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.

Jennifer's Body (2009) Movie Review

I wonder why so may people hate this movie so much, especially horror-fans. All I hear are rants and complaints about how terrible it was. Rants about how it wasn't bloody enough or scary enough, or how it wasn't funny enough, or even how it lacked a nude Megan Fox (I know, right?). But what I thought from the start was, what did you people expect? Psycho? A major milestone in horror or something? With a title like 'Jennifer's Body' and a plot surrounding a hot high school girl hosting a man-eating demonic spirit (or whatever she was), you shouldn't expect nothing more than a modern teen B-movie.

That's precisely what it is. Although, thankfully, it does not follow along the 'typical' teen horror movie path. It's got plenty of sappy dialogue (I won't even get into the whole Diablo Cody conversation) that you'd expect to hear in a high school in this day and age. It has your average paper thin teen characters, like a Friday the 13th film you'll find all the stereotypes are here. But besides that it's actually pretty gory in some parts. Megan Fox looks as good as always (her acting is the same, too). It's just what I expected, and I found myself very pleased with the end results.

Go back and re-watch a movie like 'Night of the Creeps' or 'Fright Night' and see how much of a trip back to the 80's they were. How enjoyable they are to watch, some cheesy horror/comedies that you'll just keep on going back to year after year to watch. Not to confuse you into thinking Jennifer's Body is anywhere near as good as those two films, but it'll surly leave the same impression when you look back on it in twenty-odd years and fondly remember being a decent representation of it's times.This isn't a bad film, nor does achieve cult-classic status.

I Sell the Dead (2009) Movie Review

The loosely strung-together story turns on the ghoulish adventures of Arthur Blake (Dominic Monaghan from “Lost”), trained at the crooked knee of Willie Grimes (Mr. Fessenden). Having been sentenced to death for murder, Arthur confesses his sins to a priest in piecemeal flashback. Played by the son for the Satan himself, Hellboy star Ron Perlman is no ordinary priest, as we realize from the moment we witness him kick a homeless man in the gut on the way into the holding cell. Arthur’s troubles began, he explains, when he and Willie started disinterring troublesome corpses, like the one with the stake in her heart. Deciding she would fetch a better price if she didn’t look like an appetizer, Willie tugs out the stake. She attacks. He thrusts it back in. She quiets down. He pulls it out, and so it goes, as the Hammeresque shivers give way to Abbott and Costello-style slapstick.

This scene in particular is very 'Evil Dead' style, and you'll find other small homages to several other cult horror favorites through-out. Under a heavy Hammer horror influence, the sets are full of eerie gothic decor - set in a thick constant fog - providing great atmosphere for such a low budget picture. And, like any film following under a mentor such as Hammer studios, it's crawling with undead monstrosities - zombies, vampires, hideously deformed psychos, and even aliens - 'I Sell the Dead' is packed with all sorts of ghouls. When I picked this up at the video store, I couldn't wait to find out what I was in for. I figured with a line up like this I could be in for either one hell of a ride, or I'd end up sitting through 1&1/2 hours of pure nonsense once again. Guess which one.

To no surprise, 'I Sell the Dead' was just another cheeseball horror/comedy that wasn't scary nor funny enough to be fondly remembered by. Now, I didn't hate this movie mind you. It's not a complete waste of your time, for some parts are actually worth the watch. A film about a pair of down on their luck grave robbers who stumble upon all sorts of trouble when unearthing these strange corpses is a great idea for a movie. Sounds like a unique buddy film to me, with a nice little horrific twist. But alas, like many other films such as this, it sounds much better on paper.

A look back at Dead Snow (Dod sno).

Found this movie a little while back, downloaded it and loved it. If your into Evil Dead style violence and mayhem, there's plenty here to enjoy. Now, those who missed it are fortunate enough to pick it up on DvD and Blu-ray.



The premise of this movie is simple: A group of medical students are spending Easter Break by planning a ski trip in the desolate Scandinavian wilderness. Just like any good horror flick, the gang is greeted by a crazy local who stumbles into their cabin one night and explains the evils that haunt the area. And, of course they ignore the warnings until it's to late. Sure, it may appear this is one of those movies you've seen 1,000 before, but it gets better from there. The antagonists here are evil undead Nazi bastards. When you have a horror film, you want the scariest, most vile and gruesome villain possible - what could be more frightening than the zombified spawn of Hitler, possibly the most evil man on earth? An army of them, no doubt.

The first half of the film seems to be aiming to terrify you, wheres the Nazi zombies stay at a distance in the dark, but at about halfway point (when the sun is at it's highest, and the zombies come out) it's a pure gorefest. It's like your watching a video game on screen (the game Dead Rising comes to mind). The zombies, even wile out in sunlight, are among the best of them - the make up fx look menacing and stylish. And the gore, and there's plenty of it, is at it's finest.

Fans of classic splatter flicks such as The Evil Dead and Brain Dead will rejoice, because they don't skimp out on the red stuff here. Limbs are hacked off, zombies are disemboweled, and people are just torn to shreds. But the violence here is more along the lines of Sam Raimi rather than Lucio Fulci, and while it may be disturbing to some, it's more so humorous than anything. The fact that director Tom Wirkola has an eye for parody and paying homage is also very apparent in Dead Snow, as most of the movie seems to pay its respects to the Eighties slasher genre. However, it's Wirkola's ability to keep things moving with an approach that still feels fresh that keeps Dead Snow from feeling like just another retread of movies that have already been created.

Above all, Dead Snow is along the lines of films like Brain Dead and Evil Dead, where the gore factor is as fun as it is excessive, or if you just enjoy watching Nazi zombies getting splattered, then Dead Snow is definitely the flick for you.

Best Horror Movies of the Decade

My list of the best genre movies of the decade...
(and my ratings, out of 5)

2000 - American Psycho (Mary Harron) *****
2001 - Jeepers Creepers (Victor Slava) ***
2002 - High Tension (Alexandria Aja)***
2003 - 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle) ***
2004 - Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder) ****
2005 - The Devil's Rejects (Rob Zombie) *****
2006 - The Hills Have Eyes (Alexandria Aja) ****
2007 - Trick 'r Treat (Michael Daughtry) *****
2008 - Let the Right One In (Thomas Alfredson) *****
2009 - Zombieland (Ruben Fleischer) ****

Honorable Mentions:
Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright) ****
INSIDE (À l'intérieur) (Alexandre Bustillo & Julien Maury) ****
[REC] (Jaume Balagero) ***
Cold Prey (Fritt vilt) (Roar Uthaug) ***
Martyrs (Pascal Laugier) ***
The Descent (Neil Marshal) ***
GRINDHOUSE: Planet Terror (Robert Rodreigez) & Death Proof (Quentin Tarantino) ****
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (Scott Glosserman) ***

As you can see, with a few exceptions, the new decade hasn't been too good on horror movies.

Prolonged District 9 (2009) Review

Review:
Peter Jackson - better known as the mastermind not only behind the magnificent Lord of the Rings trilogy but a string of genre pictures appearing through out the 90's - produced this thrilling science-fiction film about an extraterrestrial concentration camp in Africa. District 9 also marks the directorial debut of South African director Neill Blomkamp. Taking a traditional sci/fi approach, Blomkamp examines contemporary society through a new perspective.


"There's alot of secrets in District 9..."


It's better off the less you know about this film before viewing it the better. In this case, the easiest way to clarify it would be to label it a sci-fi fueled indictment of man's inhumanity to oneself, be it against another race or an entire different species, in this case a species not even from this planet. The biggest difference depicted here that sets this film apart from any other alien invasion film is that the beings - dubbed here as 'prawns' due to their uncanny resemblance to insects - are not the invaders, yet nor are they peaceful visitors to our planet. Their refuges in a trash filled ghetto. Their mother ship isn't a glorious spectacle hovering over a city, it's a rust bucket. And that city isn't Manhattan or Los Angeles or any other glorious Metropolis , it's the slums of Johannesburg, Africa. The aliens are treated offal by the humans. I hope the inhabitants of Earth never come in contact with over worldly beings because the reality of how we interact with them may be similar to what's depicted here, which is a grim thought.


As a directorial debut, District 9 is a well crafted sci-fi thrill ride that deserves to be remembered for years to come not only for it's unique approach to the genre, but the message sent here. Not that this is a fable with an inner meaning to it, but it'll leave a deeper emotional impact on you than other brain numbing summer blockbusters about giant robots and action heros. This movie doesn't reach the tip of perfection one bit, but delivers more brainpower than your average apocalyptic fantasy. Not to mention a first time for lead actor Sharlto Copley, specifically hand picked by director Blompkamp and personally approved by Jackson. You'll be wowed by Copley. His heart-rending tour de force deserves comparison to Jeff Goldblum's in The Fly. And to me, that's high praise. District 9, with a chump-change budget of $30 million, soars on the imagination of its creators. This baby has the stuff to end the movie summer on a note of dazzle and distinction..

Paranormal Activity (2009) Review

Review:
Yes, Paranormal Activity managed to do something that almost no other ghost movie in the past 25 years has managed to do: actually be scary. Like Blair Witch, it's presented entirely through self-shot footage (or from a fixed tripod in their bedroom), and ramps up from simple noises to truly freaky violent acts. The increasingly terrifying nature of the scares is what really makes the film work. Not trying to be a tough guy by saying movies don't scare me, but movies don't scare me. Maybe once in a while, when all the lights are dim and I'm all alone - and this is only under certain surcumstances - if I'm in the right mood I'll get a little freaked out, and I still don't recall the last time this occurred. Well, if I had the opportunity to watch this film in said environment, it has the potential to be truly frightening. I'll admit, it's not a perfect film but any movie that prevents me from taking that dark and lonely walk down the hall from bedroom to bathroom to take a leak is more than worth all of my praise. So congratulations go to you, Paranormal Activity, for making me look over my shoulder if I happen to hear a creak in the floor boards or some other unexplained, unexpected noise.

But how scary is it, really? Is it like everyone says, the scariest movie ever? I'll have to say no, it's not. Although some parts are terrifying in their own right, the movie itself could have been better. Much like Blair Witch, this movie could come off as extremely terrifying to some people, yet terrible to others. You either get it or you don't. If you got Blair Witch and understood what was going on there, if you put yourself in their place, it's a truly horrifying experience. But, if your one of the people who either wasn't paying attention or just didn't get what was going on, it'll just be a nauseating movie going experience. The same applies here, but while I think Blair Witch is the stronger film by far, I think it's easier to follow along with Paranormal Activity. It plays off all your contemporary fears: fear of the dark, fear of being watched, fear of the unexplained, and of course fear of the supernatural. Noises play a key role here, but there not found in cheap jump scares. You can almost follow this entity (you never truly discover what it is) about the house by hearing loud thuds and strange sounds. It seems very real, and seeing the actual monster is not the scary part, but just knowing it's there but not seeing it is the scary part.

Sure, you could walk out of the theater with your head held high without flinching the whole film, but once you get home, no matter how brave you are, once you hear a door slam or a board creak somewhere in your house your head will be peering over your shoulder examining everything in sight. And that's the scary part, after the movie when your laying in your bed and you hear that sound, but don't know where it came from, or what caused it.

Halloween: 20 Years Later (H20) Review

"I am not responsible for you. That's it, I've had enough. I can't take it anymore mom. He's dead. Michael Myers is dead. "

Review
This is the best Halloween sequel besides the second movie. I just wanted to get that out of the way. If you were to watch any Myers movies other than the first two, follow this films intentions and forget all the lousy installments in between. Because you have to admit, it was getting to the point of self parody (although it achieved that title in Resurrection), you couldn't take Michael seriously any more. The stories suffered the sequel curse, they just went downhill into absurdity, adding new characters to the family and unneeded plot twists. But, lucky for the fans a director with a little bit of slasher background stepped up to the plate to take a swing at the series.


Directed by Steve Miner (Friday the 13th parts 2 & 3), and written by Kevin Williamson (Scream), H20 was really a breath of fresh air not only for Michael Myers, but for horror movies in general in this period. One of the best things about this film is it's a return to form. Michael Myers was intended to be the shape. The boogeyman lurking in the shadows. This is how he appeared in the first two films, but then transformed into a hulking Jason clone from parts 4 and on. Sure, he's not the same dark figure as in the first, but he's still an anomaly and not supporting a pair shoulder pads (more on that later). This movie isn't about relentless blood shed like the latter sequels in slasher franchises, but aims for suspense. This is perhaps why it has one of the better plots since the first, the screenplay is gold compared to earlier installments. Although it has some impressive kills, it doesn't rely of that alone. For once you root for the victims, maybe it's just jamie lee Curtis's character of Laurie Strode, but you actually want to see them prevail and beat Myers and escape. Oh, and does Michael ever take the beating here. He's constantly being knocked down and out - just enough for the victims to escape his grasp, but how often do you see the killer being knocked around? But there's enough scenes that retain Myers strength. He's not completely unstoppable, just pure and simply evil remember?


Once again, Michael Myers is at his best here. You delve deeper into his psyche, but don't learn to much about him. He still remains the mysterious figure he as ment to be, but you learn about what he thinks. He's smart. He knows what he wants and how to get just that. Not only that, but his appearance is for once truly frightening. This has been an issue through out the series. It seems as if Michael's visage has become worse, cheeper and less terrifying as they went. I understand that after films become huge successes that people manufacture costume pieces so little boys and girls can walk around pretending to be Michael Myers and the like...but that doesn't mean the film sequels should use those costume pieces. Here, Michael's mask is great. A return to the original style. I liked the more open eye holes they did for this mask, as it plays up the more human side of Myers this entry went for.


H20, which is short for Halloween: 20 years later is defiantly one of the strongest sequels to date. It doesn't hold up as good as Halloween 2 (well, I guess I gotta say the original Halloween 2 now), but besides that this is the one to watch. Do like they tell you, skip out on all that about Laurie's daughter and that nonsense about the Mark of Thorn cult, the real story lies on Halloween day 1978, and Halloween day 1998. I'm saying this as a huge fan of the series and of Michael Myers (been sporting the mask and overalls every halloween).

Pontypool (2009) Review

Review
The zombie genre is over-stuffed to the point of leaking pus, but writer/director Bruce McDonald has a plot that may prove a breath of fresh air for the flesh eating monsters. It's name is Pontypool, and it is definitely unlike any zombie movie you've ever seen. It'd be a stretch to consider it a full-out undead opus at all. What works about this film is it's strong lead actors, shock jock Grant Mazzy (McHattie), and Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) brilliantly talk us through what seems to be several riots taking place through out the small town of Pontypool, Ontario.


If your looking for zombie action, this movie is not for you. But, unlike your average head exploding, brain devouring walking corpse films, Pontypool doesn't rely on the action or gore effects. Instead, we're isolated in a radio station on cold, stormy morning. All the action takes place here, but never once does it start to feel claustrophobic. The action lies in reports broadcasted in telling grueling accounts of murder and mayhem that's going on in the town. We're not shown such acts of violence, but it's left to our imagination to picture the chaos that's happening here. Ironically, these are the better scenes of the film, and it all starts falling apart towards the end when some action actually does occur. But the biggest turn off for the film is knowing the reasoning behind these 'zombies'. I won't ruin it for you, since this film is worth watching, and this just may make you reconsider viewing it, but the infection has nothing to do with your blood or the rendering of flesh to transfer into another victim. Looking past this, the set up of the beginning of the film is great and following such credible characters through it is entertaining enough, making this a half-decent film to watch if your a zombie fan looking for something a bit different out of your walking corpses. Well, if you want to go as far as dubbing these zombies.

Deadgirl (2009) Review

Flixster - Share Movies

Review: I'll admit, when going into this movie, after reading all the positive reviews proclaiming it's disturbing nature, and negative views about it taking it one step to far, I expected a little more out of it. Although it deals with a gruesome subject, I didn't think they exploited it to it's fullest. Not that I wanted to see more, but I gave into the hype and expected something far more revolting than what I saw. The subject matter here is truly terrible, and the character's actions toward the deadgirl are unquestionably disgusting, but I can't find myself disturbed but somewhat disgusted by what I just watched. Now, I won't get ahead of myself here, if you don't know the plot you may find it fairly simple:

Flixster - Share Movies

The premise of Deadgirl is brilliantly grueling ? two high school buddies come across a naked woman chained to a bed in the basement of an abandoned hospital. Before long, they realize that this mystery woman isn't alive, but some kind of zombie (a word the film never uses). While the more conscientious of the two kids, Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) is squeamish about the whole situation; his friend J.T. (Noah Segan) knows a golden opportunity when he sees it. In short time, J.T. has put the dead girl to his own personal use. I won't go to far into detail, just reading the barest description of the plot will likely put off a good number of viewers. And even those who think that they're game for the movie might have second thoughts once it starts to unfold. Although not handled in an overly graphic fashion, there's no mistaking exactly what's going on. And frankly, a movie about a woman ? whether the woman in question is living, dead or undead ? being repeatedly raped is not an experience to be taken lightly. By design, this is a film meant to provoke, sicken, and upset viewers. Deadgirl raises questions about male sexuality and peer pressure ? making it an ambitious entry in the teen horror sub-genre. Unfortunately, it's only partially successful in handling its difficult material. At first, the movie handles quite well. Only Rikkie and J.T. know about the deadgirl at this point and it seems plausible. They question what to do about her, what would happen if anybody else finds out, and how could they keep it a secret. But, from there on out it seems to spiral downward into absurdity.


Deadgirl does in fact push some boundaries, it's absolutely one of it's kind, putting a very original twist on the zombie movie, but it fail's to be anything other than a twisted exploitation film set to provoke and disturb you. But, that is what horror movies are about, right? To unsettle and make you feel uneasy. But, if you look past it's desire to sicken you, you may not find much, if any entertainment value out of this film. It's a well made indy project, but it needs a bit more to make it worth your while.

Trick 'r Treat (2009) Review

Cast:
Quinn Lord as Sam
Brian Cox as Mr. Kreeg
Dylan Baker as Steven
Leslie Bibb as Emma
Rochelle Aytes as Maria
Anna Paquin as Laurie
Moneca Delain as Janet
Tahmoh Penikett as Henry
Lauren Lee Smith as Danielle

Directed by Michael Dougherty

Poison, Drowning, Claw, Or Knife. So Many Ways To Take A Life.

Review: What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said in a hundred reviews before? Best genre outing in the longest time? Pure excellence? An instant classic? Most likely if you've read a review on this film on any website you'll probably hear that kind of response. Some even went as far as comparing it to the holy grail of horror pictures, John Carpenter's Halloween (here's to you, Dread Central). There was a lot of hype surrounding this little gem that it almost seemed impossible to live up to it all. Well, I'll join the majority by saying it absolutely does, and then some.


Trick 'r Treat reads like the pages of a good issue of Tales From the Crypt, but all the separate stories flow together so well towards the end, fitting together piece-by-piece like a completed puzzle. Each yarn is Halloween-themed and has a unique story to tell, some exploiting festive urban legends, and some just added to amp up the creep factor for the viewers. Like Creepshow and other horror flicks from back in the day, it doesn't try to torment you or insult you, it simply exists to entertain you. And it succeeds. The central character is Sam, a scary little guy in a orange costume and wearing a burlap mask, dragging around a sack of halloween goodies. Although you shouldn't expect to see him as much in the film, he can be compared to Michael Myers in Halloween. The central story doesn't follow him, but he's enough of a key player in it. Like Michael, he seen briefly in select scenes as a background figure. He's not ment to fit in with the scene, but just to make his presence known through out. Forget Jigsaw, this is the new horror character people should recognize when looking back on the decade, and this is the film. It's just that good.





This is the movie us Halloween lovers (and this time I mean the holiday, not the movie) have been waiting for. It perfectly captures the essence of the holiday, and for years to come this will be out and ready right along side the other holiday masterpiece waiting to be watched. There?s just one problem: Warner Bros could care less. For two years, the studio has refused to release this little gem, while it continues to crank out unwatchable bottom-of-the-barrel dreck. This is one of the biggest injustices to our beloved genre, and in a perfect world, Warner would be put on trial for crimes against cinema. Movie lovers finally have something worth getting excited about and it?s great to see that real talent can still slip through the cracks. This holiday season, forget paying big bucks for movies like the newest Saw sequel and goto your local video store and give this instant classic a chance, you'll be happy you did.

The Hills Run Red (2009) Review

Review:
I've often found that large amounts of hype for a movie usually end up being a bad thing. Your expectations are raised so high that once you finally get the chance to see the movie you've heard raved about for months prior, it can never live up to those expectations. It's happened recently with Hatchet. Such is unfortunately the case with The Hills Run Red. Now don't get me wrong, it's an above average horror flick with an awesome concept and a pretty badass killer, it's just not really anything special. For those who don't know much about the movie, here's a brief synopsis....


A notorious horror movie by the name of The Hills Run Red was released in the early 1980's and only a select few layed eyes on it's final print before it was inexpectedly pulled from theaters for being to violent in it's all too realistic bloodshed. All copies of the film were mysteriously lost, but a young film student and horror fanatic named Tyler sets a goal to find one last print. Alongside a couple friends and the thought to be dead director of the film's stripper daughter, Tyler sets out for the woods to check out the movie's filming locations, in an effort to provide some answers by makeing a documentary surrounding it. What they find is that The Hills Run Red is more than just a movie and it's killer, Babyface, is more than just a character dreamed up from the mind of a sadistic filmmaker.


Although we've seen this concept before in John Carpenter's Masters of Horror episode entitled Cigarette Burns, you can't argue against the fact that it's an awesome concept. The reason I got so intregued in the concept is because I, and pretty much any horror fan, can easily relate to. If I've ever heard of a mysterious film like this you'd expect me to be as curious as Tyler. It's like you and your friends visiting the actual campsite used in the Friday the 13th films only to find out that Jason is actually real. That's a pretty awesome concept for a slasher set up, but unfortunetly that's all this films got going for it, the cool concept. I felt that this was a story that was packed with lame plot and twists and turns that didn't deliver too much of what I wanted or expected from it. Not that it's bad for attempting to have a complex plotline, I just didn't think all of it was necessary.


The movie inside the movie - here only hinted at through a 'crude' trailer and some pupblisity stills - looks like alot better of a movie than what I watched. That's the movie that I wanted to watch in the first place. Seeing Babyface brutally kill poeple is all I really wanted from this, and don't get me wrong, we are treated to this, but I just can't get past the fact of what this could have been but sadly wasn't. I could talk the world of how cool Babyface is (possible custom Halloween costume idea?), and there are some cool kills, just not good enough to stick up there with some of the more memorable kills in slasher history. There is however enough nude Sophie Monk to satiate anyone's desires, so that's a plus.

The Haunted World of El Superbeasto (2009) Review

Review: This movie is not for everybody. It packs enough cartoon blood, violence, and nudity here to make Rob Zombie's other movies look subtle in comparison. El Superbeasto is not a children's cartoon, it's a exploitive and twisted attempt at making an animated feature. It's filled with some great homages to classic films (practically every big screen monster is used here, everything from Michael Myers to Jack Torrence from The Shining), and of course Zombie's usual bunch is back to provide voices for the gang of misfit characters here. Although it's humor is ludicrous and at most times striving to be funny, I did in fact find myself laughing along with some of the characters. Suberbeasto is in no way a good old fashioned cartoon movie, and I wouldn't recommend it to most, all I can say is this: if you've tolerated Zombie's past work you may find some enjoyment out of this mess.


Blood, boobs, and curses. How els can you sum up a film such as this? From the start of the film, that's all your catered to, all the way up to the very end - and it gets worse and worse as it progresses. Violence and nudity in animation may fail to offend some, but there's just so much of it here that even I, one of the few people out there to which this film is made, found it to be in extreme excess. You see cartoon nipples and privates on display every two minuets. Normally I wouldn't complain about such actions, but even I found myself saying 'enough is enough'. And if you thought Zombie's characters cursed a lot before, brace yourself. To say the language in this film is extremely juvenile would be an understatement of monumental proportions. Every curse in the book is used. Said curses are strung together with the hippest street slang known to man. To add further pain, we get little melodies throughout the film as theme songs for characters or just to add curses where no one is talking at any given moment.


Not to completely bash this movie, I'll admit I like the animation here. Think along the lines of Ren & Stimpy meets Spongebob. The voice over works well too. I found the voices of Beasto and Dr. Satan (and his ape slave) preformed quite well. The opening scenes of the film were vintage and fantastic, but from there on out be warned: this is not intended for the Scooby Doo crowd.

ZombieLand (2009) Review

Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus
Woody Harrelson as Tallahassee
Emma Stone as Wichita
Abigail Breslin as Little Rock

Directed by Ruben Fleischer

Review: Right from the start of the movie, where we're graced with an entourage of grisly yet comical zombie gore moments (in slow-mo no doubt!) played to the tune "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica. We're introduced to what kind of film this is aiming to be: nothing but a bloody good time. Zombieland is no doubt the most fun I've had at the movie theaters all year, and it's without question the best horror/comedy this side of Shaun of the Dead.


Zombieland is the story of a broken down group of survivors trying to survive the apocalypse. The setting's all the same, the world has ended, and most of everybody are reanimated corpses craving human flesh. Oh, and these flesh eaters are the fast ones here, not the slow bumbling meat bags (although, unfortunately I'd prefer the old fashion Romero style dead, it's all in the sake of a few comedic frights). Ohio (Jesse Eisenberg) is the prerequisite teen, so named for his desired destination. It?s Ohio who introduces us to the remnants of this decimated civilization, kicking things off with valuable tips to surviving any zombie encounter. Yes, those survival guide tips you are seeing in the commercials are in fact in the movie. Ohio is en route to his parents home when he bumps into the mighty Tallahasse (Woody Harrelson), who excels in zombie decimation while he scours the earth for his favorite snack cake. Hilarity ensues. Not long after, the two bump into two others survivors, who happen to be sisters, in the back of a convenient store. After this, once the story really kicks into gear we're treated to several comical moments involving squishy zombie brains being sprayed all over the place, which is more on the humorous side than disturbing, but it's all in good fun.



Some films would be content to strike the perfect mix of comedy and above average zombie effects, but Zombieland adds another dimension with just the right amount of back story for each character. These scenes, shown in flash backs, remind us the tragedy these characters went through when the dead began to rise, and how they pulled through. Accompanied by this are several bonding moments tying the group closer together. These scenes will range from laugh out loud funny to heart warming to a downright yank on your heart strings. These parts are not overly milked out nor dramatized, but just thrown in to add some interesting character development. And it surly does, because you really do start to feel for this misfit cast of survivors.


Although not in any way horrific, Zombieland doesn't skimp out on the red stuff. Blood is spewed as heads explode and ligaments are torn from helpless victim's throats. But, again, it's all in good fun here. It's a joy to see such an entertaining film come out like this. A film so enjoyable, you'll wish it wouldn't end, where you'll still be smiling after you walked past the concession stand and out of the theater. Oh, and did I mention Bill Murray of Ghostbuster's fame makes an appearance? If fun horror films such as Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness, and of course Shaun of the Dead are right up your alley, by all means see this film right away.