Review: Mother’s Day Massacre (2007) is a Pissing Sausage Fest
Happy Mother’s Day, everyone! Sorry I’m late to the game, but I had five mother-things to call today and you know how much they like to talk.
But thank you to all the womb providers out there that gave humanity a gooey sac to bump around in until we triumphantly punch, kicked and bit our way out. Like in Twilight – that’s how it ends, right? No spoilers, people.
So, when my internet pooped out on me, I went to my lovely collection of my dvds (I’m a dvd prepper for these situations; you can’t trust Uncle Sam to give you high speed internet at all times) and lo and behold, found a Mother’s Day movie in my “cheap schlock” pile.
Hence, I present: Mother’s Day Massacre.
The Plot:
Your guess is as good as mine.
Jim is on the cusp of manhood, but is constantly emotionally abused by his over-bearing, hyper-macho Texan stereotype of a father. Never knowing his real mother, he does some research and finds clues to where she may be at.
Together with his friends, they find a ghost town and decide to get up to teenage shenanigans, only to find they aren’t alone. Thus begins the rampage and unraveling of so many secrets that were better off buried…
Thoughts:
Yes, I know. Yep. Uh-huh. Looks bad. Real bad.
And I’m not saying that it isn’t…but…I’m saying that they knew the tone walking into it and kept it consistent. They knew it was a short (almost 80 minutes), low-budget redneck-y slaughter-fest and kept it on the same level throughout (although Jim was blankly devoid of any Texan culture or flavor), down to the rockabilly jams and gopher-killing guns.
So, what I’m saying is, don’t judge it too quickly or harshly.
The Good:
The casting was actually really well done. The “kids” had genuine chemistry together that made it feel like they actually liked each other instead of being actors saying lines. Most of the actors have had a lot of acting under their belts and it shows. They knew to chew that scenery because that’s the type of movie this is. This is aragoto style of horror – loud, exaggerated, and rough around the edges. It’s in your face and they (especially Mel Gorham, Joe Coots and Greg Travis) executed this to a ‘T’. There was a good amount of energy to the whole movie and I think a lot of that came from the actors themselves.
Also, that flippin’ kid – Trevor Heins. That kid playing the typically old grizzled gas station attendant who spouts exposition was a cute and funny twist to the trope. As cheesy as it was, I enjoyed it incredibly.
There was also a great scene that came after the initial incident that is rarely seen in movies – the aftermath of surviving something horrific. We see how the remaining characters interact with each other after watching their friends die and how that changes them. Say what you will about the crassness of some of the scenes, but I thought this was a seldom explored little gem of a moment in storytelling and acting. Often at the end of every movie I watch, I rate how flipped they are for the rest of their lives if they survive, and this one actually answers that. It was a clever moment of writing and expression.
Good practical effects. They were scarce and probably cheap, but it was refreshing to see them…The CGI at the end…not so much.
And it had an ending I didn’t expect. It wasn’t a great ending, but it was a weird and wild one. Definitely a different turn (but was set up in a previous scene).
The Bad:
It would have been nice to see Jim as also a Texan, but a nice one? I mean, he lives with his dad in Texas, too, right? He can still be a quiet, calm, and sensitive heterosexual Texan male – I mean, there’s always Austin. But that bugged me a bit…Maybe that was something I didn’t hear or get.
The story was a bit jumbled as stated in the plot category. I think with some more story-boarding, it could have been smoother, but they may have been working with limited time or shoots that prevented more time being put into it. I know, it’s schlock, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be better schlock.
The biggest issue I guess I have is that the story had nothing to do with motherhood, really. It was all about dude-junk power, machismo, and pissing contests. Literally. There was peeing on people and things to establish a form of dominance more than once.
The main villains were males, including the killers (I consider them sub-villains), that sexually abused women. The whole movie is extremely dude-junk-centered. In fact, there is a scene in which one of the killers enters the home of his (male) victims with a raging and enormous…and the other….well, here’s a representation:
And that’s fine, but I think it would have been better as Father’s Day Massacre, especially as Jim’s father plays a huge role in this life and the consequences of this movie. So, if you’re looking for a womanhood-type thing, I would pass this up and watch Aliens, Silent Hill, or, if you want schlock, Jaws 3.
The ending with the police is super-fast, confusing, and weird. I didn’t hate it, but I thought that it could have been edited better (and please get better line reads from that cop, even if it takes all night of slapping him in the face with fish oil).
CGI gun shots…bad.
Brain Roll Juice:
For some reason, our killers are “hillbillies”. I forgot the actual wording of grizzled exposition kid, but that’s the gist. And we all know shorthand for hillbillies in horror movies…
Developmentally and intellectually disabled people.
As great as the actors are, it’s still at the expense of the DD population. It’s a trope, yeah, sure. But it’s one that gets under my skin. This movie is rife with sexual assaults, which is part of the story and movie, but putting someone with DD in the mix when people with DD are seven times higher to be assaulted just…makes it a little less fun.
As Nancy Thaler, a deputy secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Human Services, has stated,
“They are people who often cannot speak or their speech is not well-developed. They are generally taught from childhood up to be compliant, to obey, to go along with people. Because of the intellectual disability, people tend not to believe them, to think that they are not credible or that what they saying, they are making up or imagining.”
People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have been one of the most marginalized groups throughout history, experiencing forced sterilizations via legal action; denial of medical treatment; involuntary medical experimentation; mercy killings; physical and sexual abuses; neglect and homicides. In fact, one study showed that when it came to being murdered, the majority died as a result of neglect. This category included death by medical neglect and starvation. Can you imagine being cared about so little that you die from it?
Screw axes and chainsaws; slowly dying after a life of abuse, while not being able to speak or be believed, because society doesn’t care about you – that’s the real horror movie.
…Also, Latinas are not typically crazy, over-sexed, pot-growing, abusive brujas. Just throwing that out there (again, though, fun and campy performance by Mel Gorham).
Bottom-line:
Rockabilly b-slasher with a Texan drawl. Goofy and gory enough for a movie night or two, but nothing to really knock off them socks or rocks.
(2.7 / 5)
Movies n TV
Anna (2013) To Some, Mindscape to Others, a Thriller Film
Anna (2013), also known as Mindscape, is a psychological thriller of a struggling memory detective named John.
Anna (2013), also known as Mindscape, is a psychological thriller directed by Jorge Dorado. This R-rated directorial debut stars Mark Strong, Taissa Farmiga, Brian Cox, Saskia Reeves, Richard Dillane, and Indira Varma. As of this review, interested viewers can watch this film on VUDU, Hoopla, Plex Channel, Pluto TV, Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Amazon Prime, and more. Anna originally released in 2013, but it released in the US in 2014.
Struggling to return to his work as a memory detective, John (Mark Strong) pursues a new assignment. Anna (Taissa Farmiga) views John as her last chance to prove her innocence before she’s condemned to an asylum. As John searches through her memories, a tale of abuse and manipulation unravels.
What I Like about Anna (2013)
Anna earned three nominations but no award recognition. From the Sitges–Catalonian International Film Festival, it earned a nomination for Best Motion Picture. The Goya Awards recognized Jorge Dorado with the 2014 nomination for Best New Director. Finally, Anna received a nomination from the Gaudí Awards for Best Art Direction.
Taissa Farmiga’s performance balances the line between suspicious and innocent, which is necessary for this unraveling mystery. It’s a delicate role, but Taissa Farmiga brings to life the material given.
No products found.
Anna‘s plot rotates around a new fringe science that’s slowly gaining traction. It’s less a dissection of this science and more a norm that Anna expects viewers to believe. It’s an interesting concept, though not unique. Still, it’s a nice additional dynamic to the mystery.
While not a horrifying film, it does deliver a mystery that keeps viewers engaged with enough hooks to add an extra layer before something gets stale. That mystery does linger in the mind in some respects but doesn’t haunt the viewer.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Despite Anna not depicting these moments, sexual assault remains a recurring element of the film. Little remains conclusive, with some suggestions that these are false allegations. Furthering this point, the film depicts Anna as a manipulator and flirt when some incidents suggest she’s a survivor of assault.
Derogatory language might upset some, but these remain brief moments. The use indicates a particular character’s immaturity, but I’ll raise the point regardless. Furthering this line of analysis is a moment where a bullied character is implied to be gay, but it’s likely just an insult.
While not inherently a trigger, this new field of science earns the claim of being somewhere between forensic science and lie detector tests, a massive gap that anything can fit in. It makes everything subjective when the film wants to claim absolute evidence. I can’t help but wonder what exploring that unreliability might look like, but that’s not this film.
What I Dislike about Anna (2013)
The biggest deal breaker for some is this concept of a teen mastermind. I won’t go into details about the mystery, but I am often fatigued with this idea of a teen femme fatale. While Anna gives enough mystery, it’s an overused trope.
Mark Strong’s performance delivers on the material, but John seems so easily manipulated for someone who does this as a profession. While out of practice, I don’t understand why he believes or doesn’t believe information. If Anna depicts John as overly critical or gullible, the film will have a more consistent character.
I assume there remains an understandable reason for the name change, but Anna appears as a common title for a film, spinning a series of some recognition. Mindscape also earns some recognition and competition, but it’s a more memorable title than a single noun name.
Final Thoughts
Anna provides an interesting concept and mystery, but many shortcomings hinder the execution. Viewers eager for a psychological mystery with a drop of sci-fi, Anna delivers an engaging story. However, the market does provide competition, making it a tough film to recommend. 
(3 / 5)
Movies n TV
Tips on Raising Evil from “The Demon of Parenthood”
The assessors investigate cursed toys in an attack against commerce, but Ben has a finger on the issue in “The Demon of Parenthood.”
“The Demon of Parenthood” is the eighth episode of season 3 of Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate cursed toys in a terrible attack against commerce, but Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has a finger on the potential issue. David (Mike Colter) receives another task from the Entity. Kristen (Katja Herbers) learns more about her missing egg. Leland (Michael Emerson) invites Dr Boggs (Kurt Fuller) to the darker side of spirituality. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) takes her granddaughter to work.
What I Like about “The Demon of Parenthood”
I enjoy the espionage aspect of the Entity, pushing David to questionable grounds as he navigates what’s right against what’s demanded of him. While this plotline doesn’t reach its full potential, this episode highlights one of the more interesting opportunities of this idea. The Entity consistently interferes with the procedural case, possibly covering up abuse to support its objectives. This episode highlights this dynamic to perfection.
Kristen gets pulled in multiple directions, forced to question her trust in David, and faces a unique horror after learning about her missing egg. While I won’t dive deeper into this issue for this review, it’s safe to say this episode belongs to Kristen, and Katja Herbers delivers.
Her unsettling night terrors suggest an intuitive understanding of some of the manipulations around her, highlighting these moments to the viewer by proxy. Beyond these meta moments, the execution of these night terrors remains pleasantly unsettling.
![Evil: Season Three [DVD]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRGYWJYaGtVVFpFYlV3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTc0MDQxODk3OQ=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
![Evil: Season Three [Blu-Ray]](https://hauntedmtl.com/wp-content/plugins/aawp/public/image.php?url=YUhSMGNITTZMeTl0TG0xbFpHbGhMV0Z0WVhwdmJpNWpiMjB2YVcxaFoyVnpMMGt2TlRFdGJuQndVRmhtU1V3dVgxTk1NVFl3WHk1cWNHYz18MTc0MDQxODk3OQ=)
- Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi (Actors)
- Robert King (Director)
- Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Among a constant trail of failures, Leland lingers in the background as he puts pieces together for his master plan. We don’t see the full scope of his vision yet, but the suspense it builds for future episodes earns its place. I’m interested to see how these plots will evolve, even if Leland’s luck seems to turn sour. Perhaps it’s because of this dynamic that the tension works so effectively.
With a shocking moment tied into this episode, “The Demon of Parenthood” creates one of the more haunting episodes. However, the greatest accomplishment in the episode is what it establishes for the future of the series. While not all these points follow through by the end of Evil, it’s still an episode that ripples across the show’s progression.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
Without diving into too many details, spousal abuse and murder occur in the episode. This abuse might indicate a demonic influence, but such points remain speculation.
A severed body part and some gore stand out in this episode. It hardly earns enough attention from fans of gory horror, but the squeamish should tread carefully toward the end.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Parenthood”
Many dropped ideas seem genuinely interesting, building to some potential development that receives little payoff. Missing these opportunities will never feel satisfying. While some changes are understandable, it creates holes in the narrative. For example, Dr. Boggs’ dark seduction slows in pace, becoming implied or withheld from the audience soon after “The Demon of Parenthood.” These experiences often adapt the concept of evil that the show seeks to bring to life.
Sheryl’s compliance with Leland’s plan still seems underdeveloped as a concept, especially with how far she takes it in this episode. While later episodes add a different perspective, I can’t help but feel these are retcons or concepts not thoroughly thought out.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Parenthood” progresses the plot and delivers some genuinely haunting moments. While a retrospective assessment does note many missed opportunities, the episode stands up beyond these missed opportunities. 
(4.5 / 5)
Movies n TV
You’ll Have a Bloody Good Time with this Eternal (2004) Health Tip
When Raymond Pope’s wife disappears, he follows the trail. But each lead points him to the Eternal beauty of Elizabeth Kane.
Eternal (2004) is a horror thriller written and directed by Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This R-rated film stars Caroline Néron, Victoria Sanchez, Conrad Pla, and Ilona Elkin. As of this review, it is available for Amazon Prime members with renting options from Spectrum on Demand.
When Raymond Pope’s (Conrad Pla) wife disappears, he’s swept into the mystery of Elizabeth Kane (Caroline Néron). As his investigation becomes increasingly bizarre, bodies pile up and point to Raymond Pope. Will he clear his name, or will this bloody rampage drown him?
What I Like about Eternal
While all of the performances add to the film, Eternal thrives on the charisma and mystique of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth. She enchants her targets, lowering their defenses until that final moment.
Conrad Pla’s Raymond Pope also requires a delicate approach to succeed. The sleazy and hypocritical detective seems genuinely concerned for his wife (at least initially) and sells that concern. While far from an easy character to root for, the audience understands him and the danger he faces.
There’s a heavy erotic thriller angle that Eternal delivers on. I’ll linger on this point in later sections, but it certainly knows how to build tension within a single scene or between characters. These moments don’t feel forced, and while they often target a male audience, interesting dynamics rise above general exploitative content, if only slightly.
This seems to be a passion project between the creators, Wilhelm Liebenberg and Federico Sanchez. This passion lingers in the moments to deliver something unique, if not without its flaws. The film doesn’t hold back, a point that fluctuates between negative and positive depending on the situation. Regardless, it holds a charm in that commitment that’s hard to replicate without passion behind the scenes.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
The film labels itself as “Inspired by True Events,” which only relates to the general discussion of Elizabeth Báthory. It’s also worth mentioning that, much like Vlad Dracula, her story remains heavily dominated by modern interpretations. I won’t pretend to hold exclusive knowledge of these historical figures, but cultural interpretation reduces realism. The claim means little to nothing.
The predatory queer trope applies to Eternal, with little complexity to challenge the point as the violence often targets women. It’s important to note that Elizabeth acts as a femme fatale in general, but the targets remain clear. However, this film did earn a moment of recognition from the Glitter Awards (a clip was used in 2006), which might suggest the standout performance of Caroline Néron’s Elizabeth earns back some goodwill.
What I Dislike about Eternal
The erotic thriller holds a stigma that Eternal doesn’t challenge. Elizabeth remains a clear femme fatale with a slightly supernatural twist. While the performance executes this character perfectly, viewers likely know if this remains an interest or a tired cliche for themselves.
While most of Raymond’s acts make sense for the character, I hold issue with the end. Without going into too many details, he is asked to do one thing to protect himself and does the opposite for no reason. Perhaps this indicates supernatural influence, but such a claim lingers in headcanon.
The film ends ambiguously, which hardly seems fitting given the evidence and weakens the overall film. A definitive ending, or something moderately more definitive, would strengthen Eternal.
Final Thoughts
Eternal’s major obstacle in executing its erotic thriller is that of tired tropes in the modern era. If one looks past these dated points, there’s a haunting thriller that can meet moments of excellence. The plot falls short in many areas towards the end of the film. Ultimately, if a vampire-esque thriller interests you, Eternal certainly adds its perception to the niche but in a familiar form.
(3.5 / 5)
