Film Review: "The Uninvited" (B-)

I desperately need to go back through my DVD collection so that I avoid seeing PG-13 horror movies one after another.

However, comparing "The Uninvited" to the flood of other PG-13 horror out there right now, it's not half-bad (but it's not half-good either). The entire movie is simply ... okay. I've never seen the original material it's based on, so I won't even comment on it like it's a remake.

One of my chief pet peeves with all these PG-13 movies is that they go straight to the lame scares and the jerky/contortionist ghosts walking about. It was fun while it lasted, people. Stop using it - it fails to be anything but lame at this point. That being said, I do have some respect for the plot. It was mildly intriguing towards the end (although I'd figured it out before that), but the film lacks any energy prior to that. I found it difficult to care for any of the characters, except for - oddly enough - Rachael, played by the always fantastic Elizabeth Banks, who definitely amps up the creepy atmosphere. The teenage leads, particularly the eldest sister, are annoying and I just didn't feel the actresses really ... tried. I'm not sure they had to.

As for the material, the script is passable and generally a cut above the crap that has hit theaters lately. I wasn't a big fan of exactly how the film ends - I fail to see why directors always seem to go for the lame "dun dun dun" moment at the end of the movie. To be honest, most of the time I believe it is because they feel they need it, but I don't think this one did. I also felt the pacing was a little off - the film seems to take forever to get to the point. I'm not sure if that's because I was bored (.... I was) or if the movie is just a series of "boo!" moments before the last twenty minutes.

There are a few moments that surprised me during the film. I'm pretty sure commenting on them doesn't spoil anything, so I'll go ahead and ask: who else didn't know that you could show a vibrator in a PG-13 flick? I was shocked when it came up on screen and it isn't a "hidden" thing - it is very blatantly the focus of a conversation. I had no problems with it, but I just didn't think PG-13 movies could show sex toys.

All in all, "The Uninvited" is not a complete waste of time, but it wasn't exactly enjoyable. Like I said, I really didn't feel "into it" until the final twenty or so minutes ... and by that point, I'd already figured out how it was going to end anyway. That being said, I think anyone who is in high school and/or isn't a hardcore fan of the genre will find it an enjoyable 90 or so minutes. It seems like the kind of DVD that is destined to be picked for a slumber party.

And the fact that those kinds of movies are what horror fans get nowadays is seriously depressing. I really hope the "Friday the 13th" remake does not let me down - I need some good rated R horror, even if it is a remake of one of my favorites.

Film Review: "The Unborn" (D)

Well.

You know, I give PG-13 horror movies a lot of flack on this blog. It is extremely rare for me to like one. And I have reasons for that. They seem to be chiefly made to make money off the hordes of teenagers that crowd movie theaters on Friday nights, but they're never developed fully because ... well, they don't really need to be, do they? If you've ever been in a crowded movie theater with a bunch of high school students on a Friday night, you know like I do that only a few of them actually pay attention to the movie.

This is very obviously a movie that was underdeveloped from the beginning. It's poorly directed, poorly acted, and by god it's poorly written.

There's not one thing I like about the film ... except for maybe that Gary Oldman is in it. And I'm not quite sure how they got him to be in it, although I suspect it was one of those "well, I'm still getting paid" things. Unfortunately, the script isn't magically any better because the words are coming out of Oldman's mouth. Also, while I'm on the subject of actors taking roles I wouldn't ever see them in - why is Carla Gugino in this film? I've seen her work - including a play on Broadway - and I know that she is much, much better than this.

Here's my one line review: Tries to steal from "The Exorcist," only it doesn't work at all.

While watching the film, I could hear people react to the creepy ways in which some of the possessed people walk as if it was all that original. That's straight out of "The Exorcist" my friends. And how do I know that? Because when I first saw the unrated version of that film, the spider-walk was burned into my brain. I get that directors and writers often want to pay homage to the films they grew up with, but here's the thing:

If you don't have a strong story or script to begin with, putting in these scenes as a sort of kickback to your favorite films from your formative years, it just comes off as stealing. It looks cheap and like you're going for the easy, quick scare. People forget that the reason the spider-walk worked so well for "The Exorcist" is because the rest of the film was so strong. It's not as if the spider-walk made that film what it is.

That being said, this film doesn't fail purely because it's PG-13. If it was rated R, I probably would have thought it just as bad ... only perhaps slightly more fun to watch. This film mostly fails for the same reason I hated "The Happening" - it comes off as if every part of its making was lazy.

AFF '08 Film Review: "The Alphabet Killer" (D)

Ah, yes. The one and only horror movie I saw at this year's Austin Film Festival - of course, with my luck, it was utter crap.

"The Alphabet Killer" is part crime thriller, ridiculous drama, and fucking god-awful horror. It is a genuinely boring, stupid, uninspiring piece of work. I kid you not, I think I fell asleep nearly five times during the movie - I could see people staring at me because my yawns were so loud.

The movie is poorly acted, scripted and directed. If I hadn't been with a friend, I would've walked out possibly in the first five minutes, but I did try to give it some time. One question I couldn't stop thinking about during the entire film: how the hell did they get some of the actors they did to sign on? Was there a collective brainwave of stupidity that forced the actors to sign that contract? Anyway, that doesn't matter. Even with stronger acting, the movie would have still been a lazy mess.

First off, the movie can't decide what it wants to be. It wavers from being truly shitty horror - tossing dead girls into scenes to wander around for a few cheap scares - to dumb drama and even worse crime thriller. You don't necessarily have to make a choice, I suppose, but movies like Silence of the Lambs that combine elements of horror and thriller for truly excellent (or even good) filmmaking come along very rarely. And while I believe that an independent film could do this, it certainly was not what I saw tonight.

Eliza Dushku should stick to anything Joss Whedon writes and that's it. I'm not sure the girl can act as anything other than femme bad-ass. I say that with love, because I honestly do like her. Everyone else in the movie is just forgettable, so I'm just going to ignore them.

And, oh, the ending. That was just ... too awful for words. If you don't have Morgan Freeman in you're movie, you shouldn't be utilizing narration. Period. The end. DON'T DO IT.

I am at a loss to describe the assault on my brain that was "The Alphabet Killer." It wasn't as bad as "Seed," but it comes pretty fucking close. I don't even have the energy to have a longer review.

FF '08 Film Review: "Martyrs" (A+)

I've been tracking French horror seriously since seeing "Haute Tension," although I was not a fan of the film overall. Stylistically, however, I was very impressed and Alexandre Aja quickly became a top favorite on my list of directors to watch. But then I saw "À l'intérieur" ("Inside"). And then I saw "Frontier(s)". Not to mention the smaller films along the way.

Somewhere along that path, I decided any horror director in France was on my list of directors to watch.

"Martyrs" is one of those films that surpasses greatness and is something else altogether. Directed by Pascal Laugier, the film is like a punch to the gut. I didn't think that "Inside" could be topped - certainly not so fucking quickly - but it certainly has been. I have more affection for "Inside," but in terms of everything else - "Martyrs" is brilliant, disturbing, utterly fucked ... but in the best kind of way. And if you thought "Inside" couldn't be beat in terms of gore ... well, it can.

WARNING: Don't read this review if you haven't seen the movie. While I don't give anything away, it will be a much better experience overall if you go in knowing nothing.

The film starts simply - a young girl, Lucie, running and screaming down a back road. We discover she's been locked away, but there's no traces of sexual abuse or reasons for her capture. To make matters worse, Lucie is catatonic and won't speak to anyone except, eventually, for one friend.

The film unfolds from there, although it's important to point out one thing. While the film is on a relatively slow-burn and doesn't operate like many horror movies, this movie is by no means slow. It's seductive, yes, but at the same time it brings the action and straight-up horror like most other movies can't even dream of doing. The gore is even better/more plentiful than "Inside," but as much as there is, it never goes overboard given the context of the story.

This film is utterly gorgeous to watch. The actresses are beautiful in their despair and fantastic in their roles, which were neither easy to cast nor play from what I've heard. Watching their descent into madness and then something else is like running a marathon. Every extreme horror movie you've seen before this, except for perhaps a rare few, were like practice for sitting through this movie. I would guess that being able to make it through the last 30 minutes of the film without hiding your eyes somehow are what will divide the hardcore horror fans from the rest.

There are sure to be some people who hate this movie through and through, which is probably one of the best things about French horror cinema. It doesn't play to what the audience wants, it doesn't play to what it thinks the genre as a whole wants ... and what results is possibly the most organic, real, and oddly inspiring films I've seen in a long time.

FF '08 Film Review: "The Burrowers"

I have to be honest, I wasn't sure what to make of this going in. I love the idea of mixing two genres like westerns and horror, but I can't claim I was too excited to see this one. However, during Fantastic Fest, I made a concerted effort to see anything that I considered to be tried and true horror.

My one sentence review of the film: I was underwhelmed. It's not bad, but it isn't great either. I love slow-paced horror movies - I think I've demonstrated this in previous reviews - but I felt bored in this one overall. I just didn't connect with the film like I wanted. I may just be one of those people that can't see a mix like horror and western actually working - I would really have to see one that blew me out of the water to convince me this is a match. However, that being said, I do appreciate that it was something different and genuinely original.

Two things that didn't work for me, which I believe was what ended up breaking my entertainment of the movie: the love sub-plot, which just seemed a little too fake. This could be for a couple of reasons - the script, in these sections, seemed weak; the acting also seemed to be very wooden.

The second thing I disliked was the ending, which seemed forced and tacked on. To me, if a western and a horror movie are going to mix - why not make it a slow-paced, fading ending instead of a shot to the gut? This was a chance for the film to end on a beautiful note and take advantage of the rather gorgeous cinematography employed throughout the movie. I always want to scream when horror directors don't play to their strengths and instead play to what they think a genre audience wants. It felt like the last 30 minutes of the movie was deliberately contrived to add in the gore/action factor and the film didn't need it. The creepiness of the people being buried and the burrowers themselves was what they should have stuck with, not a balls to the wall action sequence.

Overall, like I said, I was just completely underwhelmed. However, I do think the film is worth a look, although I'll doubt you'll be able to do so without buying the DVD or pirating it. Hell, Lionsgate wouldn't even give "The Midnight Meat Train" a wide release and that was backed (and originally written in short story format) by genre fave Clive Barker.

Film Review: "Tamara" (C+)

To be honest, this is one of those films that I don't love, but I don't exactly hate either, although that's mainly because I can't muster up enough energy to care either way. It's the same old tired storyline (school outcast gets revenge) twisted until it's part "Carrie," part "I Know What You Did Last Summer." The movie is mildly offensive to me - why is it that the "nerd" always finds herself and her power, only to become evil and super-sexy through that? And to be quite honest, I thought the character was cuter as the nerd. But, that's just a ridiculous side-note.

I'll give this movie props for what it tries to do. It tries to be different, but suffers from lack of a good script to keep it going through the whole movie. The acting is wooden from pretty much everyone except for the lead (Jenna Dewan), who does her best given the script she has and really, is decent as both the mousy nerd and the sex kitten. While the movie did make me laugh a few times ("it's wet" and other sexual innuendos were mildly amusing to me), the movie lacks any sort of driving force after about 45 minutes.

The kill scenes start off great, but fail to deliver the same punch after we see the kid start cutting off his own facial features. I will say, however, that I was absolutely amazed with one sequence which occurs in a bedroom, although I don't want to give away too much. Disregarding any of the negative undercurrents the scene may have, it was shocking enough to me that it woke me up after too many minutes of boredom. The problem is, the film goes right back to being boring and uninspired.

All in all, I have to say, the movie is entertaining enough for one viewing. I didn't hate it and it's far from the worst horror movie I've seen this year (I'm leaning towards "The Happening" getting that dubious honor). I do not, however, get why Lionsgate released this into theaters even if it was just for a limited engagement. If anything, this is a forgettable direct to DVD release trying to pretend it's a bigger production that it actually is, but it's certainly nothing remarkable.

Film Review: "The Happening" (C-)

If there was one film that I've seen so far this year that I pretty much hated and wanted to walk out of, it's this one. And, I have to say, that surprised me, even if I didn't like "Lady in the Water" either. I still went in expecting a quality movie or, at least, an entertaining one. I didn't get either, and unless you're blind and deaf, neither will you.

First things first - M. Night Shyamalan should not be allowed to write his own movies. If he wants to come up with the stories or background, fine. But actual dialogue? Someone should stab him with a pen if he tries to get anywhere near a computer. I think he's a fantastic director, but I also think he takes on too much.

Don't get me wrong, there are a few moments in the film that were successful, but overall the film is boring, stupidly sentimental and outright ridiculous. I liked how the film started, especially the scene at the construction site. That thump of the bodies hitting the ground made me flinch and it certainly started the film on the right note (or bad, depending on how you look at it). But while scenes like this make sense, all of the gore in the later areas in the film seem like they were put there for no reason. Now, normally, I'm a fan of any kind of gore - I don't care why it's in the movie. But in this case it seemed like Shyamalan wanted to prove something, wanted to make an R-rated movie and tacked a bunch of scenes on that effected the pacing of the movie. Seriously? The scene where the kids get shot up? POINTLESS. And the scene with the crazy lady being effected by the ... wind? ... was laughable. I won't even get started on the running from the wind sequence, because I believe everyone already realizes how dumb that looked.

I firmly stand by the statement that this is probably both Mark Whalberg and Zooey Deschanel's worst movie (although I can't claim to have seen every single film they've both done). Whalberg sounded like he was always asking questions and that he had somehow been transformed into a human squeaky toy. He sounded asinine. Deschanel looked like a blow-up doll for the entirety of the movie and gave what felt like a half-assed performance. I wouldn't be surprised if Shyamalan told them to act that way, so I'm not sure who deserves most of the blame.

Now, I've got nothing against eco-terror or whatever it's been labeled now, but it just wasn't dealt with effectively here. The movie seems haphazard, awkwardly paced, and where it should be tense and fraught with energy it's simply lame and moronic. A great start, but everything after the first 10 or 15 minutes is forgettable, yet too dumb to forget at the same time.

Film Review: "The Strangers" (B)

I have to say, this was one of the few mainstream horror movies that I've been excited about lately, probably because Liv Tyler is one of my favorite actresses and I was excited to see her in the genre. But, as per usual, one of two things happened: 1) I was underwhelmed, most likely due to my high expectations going in; or 2) I come out hating it. This time, it's number one. SPOILERS follow. Because I just couldn't help myself.

I'll start with what I didn't like first. The big problem with this film is that it gives away the ending in the first 30 seconds - because of this, some of the suspense is immediately taken from the film since you know what the end is going to be. Another problem I had was the masks, except for the Man's, which was at least somewhat creepy. It just seemed a little too "Scream" for me. I know that was part of the film's allure - masked man literally hiding in the shadows - but unless the film is done very well, it just seems cheap to me. And one of the best movies I've seen in recent years featured a home invasion-style plot without any mask wearing (the french flick "Inside"). Also, the whole scene with the friend? When EVERYONE in the movie theater can figure out that sub-plot before it happens, it's just bad. As for the ending ... the last five minutes bugged me for a variety of reasons.

One, why would two seemingly able-bodied young boys be walking their bikes and not riding them if they're not going up a hill? That makes no sense. Two, the Christian pamphlets ... that was too much. Three, they went for the ultimate cheap scare at the very end - which I hate. If you feel you need to do that to scare your audience, you're obviously either in an obviously B-movie or scrambling for an ending. By that point, I was ready for it to be over. Perhaps what ultimately makes this movie sub-par is that it tries to live up to films that have come before it, but just aren't at that level.

However, there ARE good things in the film - I sound like I'm bashing it, but to be honest ... the first half was good, it was just the second half that got lame. In the beginning, we're treated to something you don't often see (except more recently in "Vacancy") where the couple in question is fighting and you don't really know why. Only in contrast to "Vacancy," the two lead actors (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) actually have chemistry together and make a very nice start. I was genuinely interested in what was happening between the two of them and the tension already there was a good way to build up to the first encounter with the Strangers. I also really enjoyed the use of the vinyl record - not only was it actually a good soundtrack (although there is no score and surprisingly little dialogue, as well), but the scraping of the record being over is a fantastic way to put the audience on edge. Having a record player myself, I know how creepy that sound is in an otherwise silent house. I felt like the acting was above par for normal horror fare, although I would have liked to see a bit more dialogue between the two leads. I will say this - and I'm surprised at myself, honestly, for liking this - I liked the "i love you" from one character to the other as they were about to die. Usually I hate this cheesy sentimental BS in horror films (because you normally don't really identify with the characters enough to care, anyway), but for some reason it worked for me here.

All in all, this is a fairly entertaining ride for the first 40 minutes. After that, the film tries to do much when it is actually at its best being very simple and silent. I will never understand why so many people in the horror genre don't seem to realize that silence is often scarier than noise.

But hey. At least this wasn't PG-13 or a remake, right? Go see it for at least that reason - perhaps then people will see there is a market for R-rated horror.

Film Review: "The Ruins" (B+)

I should have reviewed this film a long time ago, but I'm a bit behind these days. I actually saw it the night before it came out at a midnight screening (and won the book, which I already had, because no one else knew their trivia), but work and school has taken me hostage.

"The Ruins" would probably have worked more for me if I had not read the book beforehand. I liked the interpretation, but I do think that it was very abrupt and weird changes were made I can't quite understand fully. I'm also pretty damn angry about the ending - what works so well for the book is the bleak outlook and how it doesn't end semi-happily, which the movie does. This is just yet another example that most studios or directors do not have the cojones to close things out like the book does. It does make me wonder, though, what Scott Smith has to say about the movie ending vs. the book ending.

The biggest flaw of "The Ruins" is that it doesn't let itself have a slow-burn. This is one of those rare horror movies that would have been much better had it been 30 minutes longer. I needed more character development, more descent into insanity. That is one of the scariest parts of the story - not the vines, but how the group slowly turns in on itself and the way each character breaks down. This isn't just my opinion, either. After the screening, the friend I went with and I were discussing what actually happens in the book vs. what happens in the movie (I was telling her how they were different from each other, she has not read the novel). She commented (prior to me mentioning anything) that the movie felt like it went too quickly and glossed over the descent into madness by each character. To me, that was the story being told - not the story of the vines. It felt a bit disjointed to me, overall, as if we were bouncing back and forth.

This isn't to say that the movie isn't somewhat effective in making you squirm, although I did feel more prepared because I - at least on some level - knew what happened. The film didn't really need gallons of blood - although there is a fair amount of blood and hey, even a severed limb! Even if I am someone who can stand pretty much anything shown on screen, the sound of those bones being purposefully broken made me wince. I think the scenes in this film will satisfy most horror fans; if you want anymore, go watch "Cannibal Holocaust."

To be fair, I did enjoy the movie. I criticize somewhat harshly mostly because I loved the book, but I respect the film for what it is - a decent interpretation of a fantastic story. It doesn't surpass decent, even if the screenplay was written by the same man who wrote the book in the first place. It's entertaining and creative and certainly a great movie to scare the pants off others, but I needed at least 20 more minutes with the veins for "The Ruins" to be a great experience.

Film Review: "The Car" (A+!)

This film came out of left field and I absolutely loved it. Me and a friend went out to the Drafthouse's Terror Thursday midnight showing of this and promptly had the time of our lives! It is very rare for me and this particular friend to both enjoy a horror film that mixes comedy and horror, especially one that was made in the '70s. Nonetheless, there is nothing in this movie that isn't pure brilliance. Maybe part of it was atmosphere and that we were watching it at my favorite theater with a great audience and having good food, but I really think this movie is perfect entertainment.

To be honest, there isn't much I can say about this film besides remark on how awesome it is. It's such a great example of what every monster movie should try to be. Every moment of this film had me in fits of laughter or seriously enjoying myself. The scene where the James Brolin painting first appeared nearly killed me I laughed so hard and when the painting returned, I had a full-out attack of laughter that left me sore in my ribcage the next day. I want that painting in my living room - I am totally serious.

My life's dream right now is that Josh Brolin does a remake of this. And that someone buys me a poster I can put up immediately.

Film Review: "Doomsday" (C-)

You know, I was semi-excited about this film, but also very, very nervous. Why? The trailer made it look like a film where a fanboy made an homage to '80s flick with a plot pretty much copied from better virus movies. Well, I was right to be nervous.

There are bits of "Doomsday" that work, but the vast majority of the movie is a mess. The plot seems to be copied (as are entire scenes) and some of the film just doesn't make any sense. Why would an armored tank that supposedly can withstand chemical warfare not have bulletproof glass? How does a Molotov cocktail and a cannibal with ax manage to crack through that glass? How does a woman, although legitimately kick ass, not suffer - at the very least - a dislocated shoulder after knocking a guy off a speeding bike with an ax and not dropping it? Hitting someone while standing stagnant who is going that speed would do serious damage to BOTH parties. These are just two of many examples that the film suffers from more minor details harming overall story. Which there isn't much of.

I loved "The Descent." Sure, these are two very different types of movies, but where "The Descent" is tightly wound and beautifully paced, "Doomsday" is chaotic and at times, boring. It doesn't even seem to be edited right, or perhaps that's on purpose. Whatever it was, it didn't work - the fight scenes were actually annoying rather than exhilarating and fun, which could have been it's saving grace. The different parts of Glasgow - "Mad Max" wannabes vs. a lame Medieval setup - just didn't fit, even if all Marshall was going for was a laugh. I never thought that I would walk into this movie and have moments where I really wanted it to end.

The only thing I liked about this move was killed way too early. To be honest, I didn't like Rhona Mitra's character - she was baffling and her sentimental side made me roll my eyes. Perhaps that's why I wanted to see more of Sol's girlfriend, who I would call a demented cannibal with Maori tattoos . Why was she not in until the end of the movie? She alone could have made some fucking entertaining scenes. Instead of the lame Gladiator-esque matchup between Eden and a guy wrapped in tin foil, there should have been a grand epic battle between the two women.

I feel like "Doomsday" is, at its best, supposed to be a laughable, entertaining movie. The problem is, it is laughable. Just not in the way Marshall wants it to be. I suggest he go back to movies that aren't completely derivative and have actual artistic quality. This will end up going down as a multi-million dollar botched '80s homage and that's just sad.

Film Review: "May" (A+!)

Wow. A character-driven horror movie with a female lead that is brilliant. I was so surprised, this wasn't exactly what I was expecting. I had heard very good things about this movie for a long time, but the DVD cover didn't exactly entice me ... but finally got it through Netflix and watched it. I ended up loving it! It's definitely going onto my list of favorites.

From opening to closing sequence, this movie is startlingly good. It's a slow-paced film that doesn't need a whole lot of extra things added in to make it any better. The characters are written perfectly, which, for this type of movie, is absolutely necessary. You tumble back and forth between really liking May's shy, intriguing weirdness and feeling nothing but empathy for her ... to cringing when she is struggling to connect with anyone, especially a man. Still, though, you find yourself identifying with her need to just have a friend. Who isn't a doll, anyway.

Part of what makes May so easy to connect with is Angela Bettis' portrayal of her, which is excellent and completely top-notch. Having heard her speak at Fangoria Weekend of Horrors, I know how unnatural that sort of high-pitched, slow voice was for her. Not to mention the way she manages to evoke such emotions in anyone watching the film. I have a special place in my heart for these types of movies, so the good acting all around just made it that much better.

Highlights for me have to be the opening sequence, which I was NOT expecting ... and definitely set the tone for a dark and bloody film. Another favorite is when Adam shows his movie, because May's response is a genius line that had me laughing out loud, but also sufficiently weirded out. I find that to be an awesome combination, myself. The ending, which I found to be fantastic, oddly beautiful and fitting, left me wanting to see so much more. And THAT is a mark of a truly great film.

Book Review: "The Ruins" (A+!)

This book has been on my "to read" list for a very long time, but I only recently got to it. I didn't want to see the movie without having read the book first so that was the catalyst for me finally settling down with it. I ended up devouring it all in one go, finishing at 5am ... and well, let's just say it took me five minutes to even set the book down after reading the last line.

There is just something about this book that, much like the vines, crawls underneath your skin and stays with you. Rarely do horror novels stay with me or even scare me, but this one did. When I finished the novel, I had this moment of wondering what I was supposed to do. It felt like I needed a therapy session, especially with the incredibly bleak ending. I don't know what I was expecting, but the ending just completely floored me. Needless to say, it took me awhile to get to sleep and school the next day was a haze.

The thing about this book is, Scott Smith takes a plot that seems vaguely ridiculous and makes it work flawlessly. I have to admit, when I found out that the so-called villain were vines - or at least that's how they are described - my knee-jerk reaction was one of "oh this is gonna suck." I was wrong. It turns out to prey on what I think is genuinely frightening - something invading your body, making you crazy and turn on yourself, as well as everyone else around you.

The book's also not short on blood. Or any kind of violence at all. The characters, crafted and developed so well, are hard to let go of because you feel genuine empathy for them. They aren't even necessarily making stupid decisions, they just don't know any better. (SPOILER) So when one of them is suddenly forced to amputate both of his friends legs, or when one of them is going batshit insane, you really do feel for them. (END SPOILER)

I highly recommend this novel, although if you like your horror fiction just as simple entertainment, this is probably not for you. It is a profoundly disturbing story that even I found hard to read. I also guarantee that from the moment you open the book, you will be swallowed into a Ruins black hole and not reappear for at least four hours. Definitely give yourself the time to read and don't plan anything for awhile. Include an extra hour for recuperation time. And possibly therapy.

Film Review: "Land of the Dead" (B-)

I have to say, this is one Romero flick I'm torn about. It has it's moments, and I love the satire in it, but in terms of straight up horror evaluation ... I wasn't too much of a fan.

I suppose the main reason this film doesn't work for me is that Romero takes a unique concept and runs with it ... but he runs too damn far. The concept is, of course, the idea that zombies can evolve and learn just as humans do. Disregarding the obvious questions - how do they learn if they are, by definition, brain dead? - it could be a pretty ingenious idea when utilized correctly. But I feel Romero goes too far with it, which ultimately is detrimental to the film.

Don't get me wrong, there are several things I really love about the film so I by no means think it's god-awful. For one, the reality of it is pretty startling - we all know that in the event of anything that shatters society (here, zombies) when there is no government, the rich would take over. And that is precisely what happens in "Land of the Dead" and I feel that was portrayed accurately. There are some fun lines, of which my favorite is "zombies, man, they creep me out" which seems to be somewhat moronic, but is actually quite genius in my opinion. To my knowledge, no one on screen in a zombie film has ever acknowledged their fear of them and the way it's expressed here is just perfect in context. I also love Charlie's character for some reason. But I have to say one of my favorite things about "Land of the Dead" is the sequence where the zombies enter and cross the river, which I thought was done very well and is genuinely creepy. But the winner of my favorite scene in the film is one particular zombie attack where a seemingly decapitated body comes at a car, flips his head forward and bites a guy. Now that's creative.

That being said, there are a whole lot of things about this film that grate on my last fucking nerve. The first and most obvious being that I think the zombies "education" was taken way too far. The idea that the lead zombie could swipe guns off guys on motorbikes seemed ridiculous, much less that he actually uses it later in the film. One, there's no way that classic Romero zombies have quick enough reflexes to swipe something off of a moving motorbike. And then learn how to use it? I wasn't buying it, unless we're supposed to understand that the zombie is acting on some sort of gun-toting instinct, which seems to be a more appropriate political commentary coming from Romero. The scene where all the zombies grab tools was cringe-inducing. I get that a zombie could act on residual human instinct and clump - even work - together with other zombies, but the idea that they could each individually evolve enough at the same time to understand that picking up a power tool could help break a window that probably is bullet-proof? Yeah, I wasn't buying that either.

All in all, if you're looking for a quick, somewhat fun, gorey zombie flick, then this is for you. I'm upping the grade of this based on the obvious political allusions of the film, because they are fantastically well-done. If you look deep enough, every scene holds a larger, relevant meaning and I love that. But I did not like the ending, so the grade dropped back down to a low B - 'cause come on, giving the zombies a "place of their own"? That just sounds stupid and didn't come off any better.

One last thing: "Zombies, man, they creep me out" is a pure genius line. Don't try to argue with me on this, just accept it and move on.

Film Review: "Spiral" (A+!)

This is one of those movies that I can't be objective on. I loved this movie through and through - there's no way I can find fault with it. I saw this first at Fantastic Fest, then when it had a limited release and played in Austin (which rocked).

I love how it burns slowly and builds to its shocking ending so perfectly, I love that jazz music is such a strong presence, I love that it isn't a straight up horror film but instead fucks with your head. I love that you get so drawn in with the characters that even when you know something is up, you can't help but love and feel for Mason (Joel David Moore). I love that Adam Green of "Hatchet" fame co-directed this with Joel Moore, also of "Hatchet" fame. Moore, by the way, also co-wrote and produced the film.

This is really more of a dark thriller than a proper horror film, so any genre fan looking for another "Hatchet" will of course end up with a huge surprise. This film really rides on the characters, particularly Mason, which is a huge reason why it works so well. Another reason it is so good is that the twist ("non-twist" as I believe it's been called) is what you think it is (if you pay attention, anyway), but then another twist is truly great. And this isn't the kind of twists that end up forming huge plot-holes or ruining a movie (like the end of "High Tension," which I hated).

The acting is brilliant - I found myself really identifying with Amber (Amber Tamblyn), who is so unique and wonderful and a breath of fresh fucking air when compared to the other sad and stereotypical roles of women in horror. Joel David Moore, who I already loved from "Hatchet," is also fantastic, especially when you consider how far from any previous role this is for him (having usually done comedic roles prior to this). Mason is so strange, so tortured, and even when the end comes, I couldn't help but still sort of like him in an odd, sympathetic manner.

There is one scene for me that stands out and not in an entirely good way. When Mason is in the graveyard to visit his mother's grave, there is a pop-ish song playing and I hated that. The scene itself would have been fine, but the music seemed so out of place when compared to the rest of the jazz-infused scenes. This might just be me, though - I liked that jazz became this secondary character and was so important to Mason. It was an added unique layer to an already great film.

I truly can't wait for the DVD - I've heard it's great. Also very notable is that this film stands up to multiple viewings. I've seen it twice and wasn't disappointed either time. I concede this film isn't for everyone, but it is a stunning change of pace and certainly found itself into my favorites. For me, this is near-perfect independent horror.

Film Review: "Cloverfield" (A)

"Cloverfield" is one of those movies that are genuinely entertaining and you really like, but fall just short of being great. I'd wager that more than a few fans would come at me wielding knives for not stating it's the most amazing thing I've seen in 23246 years but I wasn't blown away, although I did enjoy myself.

The main reason why "Cloverfield" works as well as it does is because it utilizes the first person camera technique so well. Especially since they put the sarcastic, snarky guy behind the camera who is actually quite funny. It also works well because it places the viewer in the movie, as opposed to just being part of the audience. You're drawn into the film and become part of it, which is really part of the overall experience. As is seeing it in a theater to take advantage of huge speakers, because the sounds of the monsters (particularly the main, big one) are excellent.

The only real downside to the film, I feel, is in the beginning. It lends itself well to nice character development, but it lasts too long for me. The movie could have just started at the party and I would have been fine, but this might just be because I was so amped to see the monster and ensuing carnage. I do have to say that when the monster first "appears" ... it is a moment to remember. The statue of liberty's head rolling down the street, a truly unbelievable sequence, is balanced well by touches of reality like everyone running outside (despite the obvious danger, which I would do too) and taking out their cell phones to take a picture. From this point on, the movie truly gets going and never really lets up.

One of the best features is that you never quite know what is going on. You know only what you see, which is restricted to a group of three admirably trying to save one other person. You don't know what's happening with the military, you never find out where this monster came from or what the parasites really are, so everything retains the unique feel. "Cloverfield" escapes the trap that many monster movies fall into, which is trying to explain to much or ruining something by explaining it away. This one doesn't answer any questions and keeps all facts out of the plot, which actually makes it scarier. I, for one, really wanted to find out what happened when people were bitten by the parasite as you only really see an explosion of blood behind a curtain.

In the end, I really enjoyed the film, which was surprising since it's PG-13 and I tend to like my horror with an extra punch of gore and violence. Not everyone will like this film - in fact, some will hate it. I did think the end was a bit corny and I hate that they ended it semi-happily (in a sense), but I try not to let that ruin the rest of the picture. Obviously, if you can't stand a lot of shaking or the camera not staying still, I would stay away from this one, or grin and bear it for at least one showing - it is worth it.

Film Review: "Haute Tension" (C)

"Haute Tension," a French slasher flick, is one of those films that you either love or you hate. I don't really think it's possible to be in the middle on this one, unless you don't watch the end or choose to believe the insane plot twist in the closing minutes is just a figment of your imagination.

Now I've seen both versions of the film, both the R-rated and the uncut. I don't see much difference between the two honestly and I really don't care. I had such high hopes for this film and they were completely dashed within the first five minutes of the film. Now that might just be me. You see, that insane plot twist? I figured it out in the first five minutes. I knew what they were going to do, so the entire movie seemed utterly pointless and stupid to me. I also spent most of it trying to figure out the logistics, which makes it very hard to enjoy anything - including the copious violence and disturbing imagery. But that's just me.

I would argue that the film is actually enjoyable for everyone else until you find out the twist. Before that, there are some genuinely scary moments, most notably the minutes after the killer gets inside the house. Alexandra Aja, the director of the film, knows how to make his audience squirm. I'll give him that. When most directors pull away or have that thing in their head that tells them "don't do that," Aja does it. Which I think is pretty rare in horror today, especially with the flood of remakes and PG-13 bullshit. So when a filmmaker comes along and does something that makes me want to turn away (the dresser scene, for one) or makes something unpleasant to watch as opposed to one solid scare, well I'll give him credit for that.

I'll also give credit to the acting, which I thought was very good. Cecile de France is really the person I'm talking about here as she's on the screen for most of the time. I only wish she had a better script to work with, although prior to this twist I keep mentioning, there aren't too many things I was unhappy with. Although I did feel like the masturbatory scene was completely unnecessary, at least in terms of length. I got the point that she was carrying a lesbian crush after the first 10 seconds, thank you very much.

This isn't a film for everyone. It certainly isn't a film for people who are only passerby fans of the genre. It is one of the most hardcore films I've seen in recent years, but I do think that for most the end will piss you off and make you wish you had stopped the DVD or walked out right before anything else. In fact, do that - just assume everyone dies. When you sense something is going to be revealed, run very far away from the screen. And in that case, I'd give the film a solid A. But since I have to review the entire film, I say view it once and marvel at the violence and forget everything else.

Film Review: "À l'intérieur" (A+!)

Believe it or not, I managed to see this movie a second time. Both times I must thank the Drafthouse and everyone behind it for, because this movie is one of the best horror movies I've ever seen.

Warning: Spoilers! If you plan on ever seeing this, I suggest going in completely blank and knowing nothing. The film experience will be much better that way.

"À l'intérieur" (or "Inside") is brutal, unrelenting and utterly terrifying. There is no ego or horror movie snobbery here, but I do want to preface my review of this by saying that there are very few movies that have made me want to want to leave. If that makes any sense at all. The thing is - this film may be terrifying, it may be gorey and it may be one of the sickest things you see in a long time ... but it's a beautiful piece of work.

One of the scariest things - to me personally, anyway - is people hiding in the shadows or those figures/monsters that just have to stand still and they scare the shit out of you. This is in full force here. There are some genius moments utilizing that here. From the very beginning when we are introduced to the killer (the film never specifies her name), it's just fucking creepy. The glow of the cigarette silhouetting her face, the simple shot to the glass, the quiet discontent and tension that just haunts every scene. The anticipation just builds and builds until you almost can't stand it, so when she puts those scissors in Sarah (Alysson Paradis)'s belly button, you almost want to scream yourself. I sat there in the theater almost in disbelief as the scissors slid in, felt myself react in shock with the character. From then on, this movie is a dark, macabre, emotional roller coaster that never truly lets up.

The acting is amazing. I truly believed in Beatrice Dalle's portrayal of the woman as thinly holding on to what sanity she has left and even then only so she can last the night and steal the baby. Alysson Paradis is also so notable in this film by achieving such a sad vulnerability before the incident takes place, then achieving pure terror and THEN making me believe she was this kick-ass woman who just might win. Simply fantastic acting completely across the board, including the surrounding characters who come and ... die.

Just a note about the gore - the film has buckets of it. I first saw this film at Fantastic Fest at it's second screening. Here I am sitting in a theater at midnight, happily chowing down on some ice cream to fuel me through the next two hours (I had been up for two days straight, thank you very much FFest). As the film was about to start, I looked around and saw that I was maybe one of 3 or 4 women in the theater and I was the only one who wasn't sitting with a man. Not that that's important, but as the film was introduced it was noted that a woman had actually thrown up at the prior screening! At this screening, which was at the Drafthouse Village as part of Fangoria Weekend of Horrors, more women were in the theater (again, I was the only single) and I could have sworn that the two women next to me were either going to die in fright or throw up all over me (and not from the beer they were consuming). Needless to say, I moved over.

The cinematography, the lighting, everything about this movie is nothing short of pure greatness. The music, especially, grated on my nerves, which was exactly what it needed it to do. Everytime that shrieking started, I knew we were in for something and it made me tense up, which of course made me sit there gaping like a fish at the screen. I love horror movies that manage to be perfectly paced with a slow-burning anticipation that explodes into pure chaos. To me, these are the best about the genre and this film is certainly an example. It leaves you feeling open and raw, excited about getting up out of your seat and into your car so you can get back to normalcy.

The script deserves an entire post to itself - it really is that good. One of the great things about "Inside" is that it doesn't really have a monster and a victim, at least I don't think you're meant to take it that way. Both female characters have back stories and reasons for why the way they are and I honestly couldn't take a side. You feel for both of them - one drive to insanity because she lost her baby and the other one paying for causing it by losing her boyfriend and her life, essentially. It's not that you identify with the woman at the end as she cuts open Sarah for her baby (which you see every step of, by the way), you just have to understand there is a reasoning for her being the way she is. Even Sarah feels some mercy towards her, which is probably what ends up being the reason why she loses her life.

This film is just so fucking terrifying. I can't get over it. When the woman is outside the house, you start to think everything is going to be okay ... and then she's in the house and it seems like she's absofuckinglutely everywhere. She blends into the background, her face hidden in the shadows. The directing deserves some sort of accolade, but of course it won't get anything outside of the horror circle (if even that). The scene where Sarah is on the couch and you think the woman is behind her, but then you think she isn't, and then she is - in one of the truly most haunting shots of the entire film.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this film. Of course it has flaws here and there, but overall this movie is one of the greatest experiences I've had in a theater. Definitely one you should see at least once - even if you're feeling scared off by the gore. I saw it twice and I desperately want another viewing already so I can prove to myself that I can sit through it without jumping or squirming in my seat.

Film Review: "The Signal" (A)

I was really pleasantly surprised by this movie, which had a screening at Fangoria Weekend of Horrors. I knew a little bit about it ahead of time, had seen some positive responses, but I went in expecting nothing so that I wouldn't end up being disappointed.

"The Signal" is a great movie about a transmission that fucks everyone who watches/hears it up and makes them have a murder party in the streets. It's a fantastic mix of horror, comedy and even a little sci-fi. The film is broken up into three parts, which I thought was going to be a stupid idea at first, but ultimately it served the film well. Each segment didn't give too much away and it gave you the chance to get to know all the characters well enough that you connected with them, especially Ben and Maya.

I love how the movie started - it had me on the edge of my seat. Most post-apocalyptic movies don't show the actual moment when everything goes wrong, but this one did ... and it handles it very well. Everyone was dying or going fucking nuts and you feel for Maya hiding underneath the table. The great thing about the first transmission is that it is brutal and unrelenting, forcing you to identify with the confusion and general craziness going on. It's a fantastic start to the film - especially since all of the actors are on point and likeable (even Lewis, to an extent).

What's great about the second transition is that it's very comedic. It has some horror elements to it (the way people die), but it lulls you into this false sense of security that the film will slow down. But even when it's technically a bit more comedic than the other two, the action never really stops. The ding dong of the door bell is a great ice-breaker, but it also serves up tension. You, too, are sitting there wondering who the fuck is it behind that door. The actor who plays Lewis is delightfully crazy, while the new guy at the door who is fucking moronic has some hilariously fun lines.

The third transmission is a bit more convoluted and goes back to the serious and more macabre tone of the first. I thought it was a fine way to end the film, particularly since I had a great deal of affection for the character Ben. I also just loved the way they wrapped with a sense of hope, but still retained the dark feel that characterizes the film throughout. I loved the headphones - an emotional touch without being too emotional, which can be a risk. Oftentimes, horror films will try to add a touch of emotion or humanity in a situation that isn't humane. And what happens? It ends up being corny or just plain stupid. This movie escapes many of those regular traps and ends up crafting a story that is not only genuinely entertaining, but also very believable.

"The Signal" is one of the better, if not one of the best, independent horror movies I've seen in awhile. It's great when small horror films like this prove their worth. Given my affection for post-apocalyptic horror anyway, I was insanely pleased to walk out of this one with something awesome to write about. This one definitely has the makings to become a cult classic, although I wish it would garner a wider following than that (although it isn't likely).

Film Review: "Seed" (D)

Part of having a wristband for Fangoria Weekend of Horrors - more on that later - is that I got into a mini film festival (free) at the Alamo Drafthouse Village. Now, I love the Drafthouse ... it's pretty much my second home when I'm in Austin. But I did NOT have a good time in the theater last night, despite Uwe Boll being there to introduce the film and do a Q&A after.

First, I want to preface this by saying I am not one of those Uwe Boll haters - I actually think he's very intelligent and funny. While I've never sat through one of his films and thought it was the best thing ever or even close to it, I don't unfairly criticize directors just because of who they are. I respect him for fighting back against his critics, especially since the vast majority of them seem to hate Boll films even before seeing them.

However, I did not enjoy "Seed." Not even a little. I was bored, I winced at some of the plot-holes and general stupidity in the script and the acting was ... cringe inducing (Michael Pare was alright). I thought Boll's assertion the film was a treatment of how people treat people was ... a bit pretentious and going overboard. The film is a bad slasher flick and it doesn't even have the fun feel that movies like this need in order to work. Boll said the movie is supposed to be bitter and dark, not fun, and I get that ... I honestly do. But someone needs to step up and tell him he has to choose between one sub-genre and the other, at least for a movie of this caliber with a not so stellar cast and a not so stellar script (consequence of writing this movie the same time as "Postal"?).

Warning: I pretty much give away the entire plot of the movie here. I don't usually post SPOILERS, but ... I feel I should warn people to keep their $8 and see something else.

My first big what the fuck moment occurred when only 5 cops were sent to take down Sam Seed, a serial killer we're supposed to believe killed 666 people in 6 years. That was just stupid. The fight sequence leading to Seed's capture was lame. The kills were lame. I was bored. I sat there drinking my water with lime, swirling it around and picking out seeds I was so goddamn bored. Then there were a few, smaller, moments that seriously bugged me, but then the "hammer sequence" occurred. It was too long. Long to the point that it ceased being disturbing and got ridiculous, especially since it didn't look that real after a point. I thought the beginning of that sequence had potential, but it just ended up being silly.

The end was too convoluted. It didn't make any sense at all. Assuming that someone actually managed to survive three shocks of that magnitude in an electric chair, there is no way that they'd have any brain power to do anything but sit and drool. How the fuck, then, are we supposed to connect with the storyline and believe that Seed can kill enough people to get out of the prison (which is on an island) and fucking SWIM to get to mainland? And if that wasn't enough bullshit, then he KNOWS THE ADDRESS of the detective who captured him.

This is where things start to seriously spin out of control - as if it could get worse. Uwe Boll said that Seed is supposed to be like a lifeless, killing machine. That really doesn't make sense when he's doing things like taking the family of the detective or forcing people (and hey, a baby) to starve to death in a basement. And further, we're supposed to understand that all of this is some grand scheme to make the detective kill himself? Which he does. Okay. So then Seed puts the daughter in the same room as her dead dad's body with a saw? And that's the end? WHAT?

Boll said in the Q&A that the end is supposed to mean that the daughter is supposed to cut up her dad and eat him for nourishment so she won't starve. No one in the theater got that - Will Sanderson who played Seed and was at the Q&A didn't even get that until Boll explained it.

The movie was just bad all around. I wish I could get that 90 minutes back. If I knew that was the mess I was going to be seeing, I fucking would have gone AND PAID to see "Cloverfield"!