Terror Firmer

The 5 Best and Worst Remakes of the Decade

2010-01-09T16:04:00.000-08:00

So, in the last two weeks I have:

Gotten so sick I stayed home from work a couple of days. And...

Broken a toe. So I am just now getting back to my blog. It's been interesting.

We are currently living in the time of endless remakes, not just in the horror genre. It seems that Hollywood is running out of original ideas. Sure, some directors wanted to see their dreams now that special effects and technology has caught up, but mostly I think it's because people are just not coming up with anything themselves. And as it becomes harder to produce original movies, I have a feeling we will be seeing a lot more. But, I have compiled the 5 best and 5 worst horror remakes of the decade for your view (dis)pleasure. So, beginning with the 5 worst:

5. Halloween 2
You know, I didn't mind the first Halloween remake by Rob Zombie. If you could wade through the first few minutes of terrible dialog, the rest of the movie was an interesting, gritty experiment. The second, well, gahhh. I couldn't really get behind it and it felt like Rob was just doing a paycheck movie. Oh well, it could have been worse. It could have been...

4. The Hills Have Eyes 2
If Wes Craven were dead, he would be rolling in his grave. Instead, he's just rolling his eyes and taking his royalty check to the bank. The characters were boring and uninspired, the acting was stilted and awful, and the mutants were dull. It was trying to be like the first, but it failed on being in the realm as the first. I didn't have terribly high hopes considering the source material, but it could have been better.

3. The Eye
Americans need to stop remaking Asian horror flicks. It rarely works out as well as the original. And stop putting Jessica Alba in speaking roles. I mean, she's fine to look at, but (much like Megan Fox) so irritating to listen to I find myself trying to go deaf when she is speaking onscreen. And such a great original movie deserves more.

2. Day of the Dead
I once said this movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. That being said, it was still pretty terrible. The dead are not only fast zombies, but they are also Spider-Man zombies that can climb up walls and leap from 4th story windows and hit the ground running. Nick Cannon starred in it. NICK. CANNON. *throws up into bucket*

1. The Omen
This movie was pretty bad, but the real atrocity is that the original is one of the best horror movies of all time. There were unnecessary dream sequences, quick camera cuts to reveal demons (demons, really?), and one of the worst make up jobs I've ever seen in recent memory. It didn't even attempt to look real. I was appalled by this movie.

And now, for the best:

5. The Amityville Horror
I think this remake was highly underrated. Ryan Reynolds in a more serious role? And it actually worked pretty well? The horror was pretty toned down (aside from the scene in the basement with the torture) and was a good, creepy atmosphere. I was pleasantly surprised by this one.

4. Dawn of the Dead
Yeah, the slick, Zack Snyder-directed remake of Dawn was good. I didn't like the faster zombies at first, but they worked with this version. The characters were well acted and sympathetic and the movie took a little time to set them up, something not enough horror movies do. It was a good mix of violence and story and that's not always easy.

3. The Ring
As I mentioned before, Asian horror movies being remade rarely works out. This, is an exception. I think The Ring is better than the original Ringu and is one of the few movies that actually scared me initially. I loved the look, the acting, and the special effects. Basically, the whole movie worked for me. The well scene is very creepy and I loved the horse scene on the boat. I couldn't look away the entire film.

2. The Hills Have Eyes
Alexandre Aja made his English speaking film debut a bang. This movie, for me, surpasses the original classic (blasphemy, I know). The family is a bunch of people you don't want to see bad things happen to and the mutants are so vile you just want them to die. The revenge Doug seeks on the villains is so very gratifying and graphic, I was almost cheering the first time I watched it. Again, a good balance of gore and story and a gritty, realistic feel to the cinematography lends to a very enjoyable movie. Go see it.

1. Quarantine
After watching [rec], I desperately wanted to see how the American studios could screw a remake of a good film like that up. So, I went to the theater and eagerly awaited disappointment. Well, I got an annoying lead girl, but the disappointment never came. The movie is equal to [rec] (if not a bit better) in my mind. The terror feels real and the suspense is palpable for most of the film. And while the monster at the end isn't as good as [rec], it's still a scary scene nonetheless.

Top 10 Horror Comedies of the Decade

2010-01-06T10:45:00.000-08:00

Continuing my list off for the next few days, I have my top ten Horror Comedies since 2000. I did this list because I was purposely not including the movies on any of my considerations for best horror. I love horror comedies, it's just hard to compare them to straight horror. I enjoy horror comedies too much to not mention them though, so they get their own list. So, with out further ado, the list!

10. Undead
This is kind of a fun, goofy little Australian zombie flick. There are aliens, a guy with a triple shotgun, and a scene in a hardware store that uses all kinds of strange implements for kills. It's pretty light on story, but it's pretty heavy on gore and other things, so in the end, it's a pretty entertaining ride.

9. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Though towards the end of the movie it turns a bit more serious, this faux-documentary produces some good laughs in the beginning. The scene where he talks about all the cardio you have to do as a relentless killer. "There's that whole thing where you look like you're walking, and everyone else is running their asses off!" Pretty damn funny if you think about it.

8. Planet Terror
Yeah, it's not necessarily a comedy per se, but I'll be damned if it took itself seriously. The better half of Grindhouse is downright hilarious at parts and just plain gross for most of the movie. I can't believe more people didn't like it, but I guess some people thought it was actually trying to be serious. Missing the point of Grindhouse, if you ask me.

7. Fido
Another zomedy? This one flew under the radar and clocked in straight to DVD, but it is still quite redeeming. With a great cast and lines like "Help, help! Grandpa's fallen and he's getting back up!", it was hard for me not to like this flick. The shots and scenery are pretty stellar too!

6. Black Sheep
This time New Zealand steps up to the plate and delivers the goods. Watching mutant sheep attack humans with blood and gore everywhere may not be for everyone, but dammit, it was for me! I really loved watching the ridiculous makeup effects for people being eaten and change into were-sheep (yeah, you read that correctly). If you haven't seen this movie, watch it just to watch the slaughter that happens at a genetic unveiling.

5. Dead Snow
Those crazy Norwegians! Nazi zombies? References to Evil Dead? A self inflicted castration by chainsaw? What's not to love? I had a blast with this movie and all the ridiculousness housed within. I can't stress enough how much fun it was to see another movie that actually used traditional effects instead of CGI. And just seeing some of the things that happened in this movie made me realize that a little comedy never hurts when dealing with zombies.

4. Night of the Living Dorks
I had the joy of seeing this German film on the big screen here at the Wisconsin Film Festival a few years ago and couldn't stop laughing the entire time. As three high schoolers try to raise the dead, they end up dying in a car accident... and coming back to life themselves! It's pretty juvenile humor (not that there's anything wrong with that), but you can't help but laugh as body parts start to fall of and get stapled back on. And yes, one of "those" falls off and gets put back on in a terrifically done scene.

3. Slither
Nathan Fillion is a goddamn genius. Everything about this movie is amazing. Aliens? Check. Zombies? Check. Pointless banter about flight speed of birds? Check. Really gross death scenes? Double check. Watching a woman that has been inflated to the point of bursting with worms is so much fun, I can't even begin to describe it. Well, actually, in the words of Mr. Fillion from this very movie: "Well now that is some fucked up shit."

2. Zombieland
Yeah, I had to include it. What list is complete without it? I had a blast watching this in the theaters. Bill Murray? How do you not love that? Woody Harrelson is great and the entire movie is shot well. I love the rules that kept popping up whenever they were relevant. I couldn't help but see the joy that was put into this movie and think that it was made with someone who really likes zombie/horror movies. That's rare to find and this movie did it. Actually, all of the top 3 movies on this list exhibited that. Which brings me to the number one Horror Comedy of the last decade...

1. Shaun of the Dead
I really liked Zombieland, but it can't hold a candle to Shaun of the Dead. For all the love shown in Slither and Zombieland, Shaun has more than both of them combined. References to The Evil Dead, Lucio Fulci, Night of the Living Dead, and a ton more, Shaun of the Dead is done by people that truly loved and believed in what they were making. It brought in so many memories and produced so many more for me that I include it in my top 5 movies of all time, let alone horror comedies of the last decade. I will watch it whenever it is on TV and have to put it in my DVD player about 3 times a year, minimum. I have a hard time believing any movie will reproduce such feelings in me for a very long time.

Some Lists Coming At You!

2010-01-05T13:43:00.000-08:00

I've decided to dedicate the next few days to some lists I have been cooking up. Some will be best of the decade, some are best of the last year, some are worst lists, and some I don't know if I have ideas for yet. But, in any event, I am going to start you off with a nice little smattering of what I thought was the best of the last decade in Horror. Here are some of my "Best of"s for the last decade:

Best Vampire Movie: Let The Right One In

Sure, Twilight may have dominated the box office numbers, but for sheer beauty, nothing could touch LTROI. The movie is nearly perfectly shot, written, and acted, making it one of my favorite movies of all time, let alone horror movies. I have run into very few people that have seen this movie and not liked it. Hell, almost everyone I know loved it. It's just such a wonderful movie, I can't say enough good things. This one was a no-brainer.

Others in contention: Honestly, there were none. This just won, hands down.

Best Zombie Movie: 28 Days Later

Sure, I know I have said in the past that it isn't a "true" zombie movie (the rage doesn't kill people and bring them back), but for all intents and purposes, I'm willing to accept it as such. Danny Boyle (pre-Oscar win) is in great form with this movie and Cillian Murphy leads a wonderful cast in acting in this movie. It's got brains (pun intended), action, drama, heart, and lots of blood vomiting, so what's not to like? Also, people get hacked apart with machetes. That's a win in my book!

Others in contention: Dawn of the Dead, Quarantine, [rec], 28 Weeks Later. I didn't consider comedies like Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, or Dead Snow.

Best Werewolf Movie: Dog Soldiers

Neil Marshall is one of my favorite new directors and his freshman effort was a lot of fun for me. It's not too serious, but it definitely delivers on action. Dog Soldiers had just the right amount of blood and gore without sacrificing story that I couldn't help but enjoy it. If you haven't seen this movie or happen to pass it up because of the horrific box art on some of the DVD cases, go see it now. It's also interesting to note that Neil Marshall said he liked werewolf movies except for transformation scenes because they generally fell flat. Thus, he set out to make a werewolf movie with no transformation scenes and this movie was born!

Others in contention: Ginger Snaps

Best Monster Movie: The Host

Yes, it was a little off-the-wall, but I liked the movie and thought it was enough horror and not comedy to include it on the list. I loved the way the movie was shot and really enjoyed the monster effects for this flick. It was great to see the bow-and-arrow being used as a weapon in a modern movie again and the story with the family behind it was very well done. It was creepy at parts, zany in others, and always enjoyable. It is one of my favorite horror movies of the last 10 years!

Others in contention: Cloverfield, Rogue

Best Slasher Movie: Wolf Creek

Slow to build and a low body count, yet it's my top slasher film? Yes, it's pretty well documented that I don't really like slasher flicks all that much, but this movie blew me away. It did a great job of setting up characters you cared about instead of giving you fodder people to be killed off. It gave a terrifying killer that actually had a face to connect to (making him scarier than a masked killer, in my mind) and victims you legitimately didn't want to die. Greg McClean did a great job with this and Rogue, his underrated giant killer crocodile feature. Seek this one out.

Others in contention: Cold Prey, The Cottage, The Midnight Meat Train

Best Haunted House Movie: The Orphanage

Haunting, chillingly beautiful, and absolutely terrifying in parts. This is was one of my favorite horror movies of the last decade (obviously) and a great story. I can't talk enough about the set pieces, from the cavernous orphanage the main characters reside in to the cave that is, well, cavernous. Throw in some creepy ghost kids and a weird game where the woman knocks on the wall, and you have a wonderfully macabre movie.

Others in contention: Session 9, Silent Hill, Paranormal Activity, The Devil's Backbone

That's my first list, keep coming back every day until Friday for more lists of the decade!

Psycho Bathroom

2010-01-04T19:54:00.000-08:00

Here are (as promised) some higher quality pictures of what has become one of my favorite Christmas presents of all time: the Psycho bathroom!

(Click on the images for a higher quality version)

What do you all think?

Also, I have compiled a "Best of 09" list. Shortly thereafter, I will have a best of the decade list! All to be put up very soon! Let's hope for some good horror this year!

A Bloody Good Christmas

2009-12-26T19:19:00.000-08:00

As many of you are recovering from the holidays, I thought I would share with you just what I got from my lovely girlfriend for Christmas. The backstory is that we watched Psycho together a while ago. She loved the movie (and I have always loved it), and had a sudden thought: Psycho bathroom. She was going to make a bloody shower curtain and then hang some stills from the movie up in the bathroom to make a nice, Psycho-themed bathroom for us. Well, that idea came and went and never came to fruition. We talked about it and thought it was a neat idea, but never really acted on it.

Until now.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my Christmas present (a favorite of all time for me), the Psycho bathroom.

We don't have all of the pictures hung up because it's a small room and we are still deciding on where to put what, but it's looking good so far! The pictures were taken with my cell phone because we lost the memory card for our digital camera, but I will try to post some better pictures later.

Also I should point out I have 2 cats that got a little jungle gym thing from my girlfriend's parents. Not that you really care about that, but I should mention the names. One is Phoenix. He's gray and I said we should name him "Jean Grey". My mom said no, but didn't Jean Grey turn into something? Hence, Phoenix. However, the better name is my little Calico cat, Pazuzu. That's right, I have a cat named after the demon that possessed Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Oh, horror movies!

The 5 Creepiest Horror Movie Children

2009-12-10T13:47:00.000-08:00

My girlfriend brought up a good question to me the other day: why are kids so inherently creepy in horror movies? I thought about it for a while and I couldn't really come up with a good answer. Is it because of how they represent innocence? Is it because you see yourself at that age? Is it because seeing a child do certain things is so much scarier than an adult doing it? Or is it just because they are so small?

I think it has something to do with the idea of the loss of innocence. Little kids are these pure versions of humans, free of corruption and full of potential. And if you see them turning evil, there's something inherently creepy about them. It's going against the norm of the cute little kid that just wants to play. Suddenly it's something that has become malevolent for whatever reason. And because of people not wanting to see bad things happen to children, they are harder to defend against. It's an odd juxtaposition of this incorruptible, angelic state of children that has suddenly turned violent.

In any event, whatever the reason for kids being creepy in horror movies, they fucking are. So I am going count down the 5 creepiest horror movie kids to me:

5. Jake Witzky, Stir of Echoes (1999):

Yeah, that picture says it all. The little kid seems to know what is up with Kevin Bacon, but can't really express it. When Kevin Bacon tries to coax any sort of information out of him, the kid clams up and tells his mom about the ghosts he sees. The kid is strangely sympathetic and a little jerk all at the same time.
Scariest Moment: When his voice suddenly drops about 5 octaves as he talks to Kevin Bacon. Kevin Bacon then tries to get him to repeat it and all he says is, "I don't wanna talk about it." A greatly underrated movie.

4. Paulie, The Children (2009):

This movie is one of the Ghost House pictures most recent releases and it is actually quite impressive. Now, it revolves around 4 demonic children, but Paulie is probably the creepiest of them all. A consummate mama's boy, he is always crying and whining, never more than a couple feet from his mother's side. He's the little whiny bastard you hate from the beginning. And as the movie wears on, he doesn't get any better, especially once he turns into the little hellspawn we all knew he was from the beginning. And any kid that just sits there and bangs on a toy xylophone for hours on end without saying a word is just downright schizo.
Scariest Moment: A sled careens down a hill and injures one of the adults and Paulie is seen at the top of the sled run, looking distant and cold. You can see it in the trailer briefly. But look a the rest of the scenes with the kid with a little afro and tell me that's not creepy.

3. Regan, The Exorcist (1973)

Yeah, this one's a no-brainer. Any child possessed by the devil is going to be scary as shit. Throw in some crucifix defiling, sprinkle a dash of spider-walking, and top it off with some Pea-soup spewing, you can't deny this little girl is just plain insane, not to mention pants-shittingly scary.
Scariest Moment: Anytime the priests are in the room with her.

2. Gage Creed, Pet Sematary (1989):

He's such a cute little lovable kid in the beginning, making it all the more horrifying when he turns murderous in the end. He is the only kid on this list that makes such a terrifyingly sharp transformation, and that's what makes him so scary. Sure, Regan was supposed to be cute and likable, but Linda Blair just wasn't as cute as poor little Gage. Plus, he's demonic because his father was too grief stricken to listen to instructions, making him all the more tragic.
Scariest Moment: Little Gage, you're the reason I jumped into and out of bed for years as a kid.

1. Damien, The Omen (1976):

I think The Exorcist may have scarier moments involving Regan, but for my money, Damien just downright fuck-all creepy. I can't get over his little silent, brooding machinations. You never know what he is thinking, but you always know it's not good. And the fact that he never really does anything overwhelmingly evil except for throw a tantrum is really quite disconcerting (sure, he throws the tantrum when they try to take him to church, but what kid didn't do that?). He has a cadre of minions, from his satanic nanny to the rabid rottweiler that follows him, so you just can't get near the damn kid. And he's got 666 as a birthmark. The kid who played Damien in the original (not the craptacular remake) had the best creepy kid stare in the world. I get chills just thinking about him. And the worst part: he lives in the end to infect the world!
Scariest Moment: Well, it might be when you find out that his mother was a jackal, but I think it's probably that final shot of him smiling into the camera that really seals the deal.

There are my picks, what do the rest of you have to say about it?

Deadgirl Review

2009-12-01T08:48:00.000-08:00

I watched this via Netflix Instant view this week (is there any greater invention?), so I figured I could throw up a review of it. A quick plot summary first:

Two teenage guys decide to skip school to go drink beer at an abandoned insane asylum (who hasn't done that before?). As they enter the asylum, the come across a naked dead girl under a plastic sheet. They then discover she is alive and one of the boys decides she is hot and seeing as how she is tied down, makes the popular decision to have sex with her. The sensible other boy decides that's rape and leaves, only to have the rapist come find him a day later. The rapist takes him back to the dead girl and tells him how she started to growl and bite at him, so he beat her to death (seems logical). Sensible boy was wondering why the rapist had to show him the aftermath, only to find out the girl isn't dead. She's not alive either. They shoot her, strangle her, and pummel her some more, but she stays alive. As another rapist boy comes to enter the picture, the secret gets out and bad stuff happens (who would have seen that coming). Without revealing too much, a dick gets bitten, intestines are literally shat out, a dog is eaten, and you see some very hairy crotch. Sounds intriguing, no?

Cinematography: The movie is shot on digital cameras and is fairly high quality, but nothing to really be amazed at. The shot scale is ample and pretty simple, but good despite its simplicity. It luckily doesn't fall into any shaky cam moments or anything of that sort, but Deadgirl is definitely the work of an amateur filmmaker. However, it's someone with talent that could very easily develop into someone with a bit more presence. Overall, the movie doesn't have enough originality to establish itself in atmosphere, but it is done well enough that it gets a 3 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, Deadgirl is a whole new concept to me. It does revolve ultimately around moral impacts and making the right decision, but it does so in a way that I have not previously seen or heard of. I mean, finding an unkillable person and using them for sex? Pretty original idea there. It does, however, fall into the random high school stereotypes pretty quickly with some of the characters. The bullies are pretty standard "jock" types (which they even reference), and the losers (main characters) are poor, school-ditching, pot-smoking bastards. The problem is that you only really find one character likable (Rickie), but because he makes such strange decisions, you don't really care all that much for him. On the one hand, I liked the idea, on the other, the characters were cliche, so it gets a fence-straddling 2.5 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: Well, Deadgirl is at heart a zombie movie. The girl that can't die but is already dead, she infects people with a bite, and tries to eat some flesh, pretty much makes it a zombie film. However, it's hard to compare Deadgirl to other standard zombie fare because it is not standard zombie fare. It's a nice little breath of fresh air in what has become a pretty stagnant genre. It doesn't compare to Night of the Living Dead or 28 Days Later, but it isn't trying to either. It's not the best zombie movie I have ever seen, but it is plenty original, so Deadgirl is rewarded for originality with a 3.5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: The movie clearly had no budget (otherwise you may have heard of it), but it does well with what it has. The actors are pretty good, only a couple of times was it even remotely hard to sit through. But even Deadgirl's worst acting is better than other movies' best, so it doesn't suffer. Deadgirl uses pretty good special effects, opting for a lot of make up (always a plus in my mind). There is a lot of blood, but not a whole lot of gore, making the aforementioned intestine shitting scene hit a little harder. It's impressive with the little budget it has, so Deadgirl grabs a 4 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: Deadgirl is fairly tense and well done, but not particularly scary. The end scene manages to conjure a few good moments and some nice tension, but the movie has more of an uneasy vibe the entire way through, rather than a sense of dread. Deadgirl does a few jump scares too many for my tastes, but it has a good setting for that (the asylum they are in), so I don't blame the filmmakers for that one. Deadgirl, while not the scariest thing I have ever seen, did make me a bit uneasy at times, so I give it a moderate 2.5 out of 5 for Scares.

Overall, Deadgirl manages a moderate 15.5 out of 25 arbitrary marks on my scale. It's an average horror movie that I enjoyed, but don't really have any desire to watch again. I recommend any horror fan watch it, but I am not going to tell you that you have to go see it right now. I liked the idea and it was very refreshing to see such an original idea in an independent horror from the US, but ultimately I just wasn't that interested in the subject matter or characters to love the movie.

Though there is still some like there.

Straight To Video Gems: The Signal

2009-11-17T12:29:00.000-08:00

So I'm going to keep on telling you guys about the great little gems I find that go straight to video here in the US. I will also try to include movies that either got a very limited release in theaters or ones that were released in other countries but not here. So today, I give a little love a personal favorite of mine from the last couple of years:

The Signal

It opens with a woman by the name of Mya cheating on her husband and her lover Ben tells her they can run away together and be happy. She doesn't know what to say, so Ben tells her to think about it and gives her a mix cd he made for her. As she goes down to the parking structure, she has a couple of odd run-ins with some random people and gets a little freaked out. As she arrives home to her husband Lewis, strange things are happening in the hallway of their apartment building. Lewis is getting ready to watch the game with his friends, but some sort of strange signal is coming through the TV instead of the game. It seems to effect Lewis in a very strange way. A small argument amongst the men escalates into Lewis going berserk and killing one of his friends. As Mya scrambles to get away from Lewis, she finds more terrible things going on in the hallway. As chaos envelopes everything around her, she scrambles to find a safe place and thus begins Lewis and Ben trying to find her before the other.

The movie is shot in 3 different parts: the beginning, which is straight horror; the middle, which is more lighthearted and would qualify as a dark comedy; and the end, which is more of a blend of horror, comedy, and love story. Each segment is written and directed by a different person, giving it three distinct styles in one movie. But the most impressive thing is that while each segment feels a little different, they all still flow and gel like a single entity, never making you feel like you are watching a different movie. They all work together really well and give the movie just the right feel. Some people will tell you they didn't like how the movie never really decided what it wanted to be, but I perceive that to be The Signal's greatest strength: it does three genres (horror, comedy, romance) and does all of them well.

The beginning deluge of chaos gives it a very frantic feel and the gore in it is pretty sparse. It's violent, yes, but it's more blood than gore, just opting to splatter people in fake blood rather than disemboweling them. There is a lot of violence however, so faint of heart beware. However, the bloodiest parts are often some of the funniest parts once you get past the first third of the movie. A couple expecting guests for their New Years Party and one winding up dead, a man talking to a disembodied head, and a guy spraying bug spray in people's eyes are all among the things that would normally seem rather grim, but The Signal handles all with a comedic deftness that most funny movies can't even achieve.

Overall, The Signal is one of my favorite movies of the last couple of years, let alone horror. I really enjoyed watching it because it was something new to me. The plot is pretty heavily borrowed from the Stephen King novel Cell (or coincidentally is very similar), but it's just different enough that it isn't just a rip-off. It's a very worthwhile film if you have a chance to check it out!

Cell Phones in Horror

2009-11-13T11:56:00.001-08:00

After coming across this nice little video, I just had to share this with all of you guys:

It is quite the cop out: no cell reception. But it makes sense in a lot of the movies because of the location. I am not mad because if you didn't insert that one little line, then everyone would ask, "Why don't they just use their cell to call for help?" It's a bit of a crutch, but it's rather essential to most of the movies. Any thoughts?

Master of Horror: Stephen King

2009-11-04T11:32:00.000-08:00

So in my previous installments of my Master of Horror theme, I have examined filmmakers and how their movies rate. Well, with the upcoming release of his new book, I decided to take a look at Stephen King's writings and how they have fared being turned into movies. Now, I haven't seen all of the movies that have been made from his books, but i have seen a good deal of them. I had to narrow down the list, so here are the requirements for my list:

1. No miniseries. Yes, I liked The Stand and things like that, but I want movies here.
2. Has to be based of a book or story by King. I love Creepshow and Rose Red, but I want this to be an adaptation of an existing work.
3. I will stick to the horror side of King. Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile are all good movies, but they aren't horror.
4. No sequels. Yes, he may have made up the characters for Children of the Corn 4 or Pet Sematary 2, but he didn't write what they were based off of. Well, in a way I guess, but no.
5. No matter how the movie was, it's not King's fault (necessarily).

*As always, this isn't a complete filmography. If you want to see that, go here.

Carrie (1976): A brilliant movie. Not much can be said about this Brian De Palma masterpiece. It's a little dated, sure, but even film critics that don't like horror can't help but admit this is a great movie. Good book too.

The Shining (1980): Replace "Brian De Palma" with "Stanley Kubrick" in the previous review, and that's how I feel here. Consistently number 1 or 2 on my favorite horror movies of all time lists, The Shining is amazingly well done and terrifying to this day.

Cujo (1983): This movie wasn't that bad, but it didn't have nearly the punch the novel did. This stems greatly from the severely changed ending. Warning: Spoilers for a 20 year old film and older book!: In the book, the mother and her son are trapped in a car in the heat. She ends up killing the rampaging dog to come back to the car and find her son died. She snaps and coddles the dead boy even after the EMTs arrive and try to take the body from her. It's powerful, disparate, and moving. The movie ends with her and the son surviving. Sure, it's a happy-go-lucky standard Hollywood ending, but come on! That really bugs me. The movie isn't terrible though, so you can still watch it.

The Dead Zone (1983): One of David Cronenberg's few horror movies that doesn't feature a lot of grotesque creatures and gore effects. However, it's still captivating. The Dead Zone was an establishing movie for Christopher Walken and even though he does mostly goofy stuff now, you can see that he can act very well if need be. A must see, in my opinion.

Christine (1983): A double whammy: Stephen King and John Carpenter. The duo did amazingly well with this movie, making a murderous car one of the scariest things in the 80s. It's not Carpenter's best film, but it's a good one for sure, and an essential for any fan of either Carpenter or King.

Children of the Corn (1984): A cult classic. While it looks a little more dated than some of the other King movies from this era, it did manage to spawn quite the movie franchise and it terrified me when I was a kid, that's for sure. After a recent viewing, it didn't quite have the same effect, but it's still a good movie.

Maximum Overdrive (1986): This is the only movie that King has no excuse for. It's a bad movie, based off a mediocre short story that marks the only movie King ever directed. He was so turned off after doing this movie, he vowed never to direct again. Probably a good thing.

The Running Man (1987): So bad, yet so good. So very 80s. It's cheesy, but that's half the appeal of the movie. I can't in good conscience call it a good movie, but I can't say it's a bad movie either.

Pet Sematary (1989): One of my favorite horror movies of all time. It's so very creepy and macabre, I can't help but love it. Gage still creeps me out and the Achilles' tendon scene will forever give me the willies:

Misery (1990): Rob Reiner does it again with a Stephen King story. Kathy Bates is perfect. James Caan gives a great performance as the crippled writer. And we find the second consecutive movie with a brilliant "cringe inducing moment": the hobbling scene. Just watch this and tell me you don't shudder:

The Lawnmower Man (1992): Yeah, King actually removed his credit from this movie because he disliked it so much. It wasn't very good, but it was still based off a story by the man himself, so like it or not, he's got a tie to it. This one was pretty bad.

Sleepwalkers 1992): I can remember watching this as a kid and being fairly frightened of it. The problem is, when I bought it a couple years ago for $5 on DVD, it definitely has not aged well. I was tempted to call this a good one, but it's not. It's a pretty bad movie upon my recent review.

The Dark Half (1993): Romero directs this rather dull adaptation of a King story. It's pretty uninspired, but I already wrote about it in my Romero MoH article.

The Mangler (1995): You would think that if Tobe Hooper and Stephen King hooked up, they would be able to make a good movie out of that (especially featuring Robert Englund!). But alas, The Mangler pretty much sucks, so it was not meant to be.

The Night Flier (1997): I actually think this is an underrated King adaptation and that it deserves a better reputation. I liked this movie, even if it was a bit low budget. It's by no means the best King adaptation out there, but I feel like it's a nice little flick.

Apt Pupil (1998): I wrestled with putting this on the list as it's more of a drama than horror, but I feel like the performance Brad Renfro turned was haunting enough. A movie that should be on everyone's radar, we find a Nazi war criminal (Ian McKellan) hiding in America for 50 years, only to have a high school student recognize him and make him tell war horror stories. A truly frightening film.

Dreamcatcher (2003): One of my favorite King books turned into a rather thin movie. It was pretty boring and not nearly as engaging as the book was. Though seeing a "shit weasel" come to life on screen was pretty satisfying.

Secret Window (2004): So this movie isn't really anything all that great, but the actors in it are the reason to watch it. Johnny Depp, John Turturro, Maria Bello, and Charles Dutton are all quite good in their roles. The ending is trite and been done before (and better), but the rest of the movie is made good by the actors.

1408 (2007): I really liked this short story and the prospect of seeing John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson bring the main characters to life excited me. It was, however a pretty forgettable horror movie. I didn't dislike it, but it wasn't anything I have any desire to watch again.

The Mist (2007): I love this movie... in black and white. I like it in color too, don't get me wrong, but it's amazing in B&W. It's so well done and the creatures look great in the grayscale color scheme (they were a little hokey in color). The ending is so powerful, it's amazing.

And that's all I've seen of his. That totals up 8 great movies, 6 okay movies, and 7 bad movies. It seems that the 90s weren't very good to King, as most of the bad movies came from that era. Although that's also when a couple good miniseries came (It, The Stand) and when some of his best non-horror work was done (Shawshank, The Green Mile, Dolores Claiborne). But in the end, I consider him a Master of Horror regardless of the number of bad movies, mostly because he had little influence over them (aside from Maximum Overdrive). Stephen King continues to scare to this day and let me tell you, I am excited about an adaptation of Cell, if it ever happens (especially now that Eli Roth isn't attached).

My hats off to you, Stephen King. Keep writing!

Horror TV Shows

2009-10-29T09:11:00.000-07:00

So there aren't that many horror based TV shows out there (which is a shame) and the few that show up often aren't that great. I am a purveyor of such shows however, and I am trying to come up with what I would consider the best horror TV shows of all time. The problem is that I haven't seen such classics as Kolchak: The Night Stalker or haven't seen that many episodes of things like The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. So, I am going to do the 5 best Horror Themed TV Shows Since 1990. But where to begin?

*A couple points of criteria:
1. They have to be shows I watch(ed).
2. The shows need to be American in origin (sorry Riget).
3. Not miniseries or one-offs, actual series.
4. I need to consider them horror (Buffy and Angel, while good, are not quite horror enough for me).

5. Masters of Horror (Showtime 2005-2007): It only ran for two seasons (and the second season wasn't quite as good), but it definitely made me take notice. With episodes like "Incident On and Off a Mountain Road" (Coscarelli), "Cigarette Burns" (Carpenter), and "Imprint" (Miike), the series could chill and frighten. It also showed that some directors still had the ability to make something good. I really enjoyed the overall run of the series, but when it went to Fear Itself, it pretty much lost me. But watch the 2 seasons of Masters of Horror for some great moments, even if not all the episodes are that great.

4. Millennium (Fox 1996-1999): Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, managed to create another gem with Millennium. It follows Frank Black (played wonderfully by the amazing Lance Henriksen), a detective who has the ability to see things from the mind of a killer and try to track them down. As the series progressed, Frank got deeper and deeper into a conspiracy involving the mysterious Millennium group, not knowing what he had gotten himself into. It was dark, scary, and unfortunately short. The series was so poorly wrapped up that Carter wrote an episode into a season of The X-Files in order to wrap up Millennium. It was a great run for this show, even if it was a short run.

3. American Gothic (CBS 1995-1996): Featuring the considerable talents of Gary Cole, Lucas Black, and Jake Weber, American Gothic was a nefariously overlooked show at the time. It has since gained a bit of a cult following, but it nonetheless remains a criminally underrated show. Cole plays a vicious Southern sheriff that is trying to take Black as his own son. As the series played out, you find that Cole has some very evil intentions (and equally evil powers) for our young hero, but Black has his dead sister and a friendly doctor (Weber) to protect him. With a tagline that still creeps me out ("Someone's at the door"), the show was a great mix of scares and serious storyline. Buy it on DVD if you have a chance!

2. Tales from the Crypt (HBO 1989-1996): Yeah, I said since 1990, but this is close enough for me. Quite frankly, no list of horror TV shows is complete without Tales from the Crypt. From the intros by the Cryptkeeper (which scared the hell out of me when I was a kid) to the theme by Danny Elfman to the many great guest stars, it was just an incredible TV series. I can't tell you what my favorite episode is, but I can tell you that anytime I go back and start watching them again, I still enjoy them. Anytime I find them on TV (which is rare), I stop and watch whatever happens to be on. It's just that good.

1. The X-Files (Fox 1993-2002): The show that redefined Sci-Fi and Horror television. It made people that didn't care about horror and sci-fi tune in week after week to see what would happen next to Mulder and Scully. I started off watching the show every Sunday. After a couple of weeks, my mom would sit and sew while sort of watching it with me. Pretty soon she wasn't sewing anymore and was just watching the show. That brought my sister and father in out of curiosity and pretty soon, it was a family viewing experience. The show was so well written, wonderfully scary, and just all around a blast to watch. I have the first 7 seasons on DVD (after Mulder left, I didn't like the show as much), and I still watch them. My mother will still tell me that her favorite episode is "Home", which features inbred brothers trying to produce offspring with their mother. The episode was banned from TV for a couple of years because of its graphic subject matter and it remains one of the best episodes of The X-files or any other TV series ever in my opinion. Plus, I bet if you start whistling the theme song, nearly everyone will know it (and probably get a bit freaked out in the process).

As always, what do you think?

Paranormal Activity vs [rec]

2009-10-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

So after re-watching Paranormal Activity (sober this time) and watching [rec] this weekend, I started to compare the two movies quite a bit. They are both handheld horror, so that started the obvious comparison. But the main thing to remember is that they are both very good handheld horror. While the movies both have quite different plots, they are similarly terrifying and both highlight the idea that there is no escape from the respective terrors. I just had to wonder how they stacked up against each other. So we have a rumble on our hands folks!

First, a look at [rec]. This is the Spanish film that inspired Quarantine, in case you don't know that already. Well, the movie opens with a film crew doing a show about what happens when you sleep. They are following a group of firemen for a night when they get a call about an elderly woman who is hurt in her apartment. After the woman attacks a police officer already on the scene, the building is suddenly quarantined off and the survivors aren't allowed out. They find out slowly that whatever was wrong with the old woman can be spread to others and things start going very poorly for our poor residents. Things escalate into one of the creepiest final scenes in horror history.

Paranormal Activity is an American movie made about 2 years ago, but until recently never really saw the light of day in theaters. It follows a couple that recently moved in together and you discover that the woman has been haunted by something since she was very young, no matter where she was living. As the young couple begin watching the footage after each night, they discover that whatever it is that haunts them is getting bolder and stronger. Finally, things escalate into one of the creepiest final scenes in horror history.

Both movies rely on the cinema verite angle of film making, going for the found footage look to the movies. However, [rec] seems to be riding the wave of "zombie" films that have been permeating the film industry lately. I put zombie in quotes because while [rec] isn't a true zombie film in the Romero sense, it is close enough for me. That being said, [rec] is an exceptional zombie movie, so it does have that going for itself. Paranormal Activity is a unique story of a haunting in that it's not tied to a house or location, but a person being tormented by a demon. The two movies are both in established genres, but you don't see as many haunting movies like that recently, so the edge goes to Paranormal Activity.

Paranormal Activity relies a lot on the static shots of the bedroom at night. Those shots are the scariest of the film, and they are great because of their simplicity, but that's exactly why it's not quite as interesting on a cinematography level. [rec] is very shaky and frantic, often reflecting the tone of the action on screen. It gets a bit hard to watch at times because of the movement of the camera, but it's interesting to see what gets framed up. The best shots of the two movies come from [rec], framing up all kinds of scary things on the fly, rather than having the benefit of being statically set up. Therefore, [rec] gets the edge for cinematography.

Well, what is going to be the tie breaker? I have to go with scare factor on this one. Starting with [rec], you get some truly great scenes. The initial old woman attack is tense and taut. The scene where the little girl is on the loose is nearing brilliance with the way she shows up in frame. The shot of all the infected people in the staircase is one of the craziest, most frantic scenes in recent memory. It's full of scares.

Paranormal Activity is a fairly regular movie until the static bedroom scenes. Those scenes are where the movie really truly excels. The shot where the sheets billow up and the shadow moves across the door is amazing. The shot where talcum powder is put down and footprints appear from nothing is brilliant in its simplicity. And any of the shots with just sounds are wonderfully frightening.

So it comes down to the final scenes of both movies. Both are amazing. I won't say what happens in either, but when it finally came down to it, I had to think of which one was more original. Something I truly hadn't seen before. That went to Paranormal Activity. It was so brilliantly simple and creepy. While [rec] had an amazing creature in the end that I can't seem to forget, it's what is not shown in PA that makes it scarier. So in the end, Paranormal Activity is scarier to me and therefore, wins the battle.

The honest truth is that if you watch either of these movies, you will be scared and satisfied. They are both great, but I think PA seems to be a bit more ingenious in the way it is presented. Watch both of them and tell me what you think!

Death Watch Review

2009-10-19T08:55:00.000-07:00

I was ordering things on Amazon, as I am often doing, and I needed to get my order up to $25 (so I could get the free shipping), and I saw Death Watch sitting there in my recommendations. I had heard some good things about this movie, so I blind bought it, eagerly awaiting its arrival. It came this weekend, so I popped it in and watched it. The question is, how did I like it? First, a brief plot synopsis:

In the brutal trench fighting of the First World War, a British infantry company is separated from their regiment after a fierce battle. Attempting to return to their lines, the British soldiers discover what appears to be a bombed out German trench, abandoned except for a few dazed German soldiers. After killing most of the Germans, and taking one prisoner, the British company fortifies to hold the trench until reinforcements can arrive. Soon, however, strange things begin to happen as a sense of evil descends on the trench and the British begin turn on each other.

As always, if you don't know my criteria, here's an explanation.

Cinematography: The movie mostly takes place in the trenches of WWI, so it's pretty claustrophobic. And that's exactly what it needs to be in order to show the immediacy of the action. The movie is a lot of close shots (with a few range shots thrown in when appropriate), but that's what makes it feel so scary. Everything feels immediate and right next to you. The entire movie gives a good sense of dread and the shots at night really set a great atmosphere. The use of fog is quite effective as well, adding an almost dreamlike state to the film, which works perfectly with the subject matter. The use of shaky camera style is used a couple of times, which I didn't feel was necessary and the first battle scene felt a little forced, but it was an otherwise very well filmed flick. I give it 3.5 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: You don't see a whole lot of movies based around the time of WWI, so right away I was intrigued by that. The costumes and settings make it feel like you are watching people in that era, which I appreciate a lot. The actors are all quite good, with the only remotely famous actor being Andy Serkis, who is best known for being the basis for Gollum and King Kong. But the actors all carry the film along very well, each playing the role amply. The characters are ones we have seen before (the tough, grisly soldier; the inept officer; the cowardly new recruit), but they are all engaging. Even the people you don't want to see survive keep your attention, so I give Death Watch a 4 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-Genre Comparison: Well, there aren't a whole lot of WWI horror movies as I said before, so the movie can't really be compared to anything on that front. Death Watch is, at its core, a haunting movie, so it should really be compared to other haunted house movies. The heavy hitters in that category for me are The Shining and Event Horizon. Death Watch isn't quite as good as those movies, but there's a pretty good reason why I consider them to be the comparison points: they are two of my favorite horror movies of all time. Death Watch is definitely one of the better haunting movies I have seen recently and more than stacks up against anything of the last couple years. Death Watch receives a nice 3.5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.

Production Value: This is not a big-budget Hollywood film. It doesn't look like one either. You can tell this movie was done with a lower budget. That being said, it does well with what it was given. The make-up effects are pretty good when used and the gore is generally well done. However, the use of CGI is pretty apparent and a little off-putting at times. That being said, the CGI wasn't terrible (and the movie is 7 years old now, so it's somewhat excusable), but the traditional effects were much more convincing and powerful. As I said before, there is a bit of gore in the film, but it is only used when necessary and is used as an effective product. It would be nice to see this movie with a bit more of a budget, but for Production Value, it earns 3 out of 5.

Scares: Finally, the all important question: was it scary? Well, as I said before, the movie is claustrophobic and shot mostly in the trenches, which right away makes it creepy. One thing that Death Watch does very effectively is set an atmosphere that makes you want to look away. It has a great creepy vibe with rats all over the place and a bunch of dead bodies everywhere. There is a scene in particular where a character finds 3 people standing at the end of a trench, unmoving. When he gets closer, the people are found to be rotting corpses encompassed in razor wire, but standing up under their own power. As the soldier investigates them, you start to cringe just thinking about the situation. It's a very effective scene in the movie. Death Watch is very good at setting tense situations, so I give it 4 out of 5 for Scares.

And the final tally is a nice 18 out of 25 for Death Watch. This would put it above average, but not a must see movie. It's a good movie that I haven't heard a lot about though, so I encourage you to go and watch it. There are some great scenes and watching Andy Serkis hit things with a club with nails sticking out of it is almost worth the price of admission in itself. I recommend this movie!

Reading? Who Does That?

2009-10-16T15:45:00.001-07:00

I apparently find time to read a bit when I am not working or watching movies, and every so often I read something horror related. Okay, that's a lie, it's quite often horror related. So what was my last horror read, you ask?

The Strain by Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan! This is the first part of a vampire trilogy of books chronicling the events that lead up to a vampire infestation across the planet. It breaks down like this:

A plane comes into New York and goes dark on the runway. No lights, no contact, just entirely dead. Including the crew and passengers. But no decay on the bodies and no sign of terrorism or biological agents. In the cargo bay, they find a huge wooden box filled with soil and no one can figure it out. Then, after all the bodies are taken to the morgues, they disappear. But they reappear at their loved ones' houses, still walking around. What is happening?

The book does a good job of setting up the story. You meet a ton of characters in the book, all painstakingly nuanced and real feeling. The initial description of the dark plane on the runway is truly terrifying and I found myself reading it and looking around to make sure I was safe. It's a bit of a slow mover at first, but it never lost my interest. I love the way the vampires are introduced and how they work in this book (forget fangs, think stinger-like tongues). It's a great take on the vampire legend and reeks of del Toro's style the entire time. The vampire's seem to resemble the reapers from Blade II quite a bit with the way their mouths are opening and the gothic apartment seems to be reminiscent of some of the setpieces from his movies. It's got a lot of his influences showing through, which is a great thing!

The book is very good and I can't wait for the next two to come out now. Go and get it if you can!

Pandorum: flying under the radar?

2009-10-14T09:33:00.000-07:00

I saw Pandorum last week in the theaters and I am quite surprised I haven't heard much of anything about the movie. I was intrigued by the premise and was hoping to see a decent horror flick. But that was not what I got...

What I actually got was a good horror movie. No, it was a very good horror movie. I was pleasantly surprised by Pandorum. The basic premise of the movie is that the Earth was overpopulated and they had to find an alternate planet to colonize. They find one that is as close to Earth as you can get, so they launch a giant transport ship towards the planet. There are flight crews that are scheduled to work in shifts of two years and flight crew 4 has just woken up. Because of the after effects of hypersleep, they don't have all their memories, but they remember certain aspects of what they were supposed to do on the ship. Only the ship isn't working correctly and they weren't woken up by the previous flight crew, but instead by the ship somehow. And to make matters worse, there are a bunch of weird creatures stalking the people onboard. As the survivors start piecing together what happened, they find that pandorum (space dementia) may have something to do with their current situation.

The ending gets a little convoluted, but it works pretty well with the movie as a whole. The creatures are well done and greatly resemble the cave crawlers from The Descent, but they are tougher to kill in this movie. The movie keeps a very good, tense atmosphere the entire time and Ben Foster carries the movie with ease. I have liked him a lot in pretty much everything I have seen him in, so it's not a huge surprise that he is so good. But he is the linchpin of the movie (main character, in a lot of scenes on his own), so it was nice to see someone that could keep your interest easily. There are some really great sequences in the movie and it is quite freaky in a few parts.

I just can't figure out why this isn't getting more buzz in the horror community. It's not a perfect movie, by any means, but it's a great blend of Sci-Fi and Horror and makes for a fun theater experience. If you have a chance to see it (especially on the big screen), please do! It's one of the best horror movies I've seen recently, and that's a pretty good considering all the horror that has been out recently. It's Event Horizon meets The Descent with just a dash of Alien thrown in for good measure. If that doesn't sell you, then I don't know what will!

Zombies are the new vampires?

2009-10-09T11:26:00.000-07:00

I recently saw this article over on IMDB and thought I had to retort. So read why zombies are not the new vampires first and then come back here for a response.

Done reading it? Well, it doesn't really matter, the fact is this article is wrong. It says that "zombies are the new vampires". With the release of Zombieland (a great movie), Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (a great book), and Jennifer's Body (a noticeably NOT zombie film, but instead one about demonic possession), apparently zombies are threatening to take over popular culture. It talks about how zombies will never supplant vampires in popularity because people find vampires sexy and blah blah blah.

Not that I really care that much either way (though I am far more of a zombie man than a "fang banger", to use some True Blood parlance), but I would have to point out that the vampire craze came to the public in the last couple of years. Sure, Dracula was written a long time ago, but the vampire craze has really taken off pretty recently. That's all well and good, but from a horror movie fan's perspective, they are the latecomers. With The Zombie Survival Guide being published 6 years ago and all kinds of people planning out the zombie apocalypse strategies for years now, vampires are really coming to the party a bit late.

The article even compares vampires to the "hot popular crowd" and zombies to the "Goth theater kids". I have two issues with this: first of all, that's great. That means zombie fans don't have to talk to a bunch of 12 year old girls about how much they loved Twilight. It separates true horror fans from the posers. The ones who waited in line to see Paranormal Activity opening night and bought Trick R Treat the day it came out from the people that didn't know Quarantine was a remake or didn't know Let The Right One In was the best vampire movie last year (or ever). Secondly, when did vampires suddenly not get compared to Goth kids? Did I miss that? Look no further than Google (which is God, apparently) for a comparison.

Google image search for vampire.

Google image search for zombie.

Which one looks more goth to you?

In any event, I don't think zombies will ever achieve the same popularity vampires will. I agree with the article on that point. But they aren't trying to be. Zombies will always be the lesser of the monsters, but that's exactly what they are trying to be. Zombies aren't the flashy show-offs vampires are, they're the ones that lurk in the shadows and wait for you to come past. I don't see people putting together vampire bar crawls, but the zombie bar crawl is all over the place. Vampires may have more fans, but they just can't match the tenacity of zombies.

In closing, BRAAAAAIIIINNS.

Trick R Treat Review

2009-10-07T17:16:00.000-07:00

Well, I was not feeling particularly well today, so I decided to stay home from work. And I figured it would be a perfect time to watch my newly purchased Trick R Treat DVD. Finally, the greatly anticipated horror anthology came to DVD. But before I watched it, I decided to rewatch Creepshow to get myself in the right anthology mood. Also, it gave me a benchmark to compare against. I won't bother you guys with a plot summary because it's actually 4 movies within one really. There are some kids that died in a bus crash, an old man who no one likes, a principal that apparently kills people, and some girls looking to party in the middle of the woods. All the stories intersect several times and it follows all of them throughout the entire film.

*If you don't know my criteria for judging movies, here you go!*

Cinematography: The movie is very well shot. There are some incredibly well framed scenes and overall a great range of shots from close ups to nice far shots. The mise-en-scene for the movie is pretty amazing, giving it a cold, creepy feel from the very beginning. It reminded me of a chilly, October night in Wisconsin with red leaves on the trees and everything looking as though a cold rain had just fallen. The entire tone of the movie fits this very well and it just looks impressive. This is an easy 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: While horror anthologies are nothing new, they aren't exactly everywhere. And to see one that is well done is something even rarer, so watching Trick R Treat was a blast for me. I love the intersecting stories. That was what impressed me the most about Trick R Treat: every time you watched one of the stories, you saw one of the characters from the other stories in the background. Or a person from a previous story is suddenly a victim in another story. The whole movie keeps everything very well interwoven. While the stories aren't anything ridiculously original, they definitely aren't cliche. The movie effortlessly keeps you wrapped up in the stories and characters, and for that it receives a 4.5 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: Well, as far as horror anthologies go, there's only one you really need to compare it to in my mind: Creepshow. Trick R Treat doesn't have the same pulpy fun feel that Creepshow does, but it's not trying for that. On a purely qualitative comparison, Trick R Treat is as good as Creepshow. That's saying quite a bit too. It's better than Creepshow 2 or Body Bags (both of which I enjoyed but wasn't in love with). It's really refreshing to see something like this come around and it's as good as anything this sub-genre has to offer, so I guess that gives it a 5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: The movie looks great. It's scenery is amazing, the blood and make-up effects are very good, and they didn't use very much CGI, if any at all. That last thing is a huge plus for me. About the only thing I could complain about is that some of the effects were shown a little too long (when Sam's mask is off, for instance), but the effects are very good and hold up. You can tell some real effort went into the look of the movie and if there wasn't a lot of budget, they fooled me well with it. For Production Value, it's got me with a 4.5 out of 5.

Scares: This might be the lowest point of the review because the movie wasn't particularly scary to me. However, this movie is not going for balls-out scare tactics. It's tense when it needs to be and the atmosphere keeps it creepy for most of the movie, but it never reaches the point to where I was stirring in my seat (after 15 years of horror movies, I still do sometimes and I love it). That being said, the movie is very much kitschy, creepy fun and will definitely keep you entertained. It's not as scary as some movies, but it's also not trying to be, going for more story telling than horrifying. It earns a well deserved 3.5 out of 5 for Scares.

All that being said, Trick R Treat gets a very nice 21.5. out of 25 on my meaningless, arbitrary scale. But that doesn't mean that I won't urge you to see this as soon as you can. It's a very well done movie and I enjoyed watching it immensely. It was worth all the hype, and it's a great entry for American horror! Go get it!

My triumphant return

2009-10-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

Yeah, so it's been a while, but I have been on hiatus with work being stupidly busy. Oh well, it seems people have still been reading this thing, so I should probably keep writing it. I'll just have a brief update on what I have seen recently that is horror related. I'll be sure to write some more in-depth reviews in a bit, but here's something to whet your appetite with!

Zombieland: Pretty sure everyone should see this movie at some point in their lives. I can't decide if this or Shaun of the Dead is a better zombie comedy (zomedy) and that's quite the feat since Shaun of the Dead is one of my all-time favorite movies, let alone zomedies. It's a blast. I went in expecting gratuitous zombie violence and a few Woody Harrelson jokes, and got all of that plus a cameo by Bill Murray (I know, it may seem like it's a secret to some people, but he's the 6th person listed on the IMDB credit page). It's amazing.

9: An interesting little animated film. Visually very arresting and I couldn't look away from the screen, but the plot was a little weak. The voice acting was great, but really the story was kind of bland. However, the plot/story was good enough to keep your interest, so I would recommend seeing it, if for no other reason than the animation being awesome.

The Quick and The Undead: Yeah, I watched it via Netflix instant view. My thoughts: don't watch it. Watch "The Quick and The Dead" instead, which is also on instant view. Plus that one's directed by Sam Raimi.

H2: I wanted to like it, seeing as how I actually enjoyed Zombie's re-imagining of Halloween (though it was nothing compared to the original), but it wasn't very good. I just can't bring myself to get behind this movie. It hurts me to say that, but Zombie failed on this one.

Grace: I was pretty damn excited about this movie, especially because of all the hype Johnny over at Freddy In Space had been doing for it. I watched it and it left me with a resounding "meh". It wasn't bad and was an interesting story, but overall it was just kind of blah. It wasn't very scary and never really drew me in. I would recommend seeing it because it's refreshing to see some original American horror, but it's nothing that I want to watch over and over again.

Wrong Turn 2: I finally watched this movie after hearing so many good things about it and I have to say that if Henry Rollins weren't in it, I wouldn't have enjoyed any part of the movie. The characters pissed me off, the rednecks were on screen too much, and the movie just sort of felt like it was trying too hard. That's not to say there aren't some satisfying kills, but it is a pretty mediocre offering, especially because the first Wrong Turn actually surprised me with how good it was. Maybe if it hadn't been so hyped up to me.

Paranormal Activity: The movie that has been stuck in development hell for the last 2 years is finally released to select theaters, one of which is right here in Madison, WI! I saw the movie the other night and it was not that bad. I wouldn't call it the scariest movie ever like some people had been lauding it, but it was quite well done and the scary parts are pretty damn scary. I have to applaud it for the final scene, which was very satisfying. It was a movie that I need to watch again because I saw it at a midnight showing and was a bit drunk (so my attention span was less than stellar), but I definitely enjoyed it.

So that's what I have for you for now. I am writing a more in-depth review of Grace and will be picking up Trick R Treat tomorrow (finally!), so expect a review of that as well. I have missed writing! Back to the grind for now!

Quentin Tarantino and Horror

2009-08-25T21:07:00.000-07:00

After watching Inglorious Basterds this weekend, I was suddenly struck with a little bit of wonder: does Tarantino actually know how to make a movie anymore?

While the shots are great and the acting quite good, the action of Basterds falls quite short, with a lot of boring exposition between some truly great action scenes. I wanted to like Basterds, I really did, but ultimately, it was Tarantino trying to write Tarantino-esque dialogue... and failing.

I was not enthralled by the characters (aside from Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine and the Jew Hunter) and it was just overall very bland film making. It was too bad, but almost worth sitting through 2 hours of stuff for the 45 minutes of awesome action scenes that were contained within. Sorry Johnny, but I just can't get behind this movie. I know this all seems like a bit of a tangent, but it brings me to my previous point of Tarantino knowing how to make a movie.

He started off with a couple of bangs: Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Then Jackie Brown and Kill Bill followed up more than amply. Then we get to the grindhouse feature of Death Proof.

Much like Basterds, Death Proof, to me at least, was Tarantino trying too hard to write the dialogue that made him famous. But he failed. And the thing about Death Proof wasn't that it was a bad movie. I would have liked it a lot more if it wasn't a part of the Grindhouse features. I can handle a bit of dialogue. I can even handle the inordinately large amount of dialogue in Death Proof. But what I cannot handle is a "grindhouse" film that is 2/3 dialogue.

Grindhouse films, by definition, are all about one thing: exploitation. Whether it be sex, violence, or both (or maybe race), something has to be entirely blown out of proportions. It's over the top, it's action packed, it's fast moving and quick to be done. Death Proof is none of that. A grindhouse film with what amounts to basically 2 action scenes is not a grindhouse film. It's a dull horror film that gets praised because of a name attached to it. Look at the other half: Planet Terror. It's fast moving, gross as hell, and full of stupid one liners. It's quick to kill anyone off, you see a kid die, and all kinds of pus is splattered everywhere. It's basically the perfect homage to a grindhouse film.

Death Proof plods along (especially the extended version of the film) and fails miserably as a grindhouse flick. The worst part of that is the fact that we know Tarantino can write grindhouse. You want proof?

From Dusk Til Dawn, while directed by Robert "Planet Terror" Rodriguez, was written by Tarantino. It was amazing. It was fun. It was what a good grindhouse film should be. Why can't he do that again?

I think what has happened is that Tarantino has lost some of his fun in filmmaking. I will never dispute that he has made some amazing films. In fact, he doesn't make movies, he makes films. He is an auteur. But sometimes I feel like he is losing his focus on having a little fun and trying too hard with his dialogue. You see glimpses in Basterds, but unfortunately, he can't keep it focused. It's too bad, because it could have been so much more...

Zombie Politics and Other Quick Updates

2009-08-20T13:50:00.000-07:00

I just read a nice little piece about how different political parties would react to a zombie attack. I have to say, it's an interesting read. You can find the article here.

Also, I apologize for my lack of updates. Life has been a bit of a hectic experience lately and I am starting to figure some of it out, I think. I won't bore you with details, but it's akin to a soap opera right now (due to my own doings).

I did see Orphan and District 9 recently, both of which I had heard good things about. My general thoughts:

Orphan: An interesting flick with some pretty good scenes in it. The problem was that ultimately it wasn't anything for me that really caught my attention. It was okay, but I really don't have any desire to see it again. For me it was a fairly bland entry that I would recommend, but not extol the virtues of.

District 9: Yep, I really liked it like most everyone else. The parallels to apartheid, the acting, the story, and the gun that explodes people were all incredibly enjoyable for me. Yes, a gun that literally just blows people up is featured. I really liked it. I do realize that it is more Sci-fi than anything else, but it's still good for horror fans to see.

That's all I have for now!

I Love Sarah Jane

2009-08-07T14:52:00.000-07:00

Johnny over at Freddy In Space put this up a couple days ago, but I have to steal it for my blog too. It's a little too good.

Enjoy the zombie short I Love Sarah Jane!

Horror's Best Graveyards

2009-08-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

It's not a big deal for a scene in a horror movie to be based in a graveyard. Hell, some movies revolve around the premise of being in a graveyard. But not all cinematic graveyards are created equal. Most are pretty standard, bland offerings of granite tombstones and boring backgrounds. But every so often, you get a truly spectacular collection of mausoleums, an ossuary or two, and wonderful headstones. Or maybe it just happens to be placed in a great setting. In any event, here are some really wonderful examples of what a graveyard should look like:

Night of the Living Dead (1968): This cemetery really isn't anything spectacular in the terms of the actual headstones or structures, but the scenery around it is very nice. A serene, hilly setting makes for the perfect dichotomy of peaceful, resting dead and shambling, restless undead. The actual cemetery is known as Evans City Cemetery and is located in Pennsylvania (as everything Romero practically is). There is actually a great site showing the scenes from the movie next to what it looks like today.

Cemetery Man (1994):

The cemetery in this flick is pretty much the quintessential horror movie resting place: gothic statues of angels and death, ornate mausoleums, strange people tending to it, and zombies. I really like this movie and have watched it many times, but the cemetery scenery never ceases to amaze me. I love watching it over and over again to find some new building or bit of scenery every time. A nice contrast to the simple NOTLD cemetery mentioned previously.

Pet Sematary (1989):

The "sematary" in question is deep in the woods, the entrance is marked by creepy rock formations, and is mired by the loss of beloved family friends. It doesn't get much sadder or freakier than this folks. The movie itself is very good and has so many creepy things going for it anyway, but the set design of the cemetery itself just makes it all the better. And that little kid. It makes me shudder just thinking about it.

The Omen (1976):

One the most classic graveyard scenes of all time is the dog attack from the original Omen movie. The fog hangs thick, the walls are huge, and the scare factor is a 10. Gregory Peck goes searching for his child's true mother to discover the grave is inhabited by a decaying dog corpse. With brambles and eerie trees jutting out from every corner, The Omen's graveyard might have easily overdone the ominous scenery, but instead finds a nice balance and makes for a picturesque horror cemetery.

Sleepy Hollow (1999):

I am a sucker for anything Tim Burton, but I can't help it. Everything about his movies reeks of style and thought. I love this particular graveyard because of the New England cottages behind and the creepy woods surrounding it. On the one hand, you get this serene village, on the other, a foggy, desolate wood. Tim Burton could make a DMV look stylistic and I would love every minute of it.

Some honorable mentions: Dead Alive, Dead Silence, Repo! The Genetic Opera, and Zombie.

These are the ones that I could come up with, so now I open up the comments for my readers' suggestions.

There Are Zombies in My Living Room

2009-08-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

Yep, you read that title correctly. Every so often, I get together with some friends and we kill zombies in my living room. And no, there are no video games involved. We actually do this...

... with some dice. The board game is called "Last Night on Earth" and in a nutshell, it's Risk, but with zombies.

Go ahead and re-read that last sentence and tell me that's not awesome.

So it is a bit more complex than that, but essentially, you have four people that are heroes and two that are zombies (you can play with fewer than six, but it's best with a full 6). The game involves different scenarios playing out in a number of turns and the heroes having to accomplish specific goals. Sometimes they have to find gas to get into a truck and drive off, sometimes they have to defend a house from the horde, and other times they merely have to kill off a certain number of zombies. It's a really fun time and I would recommend it to anyone.

Check out the game's website to order it or go to your local game shop to get a copy! It's well worth it!

And did I mention the game comes with IT'S OWN FREAKING SOUNDTRACK?

And also, I apologize for the lack of updates lately. I promise to remedy this!

Can You Survive A Horror Movie?

2009-07-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

An interesting proposition, isn't it? I know that we all watch horror movies and think to ourselves, "If that were me, I would totally __________. I would definitely survive this." I can't blame anyone for thinking that, mostly because I do that all the time. The fact of the matter is that most of us probably wouldn't survive if we were being stalked by an unkillable murderer with super strength. We would do the same things as all horror victims: run up the stairs instead of out the door, try to hide instead of running away, or fall down as we run away (the last one is relevant to me as I am 6'3" and uncoordinated at best). Luckily for me, I have read something that will help me survive:

I got this book from Amazon a bit ago and read it cover to cover a couple of times (it's a pretty fun and simple read). I have to give it to Seth Grahame-Smith, he knows his stuff on how to survive a horror movie. The book breaks it down on how to survive each sub-genre and how to keep yourself in one piece. It gives advice on how to dress (sexy clothes = bad, parkas = good), how to convince a cop to believe you (a bloody limb is best), and even on how to defeat the mildly inbred killer that's stalking you (shiny things and moonshine). Although with that last entry, I think the most effective way of killing them would be Henry Rollins, a bow and arrow, and explosives, but hey, that's just me.

The book does a good job of introducing you to the "terrorverse", or the universe that horror movies exist in. In this universe, it's night time about 20 hours a day and you have very little chance of survival. Things are seen through blue filters at night as you walk through abandoned neighborhoods inhabited by the undead. In the terrorverse, everything is working against you except for this book. It's an interesting concept and the screenwriter is your God in this universe. You had better be aware of cliches and warnings in your world or you will not survive!

Overall the book is a great little read. While I didn't entirely agree with him on some of the points, Grahame-Smith does a pretty damn good job of outlining how to survive. And if you are reading this right now with some creepy background noise and things moving outside of your window, maybe you should order a copy now. It might just save your life!

All The Boys Love Mandy Lane Review

2009-07-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

I recently watched the much hyped All The Boys Love Mandy Lane slasher. I took a little time to digest the movie and decided to write a review about what I thought. So, let's hear what the hype is all about, shall we?

The movie opens with a scene at a party where Mandy Lane and her male friend are hanging out with people that are far more popular than they are. The male friend is made fun of to no end, but Mandy is hot, so she just gets a bunch of attention from all the jocks at the party. One of them starts arguing with the male friend on a roof and the friend convinces the jock to jump off the roof into the pool below to impress Mandy. Of course, he doesn't make it, dies, and the male friend is thusly ostracized for the rest of high school.

Fast forward a couple of years and we find Mandy is still hot and still the desire of all the boys (as the title would suggest). Mandy goes with some friends to a ranch in the middle of nowhere to have some fun. The ranch hand is there to watch over them, and everything seems to go well. Nothing bad could ever happen from a group of teens drinking in the middle of nowhere, especially when death is already established as a big part of their lives. Well, except for a killer stalking them and killing them off one by one. That could happen, I guess.

And happen it does. The kids are stalked by none other than the male friend from the beginning (trust me, it's not a secret in the movie, so I didn't just give anything away) and they are killed in fairly gruesome ways. And then, in a great finale, something twist-like happens that you will never see coming (or maybe you will like I did)!

Cinematography: I have to hand it to the movie, Mandy Lane is well shot. It's got some good camerawork and interesting shot angles. The color palette is intriguing, mostly skewing towards the yellows and browns, giving it a very washed out look. It's an artistic looking movie, and that makes it pretty easy to watch. However, it isn't anything I haven't seen before or been done better recently. It was fun to watch, but it wasn't revolutionary. However, it was pretty exceptionally well shot for a horror movie, so it gets 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: It's a slasher film. That involves teens doing drugs/alcohol and getting picked off by a stalking killer. We're not breaking new ground here. It was a good slasher though, and it held some conventions pretty well. The characters are pretty cookie cutter high school stereotypes (jocks that only want girls, girls that only want sex from popular boys, one druggie friend that doesn't really fit), but you are supposed to dislike them. It succeeds in making you root for the right people, that's for sure. The acting is ample, but not exactly Oscar-worthy. However, they aren't reading Shakespeare, so it works for the material at hand. It was kind of a bland offering at times, engaging in others, so Mandy Lane gets 3 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-Genre Comparison: It's pretty well documented that I am not a huge slasher fan, so I wasn't entirely excited to watch this movie. I did make it through, though I would rather have watched Cold Prey or The Cottage. Mandy Lane is better than most standard slasher fare and it's not a remake, so it has that leg up on most of the competition. As far as recent slashers, it's a good entry. As far as comparing it to Halloween or Friday the 13th (originals), it can't compare. The filmmakers did a good job, but it was not a movie that I am going to be striving to watch over and over like Carpenter's Halloween. All things considered, it was better than most, so Mandy Lane gets 3 out 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.

Production Value: This movie looks much better than most and you can't tell the budget by looking at it. The sets are great and the ranch is an interesting setting to say the least. The blood/gore was quite well done and not over the top. The kills weren't anything to write home about, but they looked good and so did the aftermath. It didn't look too CGI or anything like that, so logically it should hold up pretty well in the future. The movie looks more like a big budget movie than a low budget movie, so it succeeds in that respect. Overall, it earns a respectable 3 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: As far as slashers go, they are about as scary as girl scout troops to me. I mean, a good one can get some tension out there and make some great scares, but rarely does a slasher do that for me. Mandy Lane manages a bit of tension in parts, but overall is pretty stale on the scare front. The characters have a bit of a feeling of isolation, but really, it's hard to keep up when the characters could just run away from the ranch at any moment (and do at one point). Sure, they are in the middle of nowhere, but they never really feel that alone. The ranch hand manages to save the day a few times, so you don't get the sense of dread that you would normally in a movie like this. It wasn't without it's good scenes though, so I can give it 3 out of 5 for Scares.

And the final tally chalks Mandy Lane up to 16 out of 25. Basically, it didn't make me want to stop the movie, but it didn't make me want to buy it. It was a pretty respectable entry for slashers, but isn't worth the hype of it not being released for such a long time (it has been notoriously held from release for quite a while now). All The Boys Love Mandy Lane was a good movie to watch, but I don't really want to watch it again. I can't stand most twist endings, but this one was okay. It wasn't like The Sixth Sense, but it wasn't bad enough to do a Pointless Twist Endings entry on it. I would say if you like slashers to see it, but you can wait for it to be legal to obtain.

Evil Things Reminder!

2009-07-10T14:11:00.001-07:00

The screening is tonight! See this movie! For the information, see my post a couple below this one!

Hollywood Horror

2009-07-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

As any movie person will tell you, horror has become a much more prevalent genre in the last 10 years, largely due to the success of the Scream movies (and a few others). However, for some reason, this has not really improved the number of quality horror movies that have come out in the years since. Well, at least not the horror movies that Hollywood releases. The majority of major American horror movie releases are pretty terrible, usually very watered down and bland (and often times painfully un-scary). With a few notable exceptions (Cloverfield, Quarantine, The Ring, Dawn of the Dead, Drag Me To Hell), most of Hollywood's horror movie entries have fallen very flat.

And the worst part is that I keep going to see them, thinking that they might actually be good. And I am often very disappointed. There's the upcoming release Orphan that I will undoubtedly see, but I have a feeling I will be disappointed. But it's the same principle I take with the straight to DVD horror that I pick up and watch unknowingly: I will gladly wade through several godawful Hollywood pictures to find the one that is actually worth watching. So, on that note, I will give you a few recent duds and some alternatives to watch instead. Hopefully this helps you in your quest for good horror!

*I tried to stay away from remakes, but it's harder than I thought*

Hollywood Dud: The Unborn
Problem with it: Aside from the fact that Odette Yustman is quite attractive, this movie has very little going for it. Sure, Gary Oldman is in it, but he can't stop this trainwreck. It's extraordinarily predictable and not scary in the least. It takes a nice premise and squanders it with shots of Yustman jogging (how do you squander something with that?). It basically stumbles through a story that you don't care about and ends poorly.
What you should watch instead: If you are into freaky kids and evil spirits, there's always Dead Birds or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Or if you are in a classic mood, try The Omen for a creepy kid overdose (the original movie, not the travesty of a remake).

Hollywood Dud: Skinwalkers
Problem with it: Yes, I actually watched it. I can't even begin to tell you how poorly acted and blase this movie was. Skinwalkers was like watching a high school werewolf play with a big budget. It was an interesting story idea, but it was an uninteresting movie.
What you should watch instead: Dog Soldiers and Black Sheep are both much better were-animal movies than this one was. Weird how they are both foreign...

Hollywood Dud: Pulse
Problem with it: Another bland Japanese re-make with a cast from the CW network (Veronica Mars, Reaper), the movie sucked the life out of the original. There was no chemistry with the cast and the effects were needlessly apparent. They could have made much scarier ghosts with simpler effects. Most of the time, simpler is better for ghosts. Every once in a while an elaborate ghost does well (The Devil's Backbone), but in general, simple effects make things seem more real.
What you should watch instead: The Signal. Same basic principle (electric devices make shit go crazy), but it's well acted, funny at parts, and all around a blast to watch.

Hollywood Dud: Prom Night
Problem with it: Stop with the remakes. It was another poorly acted/written affair with characters you didn't care about. It's a formulaic slasher with pretty uninteresting deaths in it. Just don't see it.
What you should watch instead: The Midnight Meat Train is one of my favorite slasher flicks of all time. Wildly inventive and crazily artistic, just see it.

Hollywood Dud: Mirrors
Problem with it: Alexandre Aja, a great director, made this crap unfortunately. It was watching Jack Bauer yell at inanimate objects for an hour and a half. The jaw ripping scene was pretty intense and well done, but other than that nothing was memorable. I am hoping Aja does well with his upcoming Piranha 3-D.
What you should watch instead: Looking for a spooky ghost tale? Wind Chill or even The Messengers should serve your purpose quite well.

There you go. I just don't get why everyone of the Hollywood movies feels the need to be shot through a blue filter to make everything seem, well, bluer. It makes no sense to me. Any thoughts?

Minority Retort

2009-07-06T18:43:00.000-07:00

So, aside from wanting to use the clever pun in the title, I do actually have a plan for this post. I've been watching a lot of horror lately (as always), and I got to thinking about the amount of minorities that die in horror movies. They really don't last that long, especially the black people. And why is that? Is it because of good old fashioned racism?

Pictured above: Racism.

Well, it probably is racism that drives it. Or it was, and now it's just become the thing to do. But there have been many movies that have shed that racism. Take for instance the original Night of the Living Dead that I have pictured above. In that movie the Ben lives until the end. And then gets shot. By racist rednecks.

Okay, bad example.

But NOTLD did bring race to the front with a powerful message. A message that rang so true, today minorities are still getting killed off in horror. Damn, did we learn anything?

Now, I'm not trying to solve any of the race problems in horror movies, nor am I going to try to pinpoint exactly where they came from and why they persist, but I am going to say that I love seeing a minority live through a horror movie. It's nice to see that some movies eschew the tradition. Examples:

Splinter
Who survived?: The Jewish guy.
How big of a step forward?: Ehhh, he's not really a super stereotype, but definitely Jewish. It's not a huge step forward, but at least we see the minority live.

Deep Blue Sea
Who survived?: Ladies Love Cool James (or LL Cool J to those not in the know)
How big of a step forward?: Initially, I would say a huge step forward because he is a pretty big stereotype. But the same movie also killed Samuel L. Jackson and Stellan Skarsgard earlier. But 1 out of 3 is a lot better than most movies.

The Grudge
Who survived?: Actually, this time, Sarah Michelle Gellar dies. Bear with me on this...
How big of a step forward?: So this time, we get to see Gellar as the minority white person in Japan, therefore it's pretty huge because the white person dies instead of the Japanese (well some of them too). But in our aryan eyes, she's the norm. It's a big step forward to feature the white person in an American horror as the minority. However, she still dies, so not a really big step forward.

Hostel
Who survived?: Paxton, played by Jay Hernandez
How big of a step forward?: While he is pretty Americanized, he's still latino looking, so that's a huge plus. And to top it off, he not only survives, but gets back at a bad guy. Of course, he's killed off right away in Hostel II, but that's not the movie I'm talking about! It is a continuation of the same story though, and I guess that means he dies. Hmmm, methinks I need a different movie.

Tales from the Hood
Who survived?: A lot of black people
How big of a step forward?: Black people survive this movie in droves. On the other hand, black people make up most of the cast. And we see some white cops get killed. And some other white people. So in reality, the black people are the majority and the whites are the minority. And a lot of whites die. So while black people survive, they aren't the minority. This is getting harder and harder...

Really, I can't come up with any movies that have thrown off the stats of minorities dying in horror. There are glimpses, but most of them are either very white acting minorities or a movie nearly entirely populated with minorities (in which case they cease to be minorities). I guess the one thing that can give solace to the minorities in horror out there is that there are a lot of white people dying in all of these movies as well. While minorities have a lower percentage of survival, the sheer number or white people that are killed outweigh the minorities by approximately tenfold. Can anyone come up with a movie that effectively throws the notion of being a minority is a death sentence?

Evil Things screening

2009-06-30T12:45:00.000-07:00

The movie I have spoken about before called Evil Things is set to screen Friday July 10th! Congrats to Dom for getting a screening of this film. If you have a chance to see it, here's the information so you can check it out:

Long Island International Film Expo
EVIL THINGS SCREENING
Friday July 10, 2009 (9:30pm)
Bellmore Movie Theater
222 Pettit Avenue
Bellmore, NY 11710
516-783-3199
All Tickets $9.00
Advance Tickets: www.liifilmexpo.org
Tickets also available at Box Office on night of the screening.
Bellmore Theater is across the street from LIRR (Bellmore station stop).

I recommend this movie to any horror fans. It's too bad I live in Wisconsin, otherwise I would love a chance to see it on the big screen. If you want to see my review of the movie, go here. Otherwise, go see the official site at www.evilthingsmovie.com.

The 5 Most Underrated Zombie Movies of Our Time

2009-06-29T17:16:00.000-07:00

I know everyone loves zombies. Well, maybe not everyone, but a lot of people seem to love zombies nowadays. Must be the cool thing to do. With Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, and Quarantine, zombie movies are the "in" thing right now. But there have been some zombie movies under the radar in the last 20 years or so, and I am going to name off the ones that I think are criminally underrated. So here there are, in no particular order:

Cemetery Man (1994): Aka Dellamorte Dellamore, this Italian zombie movie came out relatively under the radar and continues to be one I don't hear that much about. It is a rare horror movie that can go from ludicrous to terrifying in the same scene and even manages to throw in some genuinely touching moments as well. It's also one of the few movies I will watch that features talking zombies. Most of the time, talking does not enhance any sort of zombie, but these zombies have some interesting dialogues they spew, from a mayor who's not setting a good example for the other zombies to a zombie girl who just wants her father's approval to be married. And in what other movie can you see zombie nuns and boy scouts attacking Rupert Everett?
Best Line: "No, please, don't! He's only eating me!"

The Serpent and The Rainbow (1988): I've said it before and I'll say it again - I think this is Wes Craven's best movie. This happens to deal with Voodoo Zombies instead of the undead type, but it's still pretty damn amazing. Bill Pullman gives a wonderful performance and the imagery in this movie is stellar. The dream sequences are dizzying and mesmerizing, with corpses coming to life and snakes coming out of people's mouths. It's slow and atmospheric, but very well shot. This is the movie that makes you remember just how much talent Craven really has. In short, it's brilliant.
Best Line: "Don't let them bury me!"

Undead (2003): The first time I watched this movie, I wasn't really impressed with it. It's strange, goofy, and kind of dull in parts. However, a couple of subsequent viewings have allowed me to appreciate this Aussie horror/comedy. It's got a man with three shotguns combined into one and probably the most ridiculously over the top scene to ever take place in a hardware store. It's outrageous fun in parts and it eventually just seems to go haywire, throwing in some aliens for good measure. It's fun to watch (especially when a zombie tries to put itself back together) and I would recommend it.
Best Line: Alien 1: "Put your clothes on." Alien 2: "I'm comfortable with my body."

Fido (2006): With quite the great cast (including Carrie-Anne Moss in her best non-Matrix role since Memento), this comedy hums right along excellently. It's not horror, but it's a zombie movie. Set in the sort of 50's wonderland world, it's a world where zombies have been quelled in a great war and repurposed as butlers and helpers. Every affluent family has a helper zombie and what could possibly go wrong with that? It's a great flick and very funny. It's too bad that it isn't a little more on the horror side, but it's still very well done and deserving of a spot on this list.
Best Line: "Mommy, help! Grandpa's fallen and he's getting back up!"

Planet Terror (2007): Yeah, I know, it's gotten some good reviews, but overall this movie was undeservedly overlooked. It's really well done, overwrought fun that has a great cast. Planet Terror was definitely the more enjoyable half of Grindhouse for me (mostly because you can't make a grindhouse movie 75% dialogue, Tarantino!) and Robert Rodriguez showed his talent in spades while making this movie. I can't tell you how awesome it is to watch a girl with a machine gun leg blow zombies away. Unfortunately, the idea of sitting through three hours of film turned a lot of people off. It's their loss, I guess.
Best Line: "Don't shoot yourself. Don't shoot each other. And especially... don't shoot me."

There you have it folks. Any comments?

Wind Chill Review

2009-06-26T12:41:00.000-07:00

I mentioned this briefly a while ago, but I never got back around to watching it... until last night. I was equally pleased with the movie the second time around, so I figured it would get a review! But what is it all about?

As we open on a college classroom, we find Emily Blunt looking for a ride home for Christmas break. She was going to take a bus, but a friend urges her to look at the ride share board they have posted on campus. She does and finds Ashton Holmes is willing to take her for a ride. As they start off on their journey, he makes a few comments that don't quite add up. He says she looks good in her glasses (she doesn't wear them in public), mentions a school in the area she grew up in that doesn't exist, and asks for directions at a gas station when he should know the way. She gets a bit creeped out by this and he turns off onto a side road in the middle of nowhere. This is where we find out the boy has been a bit obsessed with the girl (they are listed as "boy" and "girl" in the credits, so they don't have a name I guess) and he wanted to get her alone for some quality time. And then things get creepy...

But things don't get creepy between the kids. A mysterious car that leaves no tire tracks runs them off the strange side road. The girl locks the boy out of the car and he leaves to get to the gas station. She then sees a few strange people walk pas the car in the snow, but leave no footprints. The boy comes back and finds a burned down monastery with some strange stuff in it. A sheriff comes by and doesn't treat the kids well, then disappears. A burned man vomits an eel. And finally, without revealing too much of the ending, some, uh, very bad stuff happens.

Cinematography: This movie is very bleak, with long expanses of the road and mountains being the main backdrops. The snow makes for a very draining landscape, almost making you feel tired and unhappy watching it. It sets up shots very well, making the isolation in the Appalachian mountains very apparent. The camera angles aren't anything groundbreaking or terribly impressive, but varied and well executed, making the movie interesting to watch. The mise-en-scene is that of dread the entire time, allowing for the snow and scenery to do most of the work in the tension area. It's a very well shot movie, thus earning it a 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Wind Chill starts off as a pretty traditional story of a boy that's a little too obsessed with a girl and wants to take her away from civilization, but eventually you find it was a misguided romantic gesture. The boy and girl end up sharing some fairly intimate moments in the end and you don't even realize that the movie has turned into a ghost story right in front of you. It's a nice reprieve from the standard of both movies, putting the characters in tension with each other, then with the ghosts. Even in the end though, the tension between the characters is there, with the two never fully trusting each other. The acting is quite good, with Blunt and Holmes bringing genuine performers to the table. Martin Donovan is creepy and disturbing, making the sheriff character the most interesting person on screen. With believable characters and exceptional acting, 4.5 out of 5 is awarded to Wind Chill for Execution.

Sub-Genre Comparison: As a stalker tale, Wind Chill is pretty standard fare. Sort of creepy guy, isolated location, unsuspecting girl. Luckily for the movie, it isn't a stalker tale. As a ghost tale, Wind Chill unabashedly succeeds by setting up a good back story and great tension. As far as ghost tales lately go, it's ahead of recent fair like The Unborn or The Haunting in Connecticut. Wind Chill holds up well with many other haunting films with the notable plot point being that it isn't a haunted house, but a haunted highway. It won't ever compare to something like The Exorcist or The Omen, but nothing really will, so it earns a nice 3.5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.

Production Value: The movie was produced by the likes of George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh, so the budget isn't exactly shoestring. That being said, the movie wasn't backed by a large studio, so it didn't have a limitless budget either. With what it has, Wind Chill does everything successfully, especially in the sparse landscapes making the characters feel very isolated. The special effects are mostly make-up related and above average, but used sparingly. That's not a bad thing, but it makes it hard to judge. There is no gore and very little blood, but the aforementioned eel vomiting scene is pretty gross nonetheless. This is not an effects heavy movie and that's a very good thing in my opinion. The more real a ghost seems, the scarier it is. If you make the ghosts actual actors on screen and not CGI, the performances come through better and enhance the viewing experience. All that considered, Wind Chill gets a nice 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: So far, Wind Chill has been delivering everything quite well, but most importantly of all: will it scare you. The answer is yes, in parts. The movie is very tense and good to set up scares, but nothing is so very scary you ever feel like looking away from the screen. However, the Sheriff character exudes creepiness and the rest of the ghosts make for some interesting on screen horror. The movie stays very atmospheric the entire time, even with a lot of action and you get scared for the characters quite a bit. While it never gets overwhelmingly scary, it remains an intense viewing experience, so it gets 3.5 out 5 for Scares.

And the final tally puts Wind Chill at a solid 20 out of 25. I really enjoyed this movie and it's definitely one of the better horror movies to come out of the states in the last few years. Gregory Jacobs directed this movie and I would like to see him lend his talents to some other horror movies in the near future. He did a great job with a pretty modest budget, so I would love to see more of him. It's a good story with believable characters and an interesting premise. The overall tone works well and the backstory for the ghosts is one that will keep your attention throughout the whole movie. Don't expect a fast moving, action-packed thriller, but expect a moody, atmospheric thriller. And it's pretty cheap!

The Sounds of Horror

2009-06-24T13:14:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking about all of the different horror movies I have watched over the years and about the soundtracks I have heard coming from them. I was trying to come up with the best soundtracks in horror and got to thinking that I wanted to hear from everyone about what their favorite soundtracks were as well. So I would like to start this discussion now.

First, some guidelines:

1. When I say soundtrack, I don't mean soundtracks full of modern rock/metal songs that they did for the movie. I like Scream 3 and Resident Evil's soundtracks too, but I don't want to hear about that.

2. I don't want to hear about the classics. Yes, Psycho was awesome. Tubular Bells made The Exorcist creepier. And who doesn't know the Halloween theme? I want something you don't hear about all the time.

3. Tell me why you like it so much. Not a lengthy explanation, but just the reason it stands out for you.

I'll get it going with a movie I recently spoke about:

It's a great soundtrack that features a freaking harpsichord! How often do you hear that? What do you think?

The Mutant Chronicles vs. Eden Log

2009-06-11T11:28:00.000-07:00

So I recently viewed both The Mutant Chronicles and Eden Log in fairly rapid succession. Actually, I saw a preview for Eden Log and Mutant Chronicles on the same DVD and decided to procure both as they seemed interesting. In addition to being filmed in essentially the same style (cyberpunk), they are both post-apocalyptic tales involving mutated human beings of some sort trying to bring down us normal humans. I decided I would try to take a stab at seeing how they stacked up against one another and see which I actually preferred. What better way to do that then in a public forum like my blog? Here are the trailers for the respective movies:

Mutant Chronicles:

Eden Log:

I watched them on back to back days and within a week of watching The Mist in black and white, thus fulfilling my quota for b&w movies for the year. As I said before, they are both about the end of man and the mutated enemies encountered there, but they attack the subject from two very different angles. The Mutant Chronicles chooses the epic, action packed side of the apocalypse, showing large scale warfare and huge, steam-powered space ships carting people off the planet. Eden Log, on the other hand, chooses to go the more cerebral route of showing a mud covered man waking up in a pool, climbing over a dead body, and slowly revealing clues to his identity. But do they actually achieve what they are going for?

The Mutant Chronicles definitely entertains you with action. There is a lot of brutality in the movie, sure to satisfy the violence seekers in all of us. The only color in the movie that isn't in grayscale is red, which you will see in geyser-like spurts most of the time. The onslaught of the mutants is a scene to behold as heads are run through like meat on a kebab. The movie sets its tone early and often, with just a bit of drama thrown in there for good measure (the trailer would have you believe there is more drama than the movie contains). Mutant definitely delivers on the action side.

Eden Log is at heart a mystery story and it keeps a lot of information from you from the very start. You have to start trying to figure out what is going on, especially when the first scene is 5 minutes of a muddy guy looking at a blinking spotlight and grunting. It's slow moving and atmospheric, definitely making for a very creepy feel throughout the film. As it trudges along, it has a tendency to slow down the action a lot, but never loses your attention (at least not mine). Eden Log is definitely not for everyone and it can be slow, but the tone of the film allows it to achieve the intelligence it is striving for.

Eden Log has its share of action as well. The scenes where the mutants start to swarm and take on some of the humans are very well done and downright terrifying in parts. However, Eden Log isn't trying to rely on the mutants for tension. In fact, the most intense parts of the movie are when the mutants aren't onscreen but merely implied to be in the shadows. The Mutant Chronicles dips its foot into the pool of deep thought on occasion, but never goes very long without a red fountain spraying across the screen. The Mutant Chronicles isn't trying to be an overly intelligent movie, but it's not trying to be a dumb movie either. The problem is that while Mutant succeeds in action but not really in thought, Eden Log seems to do pretty well with both.

As for casting, Eden Log has no one you have ever heard of in it. Or maybe you have heard of them if you watch a lot of French films, but from what I understand, they are fairly unknown over there too. The Mutant Chronicles features some great names: Tom Jane (The Mist), Ron Perlman (Hellboy himself!), John Malkovich (Con Air's Cyrus the Virus), Devon Aoki (Sin City's sword-wielding Miho), and Sean Pertwee (Dog Solders and Event Horizon). Eden Log throws a winding story at you and dares you keep up; The Mutant Chronicles shows you everything from the start like a college streaker. Eden Log will have you wincing to think about the plot whereas The Mutant Chronicles will have you wincing thinking about having a giant spike in your face. The movies look so very similar and yet play out so very differently.

In the end, I would recommend both movies, but choose which you are in the mood for: Eden Log for a serious thinking mood and The Mutant Chronicles for a fun action movie mood. I liked both films and need to watch them both again for different reasons. Both have their pratfalls: they both feature some less than stellar acting at parts, both have a few boring scenes, and both make you realize how some directors try too hard at times to achieve the look they are going for. But both movies are engaging enough to make you want to keep watching. The problems they present are fairly minor and not enough to make you want to stop the movie. In the end, I will buy both movies soon (Eden Log is out now on Blu-Ray and DVD while The Mutant Chronicles is available shortly), but I have to give the edge to The Mutant Chronicles on this one. It has more watchability, better action, and Sean fucking Pertwee. I love that guy. And yes, he dies in the movie as he does in every movie he is in.

Plus you get to see a lot of people stabbed in the face, something Eden Log severely lacks.

Remakes That Should Make The Original Proud

2009-06-09T09:04:00.000-07:00

I did a post on remakes that never should have been a bit ago, so I figured why not do one that talks about good remakes (thanks MonkeyManBob). So here are some remakes that actually did the original justice (in my opinion anyway):

Night of the Living Dead (1990): Tom Savini took the directing reigns and turned out a worthy remake of the original. With horror powerhouses Tony Todd and Tom Towles in this movie, it really hit on all cylinders. It feels like watching a 50s horror movie with better effects. Just an entertaining movie all around.

Quarantine (2008): [rec] is a great movie. Quarantine might be a bit better. I thought this movie was very well done and scary, actually overshadowing the original in some aspects (though [rec]'s ending is the better of the two, I must say). I was very pleased with Quarantine and it was nice to see a good remake.

The Thing (1982): John Carpenter's masterpiece that is usually considered one of the greatest remakes of all time is just that. It's such a great adaptation. The tight plot, wonderful acting, and tense effects scenes just make it so enjoyable to watch. I just love this movie.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006): Alexandre Aja's re-imagining of Craven's good but dated movie was one of my favorites. It was gory but still scary, a rarity these days. I loved the mutants and the fact that Aja tried to use as little CGI as possible, instead favoring make up effects. Too bad The Hills Have Eyes 2 sucked.

The Ring (2002): Better than the original Ringu, The Ring blew me away the first time I saw it. Subsequent viewings have continued to amaze me, just marveling at the way it is shot and how it can scare you. Again, it's too bad the sequel didn't live up to this remake.

Dawn of the Dead (2004): Though it lacked the social commentary of the original, it was still a kickass movie. I like the slow zombies more than the fast zombies, but this movie still had a nice sense of dread to it. The characters were fun too, so it made it pretty easy to watch.

Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. There are a few remakes that didn't disgrace the original but didn't overwhelm me like the others (Texas Chainsaw, Amityville Horror, Halloween, House of Wax, Friday the 13th to name a few), but I didn't want to list all of those here. As always, what are your thoughts?

Underrated Horror: Ravenous

2009-06-05T08:48:00.000-07:00

I feel like I need to intersperse my hating on some horror with my love for some. And as is standard with any horror fan, I have my movies that I really feel were never given the justice they deserved. So, I am going to give you guys a glimpse of what I feel are a few movies that have never been given their due. First up on the list: Ravenous.

A quick summary according to IMDB: "A soldier in the Mexican-American war in 1847 is promoted to captain for his perceived bravery but soon transferred to a remote outpost in the Sierra Nevadas when the cowardly truth becomes evident. The outpost's keepers seem on the brink of madness in their own ways, and what passes for their tranquil is shattered by the intrusion of the lone survivor of an ill-fated expedition that ended in murder and cannibalism."

Ravenous unfortunately suffered from the fact that it was very hard to market. It was a little too lighthearted to market it as an entirely serious horror flick (though Fox tried to) and not comedic enough to market as a horror/comedy. It's definitely a horror film and not a comedy, but it is a very quirky horror flick. Ravenous is a tough film to wrap your head around (at least before seeing it) because you don't really know how they can take a subject like cannibalism and make it anything but terribly serious. Luckily for us, the movie does and does it well, thanks largely in part to the actors in it.

*Warning, some minor spoilers lie beyond this point*

Guy Pearce is excellent. As the leading man, he shows a great range in the movie that a lot of actors wouldn't have been able to pull off: he is sulky and cowardly in the beginning of the film, but after many trials and tribulations, he ends up as the amazing hero we all wanted to see in the end. Robert Carlyle shows a different but equally good range in his character arc: from the trembling victim we are introduced to, to the crazed lunatic we find him to be, to the almost Hannibal Lecter-like menacing villain in the end. Jeffrey Jones does the paternal figure to near perfection. Neal McDonough as the "true soldier" Reich, Jeremy Davies as the quiet and religious Toffler, and David Arquette as the overly medicated Cleaves are all very good in their own rights as well. Even the smaller supporting cast members turn in some good performances, making the film very easy to watch.

And the production values are amazing. Ravenous was shot in Eastern Europe in order to achieve the look of mid-19th century America near the Rockies. The shots are very well set up and the sets look quite authentic, actually overshadowing the actors sometimes. The execution is near perfect, showing just the right amount of scenery and yet still allowing the actors to hold your attention. And the gore effects in the movie are very good but not overwhelming, choosing to be more bloody than gory. However, the scenes where the gore is present are enticing, making it simple for a non-gorehound like myself to stay interested while still being violent enough to satisfy gore-seekers. And the final fight scene between Pearce and Carlyle apparently caused the production to run out of fake blood, so if you haven't seen it, that's something to look forward to. I will link a video of it here, but if you haven't seen the movie, you may not want to watch it so it doesn't ruin it for you. On the other hand, it may just make you want to watch the whole damn thing.

And finally, the music for the movie is unlike any other movie you will ever hear. It adds a whole other level to the film that would not have been there with a standard soundtrack. Here's a great example of the strange music featured in the film:

I can't say anything else besides see this movie if you haven't before. It's a movie that I include in my top ten horror movies of all time pretty regularly. It is an unfortunately under appreciated film and I would love to see it get more press (even if it is 10 years old now). So go forth, and heed my recommendation! I don't think I can extol any more virtues of the film. And as always, tell me what you think!

Overrated Horror: Lucio Fulci

2009-06-04T08:01:00.000-07:00

So, I did an article about Eli Roth before and how I felt he was overrated and I was hoping to make it a bit of a recurring segment. Well, I am back with the second entry in the "Overrated Horror" bit I am going to start. And I figure I am going to draw a bit of flack for this one, but I have to say it: I think Lucio Fulci is overrated.

Now, I have to start this off by saying I don't think all of his movies are bad. I still think that Zombi is quite a good movie. I might even call it great. And The Beyond (or as I have it on DVD, Seven Doors of Death) is quite entertaining with some great scenes. And of course, I feel that he is an inspiration for many of the filmmakers today. But really, I haven't seen any other Lucio Fulci movie that I have liked that much.

I was first introduced to Fulci upon buying Zombi on VHS at the behest of a friend. I loved it and still love it today. There are so many iconic scenes: from the zombie vs shark, to the zombies coming up from the graveyard (about 8 minutes into the clip), and, of course, the eye gouging scene. So after that, I picked up Seven Doors of Death and enjoyed it enough. I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't as good as Zombi, but then again, I didn't expect it to be as good. Of course I like both movies, so I couldn't really complain. Seven Doors of Death was a 5 dollar cheap DVD, so I searched that same rack and found The House By The Cemetery there. Seeing that it was Fulci, I had to have it. That was where I started to dislike him.

The House by the Cemetery isn't very good. All of Fulci's movies were pretty low budget, but this one is a bit ridiculous. The fact that the doctor in the basement of the house is "Dr. Freudstein" (an obvious mash up of Freud and Frankenstein) was pretty lame. And the bat attack was pretty lame. And the whole movie was pretty lame. It didn't have the fun of his other movies. Now, don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy watching that movie. Not because it's good you see, but because it's great to make fun of á la Mystery Science Theater 3000. But, I still liked 2 of the 3 movies I had seen from Fulci, so I went back in for more...

I watched The New York Ripper next. Pretty forgettable for me. I then watched The Black Cat. Snore. I watched A Cat in the Brain then. Gah. Everything I have watched since The Beyond (Seven Doors of Death) has been downhill. I am not a huge gorehound, so Fulci's movies don't really have that much appeal for me(as with most grindhouse directors of that era). So when the movies start having stories I am not that interested in, the movies lose my interest. Fulci's movies aren't that engaging if you don't care about the gore in the kills. There's just not that much substance to them.

I know that's pretty much what he was going for, don't get me wrong. I know what a grindhouse director is. I just feel like everyone seems to think Fulci was something amazing when he really wasn't. As I said before, I can appreciate what he did and how he inspired modern directors, but really, I don't think he's all that great. I compare him to eighties thrash/speed metal: I don't particularly care for it, but I can respect those bands for how they inspired my favorite bands today.

And while I am on the subject of Italian directors, I feel that Dario Argento is pretty overrated as well. The thing with him is that I haven't seen enough of his movies to really judge him as well. Suspiria was good, but anything that I have seen from him beyond that has been pretty mediocre at best(I really disliked both of his Masters of Horror entries). Again, with me not being a gorehound, I am not that interested in his movies. And of course, both Argento and Fulci are high on Eli Roth's list of inspirations.

I guess what it comes down to is that I don't like their style of horror. I just can't get into the movies as much. I enjoy a good grindhouse-style film on occasion (Planet Terror, From Dusk til Dawn, Feast, Slither), but I just can't get into a Fulci or Argento film because they try to take themselves too seriously. I don't hate Fulci (or Argento), but I don't think they are as great as they are often revered.

Evil Things Review

2009-06-01T18:22:00.000-07:00

So after seeing Johnny's posting about an independent horror flick called Evil Things, I decided to see if I could possibly check it out. I talked to Dominic Perez, the guy who wrote and directed the movie, and he said he would gladly send me a screener DVD to review for myself. I must say, he was really nice and he sent me the above package immediately. As Johnny said before, it's an ingenious packaging with a letter from the Department of Justice addressed to me and the "evidence" stamping on all the packaging. So, right off the bat, I was pretty pumped to watch the movie. Did it live up to my expectations? A quick summary first...

It’s Miriam’s 21st Birthday. As a birthday gift, Miriam’s aunt Gail lends Miriam her beautiful country house for an entire weekend. Aunt Gail’s country house is amazing. It’s a four bedroom house surrounded by breathtaking mountains and miles and miles of woods. Miriam invites her college buddies Cassy, Mark, Tanya and Leo to join her at the country house for what looks to be the most amazing weekend ever. Of course they all jump at the chance to spend a free weekend in the country, in the middle of nowhere. Miriam’s friends are totally in the mood for a big time party weekend. They’re also anxious to escape the dark and gloomy concrete jungle known as Manhattan. Miriam, Cassy and Tanya bring the food. Mark brings the beer and Leo, the aspiring filmmaker, brings his new video camera. Leo hopes to produce a short movie by documenting every amazing moment of this weekend getaway. Unfortunately, what Leo ends up capturing on camera is not a weekend of peace and tranquility, but a nightmarish descent into pure terror.

If you're new to the site, here's an explanation of the criteria I have laid out.

Cinematography: Well, it's a handheld camera movie, so the cinematography can't be looked at the same way a traditionally shot movie is. However, it is an exceptionally well shot film. The set up scenes as the group heads towards the cabin are well done. The whole film is shot with a nice sense of dread to it, never choosing to be terribly bright, but not so dark that it's distracting. It definitely succeeds in looking like found footage. The most impressive aspect, however, is the fact that I didn't ever feel like the movie got too jittery or shaky. The camera moved and shook quite a bit during the movie, but not so much that it was distracting from the plot or scares. I have to hand it to Evil Things' style, so it earns a nice 3.5 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: The idea of the found footage has been done before, but Evil Things does it better than most. The movie feels like a home movie with friends. It's a pretty standard "city folk in the middle of nowhere" style of story, but it adds a nice little element: you never get to see the stalkers. Not even an arm or a leg. You get to see the van of the stalkers, but never any bit of the antagonists themselves. In fact, I don't even know if there was only one or more than one, that's how hidden they were. The main characters were also likable and believable people. You want them to survive. Even when they argue with each other, you can't help but see some humanity in the people. For Execution, I give it 4 out of 5.

Sub-Genre Comparison: I have to compare it to two different types of films here: the suspenseful home invasion type of film and the found footage type of film. As a suspense thriller, the movie definitely succeeds and holds up. I would rate it better than The Strangers (which I liked) but not quite as good as Them (which I liked a lot). It definitely stacks up to films like Vacancy or What Lies Beneath or any other suspenseful movie recently. It stacks up there, now onto the found footage films. It's got some big shoes to fill in the wake of Quarantine and Cloverfield. However, it does a damn fine job of it. The suspense keeps up despite the handheld camera movement jarring the viewers around. It even holds up to the biggest hitter (and most original at the time): The Blair Witch Project. Because it's as good as (or better than) almost anything I can think to compare it to, it earns a deserved 4.5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.

Production Value: The settings are pretty amazing. The cabin that the people go to is pretty expansive and beautiful. The movie looks very good, especially for the stripped down look it was going for. It choose to use very few special effects, instead relying on sounds and atmosphere to produce scares. There is absolutely no gore, blood, or violence shown throughout the entire film! It has an interesting part of the film where they find a tape of the person stalking them shot from his (or her) own video camera. Even that tape looks well thought out and showcases how talented the crew is. It should hold up in look for the future, especially with the acting. It definitely goes for the low budget look without sacrificing the quality, so I give it 4 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: The movie certainly can produce some tension. It easily creates scary scenes with very little shown on screen, which not always an easy thing to do. In the same vein of Blair Witch, it prefers sound effects and simple happenings to scare the viewers, knowing that the scariest things are often in your own imagination. It goes from making you think it's a human, to making it seem supernatural, to human again with simple atmosphere and strange noises. My only real problem with the movie lies in the fact that it sometimes felt a bit stagnant. It would set up a nice, tense scene, and then you would find out that it was nothing. It does manage to kick it up a notch for the last part of the movie, especially after the footage from the killer of the main characters is found. And even when it was lulling a bit, it was interesting to watch. It was up and down for a bit, but overall scarier than average. I give Evil Things a solid 4 out of 5 for Scares.

While it is not a perfect film by any means, it is an extremely solid low budget film. Overall, Evil Things earned an impressive 20 out of 25. I have the utmost confidence that Evil Things will be picked up for distribution. At least it should be if any studio has any sense. It's very tense, well done, and quite engaging. The story kept moving along and the actors, though unknown, gave very good performances. I hope to hear more from Dominic Perez in the future and would gladly see anything he does in the future (and he seems like a nice guy to boot). I hope you all get to enjoy this film like I did! I would love to see Evil Things on the big screen and hope to soon.

Sam Raimi Dragged Me To Hell...

2009-05-31T11:15:00.000-07:00

...And I had a blast. I saw the movie yesterday and it was pretty damn fun. Definitely back to Raimi's Evil Dead roots with the style of movie that it was. It was very intense at parts, funny at parts, and entirely ludicrous at other parts. Seeing Alison Lohman dig up a grave and then have a head stone fall on her was quite entertaining. I don't really want to give anything away by saying anymore, but I will say that everyone should see this as soon as they can! Even if you don't really like the movie all that much, it's fun to see it in the theater atmosphere.

On another note, I got a package in the mail very similar to the one that Johnny got one day in his mail. More on that to follow...

What Happens When Superheroes Go Bad?

2009-05-27T14:21:00.001-07:00

You get Marvel Zombies!

I figure most people have heard of this by now, but I just wanted to give a quick shout out to this fun little series. The idea is that a zombie outbreak occurred but it targets superheroes. The heroes feast on the world and eventually deplete all of the humans on Earth and need to look elsewhere for food. It's a disturbing comic, especially when you see Hulk reach into his own belly, pull out the bits of person he just ate, and eat them again to keep the hunger at bay. I have the first three collections now and the Army of Darkness crossover as well. I highly recommend them for anyone who is a zombie fan and especially if you are a Marvel comics fan as well. The Army of Darkness crossover is particularly fun because you get to see Ash take on some of your favorite superheroes. The reason this is coming up now is because I just re-read them all last night (quick reads) and figured I would give a shout out to them now.

Go buy them and read some great zombie mayhem!

Master of Horror: George Romero

2009-05-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

Time for another entry in my ongoing review of the "Masters of Horror" that people seem to revere as horror gods. Today I am going to tackle one that I think might stir up some controversy: George Romero. I like zombie movies quite a bit, but this is the father of the modern zombie movie. Can he stack up?

*Again, this isn't a complete filmography, that is here.*

Night of the Living Dead (1968): As is the theme with most of these "Masters", he starts right off with a bang. This is the single best zombie movie of all time. It's gritty, raw, engaging, and socially pertinent. The fact that it was made on a shoestring budget in black and white still amazes me. It looks a bit dated, but what do you expect? It's inspired all kinds of filmmakers and movies since its inception and it's the reason people know Romero's name.

The Crazies (1973): A good sophomore effort, The Crazies allowed Romero to prove he could do movies other than zombie movies. It was a nice little cult flick in the 70s and still has the ability to get people hooked today. It is being remade (the remake is due out next year), so that's usually a good sign for a movie. The movie has its flaws, but it's quite enjoyable and can still shock people even now.

Martin (1977): I happened to see this movie once a few years ago (a friend found it and rented it randomly) and I must admit I didn't pay attention to it very much. It wasn't bad or anything, I just wasn't drawn into it. What I saw from it was good but not really riveting. I think I need to revisit it, but it seems to me to be quite good. I would ask for other people to chime in with what they think of it in the comments.

Dawn of the Dead (1978): What can I say about this movie that hasn't already been said? It's a classic, from beginning to end. It's nearly as good as Night of the Living Dead. In fact, the only reason it's not as good is because it didn't come first. It's beginning to show its age a bit now, but still very good by any standards.

Creepshow (1982): Creepshow is a personal favorite of mine. It hearkens back to the days of the pulp comic. Co-written with Stephen King, it's a fun ride through some campy yet creepy stories. It's a riot to see King as the farmer overgrown by a killer moss or seeing Leslie Nielsen stalked by a drowned ghost. I remember seeing this on TV as a kid and had to pick it up on DVD one day to see if I liked it as much now. The answer is yes, I do like as much now. It's a blast to watch something like this every once in a while.

Day of the Dead (1985): I know that many will disagree with me on this one, but I don't like this movie. This is where Romero's zombie movies jumped the shark for me. They went from clever, nuanced criticisms to blatant, overwrought commentaries. As Night dealt with issues of race and Dawn laid into consumerism, Day tries too hard to comment on the armed forces and the struggle for power therein. It just didn't work for me and I felt it was overrated. It's unfortunate to say because I want to like it, but I can't do it. Also, it had a talking zombie. Nope, didn't like that.

Monkey Shines (1988): I thought this movie was pretty forgettable. A guy with a helper monkey doesn't resonate with me as particularly creepy. It wasn't that I disliked this movie, it was that I just didn't care. A resounding "meh" for Monkey Shines.

The Dark Half (1993): Again, Romero teams up with Stephen King, but this time it wasn't nearly as good. Creepshow had a lot of fun and heart put into it, but The Dark Half just isn't that compelling of a story (especially a King story). I wouldn't recommend watching this because the movie just isn't really that great. It's pretty blase when compared to Romero's earlier work, but it's okay.

Bruiser (2000): Romero took some time between movies this time and it didn't really seem to help. Bruiser is an interesting concept, but a poor execution. It doesn't feel like Romero really liked it as much as some of his previous movies. At least with things like The Dark Half and Monkeyshines, it felt like he had fun making them. Bruiser felt kind of stale and forced. But at least he came back after that with a return to the zombie movie, right? After this, he made...

Land of the Dead (2005): Romero returns to the world of zombies! Hooray! If only I could cheer this movie. Again, any subtlety is lost and the idea of social commentary is put in the forefront, instead of cleverly lurking in the shadows. You may as well have spray painted "Social Classes Are Bad!" all over the sets of this movie. Most of the acting was pretty bad and zombie make up didn't even look very good. It was a disappointing movie for me. Again, I don't like the idea of the zombies that are learning, especially zombies with weapons. See this article over at Freddy In Space for a good example of what this movie looked like.

Diary of the Dead (2007): Okay, we get it, Romero likes zombie movies. This time he decides to comment on modern press tactics and how we are obsessed with violence as a society. Again, it felt like there was too much pressure to do social commentary and not enough to make a good movie. It didn't totally miss the point, as there were some redeeming scenes in the movie, but the whole handheld camera perspective is starting to get clichéd now (though it can still be done well like Quarantine or Cloverfield). This movie was better than Land, but overall still felt pretty bad.

So the final tally for Romero is: 4 good movies, 3 okay movies, and 4 bad movies. For me, I don't think Romero is necessarily a master, but I will still watch most anything with his name attached to it regardless. He's in production with another "... of the Dead" movie and of course, I will go to see it with high hopes (though I am not really that excited after the last couple). I like him, but I think he started to make too much of a point for commentary in his zombie movies and not enough on the stories themselves. It's too bad, but I still have faith he can churn out another good zombie flick. After all, he's the father of modern zombie movies.

Remakes That Never Should Have Been

2009-05-21T14:16:00.000-07:00

Johnny over at Freddy in Space wrote about what the best remakes of the last 10 years have been, and that got me thinking about what the worst remakes of the last 10 years have been. And this has led me to a few that I can think of offhand, which I will share right now!

The Omen (2006): As far as atrocities go, this was pretty bad for me. I hold The Omen as one of my all time favorite horror movies, even if it looks a little dated. For me, it's right up there with The Exorcist as one of the most groundbreaking horrors. It's just a great movie. This remake decided to step on the original movie's nuts with a stiletto heel and grind them into the dirt. For starters, Mia Farrow was laughably drugged out and impossible to take as menacing. Secondly, I have an aversion to Julia Stiles (her head is impossibly small and that's disconcerting to me), so that didn't help things. But mostly, the kid that they got to play Damien spent most of his time trying to look intimidating in front of the camera, but just came off as looking constipated. And throwing in the dream sequences with quick cut demons just sucked.

The Fog (2005): John Carpenter did a great film about ghost pirates in the 80s and actually made something that ridiculous seem scary. Then Hollywood got a hold of the rights, slapped the cast of the WB network in front of some cameras, and shot the crap that ensued. I'm not even sure this had a script. It was pretty poorly acted and unfortunately lacked the tension that the first did so well. It was too bad because if this had been done well, it would have shown the effects Carpenter wanted for his original. Instead, it was just another in the line of remakes that will end up being forgotten.

Day of the Dead (2008): I saw this and admittedly, didn't really think it was as bad as it could have been. That being said, it was not even in the same state as a good movie. It was stupidly overwrought with fast zombies that could not only run, but had super strength, intelligence (sometimes), and could climb up walls and ceilings. Plus Nick Cannon is a terrible actor and he was featured in this movie. It was pretty painful at times. And the worst part is that it's a remake of a subpar movie anyway (yeah, I don't like the original). Day of the Dead was a pretty bad movie in my opinion, so to remake it, you really had to screw up to make something worse. Well, congratulations go to the team of this remake because they did it.

Pulse (2006): Yeah, the original was actually pretty good. It's one of many American remakes of J-horror that includes The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water (another bad remake), and One Missed Call (originally a Miike movie). It's dull and lifeless, with a cast that is pretty bad at acting scared. That's kind of a big thing in horror movies. The ghosts were interestingly done, but not on screen enough. There was no sense of dread in the movie and after having read Stephen King's Cell (one of my all time favorite books, read it now), it just didn't have the impact.

The Eye (2008): Let me say one thing to start with: Jessica Alba is hot. That being said, she is a complete waste of film if she speaks on camera. The original is freaky, well acted, and well shot. The remake is pallid, weakly acted, and shot like your average MTV video. It was an unfortunate thing to have done to one of the best foreign horror films of the last few years. It's also too bad to think that most of the American moviegoers have no idea it was a remake and they think it's just a bad movie. For shame America.

That's all I can think of for now, anyone else have anything to add?

Straight to Video Gems: Dead Birds

2009-05-19T07:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I've decided to do a second entry for the Straight to Video Gems series I hope to be doing (Note: some of the future entries may have gotten a limited release in theaters or a release in another country, but I'm going to count them as Straight to Video for this purpose). So, what's on tap for this entry?

A movie called Dead Birds! This was the other movie I was mentioning in my last Straight to Video Gems article about The Burrowers. It's another horror movie set in the old west times and this one is a personal favorite horror movie of the last few years for me! A quick rundown of the plot from IMDB:

"In Civil War-era Alabama, a band of outlaws takes refuge at an abandoned plantation after robbing a bank that held a cache of Confederate gold. Led by William, the group includes Sam, Todd, Annabelle, Clyde and Joseph. They intend to flee to Mexico, but nightfall and a thunderstorm force the robbers to remain in place. As the night wears on, each member of the group begins to have visions of the atrocities that occurred within the house. As supernatural forces begin to manifest themselves, the six turn on one another."

The cast is surprisingly good and fairly well known, from Patrick Fugit, to Isaiah Washington, to Henry Thomas, and even Mark Boone Junior, aka the guy from Memento and Batman Begins. The cast shows some great chemistry and really good performances, considering the budget of the movie. It's well shot and has some very well done scenery in it. As the scary stuff starts to happen in the movie, a real sense of dread is felt and the whole thing just starts going haywire with the actors turning on one another. From the beginning, there is tension among the group members about the shares of money they are going to get and the possibility of mutiny in the group. From the very start, you get that this group isn't entirely friendly with each other.

I think my favorite parts of the whole movie are the ghost effects and the general haunting parts. The ghosts are quite scary and show up just enough to keep the mystery about them. They don't over do anything with the effects, they just show them enough to keep you scared. It's refreshing to not have the effects in a movie thrown at you repeatedly, just flashed enough to put some fear in you. And my favorite scene in the movie is when Isaiah Washington finds a slave woman tied up in the basement. As she calls for help, he tries to release her. To his horror, the woman is eviscerated in front of his eyes, but you never see who is doing it! A large slit is made in her stomach by an unseen blade and her insides are pulled out by an invisible force as Isaiah watches helplessly. It's a particularly unnerving scene and one that shows just how you don't necessarily need a big budget to pull off some impressive effects.

It's not a perfect movie by any means, as some of the effects do show just how low budget they are, but they don't ruin the movie by any means. And the dialogue is hard to hear at times, so you may find yourself turning up the volume to hear the talking, only to turn it down during the action scenes. It shows that with a little ingenuity though, you can make an original horror movie without having a major production company backing you. It's yet another movie that makes me pleased to know we Americans can make some original horror!

As per usual, I recommend picking it up. I found it at Best Buy, but it's on Amazon.com for 10 bucks and you can get it from Netflix as well. It's a fun flick and I have watched it several times after buying it. Also, tell me if you have seen it what you think!

I'm Back

2009-05-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to let everyone know that I am still alive and I am back from Japan. I was there for a couple weeks visiting my girlfriend who is over there teaching Engrish. It was a blast, but I am beat, so I won't be posting anything real today. I'll have something soon, I swear! I'll also update everyone on my trip. But for now, I am grinding away at work to try to catch up on missing two weeks! Hope you all are well!

JAPAN!

2009-04-29T11:15:00.000-07:00

Well, I have been a little lax in my updating this week, but that's because I am getting ready to fly across various landmasses and oceans to go visit my girlfriend in Japan! I haven't seen her in 8 months (she's teaching Engrish over there), so it should be a good time. But, in honor of me going to Japan, I am going to do a list of things I fully expect to happen to me while over there according to J-horror.

I expect to piss off a spirit and have it stalk me: From what I can tell, you basically have to mildly offend a Japanese and it will try to enact vengeance upon you endlessly. And considering my girlfriend has informed me that sneezing in public is considered rude, I don't think it will take much to get a renegade spirit all over my tall, foreign ass. Speaking of being tall...

(Striking similarity, eh?)

At some point, I will be mistaken for Godzilla: I've see so many scenes in Japanese (specifically Godzilla) movies where they look up, point towards the sky, and shout "Godzirra!", that I'm almost sure that the 6'3" American will freak them out. I also figure they will yell because I will probably be destroying some tall structure while roaring (probably trying to hold back a sneeze).

I am going to say the phrase "Japanese people are fucked up" even more than I do now: In a land where you can buy panties from a vending machine, I have a feeling I am going to see some strange stuff. I do know that if I see a sign for auditions, I am going to stay the fuck away from that. I've seen what happens with that. Takashi Miike has made me so paranoid of Japanese women; wait, Japanese people that I'm actually a little scared to talk to them. Plus Miike made a bunch of weird other movies. Damn, Japanese people are fucked up.

There will be a pale boy that meows like a cat somewhere:

There are ghosts haunting everything: We are going to be visiting some old temples. Guess what? They're haunted. We are going to Mt Fuji at some point too. Haunted! Museums? Haunted! The Denny's near my girlfriend's apartment? Haunted! THERE ARE FUCKING GHOSTS EVERYWHERE!

That's really all I know about Japan. I will of course be speaking all the Japanese I know to people over there. And by Japanese, I mean loud, slow English. It's gonna be interesting. I'll try to keep updating, but it will be even more infrequent than I do currently!

Straight to Video Gems: The Burrowers

2009-04-24T08:00:00.001-07:00

As I struggle to establish some interesting posts on my blog, I've decided to try to get some regular (or semi-regular) themes going, and one of them is my finds for the straight to video movies I've seen that have actually proven to be good (or bad). This was actually inspired by the last one I watched recently, The Burrowers. I feel that some of these movies don't get the attention they deserve when they are often times much better than whatever Hollywood churns out to the theaters (case in point: The Unborn). So I'll try to give you guys some recommendations about movies by telling you to either go buy them or stay the hell away. I won't review them in the same way I review most movies, but just give you a little more info or impetus to see them. So, without further ado, I'll get into THE BURROWERS!

I was fairly impressed with this little Lion's Gate flick. It came out 4/21/09 on DVD, so I decided to check it out. I'm a sucker for lower budget, indie American horror because I want to believe that we can still do horror that isn't a remake (either of a classic or foreign film). I'm also a sucker for a movie that doesn't just sound like every other movie out there. When I saw the ads for this movie and it didn't say something about "teens in a remote spot are stalked by a masked/mysterious/inbred killer", I was intrigued. A basic rundown according to IMDB:

"It is 1879 in the Dakota Territories. A handful of brave pioneers maintain isolated settlements in the badlands beyond civilization. Irish Immigrant Fergus Coffey is near to winning the hand of his beloved Maryanne when she is suddenly taken from him, her family brutally abducted in a nighttime attack on their homestead. Suspicion falls immediately on hostile Indians. Experienced Indian fighters Will Parcher and John Clay form a posse and set out to rescue the kidnapped settlers, taking along a naïve teenager hoping to prove himself a man, an ex-slave looking to find his place in the world and their ranch-hand, Coffey. But as men vanish in the night and horrific evidence accumulates with the dead and dying, the group discovers that their prey is far more terrifying than anything human, and their prospects are far more terrible than death."

Right away, it's interesting to see a horror movie set in the old west (yes, I'm aware it's been done before). In fact, one of my other straight to video favorites is also set in the old west (more to come in a future article about that one). The movie is well acted and the special effects are pretty impressive for how small the budget was. The crew of men go out to try to find the lost family they figure was attacked by Indians, but they end up discovering the burrowers took them. As they try to discover what the burrowers are (they think initially they are a tribe they've never heard of), the men find an incapacitated girl with a strange wound on her neck.

The best part of the movie is just how much thought they put into the creatures themselves. They look interesting enough, but how they kill their victims is the interesting part. They make a wound in the neck with their claws, then spit some strange saliva on the wound. That clots the blood so they don't bleed, but also paralyzes the victims. Then they bury the person alive and leave them like that for a couple of days. After a few days of the venom coursing through the person, the burrowers come back to feed on the soft parts of the human... while they are still alive. It's an eerie death and when you see a victim that's been buried trying to signal another person but all they can do is move their pinky, it's rather unnerving. And to think about being fed on while you are still alive is scary enough as it is.

As I said before, the acting is ample and you will see a couple of familiar faces thrown in there (Clancy Brown and Doug Hutchinson are the most notable). The nice thing is that the writer knew what he was doing with the ending too, as it has a Night of the Living Dead style reveal with the humans being the real monsters. It's a fairly intelligent little flick with some nice script work in there.

All and all, The Burrowers ends up being an above average horror flick. It's nothing incredible, but a worthy addition to any horror fan's collection for sure. It's nice to find these flicks every once in a while, even if I have to wade through some shit along the way. But I definitely approve of The Burrowers and encourage you all to check it out and tell me what you think! If you don't want to buy it, it is available via Netflix and there are some places to get it from the internet. I downloaded it first, but I am definitely picking this one up in the near future. Hope you guys enjoy it! Here's the trailer for the movie if you haven't seen it yet:

Amazon Sale!

2009-04-22T07:48:00.000-07:00

Just a heads up to all you horror fans out there, Amazon.com is having a big horror 2 for 1 sale that lasts until May 19th. There aren't a lot of great things on there, but there are a few worthwhile purchases, so check it out here.

Splinter Review

2009-04-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

I know I've recommended it before, but I now need to take a critical eye to just how Splinter will hold up to my criteria. It came out last Tuesday on DVD and Blu-Ray (I have it on Blu-Ray and it's quite enjoyable), so I would suggest trying to find it. Very worthy little flick, but what is it all about?

Well, we find a couple, Polly and Seth (played by Jill Wagner, the Mercury spokeswoman, and Paulo Costanzo) trying to go camping. Seth isn't the outdoors type but Polly would like to go camping for their anniversary. They have some tent problems, so they are forced to scrap the camping and go for a motel. On the way, the see a girl alongside the road in need of help (Lacey, played by Rachel Kerbs). When they stop to help her, her boyfriend Dennis (aka D, played by Shea Wigham) pulls a gun on them and tells them to drive the pair to the nearest town so they can run from the law. On the way into town, they run over a strange spiny creature that pops a tire and ruins their radiator, forcing them to stop at a gas station.

They then encounter a strange creature that kills things and seems to reanimate their bodies. They are chased by severed arms, reanimated bodies, and creatures with spines all over their bodies. They have to try to escape this hell before they succumb to the creatures themselves. Who survives and who becomes one with the Splinter creature?

Cinematography: The movie starts off with some nice establishing shots of the Oklahoma wilderness and some very cool exteriors. And once they are inside the gas station, the majority of the movie is done very well, giving it a nice confined feel. However, the action shots tend to involve a lot of quick cuts and shaky cam, sort of deterring from the experience. You never really get a good look at the monster because of the shots, which was the intent because of the small budget, but it still makes for some very annoying camera work. However, it wasn't all that damaging to the overall competent shooting of the film, so it earns a 3 out 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, we get to see a monster movie that doesn't involve any huge creatures from the sea or werewolves, so that's a huge plus for originality. I know the idea of something taking over a human body isn't that original, but the design of the creature definitely is. The actors and characters they portray are not only believable, but genuinely likable. Shea Wigham is very good as D, going the full gamut from despicable antagonist to the protagonist everyone is rooting for. He's a powerhouse onscreen, well aided by Wagner and Costanzo. The characters all have their arc that is very well executed and keep you engaged and the story is quite original, so it gets an impressive 4.5 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: It's definitely a monster movie of sorts, but it's hard to compare to recent monster movies like Cloverfield or The Host (2 very good movies) because of the scale of the monsters in those movies. However, it does hold up very well against them. Slither and Black Sheep are more equatable (again, 2 very good movies), and Splinter keeps right up with them as well (though it's not as funny). Splinter will hold up well against pretty much any film of the genre, even such classics as The Howling or Alien (though it may not be as good, it's not far behind). It gets a glowing 5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison, which isn't to say it's the best of its kind, but Splinter is amongst the top contenders.

Production Value: Splinter is not a top budget flick. The creature effects don't really seem to suffer from this though. They are wonderfully done (possibly because you never really get a good look due to the shaky cam) and end up being very creepy. The effects of a person succumbing to the splinter creature are startling and jarring, making joints go the wrong way and causing the limbs of dead bodies flail about. The scenes with the creature trying to get into the gas station by just throwing the body against the glass are nerve wracking. And there is a scene where they have to amputate an infected arm with a box cutter and a cinder block that is one of the most intense and gut-wrenching scenes I have seen in a long time (that isn't a torture scene of some sort). It's incredibly well done for the shoe-string budget it had to work with, so Splinter earns a 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: This movie will scare you. It will keep you on edge. It's not particularly scary in the sense of giving you nightmares, but it's tense and unnerving, with great use of sound to keep up the intensity. Some of Splinter's scariest moments come from the sound effects and atmosphere rather than the creature itself. Not a lot of jump scares to be found, but it does have a few thrown in for good measure. When a movie can make a disembodied arm crawling towards someone creepy and not laughable, it's doing something right. Splinter comes up with a 4 out of 5 for Scares.

So, the final tally for Splinter is an impressive 21 out of 25. This is a must see as far as I'm concerned. It a nice tight little movie that only really suffers from questionable camera work. However, as I said, that doesn't ruin the movie at all. This movie has given me hope for the future of small budget American horror and proves that we can still produce some good flicks in our own country (nothing against foreign horror, just nice to know we can still do it!). I greatly encourage horror fans to go see this movie, especially on Blu-Ray! Go! Do it!

A look again at The Mist

2009-04-17T08:57:00.000-07:00

So last night I finally watched The Mist in black and white on my 2-disc special edition of the movie (at the suggestion of Johnny). Now bear in mind that I like this movie quite a bit. I love Frank Darabont (Shawshank, The Green Mile) and I was very eager to see this movie when it came out. I was a little put off by the special effects at times (a little too computer generated), but it was still a very worthy movie. And the ending. Whoa, just whoa. It was so ballsy and astounding that a Hollywood movie could do that. I was quite impressed with the movie to begin with and glad I watched. If I had a recommendation for you readers, it would be to watch this movie if you haven't seen it, but watch it first in color to get the feel of the movie. Then re-watch it in black and white.

And be prepared to be blown away.

The black and white version is amazing. Yes, it's the same movie, but at the same time it isn't. The special effects are now more masked and less evident. The CGI suddenly looks more integrated. The textures of the monsters are muted and meld with the background textures. The blood takes on more of a Psycho feel. The whole move is just elevated. It works so well it's scary. Darabont says in an intro to the movie (which I also recommend watching) that The Mist was supposed to be his little nod to the 60s monster flicks and wanted it to have that same gritty, surreal feel. In B&W, it does. I can't describe it. You just need to see it.

It's amazing how something so simple can entirely change a viewing experience, but it really does. I can't stress enough that people should watch the movie like this. If you liked the movie, it will make you like it more. If you didn't like the movie, it may just be enough for you to rediscover it. Just go and watch it! Here's a nice little example (the sound is a bit off, but it's the best example I could find quickly):

Overrated Horror: Eli Roth

2009-04-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

Here's another little segment I think I might start rolling out: overrated horror! I will go into movies, characters, actors, directors, or even franchises that I think are overrated or just don't click with me. Now bear in mind this doesn't mean necessarily that I don't like that particular movie or person, it just means that I don't think as highly of them as most people tend to see them. For my first installment, I'm going to delve into a person that I really cannot seem to figure out:

Eli Roth. I have to say, my hatred for this guy knows no bounds. Okay, so maybe not for the guy himself, but for the movies he makes. You may know him as Tarantino's little pet project and the guy who talks about things almost a passionately (and at length) as Tarantino himself does. The guy has directed 3 movies so far: Cabin Fever, Hostel, and Hostel II. I just don't know where to start.

I've seen the guy talk on TV (101 Scariest Movie Moments, Starz Inside: Fantastic Flesh, His Name Was Jason) and he seems to genuinely like horror movies. You can see the passion when he talks about them. He's trying very hard to promote horror and seems like he wouldn't be a bad guy to go and get a beer with sometime. He knows his stuff and cares about what he does. So why do I think he's overrated?

He's not really that good of a director. His movies have been generally boring and lifeless with terrible dialogue. Cabin Fever was laughable at parts and not when it was trying to be. Hostel was an okay movie at best, but was forgettable and overall kind of limp. Hostel II was regrettable. I just can't understand how this guy keeps getting press for his movies. He's the poster child for the torture porn industry ("gorn" as it's called sometimes) and basically the boiler plate I use for explaining why too many horror movies just rely on gore and no story or scares. Hostel wasn't scary, it was violent. Cabin Fever had no tension, it had makeup effects. Hostel II had, ummm, a guy killing someone with a scythe? I don't really think Hostel II had much going for it. I'm greatly scared for his upcoming adaptation of Stephen King's wonderful book Cell because it's one of my favorite King books (and just overall books) of recent memory.

When it comes right down to it, I think Roth can actually set up shots pretty well and has an eye for some great scenes, but he can't really do tension or write scripts. His dialogue is (as previously mentioned) lacking and uninteresting. He's ambitious, but leaves most of his movies feeling like he spent too much time on the effects and not enough on the plot or characters. Cabin Fever was basically a train wreck. Hostel was like watching an epileptic try new meds: at times it was working and focused, others it was seizing out of control. Hostel II was that same epileptic giving up on the meds: an interesting thought, but ultimately unfulfilling and not that fun to watch.

I think with a little direction and someone else penning the script, Roth could make some very interesting movies. However, he seems like the type of person that would consider himself an "auteur" and would refuse to do work that he doesn't have full control over, especially if Tarantino has anything to do with it. I said before he seemed like a guy that would be cool to go have a beer with, but he also seems like a guy who you would want to punch after about 2 hours of talking to him. I feel like he would be an interesting person in limited doses. It's also worth noting that the antagonist from The Girl Next Door (played by Timothy Olyphant) is based off Eli Roth and his many mannerisms. That doesn't paint an attractive picture.

Basically, I think Eli Roth isn't nearly as good as people like Greg Mclean, Neil Marshall, or even Alexandre Aja. Is Eli Roth the future of horror? God, I hope not.

A meditation on zombies, part 2

2009-04-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

A couple posts back, I started writing a meditation on zombies. I am little perturbed about the state of zombies in our world nowadays actually. What happened to the slow lumbering zombies? Why is it all of a sudden cool to have fast moving zombies that can run you down? Don't get me wrong, I think fast moving zombies can work, but why doesn't anyone want the slow zombies anymore? Did Zack Snyder ruin that like he's ruined 300 and The Watchmen? Don't get me wrong, I liked his remake of Dawn of the Dead (and Watchmen was okay, but 300 was pretty mediocre), but between that and 28 Days Later, fast zombies (or infected zombies) have become all the rage. Aren't people scared by the slow moving zombies anymore?

My girlfriend said she thought the fast zombies would be scarier because they produce more jump scares. Well, in my opinion, jump scares can be used fairly well, but after a while, they just make a crutch for bad horror to "scare" audiences, when all it really does is surprise them. You get the same effect when the lights turn on and a group of people yell surprise. The majority of jump scares are not that scary, just abrupt. They make up for a movie's lack of true tension by creating brief glimpses of it. Fast zombies create the possibility for the zombie to pop up suddenly and scare you, but they aren't truly horrifying in most cases. Dawn of the Dead had some great scenes and it was fun, but it was really more of an action movie than a horror movie, it just happened to have zombies in it. It's also worth pointing out that the characters were better developed than the average action movie, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is, most of the scares in the Dawn remake came from jump scares. It worked though because it got tension from the characters, not the zombies.

That's also why 28 Days Later worked: it produced a lot of tension. Go back and watch that movie: it doesn't have that many jump scares, but Danny Boyle could have easily put many in there. Instead you have (one of my favorite scenes in recent movie history) the scene where Jim enters the church and is greeted by a lot of infected, including an infected priest. It's wonderfully executed and tense, yet not a jump scare to be found. In the end of the movie, there's also a scene where young Hannah is suspended behind a mirror while an infected looks at his reflection in the very same mirror. It's spooky because the danger is so imminent (and quite well shot by Mr. Boyle). 28 Days Later, with its infected zombies, stands out as a wonderful zombie movie and would easily go in my top 10 zombie movies of all time.

But 28 Days Later is a rarity like that. Slower zombies will always be scarier to me because of the tension they create. They are ever present. You can easily walk around them and get away from them, but every time you look behind you, they are still there. They don't stop. And if you stop moving, even for a night, they have suddenly come out of the woodwork to surround you. They moan, they stumble, and they drive people insane. The slow zombies can lull you into a false sense of security because they are so slow. And then when you let your guard down for second, they will get you. Even slow zombies produce jump scares. They stalk in the shadows and remain silent and motionless until you get right up next to them. There's no scream or rumble before they attack, they just bite your neck.

You may say to yourself that slow zombies aren't nearly as scary because if you were in that situation, you would totally get away from them. The fast zombies are what would get you because you couldn't out run them. And that's exactly why when the slow zombies truly come, you'll be totally screwed. At least the fast zombies will give you a screech or just come running at you. The slow moving zombies are the things that are right there when you turn a corner. You take off in a sprint and come around a building to be caught by the slow-as-molasses zombie lumbering towards you.

Slow moving zombies represent the ever present death in our lives. They can be used as an allegory for many things (and have been by Romero). Fast moving zombies are cool, but they are ultimately there for show, not for introspection. Slow moving zombies will always be scarier to me because they can represent things besides just the walking dead. For me, it's all about the approach and the slower, the better.

Dead Snow Review

2009-04-07T09:01:00.000-07:00

I managed to find a copy of Dead Snow that I have wanted to see for a while now. I watched it this weekend (twice actually as a friend wanted to see it too) and decided to review it. But first, just what happens?

The movie opens with a girl getting chased through the woods by some unseen evil and she eventually falls down a steep incline and is devoured by something we don't fully see. We then find 7 friends heading up to a remote cabin in the Scandinavian mountains for a fun filled weekend. As they settle in for their first night, a strange man comes to their cabin asking for some coffee. He tells them a story of how the village near the cabin was once occupied by Nazis during WWII and they weren't kind to the villagers. However, the villagers rose up against them and drove the Nazis into the very same mountains this cabin was in. It was said the Nazis, knowing they would have to retreat, grabbed all the valuables from the village and hid somewhere up in the peaks. Of course the kids (who are all Med students) don't believe in that sort of story and the stranger is on his way.

After their first night, they realize their friend who was supposedly hiking to the cabin hasn't shown up yet, so her boyfriend goes to look for her (of course, this was the first girl we saw getting killed). The boyfriend finds our stranger gutted in his tent and falls into a cave where Nazi memorabilia abounds. Meanwhile, his friends back at the cabin find a box of treasure (I wonder where that came from) and rejoice. All at once, there are NAZI ZOMBIES attacking their cabin and the guy in the cave! As some of the kids get picked off, we are treated to eviscerations, heads being pulled apart, decapitations, a machine gun mounted on a snowmobile, and just general anarchy. But, did the movie produce any fun or scares?

Cinematography: I don't know if it's that the Scandinavian mountains make directors look good or vice versa, but some of the shots in this movie are actually quite breathtaking. The long shots for some of the scenes give you a great sense of how epic the scale is and the isolation these friends face. The sheer lack of overt color in both the scenery (mostly snow and trees) and the zombies (very drab, dirty uniforms) is contrasted wonderfully by the kids' clothing and the blood in the fight scenes. The shot scale is varied and quite well done, never really relying on one type of shot for any particular scene. And there are no real shaky cam parts (in fact, the tracking shots of running through woods are quite smooth in most parts). I give it a nice, solid 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, technically we've seen Nazi Zombies before, but I still think there aren't enough Nazi Zombie movies to really call this tired or done to death. I am still willing to call this original, especially because of the back story and the fact they aren't in Germany. It's a nice little twist on a zombie film and the zombies don't really bite all that much, instead preferring to punch, kick, or stab people (which makes for some great fight scenes). The characters aren't anything groundbreaking (movie geek, horny guy, horny girl, mild mannered dude, jock type), but they aren't overwrought, making them enjoyable. You start to like the characters, but you don't get too invested in them. They are all well acted, so it gets a respectable 4 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: Comparing this to other zombie movies is kind of hard because they aren't like traditional zombies. However, it definitely holds up against some of the heavy hitters (Night, Dawn, Shaun) for sheer enjoyability. It's not a particularly scary offering, but then again it's not trying to be either. Comparing it to recent zombie offerings such as Day of the Dead or Diary of the Dead and it more than holds up. It's a fun little twist on the zombie tradition, so comparatively it gets a 4.5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: The settings are great, the effects are first-rate, and the acting is more than ample. It looks very polished and is done well, making it very easy to watch. They went for mostly traditional effects for gore, using CGI pretty sparingly (something I appreciate greatly). The movie is pretty gory, so for you gore-hounds, it should satisfy nicely. The scenes where Nazi after Nazi is mowed down with hatchets, sledgehammers, and chainsaws are grotesquely pleasing, offering all manners of limbs and entrails flying through the air. It's all kinds of fun to watch, so it gladly earns a 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: This movie isn't really meant to be that scary, opting to be a bit more towards the funny spectrum, but it still actually produces some good, tense scenes. There is an out house at the cabin, which makes for some great, Friday the 13th style scenes with people stalking around the shack and looking through the boards. There is a scene where someone is looking through a window at their friend outside, only to find out that it's only her severed head being held up that is extremely well done. Basically, when the movie wants to be scary, it succeeds pretty damn well, so I'll give it a 4 out of 5 for Scares, taking into account it's not supposed to be the scariest thing in the world.

So, the final tally for Dead Snow puts it at a 21 out of 25. That puts it into the "Must Watch" category, as far as I am concerned. As I said, I watched it twice this weekend and I gleefully enjoyed both viewings. It's got so many fun scenes once the action starts that I couldn't help but laugh. And the homages it throws out are great too, so be sure to watch for some of those. It amazes me at not only how much fun it was, but how well done it was. It wasn't just a fanboy making a movie, it was a director (who happens to also be a fanboy) making a film. This movie is a blast, I highly recommend watching it when it gets here to the US! And in a movie full of ridiculous scenes, I give you the most ridiculous as further proof you need to see this movie!

IMDB Frontpage

2009-04-03T08:32:00.001-07:00

Anyone notice anything about the IMDB front page today?

(Click on the image to zoom in)

The trailers (with the exception of 2012) are all for horror movies. Am I the only one who finds that interesting?

A meditation on zombies

2009-04-02T07:07:00.000-07:00

First off, let me apologize for the infrequency of my updates as of late. There is a guy at work that has been gone for the last 3 weeks and is out next week as well. I am this guy's back up at work, so I have been pulling double duty lately, which has left me working about 55 hours a week and tired when I'm not at work. Admittedly I knew this was coming because he is gone to spend time with his first child, so I'm neither surprised nor angry, it's just been a bit tiring. But I will diligently try to keep updating as often as possible.

Well, as expected from the title of this posting, I will be discussing zombies today. We'll see just how long I rant on the subject; it may end up being broken into two posts for you, the readers' sake. First off, let's establish something: what defines a zombie?

Now, I'm not exactly Webster's (I am a bit of a walking dictionary, though), but I have a definition of a zombie that I adhere to. A zombie is a creature (not necessarily human, but more often than not) that has died and due to some unnatural process has come back to life. The reanimated corpse is unable to truly think, though they may be able to put some basic thoughts (even speech) together. They are in the group of creatures known as "undead", which includes vampires, mummies, ghouls, skeletons, and (depending on which legend you go by) werewolves. They are all creatures that die and then come back, not really alive but definitely not dead.

Now that's where my definition really trails off. My usual thought of a zombie is that of the Romero Type - slow, shambling corpses with no thought or coordination. They are ever present, moaning but not really speaking. And you had better be prepared to shoot them in the head in order to kill them. That doesn't mean I won't accept other types of zombies: Dawn of the Dead (2004) had zombies, but they were fast; Return of the Living Dead featured zombies that had to be electrocuted, not shot in the head; The Dead Next Door had zombies that were basically unkillable and some spoke; and Cemetery Man featured zombies that could not only talk, but could hold conversations. Now, I consider all of those movies to contain zombies, but they aren't all the same type of zombies. I am even willing to accept 28 Days Later and Quarantine as having zombies in them if someone wants to use them as an example. I realize I have said in the past I don't accept 28 Days and Quarantine as true zombies, but I do consider them a sort of sub-genre in zombie movies I like to refer to as "Infection Zombies". So while they aren't "zombies" in my truest sense of the word, I'm willing to accept the movies on a zombie movie list (though I like to point out they aren't "true" zombie films). The one uniting factor is that you have some unrelenting, unthinking enemy that keeps wanting to kill you for no good reason.

With the recent development of the fast zombie (28 Days Later, Dawn remake), it has given rise to one question: which is scarier, the slow zombie or the fast zombie? Seeing as how this post has already come to be quite long, I will tell you in my next post what I think. However, I would like to know what everyone else thinks. So, in the comments, what do you find scarier? Fast or slow zombies? Here's some food for thought:

Fast Zombies:

Slow Zombies

A quick share out to everyone

2009-03-30T14:27:00.000-07:00

I know everyone has been wanting to see it, so if you haven't, you should probably check out [rec]. But how the hell can you check something out that doesn't exist in your country yet?

How about you check it out right here. *Disclaimer: I did not post this video, I just found it somewhere else and am linking to it here*

The site will cut you off after a certain amount of time (I think it's 50 minutes), but all you have to do is wait a half hour and watch the rest of it. I know that kind of sucks, but it's worth it to watch this little gem. I am in the process of getting Dead Snow so I can watch that soon, I'll have a review for that up soon hopefully. And if I manage to find that online, I'll be sure to share it out with you all.

Oh, and if you've missed out on Splinter so far, why not go here and check it out (same disclaimer as before). I know the quality isn't the greatest, but it's free.

That being said, I've already pre-ordered Splinter and will buy [rec] as soon as I can, so I encourage you guys to support these horror flicks by buying them eventually. Let's keep people being able to make them! There, I'm done with my soapbox for now. Now watch away!

I hope you enjoy everything!

Pointless Twist Ending: Rest Stop

2009-03-24T16:48:00.000-07:00

I recently watched this movie via the wonder that is Netflix Instant View, so I feel like I didn't actually have to pay for watching it. Nevermind the fact I pay a monthly fee to watch these movies, it's free in my mind, so don't ruin my wonderful little bubble I live in where I watch free movies. Okay?

Anyway, I recently watched Rest Stop. It was a moderately interesting slasher flick with a decent premise: a teenage couple runs away from home to try to get to Hollywood and gets caught in the middle of fucking nowhere at a (get this) rest stop. The boyfriend gets lost and the girl starts to look for him. There's a weird, creepy RV in the parking lot with someone taking pictures from the rear window. The girl is then tormented by a guy in a pickup truck that kills her boyfriend. And the people in the RV let her in only to reveal they are crazy-as-fuck religious people who saw her do her boyfriend in the woods. So she escapes from them and gets back to the rest stop. And that's where things take a turn for the worse. And I don't mean plot wise.

*As per the title, there will be spoilers as I talk about the ending, so read no further if you care about the ending*

The main girl is sitting in the bathroom when she finds a girl in the closet crying. She's been tortured by the same guy the main girl is being tortured by. While this new girl shrieks, the pickup truck guy comes back and our main girl blocks the door. Pickup truck guy (henceforth known as PTG) leaves because he's easily foiled by a 110 lb girl blocking a flimsy door. You then find out that the crying girl was actually a past victim that died years before. Then she disappears. To honor GOB Bluth, it was an illusion.

Well, I was actually kind of interested in the movie until this happened. It's billed as a "psychological" horror movie, which is basically like saying it's a "Sixth Sense wannabe". But you know what? It doesn't end there!

The original girl then leaves the safety of her bathroom and goes to the ranger station to phone for help. Luckily for her, a cop comes to her rescue. Unluckily for her, the cop is the most inept officer ever and he gets run over by the PTG and paralyzed. She manages to drag the cop into the bathroom, puts up her ridiculously flimsy barricade, and PTG guys is again discouraged. She tries to shoot PTG, but she shoots like a stormtrooper. Instead of continuing to shoot at PTG, the paralyzed cop tells her to euthanize him. This is actually the best scene of the movie. The girl wrestles with the idea of having to shoot a cop who has kids. She eventually sucks it up and shoots the guy in the head and puts him out of his misery.

Except she shoots like a bond enemy's henchman and the cop is STILL ALIVE. He starts shrieking and she shoots him again, this time doing the job correctly. And PTG has come back to set the whole bathroom on fire (bet you forgot PTG was still here). She crawls out and finds out that the cop she just shot was KILLED YEARS AGO (see, it's a bigger revelation if I type it in CAPS). Whoa, that's psychological. She then decides to take on PTG one on one. She blows up his truck with him in it and can finally rest easy. ONLY HE'S RIGHT BEHIND HER! And then you find out that he's as supernatural and unnecessary as the rest of the people in the movie. It ends with a shot of our main girl in the closet crying but she's not actually there because she's a ghost!

Really, the movie was interesting (well, sort of) until you start in with all the ghosts and imaginary crap and the fact she can't get away from the rest stop. If it had all actually happened, the movie would have been a lot more intense. But instead, the best scene of the movie is a crappy dream sequence basically, as is the rest of the movie. It's pretty watered down and lame as it is, but the whole supernatural element seems to take it to a whole new level of jackassery. It just didn't resonate well with me.

So there you have it, another pointless twist ending. If done properly, it could have worked, but it wasn't done well.

Master of Horror: John Carpenter

2009-03-23T07:46:00.000-07:00

Well, I figured it was about time I updated again (last week was a bit hectic for me between work and other things, I apologize for the lack of updates), so I figured I would do a second installment of the Master of Horror look. Today: John Carpenter steps up to the plate. Let's take a look, shall we?

*Again, this isn't a full filmography, go here if you would like to see that.

Halloween (1978): Okay, so admittedly, he directed some movies that don't sound all that great in the 60s and early 70s (Gorgon, the Space Monster?), but then he broke onto the scene with his slasher Halloween (it should be noted that he directed Assault on Precinct 13 before that, but it's not horror, so I'm not going there). Halloween is, in my not so humble opinion, the best slasher flick of all time. Dark, foreboding, not even very violent, and terrifying, it defines the genre. Check one great movie off for John.

The Fog (1980): An ample follow up. While it's not the greatest movie ever done, it's a good sophomore effort for John Carpenter. It's a pretty taut little movie, and as scary as you can make ghost pirates seem. It's also the second movie on this list that has been remade. That's usually a good sign when movies you've made are being redone (sometimes poorly). So far, so good.

The Thing (1982): This movie is more than ample, it's fucking great. This is probably my favorite Carpenter film, and that's saying something considering how much I like Halloween. After Escape from NY (again, not horror, not touching), Carpenter struck horror gold. While Escape from NY was good, it couldn't hold a candle to this movie. John Carpenter started to get some name recognition after this film, which led him to make...

Christine (1983): An adaptation of a Stephen King book, once again, we see Carpenter making something decidedly unscary (a killer car) into something fairly hair raising. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good movie to have and can usually be found cheap at Best Buy or Target.

Prince of Darkness (1987): Not a great movie by any means, but an average horror flick. Carpenter took a movie off from horror (Big Trouble in Little China, a good movie as well) and came back with a resounding "meh". Pretty much his first misstep on the list. Again, it's not really that bad, but just considering what he's done for the genre up to this point, it fails a bit. It should be noted this is part of his "Apocalypse Trilogy", what John considers to be the three films representing the end of the world. It started with The Thing, then this, and ends in a couple entries with In the Mouth of Madness.

They Live (1988): After watching this movie, I have to wonder how Rowdy Roddy Piper never made it as an action star. It's a terrible movie by most merits, which is all the more reason to love it. It's cheesy, campy, filled with 80s cliches, and awesome for every last second. For god's sake, it was the inspiration for cripple fight from South Park! That makes any movie a victory in my book.

In the Mouth of Madness (1994): The end of the "Apocalypse Trilogy", this movie is better than the previous entry in the set. In the Mouth of Madness actually hearkens back to the John Carpenter films of the 80s with his self produced synth score and weird creature effects. It actually uses all traditional make up effects, which I respect, especially right after we had seen T2 and Jurassic Park make computer effects look really good.

Village of the Damned (1995): It's been a while since I've seen this film, but I can remember it fondly, for whatever that's worth. I don't own this movie, though it's one I often consider buying. It's sort of forgettable, anyone else have any thoughts? I don't consider it bad, just sort of filler.

Vampires (1998): I can't get behind this movie. It's just not that good. It's a pretty sub par vampire flick and hot on the heels of Escape from LA, we've hit the low point of John's career. I mean, the main vampire's name is a consonant sound away from being "phallic". And it has Daniel Baldwin, aka the fat Baldwin. Really?

Ghosts of Mars (2001): This movie, while pretty ridiculous, is actually pretty entertaining. I don't have a problem with it, which from what I understand is somewhat strange. Again, it's pretty much like his remake of Village of the Damned: it's just kind of there.

Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns (2005): This was one of my favorite entries in the first season of Masters of Horror (I have yet to see any of the second season, so I don't know about Pro-life), but this definitely lived up to the Master of Horror billing.

So, in the end, Carpenter has been pretty overwhelmingly good (or at least passable). I think he's much more of a Master than Craven because he's actually made some good movies since 1988. But I must admit that, like Craven, his first few were his best. They both burst onto the scene and kept it going for a while. In the end, Carpenter has 7 films I like, 3 movies I'm okay with, and 1 that I don't like (not including his diversions from horror and the ones I haven't seen). As per usual, what do you think?

Frontiers Review

2009-03-16T07:41:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally got Frontiers from Netflix, so I figure I would give it a review. I had heard it was another in the new French horror films that was brutal and horrifying, so I figured it couldn't be that bad. Did it live up to its billing? Well, let's see!

It seems that France is in a bit of political upheaval and we have some kids who need to get the hell out of there. So they take a bunch of money, shoot a couple of cops, and decide to head off to the countryside to hide out and then run to Amsterdam. Well, one of them got shot, so two go off ahead and the other two take the wounded guy to the hospital. The guy that got shot dies and the two who were with him flee to the countryside to catch up to the first two. Problem is, the first two arrive at a hostel run by murderous... Nazis?

Hmmm, I guess it's better than backwoods rednecks, right? Well, these guys basically are backwoods rednecks, so it's not. The kids seem to be picked off one by one except for the lone girl, who the Nazis think will be the next great addition to their family (and she's pregnant, score!), so they try to keep her alive. Well, she doesn't want to be there, so she tries to escape from the horror! I won't ruin the ending, suffice to say there is some bloodshed involved with her escape attempt.

Cinematography: The film doesn't really do very well in this department. It tends to use a lot of light filters in it for no real reason. The dark blue filter is used to make things look like dusk maybe? The yellow filter to make it feel more gritty? I don't know, but between that and the rapid cuts and shaky cam during most of the action in the movie, it was rather distracting. The sets are done well and everything, but it's nothing we haven't seen before (farmhouses in squalor, hostels with weird people running them). I really could have done without most of the camera movement. It gets a paltry 2.5 out 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Yes, it's something we've all seen before: some city dwellers go to the country and get ravaged by the people that seem to resent the city folk just by virtue of them living in the city. They throw in a bit of a twist with the family being Nazis, but that really isn't that much of a twist. It makes them racist and territorial? That doesn't sound anything like the hicks in most murderous rampage movies! The acting is good enough, but I really didn't care for the characters. They weren't that compelling. Yasmina, the main girl in the movie, really didn't grab my sympathy or anything. In fact, in most the scenes where she was supposed to look traumatized, she mainly looked like a Palsy sufferer. Seriously, since when did walking like you have Parkinson's disease make it look like you had just been through a lot? I can handle some shaking, but at the end of this clip she looks like a bad zombie actor. It gets a 2.5 out of 5 for Execution as well.

Sub-genre Comparison: It's no High Tension. As far as some of the other movies similar, it's no Wrong Turn or The Hills Have Eyes either. The evil people in this movie fail to resonate with me. I thought the grandfather of the group (who was supposedly a Nazi that hid after WWII) was the best of the family. He was interesting and powerful. Then he got shot. The brothers and sisters of the family were pretty uninteresting. There was a subtext in the movie that the brothers were warring over who would take over for the father, but it's never really fleshed out. And you don't really know who belongs to the family and who was just sort of adopted. I would much rather watch The Cottage again. It gets a 2 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.

Production Value: It does look pretty good for the most part. I have to admit, in the parts where gore shows up, it's pretty well done. I kind of figured it would be more brutal than it was, but it wasn't exactly tame by any means. I don't really like super gory movies, but I can handle them if they work the gore in with a decent story. The previously linked scene shows the best gore scene in the movie (a guy falling on a giant table saw is usually pretty much the peak for any movie), but there are a couple of other decent scenes in there as well. The sets are done well and the effects are believable. It will hold up well in that regard, so I give it a 3.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: Well, the movie doesn't really scare you, tending to try with the "gross you out with violence" more than actual scares. However, it does succeed in some parts. Again, the morgue scene linked to before did well. One thing that bothered me was the idea of the "children" in the mine shaft in this movie. There's a girl the family has adopted and impregnated a few times. Well, her kids were never up to snuff, so they stuck them in a mine shaft and feed them tourists on occasion. They only show up for a couple of scenes, but they are the scariest scenes in the movie. I really wish they would have fleshed them out a bit more. My favorite scene is one with two characters crawling through a very narrow tunnel to try to escape this mine. It's claustrophobic and eerie, with one of the children showing up behind them at one point before you really know what they are. It's a wonderful scene, and that with a couple other earns it a 3.5 out of 5 for Scares.

So, the total is an underwhelming 14 out of 25 for Frontiers. It wasn't as brutal as I thought it would be and wasn't scary enough to carry itself on tension alone. There are some worthwhile scenes, but overall the movie felt a little to mashed together. Plus it really bothered me watching a girl walk like a toddler for the last 45 minutes of the movie. I know she was supposed to be traumatized, but that had all the subtlety of Ben Stiller's portrayal of Simple Jack.

Fangoria Awards

2009-03-12T11:40:00.000-07:00

As Johnny pointed out over at Freddy in Space, Fangoria is accepting nominees for its Chainsaw Awards. You can check out what to do over at his blog, but I figured I would post what I feel deserve the awards as he did (My choices in CAPS):

BEST WIDE - RELEASE FILM

- Cloverfield
- Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army
- QUARANTINE
- The Ruins
- The Strangers

BEST LIMITED - RELEASE / DIRECT - TO - DVD FILM

- Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
- The Living and the Dead
- Rogue
- Stuck

BEST ACTOR

- Leo Bill, The Living and the Dead
- KARE HEDEBRANT, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
- Trevor Matthews, Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- Ron Perlman, Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army
- Marc Senter, The Lost

BEST ACTRESS

- Eliza Dushku, The Alphabet Killer
- LINA LEANDERSSON, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
- Alysson Paradis, Inside
- Naomi Watts, Funny Games
- Jess Weixler, Teeth

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

- A.J. BOWEN, THE SIGNAL
- Robert Englund, Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- Doug Jones, Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army
- Vinnie Jones, The Midnight Meat Train
- Michael Pitt, Funny Games

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

- Beatrice Dalle, Inside
- Lou Doillon, Sisters
- Jennifer Ellison, The Cottage
- Lauren Roy, The Chair
- ANNA WALTON, HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY

BEST SCREENPLAY

- Guillermo del Toro, Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army
- John Ainslie, Jon Knautz, Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- JOHN AJVIDE LINDQVIST, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
- John Strysik, Stuck
- Mitchell Lichtenstein, Teeth

BEST SCORE

- Michael Giacchino, Cloverfield
- Ryan Shore, Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- JOHN SODERQVIST, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
- tomandandy, The Strangers
- Robert Miller, Teeth

BEST MAKEUP / CREATURE FX

- MIKE ELIZALDE, CLIFF WALLACE, DAVID MARTI, MONTSE RIBE, HELLBOY 2 : THE GOLDEN ARMY
- Jacques - Olivier Molon - Inside
- David Scott, Jack Brooks : Monster Slayer
- Robert Hall, Quarantine
- Todd Tucker, Trailer Park of Terror

WORST FILM

- Up to you! Fill in your own choice for worst horror film of 2008.

MY CHOICE - MIRRORS

AFTER COUNTLESS SLEEPLESS NIGHTS OF INTENSE DELIBERATION, I HEREBY DECREE THAT THE ONE INDIVIDUAL MOST DESERVING OF INDUCTION INTO THE FANGORIA HALL OF FAME IS :

- Up to you! Fill in your own choice for who you think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

MY CHOICE - NEIL MARSHALL

Definitely agree with Johnny on a lot of stuff. And by the way, I felt like The Signal didn't get a lot of love from people last year because it was a little off the wall, but if you know that it's three distinct parts that are all fairly different, then you will probably like it more. And I just happened to find out that Amazon has it on Blu-Ray for less than the DVD! Just in case you wanted to pick that up.

Pointless Twist Ending: Shrooms

2009-03-10T07:10:00.000-07:00

Something I'm hoping to make a regular article I write is that of movies with twist endings that really didn't need to happen. I would like to focus on movies that weren't that bad or that really didn't need the twist in the end. I mean, after The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects, it seemed like everything needed a twist ending. I'm gonna tell you a couple of things right now: a few movies did that before our modern era (anyone remember Psycho or Friday the 13th?) and your movie doesn't need a twist to be good! A lot of very successful movies don't have twist endings. In fact, most don't! I might actually delve into some pretty bad movies with this eventually, but for now, like I said, I'll try to focus on movies that had some redeeming qualities. And for the record, I'm not going to talk about High Tension because we all know the ending was needlessly convoluted but the rest of the movie was pretty awesome. That's been done to death, I don't need to do that anymore.

As a disclaimer, I'm going to tell you *THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!* I figure that should be somewhat obvious, considering I'm talking about the end of a film, but just so I said it.

So, for the first run of this, I've picked Shrooms, a slasher film from 2007 about teens that go camping during some big bloom of mushrooms and then get wasted from them. Of course, camping in the middle of nowhere while doing drugs and having sex couldn't possibly have any repercussions. It wasn't anything ground breaking or even terribly good, but it was at least fairly enjoyable and had some enjoyable parts to it. But the end just reeked of a tacked on thought by the screenwriter. It's either that or they decided they wanted to be the next M. Night Shyamalan. In any event, let's get to what I am talking about.

Throughout the movie, they talk about an asylum that exists in the woods they are in. As a character tells the story, you discover that there were some monks (I don't recall what the name they were called was and can't seem to find it on a quick perusal of Google) who were given all the bad kids of the town to whip them into shape. Apparently, they routinely beat the kids savagely and even killed some of them. So there was a set of twins that the brothers tortured and killed one of and made the other watch. Afterward, the one left was called "The Lonely Twin". Apparently, this kid made one of the most evil monks drink some poisonous mushroom tea and the monk went batshit fuckcrazy and killed everyone else in the monastery. So the story is that the monk and lonely twin still stalk the area, killing off hapless victims as they see fit.

This makes for some very interesting scenes where you get a hooded figure (the monk) or a little boy with a bag on his head (similar to The Orphanage) running around and scaring the shit out of the campers. The ghouls are unstoppable and seem to pop out of nowhere. The kills are fairly entertaining and the ghosts of these tragic characters really add an otherworldly dread to the film. What do you do when you're being stalked by vengeful fucking ghosts? You get the fuck out of the woods and never return!

Well, in the end, you are down to the main guy who told the story and the main girl who ate a bad shroom and has been having visions of the rest of the kids dying the whole movie. Well, in a pointless twist, you find that she's been killing all the rest of the kids off in a drug induced haze (which she discovers through a series of flashbacks in an ambulance). She figures it out, kills an ambulance driver, runs out the vehicle, and goes back to the woods to presumably find more shrooms for her next psychedelic murder spree.

My big problem was that the movie wasn't that bad. They spent the whole time building up this supernatural aspect and actually bring you to the insane asylum in the end of the movie! The monk and lonely twin are actually creepy and compelling killers, making it that much worse when you find it's some blond twat on a bad trip that's been killing her friends. Plus the shrooms she eats, in addition to being poisonous, allow her to "see the future", so she spends most of the movie having these flashes of her friends dying. But as it turns out, it was just her planning her kills. It makes the whole film feel watered down. Like I said, it's not a particularly awesome movie anyway, but if they had left it a bit more preternatural, it would have been a better movie.

That's the first in this series of articles! Hopefully more to come!

Who watches The Watchmen? (a quick slip away from horror)

2009-03-09T06:49:00.001-07:00

Apparently, most of America watches The Watchmen. I, of course, saw it like everyone else this weekend. I also happened to watch Gremlins this weekend. So what was the best movie I watched this weekend?

Gremlins.

Watchmen left me underwhelmed. The acting was pretty bad. Silk Spectre II was god awful, Ozymandius only slightly better. It was 2 hours and 49 minutes and by the end, I was actually hoping it would end soon. And bear in mind, I can handle long movies (I own and watch Lord of The Rings extended editions). It's not that the movie is almost 3 hours, it's that it feels like it's almost 3 hours. It wasn't all bad, but it wasn't good by any means.

Zack Snyder has an eye for scenery, but has no ability to shoot a fight scene without diving into slow motion for no good fucking reason. That was one of the big reasons I didn't like 300 either. Watchmen is no different, choosing to make a fight scene that should last 2 minutes last 10. The movie is probably about 2 hours worth of movie and 49 minutes worth of slow motion (that's an exaggeration of course, but you get my point). Basically, there is no chemistry between most of the actors, so instead of having on screen tension and drama, you get slow motion and extreme close-ups of actors' faces. Seriously, probably 1/3 of the movie is spent with one actor's face taking up the majority of the screen. I just don't care that much to see the wrinkles and moles on people's faces.

Like I said, it wasn't all bad: Rorschach was kick ass (kudos to Jackie Earle Haley), Dr. Manhattan was done very well by Billy Crudup, and The Comedian was equally good. However, the three of them aren't on the screen enough to save the film. And the film looks very pretty, but scenery gets lost when you don't have any actors to include in it. Overall, I feel like this movie is not going to be remembered for long and in 2 years, is anyone going to be watching The Watchmen?

At least it wasn't as bad as this was:

My Recent Horrors...

2009-03-06T07:33:00.000-08:00

While I like writing the lengthy, in depth reviews (I hope you like reading them), I have been watching a lot of horror movies in the last few months that I won't be able to get to (as I am trying to keep reviewing movies that are fresh in my mind). I would like to at least give a few shout outs to the movies I have watched, just so you people may have a little more of an idea about what is good and what isn't. A lot of these have appeared in my Netflix Instant Watch queue, so I figured I would give them a try. Anyway, here's my best estimation of what I've watched recently:

Rest Stop: This movie never really decides if it wants to be a slasher flick or a psychological thriller. The bad part of this means that it doesn't succeed at either. It's a pretty mediocre movie with one quite decent scene where a girl has to euthanize an injured cop (and doesn't succeed right away). Other than that, pretty worthless.

Timber Falls: Pretty standard horror flick about a couple that goes hiking in the backwoods and get assaulted by rednecks. Not a great film, but decent. Really have a feeling it's just going to fade into the back of my mind though as it didn't stand out on any account for me.

The Signal: This movie impressed me a lot. It was in Neflix's Instant View for a while, so I recommend watching it if you can. The world goes crazy and a couple try to find each other. It was written and directed by 3 different people, each taking a third of the movie for themselves. It's surprisingly well acted, disturbingly funny at parts, and all around a very trippy experience. Worth checking out for sure.

[rec]: Yeah, I watched it. Of course, I liked it, like every other horror person will tell you. Go see it if you haven't, it's excellent.

Quarantine: While it lacks the punch of the original [rec], it's a worthy remake that did some things very well. Definitely near the top of my big hollywood horror of the last few years. See Quarantine before you see [rec] because otherwise Quarantine will disappoint you a bit.

Otis: Touted as "Juno for the horror set", I was curious. I didn't really like Juno, but I was wondering what that meant. Apparently that meant watching a fat guy get slapped around by Kevin Pollack and watching Daniel Stern get slapped around by his family (metaphorically). It was bland, uninteresting, and pretty predictable. On the plus side, Bostin Christopher (who plays the title character) was refreshingly good in the movie, so that was a bright spot.

Rogue: Wolf Creek's director Greg McClean comes back with a worthy follow up. Wolf Creek is one of my favorite recent horror movies, and Rogue shows that McClean can still do it. It's the best nature run amok film of the last year or so and actually makes you feel like this is what would happen to you (if a gigantic crocodile was trying to eat you, that is). Check it out on DVD now (I got it for cheap at Target).

The Backwoods: Moody and rather slow, this film (starring Gary Oldman and Paddy Considine) is fairly impressive. I liked it a lot actually. It was well directed and interesting and even though it was slow at parts, never lost my interest. Also available for fairly cheap (Best Buy, I believe).

Splinter: I will write a more in depth review when this one comes out on DVD (supposedly in April), but all I can say is it was an impressive little flick. Very pleased with it.

Eden Lake: Go buy this on DVD if you haven't seen it. Like [rec], I'm not going to tell you anything new. Go see it for yourself, it's damn good.

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer: A decent little throw back to some 80s horror. The make-up effects were all traditional and good, making it fun to watch as Robert Englund transformed into a hideous creature that wasn't Freddy. It wasn't a great movie, but if you happen across it, give it a watch. It'll at least entertain you for an hour and a half.

Shiver: Pretty bland Spanish horror flick that I wanted to like because it was from the same studio as Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage (both excellent movies). But ultimately, the movie falls straight into mediocrity. It's not particularly scary. It's well shot, but boring. I just couldn't like it, as much I wanted to.

Shrooms: One of those movies where if the ending would have been different, it would have rated higher. But, instead, it was unnecessary and detracted from the rest of the film. It wasn't a bad little slasher with some interesting scenes, but wasn't anything revolutionary. Again, Instant View it if you would like, but I wouldn't buy it.

Wind Chill: I found this in my Instant View and was pleasantly surprised. It was well done, well acted, had sympathetic characters, and some good scares thrown in. Another well shot movie, I may have to revisit this one after I watch it again. I think Netflix took it off Instant View, but I would still recommend giving it a view. Nice to see a small budget American horror flick that entertained me.

Day of the Dead (2008): This movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. That being said, I would never say it was a good movie, but I was expecting a lot worse. I have to admit, I don't much care for the original (sacrilege, I know), but it was interesting. At least this remake didn't just take a big steaming shit on the original, but it didn't do it much justice. This movie did reinforce one thing for me though: I hate Nick Cannon.

The Unborn: You know, when a movie touts that it was written by the co-writer of the Dark Knight (because no one actually knows who David S. Goyer is besides me, I guess), some people might think that's a great thing. Well, 2 things: David S. Goyer is actually only credited with the story, not the actual script for The Dark Knight, and David S. Goyer has written such gems as Demonic Toys, Nick Fury: Agent of Shield, and The Crow: City of Angels. He's not a particularly good writer, and this movie proves it. Even the interesting scene they show in the trailers of the man's head being upside down is uninteresting in the movie. Goyer also directed it, which he also did for Blade Trinity and we know how well that worked out. This movie was bad Hollywood crap.

There's what I've been up to lately. What do you guys have to say about that?

My love for horror...

2009-03-04T08:59:00.000-08:00

I just figured I would share with everyone just how I got into horror. I love horror movies. I feel like a well done horror movie can be the most powerful type of movie out there. Look at what happened when The Exorcist came out: protests, people proclaiming the actual film of the movie was cursed, saying the Devil was actually captured on film, etc. Films have been banned in countries because they are too violent or scary. In the old days of black and white horror, people would pass out in theaters from the content (of course, back then, seeing a woman's calf exposed could cause people to faint).

I've loved horror ever since I started watching it. The feeling of being scared is excellent. No matter how much sleep I lost over movies, I would keep going back. I grew up in a 100+ year old house that creaked and groaned in the middle of nowhere. Our backyard was a wooded swamp. The cow pasture that my bedroom overlooked would get a nice layer of fog in the summer hanging over it. It was like living in a horror movie. I simultaneously loved and hated it.

But there was one moment in particular I can remember that got me to love the movies. It was when I first watched Pet Sematary. My parents were big on not censoring anything we watched, telling me if I got scared, it was my problem. They didn't care about language because they knew I wouldn't repeat it (because I had some common sense). Well there is one scene in the movie that scared the crap out of me:

I remember seeing that and for the next year and a half of my life, I jumped into and out of bed. I would look under my bed to be sure there wasn't anything down there and still jump into it. I slept with my head under the covers and shuddered at every sound, thinking it was Gage coming to cut me with his scalpel. I was so affected by that I actually couldn't watch the movie for several years after (now I thoroughly enjoy the movie). I remember thinking just how amazing it was that something so simple could affect someone so much. I love the feeling of going to bed uneasy after watching a good horror film. I love still expecting to see someone standing in my closet with a knife. I love planning my survival for the zombie holocaust (trust me, it's good). I love that people still cover their eyes when something scares them and even in our supposedly "desensitized" society, things can still scare people.

And that's why I love horror.

Cold Prey Review

2009-03-03T09:14:00.000-08:00

I just got it from Netflix (I moved it up in my queue because of Johnny over at Freddy in Space) and watched it this weekend. I gotta say, foreign horror is where it's been at lately, especially those Europeans. I was anticipating it highly put it in my DVD player, eager to watch what was in store. And here's a summary of what I watched:

A group of 5 people set out to snowboard in the mountains, embarking on a long journey to find what are presumably the most "rad" and "bodacious" hills around (those words are still relevant, right?). One of the guys falls and breaks his leg, so they need to find shelter for him. Well, they happen upon an abandoned ski resort and find they can take shelter there for the night. Seems perfectly safe and sound, right?

Wrong! A killer stalks them one by one, picking them off (literally). As the killer whittles down the group, they try to find out who the giant man wielding the pick axe is and why he is trying to kill them. I wonder if they ever happen to find out the mystery or if any survive. On to the review!

Cinematography: I happen across another well shot horror movie! The camera work is once again very well done. Nothing particularly revolutionary, but the scenery is wonderful. The vast mountain expanses are captured quite well. You get a real sense from the very beginning of just how huge the scenery is and how isolated the characters are from everything else. The ski resort is amply well shot, with dizzying shots of the long hallways and the large open rooms they are in, making it hard to tell when/where the killer will appear. It earns itself a 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, a group of 20 something people going out to the middle of nowhere and being stalked by a killer is nothing new. It's a slasher flick. But it's a rather exceptional slasher flick. I will be the first to admit I'm not a huge fan of slashers, but this one is a well done movie. The characters are at the very least likable, though not original. You have 2 couples and the traditional single guy: lovable and funny, but single because he's a little nerdy and shy. You have one established couple and one new couple, nothing groundbreaking. But they are well acted and enjoyable, so it earns a respectable 3.5 out of 5 for Execution: better than average, but not exactly mind blowing.

Sub-genre Comparison: Unfortunately for Cold Prey, it falls into a category that is getting more and more bloated by the day, especially with remakes. As a modern slasher, the movie is better than almost any other slasher out there today. But I don't think it holds any weight to the heavy hitters like Halloween or Friday The 13th. But then again, what does? With so many slashers being done nowadays, it's hard to get anything exceptional. But like I said, compared to most recent slashers, this is head and shoulders above them. I don't know if it will be remembered like the big boys, but it will be in lists of gems to look for in the future. That's worth a 3.5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: This movie is going to hold up well. It's well shot, well acted, and all around well done. The gore and effects are pretty sparse (going more for blood than gore), but they're effective when they appear. The movie does like to use a lot of blood (the characters tend to bleed about 3 or 4 gallons worth and still manage to breathe), but what do you expect from a slasher? Realism is not the goal of the movie. The kills aren't anything inventive or special, but they work and you get to enjoy them. Overall, it earns a nice 4 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: Unfortunately, the movie isn't particularly scary. It's fairly tense, but never too terribly edge-of-your-seat scary. The killer is a decent character, but not particularly imposing or anything of that sort. As I said, there is a nice feeling of isolation, but it never gets to blossom into all out terror. The movie is pretty briskly paced once the killing starts, so maybe that's why (with only 5 characters to kill off, it's hard to space that out). It was okay though and scarier than a lot of other movies, so it's an average 3 out of 5 for Scares.

And with the final tally, Cold Prey ends up at a respectable 18 out of 25. The biggest thing it has against it is that it's a slasher and that makes it hard to score very well with me. But for a slasher to get above average (which would be somewhere between a 11 and 15, assuming 3 is average), I have to have liked it quite a bit. Cold Prey a very nice addition to the genre (which recently has relied on remakes and dull "original" ideas) and if I could find it for cheap, I would definitely buy it. My favorite part of the movie is definitely the scenery and shots, so I would probably buy it just for that. Overall, a good movie for horror fans!

Master of Horror: Wes Craven

2009-02-26T11:30:00.000-08:00

If you are reading this blog, then you no doubt know of the so-called “Masters of Horror”. I’m not necessarily talking about the TV Series here, just some names that get frequently dropped while talking about the genre. They are the people that are generally considered the top directors of modern horror films. They’ve built a name for themselves on some (generally) well made and groundbreaking horror movies. Often times considered revolutionary, I have always wondered: do most of them really deserve the title? Or should they have quit after making a couple of movies and just faded away? Well, I want to start taking a look at them and figuring out if I agree with the title given to them. First up on the list: Wes Craven.

This guy is almost universally considered a “Master” of the horror genre and often appears in interviews about what horror means and the scariest movie moments. Well, let’s take a look at some of his “masterpieces” and decide for ourselves if he is deserving of the title.

*Please note, this isn’t a complete filmography, just some highlights. For a complete list, go here*

The Last House on the Left (1972): No doubt about it, he started his career off with a bang. I cannot deny that this was both groundbreaking and well made. He showed some great promise and ingenuity, which led him to make…

The Hills Have Eyes (1977): Again, a great movie. Sure, both of these look a little dated, but they are classics. The mutants in this movie aren’t quite as interesting as the ones in the remake, but if this movie doesn’t happen, neither does Alexandre Aja’s gem. So far, Wes is two for two.

Swamp Thing (1982): Wes keeps up his streak. Swamp Thing isn’t quite as good as his first couple offerings, but it’s a good movie to keep things looking up for him. It’s a cult classic that works pretty well, even by today’s standards.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984): Well, I respect this movie. I don’t really like the movie, but that’s more personal preference than anything else. I want to say that this movie keeps his trend going, but it unfortunately also launched a lot of bad sequels. I know this is probably sacrilege in the eyes of Johnny, but that’s how I feel. But I appreciate this movie and don’t consider it a misstep, just sort of a movie that was good enough to keep people thinking highly of him. That is until…

The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985): And we have his first major misstep. This movie is pretty god awful. Craven himself has disowned it, saying he did it for the money. That’s not a good sign. He directed a few episodes of The Twilight Zone (that I never saw) and then came back to movies with…

The Serpent and The Rainbow (1988): For my money, this is his best film. It’s a great movie that showed he could make a more serious movie that wasn’t just hack and slash (though I love those movies of his). Craven developed a good story and created some very weird, nightmarish scenes in this movie. The scene where Bill Paxton is buried alive is particularly disconcerting. It’s a little dated, but if you haven’t seen it, it’s good and usually cheap on DVD.

Shocker (1989): Oooh, backslide. Pretty mediocre movie. Craven seems mortal all of a sudden. This movie lacks a punch his first few had. It wasn’t artistic enough to compete with Serpent, but not gritty enough to be the next Hills. Kind of a middle movie that just left you unsatisfied.

The People Under The Stairs (1991): I want to appreciate this movie, but I can’t do it. It seems more dated than most of his early stuff. The characters are so overwrought they can’t even be appreciated on a campy, Evil Dead II level. It’s not scary, not well acted, and just not very good.

New Nightmare (1994): The only other Nightmare movie to be directed by Craven falls pretty flat on its face. I didn’t like the whole “movie in a movie” thing and it just seemed pretty bland. Again, I’m not a huge fan of the whole series (though I do love Robert Englund and the character Freddy Kruger, oddly enough). I think Freddy is a great horror icon that got stuck in an unfortunate series of so-so movies.

Scream (1996), Scream 2 (1997), Scream 3 (2000): After Vampire in Brooklyn (which I won’t even give a separate entry, it was that bad), Craven came back with probably his best known movies: the Scream Trilogy (which may soon be a quadrilogy). They were okay movies, sort of bringing horror back to the mainstream, showing it didn’t have to be low budget. None of them are particularly awesome, but all are fairly enjoyable. They aren’t a strike against him necessarily, but they aren’t earning him more respect either.

Cursed (2005): If I could forget ever seeing this movie, I would. Apparently, there were so many problems with production, they had to re-shoot about 50% of the movie. They should have just let it die. Watch the trailer and at about 1:30 into it, see what could probably be a CG-Why? segment over at Freddy In Space.

Red Eye (2005): Pretty forgettable movie. Not bad, but not great. Cillian Murphy is quite good, but just not enough to save the movie.

Apparently, that’s his most recent horror foray. He has Scream 4 in the hopper, which I will more than likely see, but I’m not terribly excited for it. When it comes right down to it, he has 4 movies I like, 5 movies I could take or leave, and 5 movies that just aren’t good. I am not entirely convinced this makes him deserving of the “Master” of horror title that he has, but it’s definitely not a terrible career. I think he definitely deserves respect, but overall, I just don’t find him all that masterful.

So, Wes, I appreciate what you’ve done, but you need to make another good movie sometime soon. The last truly good movie you did was 20 years ago. I feel kind of like his career is like a bad blow job: it feels good at first, then just okay, and finally you just sort of wish it would either go back to what it felt like at first or just end.

The Cottage: review

2009-02-25T13:33:00.000-08:00

I just got The Cottage from Netflix and watched it last night and decided it should be my inaugural review. So, let's hear a bit about the movie first, eh?

Plot: David (Andy Serkis, best known as the actor behind Gollum and King Kong's motion capturing) and his brother Peter have kidnapped a girl and demanded ransom for her safe return. The problem is that Peter is a bumbling wimp and can't seem to do anything right. After some poorly executed ransom payoffs, Peter, David, and another incompetent crook Andrew end up with two Asian hitment tracking them down in the middle of nowhere seeking the girl. David has to go into the nearest village to make a call and gets warned not to leave the cottage and lock his doors. David does not heed this advice, of course.

David comes back to the cottage to find Peter and the girl have gone off into the woods after she managed to get free of her restraints and hold him at knife point. Andrew and David set off in the woods to find him and discover there is a homicidal maniac stalking them out there. It's a disfigured farmer and they've stumbled onto his land, which he doesn't like! Peter and the girl are being stalked as well, and they all have to fight to keep the farmer from killing them.

Cinematography: This movie does a great job at setting up scenes and shots. It's well done and doesn't use any of the sort of cliched horror angles or shots. It's very well set up and the director does a great job of framing and staging. The scenery is really well done and the setting perfect for the movie. Paul Andrew Williams does and excellent job of using long range shots to give you a scope of just how huge and remote the woods are. Shots of the farmer's house and ranch are also quite well done. You would never know that the movie was not a big budget hollywood movie and in fact exceeds most of those. I give it a 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, the movie is definitely not an entirely original idea. Some crazed, country bumpkin is killing people that wander into his unfortunate path. The farmer is disfigured and utterly relentless, kills with no remorse, and had some tragic past experience that made him the way he is. I had hoped for a bit more with the Asian hitmen and sort of playing off how the characters would be in double jeopardy, having the farmer and the hitmen to watch out for, but they really don't end up being that big of a part of the movie. However, even operating in the confines of a setting that's been done a lot (Wrong Turn, TCM, Masters of Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, etc), it manages to entertain. The farmer and his backstory definitely make for a decent character. The acting is top notch and the characters are very entertaining. You definitely want to see some of them live and some of them die. It earns a respectable 3.5 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-Genre Comparison: Well, like I said, it's a pretty familiar story. But it definitely stacks up well against the recent entries with hilbilly/mutant people getting all territorial over their land. It's definitely better than The Hills Have Eyes 2 and I would say it is better than Wrong Turn (which was pretty darn good). I haven't seen Wrong Turn 2, but I've heard good things, so that may come up soon. As for the classics, I will probably never hold it as high as the original TCM or Hills, but it's a worthy modern send up. I was impressed with it's ability to not only scare, but also to make fun of itself. I would say against others, it would be a 4 out of 5.

Production Value: As I said before, you would never really know that it wasn't a big budget movie if it weren't for the fact you've never heard of it before. It's well shot and the acting's well done. The gore is quite effective as well, choosing to go with traditional effects instead of CGI, something I respect greatly. Beheading someone with a shovel, a machete through the torso, and a spinal cord being ripped out are what you have to look forward to. They are all quite well done and entertaining to watch, not taking away anything from the movie itself. I'm not an overly huge gorehound, but this was pretty fun to watch and added to the overall atmosphere of the movie. It will hold up quite well, I'm sure. It definitely deserves a 4 out of 5 for Production Value as well.

Scares: Here's really the only place where the movie falters a bit. It does have some decent scares, good tension with the isolation, but it relies a bit too much on the jump scare. The farmer is a good character, but with the type of movie it is, he's not a terribly imposing figure, just something that pops out to scare when he has to. The other thing is that the movie is very lighthearted at times, which makes it hard to keep up the tension. I like the comedy aspects of the movie, but it's not terribly frightening. That being said, it still succeeds far more than a lot of other movies, but I think it hovers right around average at 3 out of 5 for Scares.

So, when we do the final tally, we see that The Cottage ends up with a respectable 18.5 out of 25 whatevers (I don't have a unit of measure yet, but I'm open to suggestion). It's better than a lot of other movies out there, but not really a masterpiece. Definitely worth checking out if you can!

Zombies???

2009-02-17T14:25:00.000-08:00

Well, here's a little thing that has had me up in arms lately: Virgin Media's Top Zombie Films of All Time.

That's Virgin Media's top zombie movies of all time. Don't let the URL of the article fool you, it's not a top 10, it's a top 13. Now, I have to admit, it's got some good movies on there. Then why am I up in arms? Because some of them aren't zombie movies! I'm going to clear this up for you if you don't know what I'm talking about: zombies have to die and come back to life to be undead. Which means that a person must become infected, die, and come back to life in order to be a zombie (or be dead already and return). Just becoming a monster because you are infected does not a zombie make. You must die first because zombies are undead. That will come into play later in the article. So, let's get into it, shall we?

Army of Darkness: Not a zombie movie. The enemies are deadites, which are people possessed by evil spirits, not people brought back from the dead. I guess the skeletons are similar to zombies because they are back from the dead, but skeletons and zombies are two very different things. Plus walking skeletons? That's ludicrous! That could never really happen like a zombie attack could.

Black Sheep: No, not the Chris Farley/David Spade comedy, this movie. It's a great New Zealand horror flick about sheep that turn carnivorous and start killing people. Oh, and if they bite you, you turn into a were-sheep (like a werewolf, but, well, you get the picture). Now, what about that sounds like a zombie flick to you? It's a twist on the werewolf flick, but that's hardly a zombie film. Two films on the list, two that aren't zombie films. Both good, don't get me wrong, but still not zombies.

Zombie Strippers: Well, as the name would imply, this one is about zombies. That strip. I don't have a problem with this one besides the fact I wouldn't include it on my top ten zombie movies of all time. But it has zombies at least.

I Am Legend: I don't know what pisses me off about this selection: the fact that movie kinda sucked, the fact that they weren't zombies, or the fact that they were supposed to be intelligent, vampire-like creatures (a la the book). My problems with this movie aside (I wish they would have kept the original ending), it features no zombies. Things that can't go into the light and get burned when they do so are what again? Vampires, not zombies.

Braindead (aka Dead Alive): Ahhh, something I can agree with. Not only is this a zombie movie (the infected people have to die first, then come back to life), but it would more than likely make it on my top ten. A great low budget horror flick from Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.

Diary of the Dead: Well, it's a zombie flick. It's a fucking terrible zombie flick, but at least it's a zombie flick.

Resident Evil: Also a zombie flick. Not a great one, but it might get on my top ten on the right day. It's kind of fun to watch Milla Jovovich kick some undead ass. Too bad both sequels sucked hard.

28 Days Later: I'm only going to say this once: THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE FILM! The infected people in this movie don't die and come back, they just get infected by a disease. I love this film and will rate it highly forever, but it's just not a zombie film. For some intents and purposes I will lump it in with zombie flicks (it is similar and gets it's roots from zombie films, no doubt about that), but the way I like my zombie films, it just can't be qualified. I will grant this one some leniency because it's nitpicky, but I still strike it against this list.

Dawn of the Dead (remake): Yup, it's a zombie film. But the remake? Really? I like this movie as much as the next guy (in fact, I've often said if pressured, I would probably choose this over the original, but barely), but if I do a top zombie films of all time list, the original gets top billing. It's just more revolutionary and more of a pillar amongst zombie films. I would be okay with this choice if it were on the list with the original as well.

Shaun of the Dead: Easily in my top 5 movies of all time, let alone zombie movies. Well done Virgin, another one I can agree with across the board.

An American Werewolf in London: Are you fucking serious? It says "werewolf" in the goddamn title! Jesus Christ! IT'S NOT A FUCKING ZOMBIE MOVIE!

Night of the Living Dead (original): I'm surprised they got this one right. But where's the remake? That was good too!

The Omega Man: For those of you who don't know, this is the second time a studio tried to make "I Am Legend", this time with Charlton Heston. I Am Legend was the third attempt, the first was The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price. They even put "zombies" in quotes in the article. That's probably a pretty good sign it doesn't belong on the list then.

Wow, what a piece of shit list. Six of the thirteen movies listed aren't actually zombie movies. And in the URL of the piece you say it's a top ten, but there are thirteen movies. Just brilliant.

Criteria

2009-02-10T10:31:00.001-08:00

Well, as I said, I will be reviewing movies at some point (I've worked out my first few reviews, I just need to type them up and post them soon). But before I start my reviews, I've worked out a way to basically quantify what I am saying about the movies. I will be judging each movie on 5 categories that I have chosen for no real reason. But hey, it's my blog, so I can do what I want right? In any event, each category is out of a possible score of 5 (stars, hearts, clovers, horseshoes, whatever you want) and are fairly tailored towards horror movies, so these aren't the same criteria I use to judge, say, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (a great movie). In any event, here are the 5 categories and my interpretations thereof.

Please note: I titled them pretty generally and explain them in more detail, so "Cinematography" is more than just cinematography, but I try to explain that. I may change the titles of the categories later, but for now, this is what I've got.

Cinematography: With this I am talking about things like camera angles, movement, framing, and scene setup. I like to see if there are cliches from within the genre, such as the wide angle close-up to signify craziness, the shaky cam to hide poor effects, herky-jerky character moves to show a ghost, and other things that have started to appear to hide a poor director. I do take into effect budget of a particular movie, knowing that a shaky cam may be employed because that's all a director has to use due to budget. I also include the Mise-en-scene, basically meaning (in this case) the look and feel of the movie (Tim Burton's films all have a certain mise-en-scene). I also look to see if the movie looks like another movie or if it's got a style all its own. I will try to take into account if it's meant to have the look of another movie on purpose or not.

Execution: I want to see if the movie is an original idea or falling into a well defined niche. If it is in a format I've seen before, does it bring any new elements to the table or is it at least well done within the format? Slashers have been done and done to death, but you can still make a good slasher film that follows a lot of conventions with the right tools (though I dislike slasher films to begin with). Are the characters believable or at least well done enough to be engaged with them? You may never have a person that is as over the top as some characters are (like The Tall Man in Phantasm), but is the character at least well done enough for you to not look away when they are on screen? And finally the acting in the movie. Is it at least ample? Budget has a big effect on this usually, but you can still find people to do the part and not blow you away for a good budget.

Sub-genre Comparison: Exactly what it sounds like: how does it compare to other movies in the same sub-genre? Horror is the overlying genre, but how does it stack up against something in the same vein? How does Diary of the Dead hold up agains the original Night of the Living Dead? How does Let The Right One In compare to John Carpenter's Vampires? What about Dog Soldiers vs The Howling? I will compare the movie to the heavy hitters of the sub-genre (ie. for possession films The Exorcist, The Evil Dead, The Shining) and to recent releases. How does The Signal compare to The Happening or Pulse? Does it do what it should well? I mean, few (if any movies) are going to compare to the classics, but can they at least do the things justice? This will be taken into account with remakes as well.

Production Value: How are the Special FX? Is the gore well done? Is it used sparingly and to good effect or over done with little lasting impression? Was there CGI or traditional effects and did either work out well? Will it have staying power? Will it look good now but 10 years down the road look ridiculous? I take into account that newer technology makes things look better and everything, but things like poorly done CGI now looks as bad as poorly done CGI 10 years ago. I mean, look at Jurassic Park. Those effects still hold up well today (better than Jurassic Park III, in fact). Movies like The Exorcist and The Omen have some effects that look a little dated, but that isn't enough to detract from the movie itself (and most of those effects still aren't that bad). I will also take into effect budgetary constraints for this as well.

And finally, Scares: Does the movie build tension well? Does it make you constantly cover your eyes? Does it rely too much on the jump scare (a cheap scare that if used sparingly is okay)? Does the movie actually take time to establish a brooding atmosphere and suck you into its world? Too many movies don't establish a scary or unsettling atmosphere and that detracts from the scare factor. For me, the 1 thing every good horror movie does is create a sense of isolation, regardless of the setting. You can do this by putting people in remote locations (tundra, desert, space), by a catastrophic event (zombies, infection, mass extinction), or by removing them from society with a specific incident (possession, haunting). This can occur in an area surrounded by people, like in The Exorcist or The Orphanage. Plenty of people around, but because it's such a specific occurence that no one has ever experienced, no one can relate, thus isolating the character even though they are not alone.

I don't cover everything, but these are the things that are important for me to have a movie succeed at. I may add to this list eventually, but that's something to refer to when you read my reviews and need a frame of reference.

Horror

2009-02-05T08:36:00.000-08:00

Well, I've finally decided to do it: I'll write a damn horror movie blog. I've been interested in horror movies for a long time now and I'll rant and rave to any unsuspecting idiot who wanders into my field of vision about said movies, but I've finally started to channel my ideas to a more focused audience: the internet. Okay, so that's not very focused, but it allows for more unsuspecting idiots to wander into my ideas.

For a little background about me: I'm a twenty-something college graduate who works for UW Madison as an IT Consultant. I did take a couple of film classes in college (so the pretentious film verbiage may come out every once in a while), but I was a Philosophy major. So don't read too far into what I say. I'm a bit of a film buff, but not really a critic in the highest sense of the word. I know more than the average movie goer, but I am by no means an expert. That doesn't stop me from espousing criticism like an expert though. I am a walking contradiction.

In any event, I will be writing some reviews, maybe some news and various other things horror related in this blog. I have a method to my reviews, which I will post soon (along with a review). In any event, hope you like what I write.