The Crazies (2010) Review

It seems the best way to start off a George Romero remake is with a great opening to catch your attention that's set to a tune by Johnny Cash. Sure it's a weird thing to say, but look how great it worked out in the 2004 redo of Dawn of the Dead. Although it didn't work to that extent, the notion works out here too. In a way, it sets the tone. In Dawn you had the song 'When the Man Comes Around' while grisly scenes of chaos are rammed down your throat, and in Crazies you have 'We'll Meet Again', which doesn't set much of a hostile tone, but it certainly puts you in there with the other residents of Ogden Marsh, Iowa - a small midwestern town that falls victim to a biological virus.

What makes The Crazies a successful remake - and it is a fine remake at that - is that it is as relevant to it's times as Romero's original was back in 1973. The virus is brought to this small town by a bacteriological weapon, on rout to being destroyed, that accidentally crashes in a lake just outside the town of Ogden Marsh. The infection spreads through the town's water supply, and once someone is contaminated they completely loose their mind and become savages - killing family member and anybody who gets in their way. Stuck in the middle of this chaos is Sheriff Dutton (Olyphant), his pregnant wife Judy (Mitchell) and his deputy Russell (Anderson).

The film plays out much like your average zombie film would, following a group of survivors through all the madness that's unfolding and how it affects their lives. But it's obviously more influenced by movies like 28 Days Later than Romero's Dead series. And the infected aren't all too different from zombies, but once again their more like the 28 Days Rage Infected than Romero's classic walking corpses. But once the infection progresses, you can physically tell the infected from non-infected. Their veins swell out out of their head and their nose bleeds profusely, and their usually covered in fresh blood. No, these infected aren't anything original, but a bit refreshing and different.

This film doesn't only go for the throat with gross out gore, it has great tension and suspense - something most modern horror movies don't successfully juggle well. One aspect I liked was the fact that everybody poses a threat, not only the infected. In fact, the crazies were the least of the pack of survivor's troubles. You have the military locking the area up for contamination, shooting everybody in sight. There's the band of rednecks who view this as a game, wielding shotguns and shooting down the infected and piling them up in their trucks, and then you have the dangers of you or someone in your group becoming infected. In a way, your never really safe.

verdict: The Crazies could be ranked among The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left as being recent remakes that out due their originals, and I'd say it's up there with Dawn of the Dead as being a fun roller-coaster ride of a movie, original concept or not.

Like a Rat in a Maze (Shutter Island Review)

When I first saw the trailers for Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island, depicting DiCaprio with a Boston accent trotting about a haunting insane asylum, I knew I was in for a thrill ride. The last time a director of this experience tackled a genre film (yeah, I'm going to go as far as considering this 'horror'), was Stanley Kubrick with his adaptation of Stephen King's 'The Shining'. And if we learned anything from that, we know just how a master works his magic on a fright film. And it's almost impossible for Scorsese to make a bad film, him and DiCaprio are a match made in heaven. Even if I wanted to see this with an open mind, I knew deed down this movie couldn't be nothing short of fantastic. And, just as I expected, it was just that. The story follows Leo DiCaprio’s Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshall is sent to the asylum, along with his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), to look for an inmate that has mysteriously vanished into thin air. Of course, nothing is what it seems at the asylum and the patients and doctors (with excellently evil performances by Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow) seem to be harboring a giant secret. After the initial setup, the film really starts getting into truly nightmarish territory, offering up a disorienting reality as seen through Teddy’s eyes. Between the actual nightmares – ranging from his time liberating Dachau to his wife’s demise at the hands of an arsonist – and the waking nightmares, Teddy’s down and out Marshall is willing to take risks and a beating to get the truth. And really, above all else, this is a film about dealing with guilt and coming to terms with reality, making the psychological and emotional approach Scorsese is known for the perfect fit for the material.

The atmosphere is key here. It really sets the tone of the entire picture. Shutter Island is, by design, a mixture of Gothic clichés. First of all, the entire film takes place on a secluded island with no reach to the outside world. There's a fortress-like mental hospital, a medical staff that is consistently giving off sinister vibes (easy to do when one of the doctors appears to be an ex-Nazi, played by Max Von Sydow), there's a violent hurricane hitting the island making departure by ferry impossible, and then of course there's the mental patients themselves, who are horror movie worthy.

One of the parts I liked most about the film, and it was re-occurring, was the addition of a gruesome back story to each key inmate of the asylum. It just made them so much more vile and scary and overall so much more realistic. Between maniacs and serial killers, people who kill their own families and drown their own kids, you realize how real these side characters are. Which makes it more disturbing, and makes you scared for Daniels as he ventures through each ward. Jackie Harley stuck out especially, as a beaten and scarred psycho. He has the biggest input of all the prisoners, and really sticks out. In a way, it actually makes me excited for the new Nightmare on Elm St now.

Verdict: Shutter Island is mainly about the ride, but for such a fantastic run the end doesn't deliver an adequate pay-off. I don't want to spoil anything for you, because this is a must see, but I can tell you the ending is quite obvious. And don't get the wrong impression - the reveal isn't nothing bad, it's just way to over explained and thus I felt it wasn't played out as good as it could have been. This movie does not rank high on the list of Scorsese's best films, but it's a fine example of a great filmmaker doing what he does best.

verdict:

Spring is in the Air (Cabin Fever 2 Review)

Your first initial though when first hearing of a movie like Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever probably was 'why would I want to watch something like that?' And for a direct-to-DvD low budget sequel to the not-so-loved Cabin Fever, why would you think anything else? The first Cabin Fever had a mixed reaction with horror fans - you either laughed along with it's corny frat boy humor and enjoyed the over the top bloodshed, or you didn't. It's aims were complex, to be a gory throwback to classic 70's grindhouse cinema with more than enough added humor. I myself enjoyed the first Cabin Fever, so I sought out it's sequel despite it's lack of widescreen distribution (because usually movies that go directly to DvD suck terribly). And even though I knew Eli Roth wasn't helming the sequel, I heard director TI West, who brought us the ever popular House of the Devil (a film that, at the time of this post, this reviewer has not but strongly wants to seek out) was behind it and was a bit of a boost of enthusiasm.

Cabin Fever 2 stars Noah Segan, you may remember him as the guy you just wanted to punch in the face in last years indy horror flick Deadgirl, as John who goes to his senior prom with his high school crush Cassie (Alexi Wasser). I won't give away to much about plot, but I can fill you in with the basics: The infected water from the first film makes it's way to a water bottling company, who package and distribute the water, which eventually is picked up and used at the school. It's the same scenario once infected, violent coughing fits followed by deteriorating skin. Cabin Fever 2 is basically one of those films that are put out to top the pervious one. It's a gross-out splatter film who's goals are nothing more than to sicken you. One gore gag after another, blood spews out of self inflected wounds, skin rots and falls off, intestines are regurgitated and splattered all over the place (and all over fellow prom goers). It's complete and utter chaos by the end of the movie. And I'll warn you, some of it does get pretty intense. But it's all in good fun. Most of the gross out gags are set more toward humor than to terrify you.

You have to wonder why West wants to distance himself from Spring Fever. He must have known what he was getting into when he signed on to direct a sequel to a genre-bending gorefest that many horror aficionados love to hate. A movie like this was never ment to be considered a high art or a personal endeavor. It's not ment to be taken too seriously, but it's one hell of a good time. It's the most fun you could have watching a movie of this stature. It's funny, gross, and pretty entertaining. Even if you didn't like Eli Roth's original, you'll find alot to like with this one because there almost completely different movies. The humor is much different. Do you find an irritated janitor peeing into a punch bowl funny? Even when his infected urine is as red as wine? Or when the elected prom king strips down and attempts to get in on with a girl three times his size? You expect his friends to jump out and criticize him, or for it to be one big prank. It's not. West makes the jokes not to obvious, but you know them when you seem them. And the gore gags are so over the top, it's humorous just watching them play out. You just wait to see what's going to happen next.

In short, Spring Fever isn't nothing fantastic. It's just good fun from start to finish. I don't know what to say about the star and finish, which consist of some of the worst animation this side of adult swim, but if your a gorehound or are just looking for a good way to spend a hour and a half, check this one out.

verdict:

The Wolf Man (2010) Review

A violent modern day retelling of the classic Universal Monster's tale of one man's struggle with lycanthropy. The werewolf movie is perhaps the most difficult to perfect as compared to other monster movies. The stories surrounding the lycanthrope present more of a challenge for filmmakers to develop a layered story from. The guidelines for zombies and vampires are pretty basic, but for the werewolf you need all sorts of extra details added to make it or break it. You need a lead character who, for the most part, is having trouble coping with his newly developed 'curse'. Approaching the depth of a man who undergoes painful transformation into a man-eating beast every full moon, and knows it's going to happen and knows what going to happen once transformed, could make for some deep storytelling, on a highly emotional level no less. And of course, a little gore doesn't hurt. It is a horror movie, right?

While this may have been the guidelines for a handful of classic werewolf movies (American Werewolf in London, anyone?), unfortunately director Joe Johnston didn't quite capture the more human level in this film. Of course, Andrew Kevin Walker's script is typical horror fare (he also penned Sleepy Hollow) thats set in a late 1880's countryside. And, hadn't the film been recycled through several director's hands and eventually fall prey to re-shoots, it may have been the werewolf movie fans haves been waiting for. Because it has many things going for it. The acting is top notch. Benicio Del Toro is fantastic as Lawrence Talbot. Everything from his presence to his reaction to the bite is very similar to Lon Chaney Jr.'s in the original. And of course Anthony Hopkins is as great as always. All he has to do now is star in a Frankenstein redux and he'll have hit all the classic monster bases. The rest of the cast, including Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving, are nothing but forgettable. There presence seems as just filler characters to keep the story flowing.

Danny Elfman's score is brilliant. It's creepy yet epic sound is very reminiscent of the classic Universal films. As is the entire feel of the movie. Much like the mediocre Van Helsing, it's very dark and has a gothic atmosphere to it, which makes it feel like an old school monster movie to say the least. Foggy moors, old cemeteries, dark castles consisting of winding stone staircases leading to hidden candle laden chambers just add to the complete look and feel of the picture, which truly heighten the experience. So, if you don't like the resulting outcome of the film, at least it'll look good.



But, to get down to the meat and bone of it, the biggest drive this movie has - like every other modern horror movie - is the gore. Without spoiling every little detail for you, all I can say is this movie has guts, and lots of them. The Wolfman spills intestines, devours organs, decapitates and dismembers villagers - he just plain out massacres his victims. Although I enjoyed these splatter scenes, it left me a bit disappointed. When I go see a movie like this, I don't come just to see blood hit the floor. This isn't a slasher movie, I'm expecting more than just a gross-out gore film.

Although the story lies stale, the best part of this movie is the appearance of the beast. Taking a nod at the classic look of the 1941 film, make-up fx legend Rick Baker designed his monster to be one of the coolest looking werewolves in cinematic history. I love the original look and I loved how he paid such a great homage to it, with a modern day twist. I don't think I've ever seen a beast look this great. But as much as I liked the overall look of the monster, the first official transformation is less than lackluster as there's a CG overload with feet stretching, nails growing and giant humps appearing in his back. The Wolfman's initial transformation is supposed to be as epic as Freddy getting his glove or Jason getting his mask, and yet, it's like they took Rick Baker's An American Werewolf in London transformation and found a way to speed is up and make it look completely lame.

While The Wolfman has some really proud moments, ultimately it fails at what made the original so memorable. It's fractured mostly at the core with horrid character development and illogical situations. If all your looking for just another creature feature with an out-of-control beast slaughtering townsfolk, this movie will suit you. But for me, as a fan of the classic Universal Monster movies, I expected a bit more than underdeveloped characters a lame story and some cheesy cg rooftop battles.

verdict:

After several tries, the game finally comes full circle.

I've never been a fan of the Saw series. I was never really interested in it, but after the first one got so many praise upon it's release, I decided I'd check it out for myself. Saw (and it's fellow sequels) was packed with enough gore and violence as one could hope for in a horror film, but these movies lacked the fun experience the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, or any of the other big name horror franchises left you with. Jigsaw is a character very much of his time, just as Dracula, Norman Bates and Freddy Krueger were of theirs. And his sinister m.o. of byzantine traps and warped morality (inspired strongly by the previous decade's Seven) definitely touched a nerve with audiences.

Review: When it comes down to things, all that really matters in a horror movie is the gore. Audiences only see these films for the strikingly realistic (yet excessively over-the-top) depictions of violence. At this point, that's all you should really come to expect from movies of this specific genre, especially this far into a franchise. All originality goes out the window for the filmmakers to focus on the scenes that really hit a high note with the viewers. Just to get that reaction from somebody in the audience, and then they know it was all worth it. Not that that's a bad thing, after all horror movies are ment to scare you, right? There maid to disturb and unsettle you, correct? There not made to earn acclaim with critics, whom generally chew them up and spit them out in their reviews. Nobody should expect nothing more from them besides a few cheap thrills. If this is your general take on the current state of horror films, then while watching the latest Saw movie you shouldn't find yourself surprised at the films outcome. Because, in the long run, that's basically all this film is: a tongue-in-cheek misfire attempt at a modern gore flick. And I liked it.

Like I've said before, I don't like the Saw movies. I didn't care for the first two, didn't mind the third, and strongly disliked the fourth and fifth entries in the flawed series. I didn't find them original, I didn't find them striking or intelligent horror films, nor did I find them to be as gruesome or vile as everyone suggests. And, unlike Hostel - the other sought after master of the 'torture porn' sub-genre - it's just not a fun movie to watch. Not that it's disturbing or anything, but lets just say it just lacks the fun of watching Jason stalk and kill his prey in some original and unorthodox manner. Surly I'll admit that some of the torture devices on display are gruesome and creative, and I love watching the helpless victim lacking the ability to do the required tasks - often relating to extensive self mutilation and bloodshed - and thus get out alive. But we sat through five movies prior (and even a video-game) and seen as much of these traps as needed, so what's the generated appeal of a another entry to the series?

Well, the appeal is to see some more of that aforementioned bloodshed and self-mutilation. I didn't expect much out of this movie at first, because of my opinions on the previous films, but after renting this on good old Blu Ray my opinions have changed. I don't know if it was due to my low expectations for this film, but after viewing it I realized it wasn't that bad of a movie on it's own. I for one haven't much of a clue about the series storyline, after all the lead killer has been dead for a few movies now, but even as a stand alone film Saw VI is a half decent horrorshow. Easily the best sequel in the series and possibly the best Saw yet (well that's if you don't consider the first one to be as fantastic as so called 'horror-fans' consider it to be).

verdict:

A look back at William Lustig's Maniac (1980)

Not many horror movies really tend to scare me. Not to sound like a tough guy or anything, but the events taking place in a movie are never horrifying enough to frighten me. Ghosts? Zombies? Vampires or werewolves? No matter how young I was, they never seemed to get under my skin since I knew whatever happened on screen couldn't really occur in real life. But, when you set the protagonist as your every-day bystander and place him in a familiar setting then you have a different story. Now, I wouldn't consider Maniac as just your average 80's slasher movie, even though it follows the formula well. But I also would't call it a splatter movie as many have considered it before. It's not just a slasher movie because it has a layered story and it's not a splatter movie because, well, it has a story.

The story goes as follows: Frank Zito is a middle-aged, overweight loner living in an unspecified borough of New York City, where he works as the landlord of a small apartment complex. Unbeknown to his tenants, Frank is a schizoid serial killer who spends his nights stalking and killing women, scalpingthem and bringing the scalps and their clothing back home to decorate his steadily growing supply of mannequins. Once a mannequin has been decorated to his satisfaction, Frank sleeps with it for several nights, using them to carry on one-sided conversations with his deceased mother, an abusive prostitute who subjected him to years of physical abuse before dying in a car accident and leaving him orphaned. Inexplicably, after several nights, Frank grows tired of each mannequin, posing them around different parts of his apartment before seeking out another victim.

Although it may sound simple at first, Maniac actually packs quite a hefty punch as far as character and story go. Although a deranged serial killer, you actually feel for Frank. Not to say you'll be rooting for him throughout the film, but at least it leads you to believe he has a bit of a reason behind madness. And the difference between the killer in this movie and the killer in any other slasher movie - he's not a supernatural undying monster, he's human. He's real, and he could be the guy who lives down the street from you. Not since Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (which came out a half decade later) has there been a more human portrayal of a serial killer. Sure the violence is hardcore and plentiful in these two films, but it's brutal and realistic and that's what makes these films so disturbing.

verdict:
This movie is brutal. The deaths are played out is such a way, it won't only make you cringe out of terror but out of disgust.

There's nothing funny about these games...

Unsettling, disturbing, harrowing.

Such words could be used to describe the plot of many a horror film that has seen the light of day recently. Given the nature of the stories and scenes in the Saw and Hostel franchises, to name a few, unsettling, disturbing and harrowing should certainly fit their bills. Indeed, horror’s now rather stale renaissance has seen a new sub-genre coined for them, the wonderfully withering ‘torture-porn’. For a second time Michael Haneke now asks, so this is our entertainment?

The Austrian auteur first made Funny Games in German in 1997, and now ten years later gives us a US remake with Naomi Watts and Tim Roth. I can't say that I have seen the original, but from what I hear it’s almost a shot for shot remake. So, with that being said, I can't make any comparisons between the two films. So, not to spoil anything for you, here's a short summary of what you should expect:

A family consisting of Anna (Naomi Watts), husband George (Tim Roth) and their young boy Georgie (Devon Gearhart) arrive at their lakeside retreat for a sailboat and golfing vacation. All is serene. As father and son set up the boat a diffident young man, introducing himself as Peter (Brady Corbett), calls in on Anna, asking to borrow eggs for her neighbour. When Peter drops the eggs his menacing reserve and insistent politeness leads to a curious confrontation. Soon Peter’s companion Paul (Michael Pitt) joins them, as do George and Georgie. The two visitors start loading their well-spoken and courteous language with intimidation – and then a brutal act of violence is unleashed. So begin Peter and Paul’s funny games as they subject the family to a series of terrifying ordeals.

This is a horror film. But there's no over-the-top gore scenes. That's the beauty and the whole point of Funny Games. The whole movie is a criticism on our fascination with watching people get killed and in turn, it doesn't give the audience the satisfaction - and dare I say excitement - of seeing the victims get killed, which truthfully makes it even more disturbing than if we had seen some special effect. Although I feel like a hypocrite by originally renting it for that exact reason, to catch some cheap thrills and watch some family get killed. It may sound disturbing, but it's without question the truth. There's no other reason anybody wanted to see this film, or any other horror film for that matter, other than to see somebody get brutally slaughtered. I think it was so brilliant of Haneke to pull off a disturbing horror film and yet have it at the same time be a commentary against disturbing horror films.

There's a certain scene where, not to spoil nothing, but one of the main characters actually manages to attack one of the killers and try to escape. But their plans are thwarted when the other killer switches the rewind button on the remote control to prevent this from ever happening. Although this may be unrealistic and provoke a tone completely different from the rest of the film, it makes a statement: no matter what these people do, there is no way they will get out of this alive.