. Somewhat. An outlaw named Johnny Madrid (Marco Leonardi) has been sentenced to the guillotine, but he’s freed in a dangerous rescue of someone who wants to be a member of his gang, the young and cheerful but naïve Reece (Jordana Spiro). Madrid escapes with the hangman’s daughter Esmerelda, played by Ara Celi, in haul and learns from Reece of Bierce’s efforts to join Pancho Villa and the possibility that he may be transporting something of great value. Bierce’s stagecoach – also carrying newlywed crusaders John and Mary Newlie, played by Lennie Loftin and Rebecca Gayheart – is a hit in a well-planned attack. Liebman said, “Ultimately, all roads for all involved lead to a dilapidated and seedy establishment called La Tetilla del Diablo where a night of rest, relaxation, and sin promises to turn into an infernal nightmare the likes of which few have ever seen -- let alone survived -- before.”

“From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter,” is a nicely stylish film, but that style fades away after some time. Liebman said, “Not only does the overly red, sunbaked texture suck all of the life out of the movie, but the filmmakers seem intent on copying the Robert Rodriguez style that helped make the first film such a success. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but sadly, neither imitation nor flattery do much of anything to elevate this movie beyond the level of pond scum. Making matters worse, the picture operates on what is obviously a shoestring budget. The production values are close to zero, the acting isn't much better, and the script is an exercise in tedium.  It's the very definition of a movie that just tries too darn hard. Attempting to keep in the same style as the superior original -- which includes a deadly long and incredibly dull opening two-thirds stretch before getting to the "good stuff" -- is ultimately this film's downfall.” There’s a better movie here to be sure, one that might have enjoyed a little more success had it been allowed to work on its own time rather than follow to the impossibly high standard and structure made by the first film.

Yes, “From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter” takes so long to move along that the movie may be called dead before it really finds its step. That’s not to blame the story, it’s fine, bur rather the film’s firmness on mocking the structure of the original. Liebman said, “Sadly, where From Dusk Till Dawn worked, this movie simply fails to sustain its dialogue- and character-intensive first half-plus because its script, actors, and characters are significantly weaker. By the time everything and everyone are in place for the vampire "reveal" -- which in this movie comes as no surprise considering it's following the exact same basic structure as its predecessors -- fatigue has long since set in and the action becomes a string of hopelessly meaningless drivel that's made of decent makeup, bad special effects, and a general lethargy that's thanks in large part to the "been there, done that" sense of déjà vu.” Fortunately, the action is loud and the gore so abundant that it will at least shock audiences back into the movie for a time, but there’s only so many ways a film can show stakes through the heart, vampire transformations, melting bodies, and the like, and only so many times audiences can watch it play out before growing tired of the same stuff.

“From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter” is a really slow movie, pointless, and not very good at copying the style of the original. Liebman said, “It's vastly superior to Texas Blood Money, but then again so is weeks-old and well-soiled kitty litter. From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter has a decent story to tell but is absent the technical ability to transition it into a good film. That's a shame, really, but at least there's always the original, a superior picture in every regard that refuses to have its good name tarnished by its deadbeat, leeching sequels.” Skip it.

Like I already mentioned, this movie is just another attempt at cashing in on the original. By making it a prequel doesn’t mean that it will be good, seeing how it is another direct-to-video film, which a majority of the times, spells disaster. I don’t know why I decided to watch this on Paramount+ when I hated the second one. Maybe I am just one of those glutton for punishment by enduring all the garbage that is made out there. Just don’t watch this film because it is one of the biggest mistakes they had ever made. Why make sequels to “From Dusk Till Dawn” when that film didn’t even leave a hint that there would be a sequel? Especially with making this about the Salma Hayek character from the original? Just forget about it.

Next week, I will be looking at one of the recent horror films that came out earlier this year in “Halloween Month 2026.”

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money

Let’s face it, someone took a terrible movie about vampire bank robbers and turned it in to a sequel to “From Dusk Till Dawn.” Except it’s nowhere near being a sequel. Even with an appearance from Danny Trejo as the vampire bartender Razor Eddie from the first film, this is a terrible vampire movie someone decided to make in to a sequel. Felix Vasquez said in his review, “It’s a goofy, campy, and ridiculous vampire movie filled with horrible performances, and a ridiculous premise that does nothing to reconcile itself with the first film.” There’s not even a mention of Seth Gecko. At least recast Juliette Lewis’ role as Kate Fuller and follow her along on another vampire journey.

“From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money” is a 1999 sequel only that follows a group of idiots bank robbers, all of whom eventually become vampires before they decide to rob a local bank. Strangely enough the robbery is set during an eclipse, so they’re going to be able to rob the bank and not be killed by police since vampires are invulnerable to bullets. Vasquez said, “What do vampires need with money, one only knows. Perhaps they’ll open up a strip club? After an obligatory fake out opening with Bruce Campbell that promises a wicked vampire gore fest, “Texas Blood Money” lets audiences down by being a horror comedy that’s not at all scary or funny. It also tends to turn its vampires in to comic props, wherein the first film transformed the vampires in to alluring but utterly vicious monsters.”

When one of the bank robbers Luther (Duane Whitaker) on the way to a rendezvous with his men, stops on at a local bar, he’s attacked and killed by Razor Eddie and another vampire (Joe Virzi), becoming one of the vampires. From there, he meets up with his friends and beings turning them in to vampires one by one. Vasquez points out, “This series of events has potential to be very creepy, but becomes absolutely ludicrous.” There’s one scene where Jesus (Raymond Cruz) sleeps with Lupe (Maria Checa) who then gets attacked by Luther in vampire form while she is showering. When Jesus manages to escape getting bitten by Luther and hides in the bathroom, Maria, now a vampire, comes out from the tub of blood as Jesus stands by the door not knowing she is going to bite him.

Vasquez admitted, “It’s a truly spine tingling moment, otherwise hobbled by bad editing, bad writing, and even worse pay off. The movie continues on a gradual vampiric flip on the crew, and they’re always uncovered in odd ways. In one moment a vampire flinches at a bank wheel that resembles a cross; it’s a moment I could never be sure was opting for comedy or attempting to add a twist to the vampire lore. Either way, it’s moronic. Robert Patrick continues his descent back in to the B movie territory as the hero of the picture who tries to outwit and outlast his vampiric buddies, while the writers ride off the rails and lose sight of the actual premise by the final half, giving way to senseless action and badly directed gore. “Texas Blood Money” is a rotten pseudo-follow up to the dynamic first film, and it’s a shame this is considered canon with the Rodriguez film when it almost degrades the first film’s concept.”

As you might have guessed, this is a terrible direct-to-video sequel. That seems to be the case with a majority of the direct-to-video sequels, and this one is no exception. This is just downright terrible and has no redeeming qualities in them. No one in their right mind will ever want to see this. I made the mistake of streaming this on Paramount+ and it was a bad choice. This is streaming on Pluto TV right now, but don’t see it because you will be questioning their decisions and believe no one was thinking when they made this film.

Next week, we will end the trilogy off with the final and other bad direct-to-video sequel in the continuation of “Halloween Month 2026.”

From Dusk Till Dawn

Welcome everyone to this year’s “Halloween Month,” where I will only be reviewing films every Friday this year, once again. To start off this month, I will be looking at the 1996 horror action film, “From Dusk Till Dawn.”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, ““From Dusk Till Dawn” resembles one of those mythological creatures stitched together out of two different species, like a bull with a man’s torso. In this case, we get half of a hostage movie, and half of a vampire gore-fest. The transition is instantaneous. For about an hour, we’ve been following the story of two mad-dog killers and their victims, and then suddenly a stripper in a Mexican bar turns into a vampire, and off we go.”

Genre-hopping like that is the skill of the movie’s writer, Quentin Tarantino, whose work sometimes looks like switching channels. The director, Robert Rodriguez, can only be said to throw himself into the same mindset. This is one of those movies you might like or hate, but you won’t be able to deny its crazy passion.

Actually, a lot of people will hate half of the movie and like the other half. Those who loved Tarantino’s dialog parts in “Pulp Fiction,” will like the first half, especially the great pre-title scene with Michael Parks as a Texas Ranger who creates everything out of a little dialogue. Ebert said, “Those who liked the shoot-outs in Rodriguez’s “El Mariachi” and “Desperado” will like the second half, which is non-stop mayhem in a scuzzy bikers’ and truckers’ strip joint, with lots of vampires, exploding eyeballs, cascading guts, and a weapon made out of a powered wooden stake (I guess you could call it a Pneumatic Vampire Drill).”

Ebert admitted to liking the first half more. After the title part, we get to know the main characters, Seth and Richard Gekko, played by George Clooney and Tarantino. They’ve robbed a bank and left so many dead and wounded (all alerted by a TV news reporter’s digital mayhem readout). Richard has helped Seth break out of prison, and now they’re driving down to the Mexican border with the bank money, and Richard, who is a crazy loon, is shooting everyone he sees, including innocent bystanders.

Staying in a motel on the side of the road, they take hostages: a former Baptist minister (Harvey Keitel) and his children (Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu). Ebert said, “The minister has left the church after the death of his wife, leaving an opening for another of Tarantino’s passages of theological dialog.” Now the minister and his kids are driving south in a mobile home the Gekkos hope to hide in while crossing the border.

The minister is persuaded to cooperate with the criminals. His son thinks he knows better: “Dad – I watch the reality shows!” Ebert said, “The charm of the dialog in these scenes has a lot of competition from the state-of-the-art mayhem, which leaves blood and brains spattered everywhere. Rodriguez doesn’t make it very real, though, wisely handling the death of a harmless bank teller in flashes too quick to be seen, since more detail would sink the macabre mix of violence and humor.”

In Mexico, the mobile home drives up to the shabby club with a strange décor (this goes next to Jack Rabbit Slim’s in the Tarantino Mall). The doorman is played by Cheech Marin, who also plays two other roles, appearing too often he doesn’t need the vampire story to qualify as undead. The kidnappers and their victims go inside to wait a rendezvous for the money, and that’s when the vampire story begins.

Ebert said, “All I can really say about the last 30 minutes of the film is, if you liked “Dawn of the Dead” (1979), you’ll like this. The plot is forgotten as Rodriguez goes for violence and special effects, including people who morph into hideous creatures in the middle of the barroom brawl. There’s also an outbreak of vampirism among the leading characters, in scenes owing something to “Assault on Precinct 13” and “Night of the Living Dead.””

Ebert continued, ““From Dusk Till Dawn” is a skillful meat-and-potatoes action extravaganza with some added neat touches.” George Clooney makes his film debut after “E.R.” and he shows admirable restraint in going along with the insanity without looking overwhelmed by it. The good things in the movie – especially some of the dialog – are so much better than the rest that you wish Rodriguez and Tarantino had tried to win over this material, instead of simply delivering it. This is a professionals work, but these guys can do better.

I think everyone knows about the famous Salma Hayek dance scene in the bar. That is the highlight of the film, and I think everyone will like this film. I saw this on Paramount+, but currently you can watch this on Pluto TV. Check it out because this is a good action film that centers around vampires, which a lot of people are into. You should see this because you will get into it, as Clooney and Tarantino are just great in this role, especially when Keitel and Lewis show up in the film. Marin is also funny in all three of his roles. See it and enjoy.

Surprisingly, this film got two sequels, which were released directly to video. We will look at the first sequel next week in “Halloween Month 2026.”