THE MANGLER is further proof that some of the "top" names in horror can make 'em as bad as they come.
This one concerns a possessed laundry press (getting kind of desperate for new ideas, aren't they?) that is turned into a killing machine by a splash of virgin's blood (!) It grinds, smashes and burns workers in a small, grimy New England factory. Robert Englund does some heavy duty hamming as the cruel, greedy owner with white hair, an eye patch and leg braces, who lurches around on crutches, degrades (and has offscreen sex with) his female employees and screams nearly every line of his terrible dialogue.
Even his fans, and fans of Hooper (if he has any left) and Stephen King (whose short story in "Night Shift" this is based upon) will want to steer clear of this dreary, senseless, humorless gorefest with a handful of decent FX. The screenplay (by Hooper and Stephen Brooks) and supporting acting (especially Daniel Matmor as an occult expert) are both terrible.
I've read that this film (produced in 1993) was initially targeted for a wide theatrical release, but only got a limited one before heading off to video world in 1995. Avoid the sequel, too.
I gave it a 2 out of 10 only because it's slightly better than Part 2.
This one concerns a possessed laundry press (getting kind of desperate for new ideas, aren't they?) that is turned into a killing machine by a splash of virgin's blood (!) It grinds, smashes and burns workers in a small, grimy New England factory. Robert Englund does some heavy duty hamming as the cruel, greedy owner with white hair, an eye patch and leg braces, who lurches around on crutches, degrades (and has offscreen sex with) his female employees and screams nearly every line of his terrible dialogue.
Even his fans, and fans of Hooper (if he has any left) and Stephen King (whose short story in "Night Shift" this is based upon) will want to steer clear of this dreary, senseless, humorless gorefest with a handful of decent FX. The screenplay (by Hooper and Stephen Brooks) and supporting acting (especially Daniel Matmor as an occult expert) are both terrible.
I've read that this film (produced in 1993) was initially targeted for a wide theatrical release, but only got a limited one before heading off to video world in 1995. Avoid the sequel, too.
I gave it a 2 out of 10 only because it's slightly better than Part 2.