Braden and Jen's 31 Days of Terror...

[megladon8]

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7725/grimreaperv.jpg

With Jen and I both being huge horror fanatics, it’s a pretty neat thing that for the very first time ever, we are getting to spend October together.

Jen will (we hope) be here with me for the entire month, which has allowed us to stockpile a whole bunch of horror films to watch over the 31 days of the month. Everything from silent classics to ‘80s cheese-fests...classic golden age Hollywood to modern shockers. We’ve tried to get as diverse a range of films from the genre as possible. Some may not even qualify as 100% horror films, but we’ve included them here because, well, that’s how we roll. :)

Here is an alphabetical list of the films we have acquired over the past few months in preparation for this...


The Baby (1973 / Ted Post)
Bram Stoker’s Shadow Builder (1998 / Jamie Dixon)
The Burrowers (2007 / J. T. Petty)
City of the Dead (1960 / John Llewellyn Moxey)
The Collector (1965 / William Wyler)
Contamination (1980 / Luigi Cozzi)
Dark Remains (2005 / Brian Avenet-Bradley)
Drag Me to Hell (2009 / Sam Raimi)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 / Rouben Mamoulian AND 1941 / Victor Fleming)
Exte: Hair Extensions (2007 / Shion Sono)
The Fall of the House of Usher (1960 / Roger Corman)
The Hills Run Red (2009 / Dave Parker)
Lady in White (1988 / Frank LaLoggia)
The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927 / Hitchcock)
Nightmare City (1980 / Umberto Lenzi)
Night of the Creeps (1986 / Fred Dekker)
Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006 / Jeff Broadstreet)
The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 / Roger Corman)
Pontypool (2008 / Bruce McDonald)
Santa’s Slay (2005 / David Steiman)
Satan’s Little Helper (2004 / Jeff Lieberman)
The Spiral Staircase (1945 / Robert Siodmark)
Splinter (2008 / Toby Wilkins)
The Stuff (1985 / Larry Cohen)
Them (ils) (2006 / David Moreau and Xavier Palud)
Torso (1973 / Sergio Martino)
Trick ‘R’ Treat (2008 / Michael Dougherty)
The Woman Who Came Back (1945 / Walter Comes)
Yokai Monsters Trilogy: 'Spook Warfare', 'One Hundred Monsters', 'Along With Ghosts' (1968-'1969 / Kimiyoshi Yasuda, Yoshiyuka Kuroda)
Zombie Lake (1981 / Jean Rolin)


In all honesty, we might not (and probably won’t) see them all. But we are going to see as many as possible over the month. If there are any you’d particularly like to hear our thoughts on, let us know, and we’ll bump things to the front of our schedule if possible.

So as I said, we’ll both be posting reviews of each film we watch. Surely some films will elicit more of a response than others, so don’t expect life-changing poetry with every entry, but our hope is that it will be as fun for you all to go through this with us in this thread, as it is for us to watch all the films and do all the dirty, grimy work of reviewing them!

Jen arrives Friday, so expect our first stuff up sometime this coming weekend.

[Ezee E]

Nice. The only one I've seen is Them which was pretty good, especially if you liked The Strangers.

[Winston*]

Only seen the 1931 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, which was pretty excellent I thought. Don't think the later one's supposed to be very good.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yesssssss. I knew something like this was on the way.

:pritch:


Drag Me to Hell (2009 / Sam Raimi)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 / Rouben Mamoulian AND 1941 / Victor Fleming)
The Fall of the House of Usher (1960 / Roger Corman)
Night of the Creeps (1986 / Fred Dekker)
The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 / Roger Corman)
Pontypool (2008 / Bruce McDonald)
The Spiral Staircase (1945 / Robert Siodmark)
Splinter (2008 / Toby Wilkins)
The Stuff (1985 / Larry Cohen)
Them (ils) (2006 / David Moreau and Xavier Palud)
Torso (1973 / Sergio Martino)
Trick ‘R’ Treat (2008 / Michael Dougherty)

I can't wait to hear your thoughts on these. Especially Torso, The Spiral Staircase, and The Fall of the House of Usher.

Hooray!

[megladon8]

Nice. The only one I've seen is Them which was pretty good, especially if you liked The Strangers.


I haven't seen The Strangers yet :(



Only seen the 1931 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, which was pretty excellent I thought. Don't think the later one's supposed to be very good

I believe Frederic March won an Oscar for his portrayal of the title roles, didn't he?

Really looking forward to that one. Feels like a big "BLIP" on my horror movie radar.

[megladon8]

I can't wait to hear your thoughts on these. Especially Torso, The Spiral Staircase, and The Fall of the House of Usher.


So I assume these are all ones you've seen, yes?

I'm actually criminally under-educated when it comes to Roger Corman. Raiders would probably sentence me to execution.

I think I've only ever seen A Bucket of Blood, and it was so very long ago that I don't remember anything about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I assume these are all ones you've seen, yes?

I haven't seen Torso, and you two would be a great barometer if it'd be up my alley.


I'm actually criminally under-educated when it comes to Roger Corman. Raiders would probably sentence me to execution.

Corman's funny, because he's so alternately cheap and silly and then surprisingly elegant. I've seen seven of his films, and his Poe pictures are obvious trendsetters, but I kinda like the out-of-the-way, oddball charm of A Bucket of Blood and X - the Man with the X-Ray Eyes

[megladon8]

I haven't seen Torso, and you two would be a great barometer if it'd be up my alley.

Well, we'll definitely let you know how it is.

I had severe worries about it because I thought that it was a film that was praised by Eli Roth as "his favorite movie of all time". And, him being a no-talent, terrible-taste hack, I was skeptical.

Then I found out that I was safe, because the film I was thinking of was Pieces, and Torso is actually pretty highly regarded and has quite a cult following.

Not that that says much, mind you. I mean, Jess Franco movies have a cult following, and I have yet to see one that I would qualify higher than "pig shit"...but I just really, really hate Eli Roth. :)





Corman's funny, because he's so alternately cheap and silly and then surprisingly elegant. I've seen seven of his films, and his Poe pictures are obvious trendsetters, but I kinda like the out-of-the-way, oddball charm of A Bucket of Blood and X - the Man with the X-Ray Eyes

I'll have to re-watch A Bucket of Blood at some point. I'll try to get my hands on a better transfer of it. It's one that (I believe) is public domain, so the copy I have is a super-cheap double feature version (with The Wasp Woman) from the Dollar Store, and not exactly pristine picture or sound.

I'm also really interested in Gas-s-s-s.

[Ezee E]

I haven't seen The Strangers yet :(





No? I think it was probably the best horror film from its year.

[Dead & Messed Up]

No? I think it was probably the best horror film from its year.

Its first act is very effective, no question. As for the rest...

...I hope Braden and Jenn like it.

[megladon8]

Its first act is very effective, no question. As for the rest...

...I hope Braden and Jenn like it.


Jen really, really liked The Strangers.

So did another horror-hound friend of mine.

[Rowland]

The Strangers was good, but I felt it lost most of its mojo by the halfway mark, and the ending was more unintentionally humorous than affectingly grim.

[Morris Schæffer]

Nice. The only one I've seen is Them which was pretty good, especially if you liked The Strangers.

The only THEM I've seen is with GIANT FUCKING ANTS!! :)

[Skitch]

The only THEM I've seen is with GIANT FUCKING ANTS!! :)

:) Love that flick...

[Kurosawa Fan]

Awesome thread meg. Can't wait to get your and Jen's thoughts on these. My wife and I usually watch a few before Halloween (we actually just watched Halloween a couple nights ago after finishing decorating the house for the season), so I'll probably watch a couple that the two of you both agree are great.

[megladon8]

Awesome thread meg. Can't wait to get your and Jen's thoughts on these. My wife and I usually watch a few before Halloween (we actually just watched Halloween a couple nights ago after finishing decorating the house for the season), so I'll probably watch a couple that the two of you both agree are great.


Awesome! :)

Please tell me that it was the original Halloween you watched, right? And that you LOVED it???

[Kurosawa Fan]

Awesome! :)

Please tell me that it was the original Halloween you watched, right? And that you LOVED it???

It was the original, and it has been, and always will be, on my top 100 list since I first saw it in middle school. I watch it almost every year when Halloween approaches.

[megladon8]

It was the original, and it has been, and always will be, on my top 100 list since I first saw it in middle school. I watch it almost every year when Halloween approaches.


Me too, on all accounts! *high fives*

Can you imagine if we ever had a Match-Cut get together around Halloween. That would be a weekend to remember, I tells ya.

It'd be so awesome to watch something like Halloween, a bunch of us all together.

Hell, imagine if we could pool some money together and rent a small theatre/auditorium to watch it in?

[megladon8]

Oops!

Forgot one in the list.

We also have Wlliam Wyler's The Collector to view. I edited the first post to add that one.

[lovejuice]

Pontypool sounds like a weird name for a horror. so i check out its imdb page, and it even has a weirder concept. (i won't spoil, people. you must actually read it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226681/synopsis) yourself for the full effect.) you must tell us, meg, what you think about it.

[Dukefrukem]

my kind of thread........

[megladon8]

So I managed to get my hands on two DVDs before their official release dates.

I got Trick R Treat, which is supposed to be out next Tuesday.

I also got Drag Me to Hell which doesn't come out for a few weeks.

[MadMan]

Trick R Treat looks really damn creepy. Plus it has Brian Cox, Anna Paquin, and Dylan Baker. Cool.

[megladon8]

Woo-hoo! I left these ones off the list because I was starting to think they'd never arrive, but they did!

Yokai Monsters Trilogy: 'Spook Warfare', 'One Hundred Monsters', 'Along With Ghosts' (1968-'1969 / Kimiyoshi Yasuda, Yoshiyuka Kuroda)

[megladon8]

Coming tomorrow, reviews of Drag Me to Hell and Splinter.

[megladon8]

Drag Me to Hell (2009 / Sam Raimi)

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4808/dtsset1.jpg


Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell is a horror-hound's dream come true. Within the first five minutes, anyone who has even the faintest interest in horror will immediately recognize trade-marks of Raimi that he hasn't put to use in this genre since Army of Darkness. Fast-cutting close-ups, skewed angles, characters being attacked by unseen entities. It's all here, and Raimi makes a wonderful transition to the 21st century, something that seems to have been quite difficult for other horror directors of the '70s and '80s.

The film is also surprisingly intelligent, looking at the battle between science and religion, with Raimi's attitude perfectly summed up in a short exchange between the characters of Clay (Justin Long) and Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) in which they argue about philosophy and Jas ends by saying that science is all well and good, but we cannot be afraid to bring God into the equation.

In the end, though, its final message is loud and clear: don't mess with gypsies.

9 out of 10



Splinter (2007 / Toby Williams)

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6002/splintermovie07.jpg


Toby Wilkins' Splinter is a great throwback to films like The Thing and Night of the Living Dead, where paranoia abounds in a claustrophobic environment as characters realize that staying alive is more important than understanding the terrors that are lurking just outside the doors (and perhaps even within).

Splinter is freaking brutal. It takes a lot to make me cringe, and this movie did that more than once. Broken bones, amputations and general nastiness abound in this film, but it never reaches "torture porn" levels. It's gross in the same way that The Thing is gross, pulling off the very difficult task of scaring the audience with gore. It uses the gore to make us truly fear the entity that is attacking these people. The gore is psychological and effective, not reveling in the characters' suffering but showing us enough that we are scared for them.

Shea Whigham deserves kudos for his turn as Dennis Farell, an escaped convict and recovering drug addict who we may not ever like, but earns our respect as the film moves on. We grow to like him despite his acts of violence, and much of it is due to Whigham's great charisma and believability.

The film, unfortunately, has some horrible flaws in logic that take away from the latter half of the movie. Up until then it's quite clever and, while not wholly original in plotting, manages to avoid clichés. Not to say that the latter half resorts to cliché ridden plotting or characters, but, well, you'll see. It doesn't destroy the movie, but it hurts.

7 out of 10

[Ezee E]

Have had Splinter on my instant queue for a while. Maybe this month is the time to finally watch it.

[megladon8]

Have had Splinter on my instant queue for a while. Maybe this month is the time to finally watch it.


It's worth seeing for sure, but the sudden nonsensical actions taken by the characters in the second half of the movie really took it down a notch or two for me.

I also thought it was very cool that the woman was arguably the strongest character in the group. Something that's not too often seen, and it was a refreshing change.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Pretty much exactly what I thought of the two films. I won't lie - I'm still happy about Drag Me to Hell. There's just something so perfect at the end when

the bitch gets dragged into Hell. I couldn't think of another ending, and yet I was so stunned when it happened. And then that title card came up and I just started howling.

[megladon8]

Pretty much exactly what I thought of the two films. I won't lie - I'm still happy about Drag Me to Hell. There's just something so perfect at the end when

the bitch gets dragged into Hell. I couldn't think of another ending, and yet I was so stunned when it happened. And then that title card came up and I just started howling.


Indeed.

Justin Long's look of absolute terror and defeat is priceless.

They should use it for a MasterCard commercial.

[thefourthwall]

I would be interested in hearing what you two think of The Collector. I have the book and hope to read it soon, but it probably won't be before Wyler's week, so I'm unsure if I should see the movie before reading the book...

[Grouchy]

I would be interested in hearing what you two think of The Collector. I have the book and hope to read it soon, but it probably won't be before Wyler's week, so I'm unsure if I should see the movie before reading the book...
Both the movie and book are very good and remarkably similar. I saw the movie first, but either way you go, it's good.

[Dukefrukem]

Pretty much exactly what I thought of the two films. I won't lie - I'm still happy about Drag Me to Hell. There's just something so perfect at the end when


Same here. I enjoyed both movies and have similar views on both write ups.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I'll be joining in on the fun tonight with thoughts on Drag Me to Hell.:)

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'll be joining in on the fun tonight with thoughts on Drag Me to Hell.:)

Positive thoughts, I hope. :)

[Ezee E]

Heh, I'll be watching Trick 'R Treat tomorrow.

[Dukefrukem]

I'll be joining in on the fun tonight with thoughts on Drag Me to Hell.:)

bout time!

[megladon8]

Heh, I'll be watching Trick 'R Treat tomorrow.


Awesome!!

You spoil, we kill you. :)

[jenniferofthejungle]

So yeah, Drag Me to Hell....good movie.

Pardon my tardiness, but it's been so long since I've written a decent review that I think I have actually forgotten how to write one. I usually end up writing "Movie...good" or rambling on endlessly for days with no cohesive thoughts or ideas. I long for the days back at RT when I could knock three or four reviews out in an evening without a second thought, but now I usually work myself up into such a state of stress and worry that I give up and walk away from any and all threads or forums.

I'll spare you the synopsis and just say that I love this movie. Drag Me To Hell is officially a new horror favorite and no one was more surprised than I was at how much I enjoyed it. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it was certainly a great salute to horror by a Sam Raimi.

When I first heard of Mr. Raimi's horror "comeback" I was skeptical, hell I think I was actually a bit dismissive because I thought Raimi had lost it long ago. I read the title and thought "That's stupid," and when I saw the teaser I thought "Yeah, that's really stupid" and I promptly put it out of my mind. Word of mouth began, but I tend to avoid any and all movie snippets and trailers so I honestly was surprised when people whose opinions I know and trust (Braden, Jim, Mike, and a few others) told me how great it was. I promised to see the movie in theaters and promptly forgot about it. I regret missing it theatrically, but I don't think I could have enjoyed the movie more than I did anyway. I loved it. I was wrong about Raimi and I freely admit my mistake.

I'm in rambling mode so please bear with me as I try to gather my thoughts here. If I go back and edit this thing I'll end up scrapping the entire review and leaving Braden in the lurch and I really don't want to do that.

This movie was so much fun I had trouble keeping an idiotic grin off my face. I loved the lunacy of the attacks, and the confrontation in the car was awesome. I couldn't get my head around it all as I was thinking of other movies it reminded me of ( The Evil Dead, The Evil Dead 2, and I even thought of Cujo when Christine was trapped in the car and the old woman was battering at it like a rabid dog. That was one tough old gal.) yet having so much fun and balancing that out with gross out moments that I barely had time to think, honestly. This had great touches of 80s horror movies I love, yet very little of their cheese and stupidity.

What I love more than anything was how Raimi was able to take a pretty standard horror staple (the gypsy curse has been done to death--see Thinner, or better yet don't see Thinner because that movie sucks) and make it fun, entertaining, and yes, even scary. I had a few scares knocked into me and I love that. It's one of my favorite things.

One of the main reasons why it worked for me was that I liked the lead character. I liked Christine Brown and I wanted her to fight for her life and survive this wretched curse. I liked watching her go from a nice young woman who felt guilt at doing her job a little too well, to a survivor who basically betrays every one of her previously held beliefs in order to save her own life. I know some people feel it is unnecessary to like a character in order to enjoy a movie, but it's an important element for me. If I don't like the lead character, good or bad, then I feel I have nothing invested in the movie, no connection, and no enjoyment. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but this is the usual case for me.

I used to watch horrors and think "Why can't these guys be more original? Why do they make the same damned movie over and over again?" but Drag Me to Hell shows that even the most basic plot device can be quite awesome. I'm giving this movie 8.5 out of 10 goats.

KUDOS FOR THE ENDING.



Nitpicky stuff....

You wait more than thirty years to face a demon that beat you and you can't think to properly tie down the damned goat you're gonna use to house his spirit??? Come on! :D

[jenniferofthejungle]

Positive thoughts, I hope. :)

Extremely positive, KF. I loved the movie. I have seen it three times already and am proud to say it is now in my personal movie collection.

[megladon8]

Freaking awesome review, Jen. Blew mine out of the water then stomped on its bloody corpse.


I'll take this opportunity to tell everyone that after Jen finishes her review for Splinter, we'll be posting our thoughts on Pontypool. We've watched it twice already :)

[Ezee E]

When's Trick 'R Treat happening? Been waiting to discuss that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So glad you both enjoyed Drag. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD.

What's funny is how the gypsy curse is considered an antiquated cliche, but there aren't really a lot of movies that utilize it. I mean, aside from The Wolf Man and Thinner, what is there?

[megladon8]

When's Trick 'R Treat happening? Been waiting to discuss that.


Not sure.

We haven't watched it yet, and with Jen the slow-poke (kidding...but not really :evil:) I really can't say.

It's actually one we'd been thinking of leaving for the end and watching it on-or-around Halloween, since it's one of the (if not THE) only Halloween-themed movies on our list.

[jenniferofthejungle]

So glad you both enjoyed Drag. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD.

What's funny is how the gypsy curse is considered an antiquated cliche, but there aren't really a lot of movies that utilize it. I mean, aside from The Wolf Man and Thinner, what is there?

Hmm, I think you're right, Jim. At this moment I can't really think of any other gypsy-cursed movies, but maybe it's a confusion I made because of the glut of TV movies and stories stories which have used that as a plot device.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hmm, I think you're right, Jim. At this moment I can't really think of any other gypsy-cursed movies, but maybe it's a confusion I made because of the glut of TV movies and stories stories which have used that as a plot device.

After a cursory search online, other horror movies that use gypsy curses include Cat People and At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul.

But you're right, because seriously - it feels so pervasive. I mean, if I heard about a gypsy curse movie tomorrow, I'd roll my eyes and say, "Wow, what's the curse this time?"

[Spun Lepton]

After a cursory search online, other horror movies that use gypsy curses include Cat People and At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul.

But you're right, because seriously - it feels so pervasive. I mean, if I heard about a gypsy curse movie tomorrow, I'd roll my eyes and say, "Wow, what's the curse this time?"

How many Gypsy curses were there in Scooby-Doo? :)

[Dead & Messed Up]

How many Gypsy curses were there in Scooby-Doo? :)

Gypsy curse legitimacy is neutralized by the presence of Casey Kasem.

[megladon8]

I wish someone would make a legitimately good horror movie about a witch.

Not that there haven't been any, but it's been a while.

[Spun Lepton]

I wish someone would make a legitimately good horror movie about a witch.

Are the rights to Ann Coultier's auto-biography available?

(*zing!!*)

[megladon8]

So last night Jen and I watched the Hammer classic Horror of Dracula.

Guess what?

SHE'D NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.

So I think she'll probably include her thoughts on that one in here as well :)

[Dead & Messed Up]

SHE'D NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9286/facepalmsmiley1ti3.gif

At least the problem was rectified.

[Spun Lepton]

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9286/facepalmsmiley1ti3.gif

At least the problem was rectified.

I've never seen it, either. Smiley THAT in ... your pipe and smoke ... it ...

Shut up.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've never seen it, either. Smiley THAT in ... your pipe and smoke ... it ...

Shut up.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9286/facepalmsmiley1ti3.gif

[Scar]

I've never seen it, either. Smiley THAT in ... your pipe and smoke ... it ...

Shut up.

I've seen it, and as much as I love Christopher Lee, and I can't really say I would watch it again.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've seen it, and as much as I love Christopher Lee, and I can't really say I would watch it again.

:eek:

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9286/facepalmsmiley1ti3.gif

[Rowland]

I haven't seen Horror of Dracula, but Terrence Fisher's The Hound of the Baskervilles (also starring Lee and Cushing) didn't do much for me.

[megladon8]

We watched Trick 'R' Treat and The Hills Run Red last night.

Reviews will be up...sometime :lol:

[jenniferofthejungle]

Splinter

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/6767/splinterposter.jpg (http://img160.imageshack.us/i/splinterposter.jpg/)


It didn't really do what was said in the tagline, but I thought it was a good little movie.

I've had a strange history with direct to video and low budget horror films. I've had so many terrible experiences that I generally believe most of the ones I rent will be absolute crap, and most of the time I am right. I wish I was wrong more often, but the gems have been few and the crud enormous. Splinter was a gem.

It's a very simple story, and that doesn't hurt this movie. Keeping it simple is sometimes the best you can do for a movie when your budget is limited. We have two couples who cross on a lonely stretch of road, about as far from civilization as you can get these days. One couple, Polly and Seth, are a typical young urban couple who are seeking to have a romantic outing in the woods, but are ill-equipped to deal with nature, and then we have Seth and Lacey, a couple on the run, who could probably handle anything but the little surprise they literally run over on the road. That's the story. Two couples meet up under dire circumstances and are forced to join up in order to survive the curious and deadly virus which attacks any living force unlucky enough to meet up with it. I like that.

The acting is surprisingly good, especially for a direct to video movie ( I understand it had a limited release, but I apparently blinked and missed it so you'll excuse me if I say it was a DTV product) I know blanket statements are terrible, but I don't think I'm too far off when I say this. I've seen dozens of movies whose horrible casts almost ruined what could have been a guilty pleasure or an okay movie. That can almost kill a movie for me, honestly. I am really sick of having to accept a low budget as an excuse for horrible acting. If you cannot afford to get decent actors, especially for the lead roles, then maybe you shouldn't film it until you can. This cast was likable and capable and it made me like the movie more than I would have otherwise.

It isn't perfect, not that I'd expected perfection, but it is a damned good flick. There is one clunker of a scene, which could put a lot of people off, but I basically rolled my eyes and got over it. It's a plot device which worked wonderfully in Tremors 2, but it failed miserably here. It did add a bit of tension to the scene, but its exaggerated silliness did detract from everything that had taken place earlier.

The effects are really good at times, but the director overuses quick cuts to hide the fact that the creature effects were occasionally on the cheap side. The bone scene was hideous. I have a phobia over broken bones and that could have made me gag, but I got over that, too.

We never learn what exactly went on, but in the opening scene there was a flash of a road sign which perhaps hinted at a cause for this new virus. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

Splinter is a good little movie, more on the side of action and suspense than outright horror, but it is entertaining, it has capable actors, and a director I hope to hear from again.

7/10

[megladon8]

Great writings, Jen, and again it trumps what I wrote :) It was worth the wait.

I'll post my review for Pontypool later tonight.

[megladon8]

Pontypool (2008 / Bruce McDonald)

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3483/pontypool.jpg


2008's Canadian horror film Pontypool is odd, chilling, even mind-bending. It is NOT a “zombie thriller”, so those of you intrigued by that label on the DVD and hoping for some kind of Romero-esque zombie shoot-a-thon should check your expectations at the door. That is not to say it shares nothing in common with Romero’s films - a thick layer of social commentary coats the film’s chills - but it’s certainly not a gore-fest. Nor would I even call it a zombie movie.

It’s what I may call an “intellectual horror film”. It looks at the power of the spoken word in all its facets. The way language can be and has been twisted. The idea of “saying what you mean, and meaning what you say”. It’s like an English professor’s worst nightmare caught on film, and it’s wonderful...for the most part.

As controversial radio DJ Grant Mazzy (played wonderfully by Stephen McHattie) is slowly fed information of some kind of mass-hysteria taking over the Canadian town of Pontypool on a brutally cold winter morning, it starts to seem like he, himself, is somehow unwillingly tied to this strange outbreak. But I will say no more, because so many strange and original twists are made in this take on zombie-like behaviour that it would be a spoiler to reveal anything else at all.

I will say, however, that the film’s ending could have used some work. It’s jarring and anti-climactic. Purposefully so, but it still could have used a little more meat for us to sink our teeth into before those final credits rolled. And be sure to stick around through the credits for a delightfully weird vignette reminiscent of Sin City starring Stephen McHattie and Lisa Houle (who plays the female lead in the film).

Using only one set and 4 principal on-screen characters, Pontypool is something that could effectively be carried out on stage, and I think this could be a really fun, neat experiment since horror is not a genre frequently seen in that medium. At times it is genuinely chilling, and McHattie is infectiously charismatic as professional asshole Grant Mazzy. There are times in the film where we hear characters on the phone describing horrors that are left unseen, and this makes them even more haunting - one character cries as he says “today I saw things that will ruin the rest of my natural life”, and even after three full viewings these calls and messages remained unsettling to me. Pontypool is not flawless, but it’s fresh, original and intelligent, and this far outweighs its few shortcomings.

8.5 out of 10

[lovejuice]

thanks, meg. your review indeed raises my expectation. :)

[Dukefrukem]

Those are some high praises. Been putting this one off for a while now.

[megladon8]

I hope others see and enjoy Pontypool. It's more in the vein of stuff like Session 9 in the way it gets us to know the characters before it begins to oh-so-slowly build the tension.

Personally I find that kind of horror to quite often be the most rewarding.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Pontypool is great

[Scar]

Its near the top of my queue now.

[megladon8]

Pontypool is great


Did you post your thoughts anywhere? If so, link?

If not, I'd love to hear some details about your viewing!

[megladon8]

Its near the top of my queue now.


Awesome-possum.

Stephen McHattie is so great in it. He should be on the radio.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Did you post your thoughts anywhere? If so, link?

If not, I'd love to hear some details about your viewing!

http://houseofmirthandmovies.wordpres s.com/2009/03/22/pontypool-bruce-mcdonald-2009/

[megladon8]

http://houseofmirthandmovies.wordpres s.com/2009/03/22/pontypool-bruce-mcdonald-2009/


Great review, Philosophe.

How did you feel about the ending? Did you think it needed more?

By that I mean, the same conclusion, but given a little more meat to grab onto before leaving us with an "everybody dies in a bombing" ending, reminiscent of Cloverfield.

[Rowland]

I'll echo the Splinter thoughts, found it a remarkably solid B-movie, with a neat monster achieved without cheap CGI, a lean running time, persuasive performances, generally believable character actions, and a firm grasp of visual suspense mechanics. The cheesy prologue had me concerned, but Wilkins pulled through consistently and admirably, grafting many potentially shopworn elements into an immanently enjoyable whole. I'll agree with Jen that the sequence borrowed from Tremors 2 didn't quite work, but it was a logical action in accordance with the established relationship mechanics. And as for the editing style applied to the monster, I'll concede that it does play a bit like hiding low-budget effects, but on the other hand it does express the discordant nature of the beast, itself little more than an ever-shifting mass of flesh, so what I gleaned from those glimpses was likely as disturbing as whatever I may have directly observed from more stationary perspectives. Also, kudos for a strain of liberalism that is by no means dwelled upon, as the film manages through the convict's backstory to take deserved shots at our judicial and health care systems.

[Rowland]

a director I hope to hear from again.
So far, he has followed Splinter with the direct-to-video Grudge 3, which isn't really awful by any means (it's no Sci-Fi original), but the majority of it plays like a string of half-hearted hauntings similar to those we've seen in the previous films. The film is at its best when he brings his own stamp to the material, with a solid focus on character and performances, and a conclusion that takes the mythology in a fascinating new direction with the introduction of a new ghost that reminds me of Splinter's monster. It's all too little too late however, merely hinting at what the movie could have been if it had sooner jettisoned the worn-out Grudge ghosts (played absurdly by non-Asian actors no less).

[megladon8]

I have a question about the Yokai Monster trilogy.

What order do the films go in?

I've checked several sources both online and off, and I keep getting different answers. Even the DVD case itself lists one order for the movies, then when I opened it up, the booklet says something different.

So, the titles are:

Spook Warfare
One Hundred Monsters
Along With Ghosts.

What's the order the films go in? How should they be viewed?

[megladon8]

Trick ‘r Treat (2008 / Michael Dougherty)

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1962/trickrtreat1.jpg


I love Halloween. I love Halloween more than I love Christmas (sorry, “Winter Holiday” for all you PC-heads out there). Even now in my 20's, I find myself getting excited for the season - the smell of fall is entering the air, the leaves have turned fiery red as if their anticipation is growing as well. Superstores are selling masks, candy, make-up and decorations by the truckload. And unlike mid-December, people aren’t grouchy (well, as grouchy) as they shop for these things. It’s one night of fun that just about everyone is looking forward to. Some of the grumpiest old-timers in town can’t help but smile when they see a troop of six year olds dressed as mummies, vampires and zombies patrolling the neighbourhood. I think it’s people like this - like me - who made Trick ‘r Treat. People who know how infectious the smell of a candle-lit pumpkin is, and who understand that Halloween isn’t a “morbid fascination with death and monsters”, but good fun.

The film tells four short stories that all intersect in clever (and often funny) ways. Vampires, werewolves, ghosts and mad killers abound in this small American town that takes Halloween very seriously. There are certain entities that tie each story together - “presences” that may or may not be human, which appear in each story whether it be in the background, or important to the plot. I know I’m repeating myself here, but it really is clever how everything is tied together - it’s an anthology film, but it’s also one story. There are no breaks. Everything transitions smoothly and seamlessly. It’s very cool.

The cast is wonderful, too. Dylan Baker is as great in the horror-comedy routine as he was in Fido, and X-Men veterans Anna Paquin and Brian Cox also play pivotal roles in two of the stories (this is a Bryan Singer-produced film, and Michael Dougherty wrote X2). Iron Man’s Leslie Bibb, and Tahmoh Penikett of Battlestar Galactica fame also appear in the film - another funny connection, as Bryan Singer was recently tapped to direct a film adaptation of the recent hit Battlestar Galactica series. There’s even a story played out entirely by children, and they’re all surprisingly adept in their roles, which is great since child actors in horror films can often completely ruin the mood when they’re cast poorly.

Trick ‘r Treat left me with this almost “thrilled” feeling - even in spite of its short-comings (some spotty and unnecessary CGI effects, and a suspect timeline) it was so very inspiring in how it perfectly captured the mood of the season. Little details just added so much, such as the musical score prominently featuring doorbells. It sounds like it could be insignificant, but it all came together into this wonderful celebration of one of the most fun times of the year.

9 out of 10

[Kurosawa Fan]

I have this at the top of my queue. Sounds like a great choice for our Halloween lineup.

[Scar]

I have this at the top of my queue. Sounds like a great choice for our Halloween lineup.

I got it through Blockbuster.com, and then promptly ordered up the Blu Ray.

[MadMan]

Splinter was merely decent, but at the same time I kind of enjoyed it. Also I finally watched Horror of Dracula for the first time as well, and I liked it a lot. Christopher Lee is awesome, and of course you can't go wrong with Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.

[Dukefrukem]

Trick ‘r Treat (2008 / Michael Dougherty)

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1962/trickrtreat1.jpg


I love Halloween. I love Halloween more than I love Christmas (sorry, “Winter Holiday” for all you PC-heads out there). Even now in my 20's, I find myself getting excited for the season - the smell of fall is entering the air, the leaves have turned fiery red as if their anticipation is growing as well. Superstores are selling masks, candy, make-up and decorations by the truckload. And unlike mid-December, people aren’t grouchy (well, as grouchy) as they shop for these things. It’s one night of fun that just about everyone is looking forward to. Some of the grumpiest old-timers in town can’t help but smile when they see a troop of six year olds dressed as mummies, vampires and zombies patrolling the neighbourhood. I think it’s people like this - like me - who made Trick ‘r Treat. People who know how infectious the smell of a candle-lit pumpkin is, and who understand that Halloween isn’t a “morbid fascination with death and monsters”, but good fun.

The film tells four short stories that all intersect in clever (and often funny) ways. Vampires, werewolves, ghosts and mad killers abound in this small American town that takes Halloween very seriously. There are certain entities that tie each story together - “presences” that may or may not be human, which appear in each story whether it be in the background, or important to the plot. I know I’m repeating myself here, but it really is clever how everything is tied together - it’s an anthology film, but it’s also one story. There are no breaks. Everything transitions smoothly and seamlessly. It’s very cool.

The cast is wonderful, too. Dylan Baker is as great in the horror-comedy routine as he was in Fido, and X-Men veterans Anna Paquin and Brian Cox also play pivotal roles in two of the stories (this is a Bryan Singer-produced film, and Michael Dougherty wrote X2). Iron Man’s Leslie Bibb, and Tahmoh Penikett of Battlestar Galactica fame also appear in the film - another funny connection, as Bryan Singer was recently tapped to direct a film adaptation of the recent hit Battlestar Galactica series. There’s even a story played out entirely by children, and they’re all surprisingly adept in their roles, which is great since child actors in horror films can often completely ruin the mood when they’re cast poorly.

Trick ‘r Treat left me with this almost “thrilled” feeling - even in spite of its short-comings (some spotty and unnecessary CGI effects, and a suspect timeline) it was so very inspiring in how it perfectly captured the mood of the season. Little details just added so much, such as the musical score prominently featuring doorbells. It sounds like it could be insignificant, but it all came together into this wonderful celebration of one of the most fun times of the year.

9 out of 10

Agree with everything here. Awesome write up. Let's all pray they keep going with this idea.

[megladon8]

Night of the Creeps arrived today.

Reviews coming soon...

-Jen's take on Trick 'r Treat

-My thoughts on The Hills Run Red - another take on the "power of film" stuff that John Carpenter tackled with his "MoH" episode "Cigarette Burns"

[Dukefrukem]

Great! The Hills Run Red has been something I've been following for a while but have yet to see.

[megladon8]

Great! The Hills Run Red has been something I've been following for a while but have yet to see.


Here's a hint - it sucks balls.

[Dukefrukem]

oOo.... :-\

[Rowland]

Night of the Creeps arrived today. This movie is so much fun. First time viewing for either of you?

[megladon8]

This movie is so much fun. First time viewing for either of you?


For me, yes.

For Jen, I think it's viewing 1000000000000000.

[megladon8]

Watched Night of the Creeps last night.

So, coming soon are reviews for The Hills Run Red, [b]Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde[b] (1931), and Night of the Creeps.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Trick 'r Treat

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6152/20090911trickrtreat.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/20090911trickrtreat.jpg/)


Michael Dougherty's tribute to Halloween is a great little present for horror fans. It's an anthology of morbid tales which all take place on Halloween night, and Dougherty manages to tie them all together rather well. I was pleasantly surprised because most anthologies have one or two tales which are so bad they either make the film drag or take you out of the mood altogether. Trick 'r Treat doesn't have this problem, though it is not perfect by any means.

I really like this movie, I saw it two or three times already, but some horror fans are so shell shocked by the glut of bad horror films we've had over the past few years (or decades) that when a bright one does turn up it makes them slobber over a movie which, when compared to other horror greats, is merely good. I'm not complaining, good is most welcome in a genre where it's become the norm to take a bunch of no-talent writers, actors, directors, a few buckets of blood, a bit of nudity and declare it a movie, but the build-up over movies like this one is a bit of an annoyance because what you get doesn't often live up to the hype.

This was a good movie. I'd even say it was a very good movie, but I read reviews that made it seem as if it had reinvented the wheel and it most certainly did not do that.

My favorite parts of the movie were any scenes with the wonderful Dylan Baker, Brian Cox, and Sam, who was the embodiment of the Halloween spirit. There was very good humor (you will probably pick up lots of funny clues on your second viewing), great effects, and good music, but it seemed a bit too short and abrupt at the end.


Cox's story was very familiar to me as it seemed like an homage to a Tales From the Darkside episode called Halloween Candy. If there was such a thing as a weak link it would have to be the story with Leslie Bibb. I thought it opened up wonderfully with Bibb as a rather cranky wife who dislikes Halloween, but I think it could have (and should have) been fleshed out a bit more. We see her at the beginning, and as with most of the characters we get to see her and her hubby at different times, so we should have seen them a bit more, perhaps showing us why and how she had been such a cranky ass, but it's a minor complaint and didn't ruin the movie.

Trick 'r Treat was very good. :) 8/10

[jenniferofthejungle]

Here's a hint - it sucks balls.


Yeah, my official review of Hills Run Red is that it sucks. It's not getting anything else from me.

[megladon8]

Great write-up, Jen.

I'm sorry you didn't love it as much as I (and a few others, it seems) did. I really could see it turning into a Halloween classic in years to come.

I totally know what you mean about the quality of horror films causing fans to lower their standards. Afterall, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of straight-to-video films are horrors, and of those, 99.9999% of them are utter crap. Yet they still keep making them, which means they ARE still making money.

People buy this stuff, which is sad.

But Trick 'r Treat was a real gem, methinks. Flawless? No. But really, what is? It's not Halloween, but it'd make a fun double feature with Carpenter's flick :)

[Spun Lepton]

I just got the Blu-Ray of Benjamin Button from Netflix, but after all this Trick R' Treat talk, I may have to send BB back and get TRT. I remember seeing the trailer and being pretty impressed by it.

[megladon8]

The Hills Run Red (2009 / Dave Parker)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3259/hills.jpg


Taking cues from several fairly modern horror films (most notably 8MM and John Carpenter’s “Masters of Horror” episode entitled “Cigarette Burns”), The Hills Run Red looks at the “power” inherent in film, and the psychological damage that could potentially be caused if people were to witness a true snuff film - that is, a film in which real people are brutally murdered on camera. But this movie has none of the finesse of Carpenter’s short, or even the (implied) shock value of 8MM. It has bad acting in one-note characters, awful dialogue and plotting, and an ending so terrible I actually laughed out loud.

The film stars Tad Hilgenbrink as Tyler, the leader of a group of film afficionados who go searching for any clues regarding this mysterious film titled “The Hills Run Red”, a horror film that disappeared off the face of the earth because it was apparently too grotesque and disturbing for audiences to handle. They hook up with Alexa Concannon, the daughter of the film’s director, and “save her” from a life as a drug-addicted stripper so she can help them on their hunt for the film, which she was also in as a child and left her deeply scarred.

I would say it’s a spoiler that the director himself, Concannon (played by William Sadler) is still alive and well, but it’s shown in the trailer and mentioned on the DVD case. However, even if it wasn’t, I would not hesitate to tell you anyways because this movie is not worth seeing. It is utter dreck, with no redeeming values whatsoever. It tries too hard to be edgy and philosophical, with Concannon portrayed as this jaded Godard-ian character who spouts out ridiculous pretensions about art and film. It also tries to shock us with its violence as the film’s killer, “Babyface”, kills off the young film-freaks one by one...but there’s nothing original. Just poorly shot, poorly edited impalings and blood-splatters.

There really is nothing good to be had here. William Sadler - an actor I love and whom I believe was seriously shafted with leading roles throughout his career - is totally wasted here. The character he plays is a joke, and the film he’s in is the punchline. But neither is very funny. That is, until the jaw-droppingly awful ending, where a character finally sees the film “The Hills Run Red” and is instantly driven mad. The camera fades to black as they sit in their chair, laughing maniacally.

Even Sophie Monk’s liberal nudity couldn’t save this. I feel like a lesser person for having watched this movie.

1 out of 10

[Dead & Messed Up]

Aw man. I haven't heard a thing about this flick, but then you mentioned Sadler, and I just got bummed out. He's such a terrific actor, and if this flick's managed to waste him, it must be truly awful.

:sad:

I feel like I should rent Demon Knight in his honor.

[Spun Lepton]

I just read a quick synopsis of Hills Run Red and I'll be damned if that doesn't sound like an excellent idea. Does it just become a paint-by-numbers slasher movie once they find the woods, meg?

[jenniferofthejungle]

I just got the Blu-Ray of Benjamin Button from Netflix, but after all this Trick R' Treat talk, I may have to send BB back and get TRT. I remember seeing the trailer and being pretty impressed by it.

Aw, I thought the trailer had way too many spoilers in it, honestly. I'm one of those freaks who likes going in knowing as little as possible.

[Spun Lepton]

I feel like I should rent Demon Knight in his honor.

Have you seen him in Freaked? He's hilarious.

"Isn't that right, Juan?"
"Yes. I am fiiiiiine."

[Spun Lepton]

Aw, I thought the trailer had way too many spoilers in it, honestly. I'm one of those freaks who likes going in knowing as little as possible.

I haven't seen it in over a year and don't remember much of anything, aside from a few glimpses of Alan Cox. That round-headed ... thing ... looks quite cool, I must admit.

[megladon8]

I just read a quick synopsis of Hills Run Red and I'll be damned if that doesn't sound like an excellent idea. Does it just become a paint-by-numbers slasher movie once they find the woods, meg?


Everything about it is pretty paint-by-numbers. The concept is great and what attracted me to the movie in the first place, but it just feels cheap, generic and bad the way it's done here.

The writing is so awful that I don't think good acting would have been any benefit. Nothing is a surprise, nothing is original or even an original take on something cliché. Unlike Behind the Mask, it doesn't have a sense of humor about deconstructing film (most notably horror), and I really thought that hurt it.

[Dukefrukem]

The Hills Run Red (2009 / Dave Parker)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3259/hills.jpg


Taking cues from several fairly modern horror films (most notably 8MM and John Carpenter’s “Masters of Horror” episode entitled “Cigarette Burns”), The Hills Run Red looks at the “power” inherent in film, and the psychological damage that could potentially be caused if people were to witness a true snuff film - that is, a film in which real people are brutally murdered on camera. But this movie has none of the finesse of Carpenter’s short, or even the (implied) shock value of 8MM. It has bad acting in one-note characters, awful dialogue and plotting, and an ending so terrible I actually laughed out loud.

The film stars Tad Hilgenbrink as Tyler, the leader of a group of film afficionados who go searching for any clues regarding this mysterious film titled “The Hills Run Red”, a horror film that disappeared off the face of the earth because it was apparently too grotesque and disturbing for audiences to handle. They hook up with Alexa Concannon, the daughter of the film’s director, and “save her” from a life as a drug-addicted stripper so she can help them on their hunt for the film, which she was also in as a child and left her deeply scarred.

I would say it’s a spoiler that the director himself, Concannon (played by William Sadler) is still alive and well, but it’s shown in the trailer and mentioned on the DVD case. However, even if it wasn’t, I would not hesitate to tell you anyways because this movie is not worth seeing. It is utter dreck, with no redeeming values whatsoever. It tries too hard to be edgy and philosophical, with Concannon portrayed as this jaded Godard-ian character who spouts out ridiculous pretensions about art and film. It also tries to shock us with its violence as the film’s killer, “Babyface”, kills off the young film-freaks one by one...but there’s nothing original. Just poorly shot, poorly edited impalings and blood-splatters.

There really is nothing good to be had here. William Sadler - an actor I love and whom I believe was seriously shafted with leading roles throughout his career - is totally wasted here. The character he plays is a joke, and the film he’s in is the punchline. But neither is very funny. That is, until the jaw-droppingly awful ending, where a character finally sees the film “The Hills Run Red” and is instantly driven mad. The camera fades to black as they sit in their chair, laughing maniacally.

Even Sophie Monk’s liberal nudity couldn’t save this. I feel like a lesser person for having watched this movie.

1 out of 10

Understood. :-\

[Dukefrukem]

The Hills Run Red (2009 / Dave Parker)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3259/hills.jpg


Taking cues from several fairly modern horror films (most notably 8MM and John Carpenter’s “Masters of Horror” episode entitled “Cigarette Burns”), The Hills Run Red looks at the “power” inherent in film, and the psychological damage that could potentially be caused if people were to witness a true snuff film - that is, a film in which real people are brutally murdered on camera. But this movie has none of the finesse of Carpenter’s short, or even the (implied) shock value of 8MM. It has bad acting in one-note characters, awful dialogue and plotting, and an ending so terrible I actually laughed out loud.

The film stars Tad Hilgenbrink as Tyler, the leader of a group of film afficionados who go searching for any clues regarding this mysterious film titled “The Hills Run Red”, a horror film that disappeared off the face of the earth because it was apparently too grotesque and disturbing for audiences to handle. They hook up with Alexa Concannon, the daughter of the film’s director, and “save her” from a life as a drug-addicted stripper so she can help them on their hunt for the film, which she was also in as a child and left her deeply scarred.

I would say it’s a spoiler that the director himself, Concannon (played by William Sadler) is still alive and well, but it’s shown in the trailer and mentioned on the DVD case. However, even if it wasn’t, I would not hesitate to tell you anyways because this movie is not worth seeing. It is utter dreck, with no redeeming values whatsoever. It tries too hard to be edgy and philosophical, with Concannon portrayed as this jaded Godard-ian character who spouts out ridiculous pretensions about art and film. It also tries to shock us with its violence as the film’s killer, “Babyface”, kills off the young film-freaks one by one...but there’s nothing original. Just poorly shot, poorly edited impalings and blood-splatters.

There really is nothing good to be had here. William Sadler - an actor I love and whom I believe was seriously shafted with leading roles throughout his career - is totally wasted here. The character he plays is a joke, and the film he’s in is the punchline. But neither is very funny. That is, until the jaw-droppingly awful ending, where a character finally sees the film “The Hills Run Red” and is instantly driven mad. The camera fades to black as they sit in their chair, laughing maniacally.

Even Sophie Monk’s liberal nudity couldn’t save this. I feel like a lesser person for having watched this movie.

1 out of 10

I started watching this last night and shut it off. Tad Hilgenbrink actually sounds like he's doing his schtick from Disaster Movie. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to finish it. Probably will when I get back from my business trip on Monday.

[megladon8]

Tad's claim to fame was a DTV American Pie sequel.

And he gives probably the best performance in the film.

That should give people an idea of the quality of this production.

[balmakboor]

The Hills Run Red (2009 / Dave Parker)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3259/hills.jpg


Taking cues from several fairly modern horror films (most notably 8MM and John Carpenter’s “Masters of Horror” episode entitled “Cigarette Burns”), The Hills Run Red looks at the “power” inherent in film, and the psychological damage that could potentially be caused if people were to witness a true snuff film - that is, a film in which real people are brutally murdered on camera...

Wow. I love that screenshot and I almost stopped reading where indicated above to avoid spoilers. I was hooked up to that point. Kinda glad I kept reading...

This reminds me of an experience I had with the local paper. I submitted a review that was quite negative, but I foolishly failed to give that impression in the first paragraph. The person who wrote the headline -- having obviously only read the first paragraph -- announced that I loved the movie. Having never taken a journalism class, it was definitely a learning experience.

[megladon8]

Yeah, there are so many guidelines in printed journalism that I imagine it must be hard to feel that you've still been honest to yourself, your opinion, and your own style.

Part of why I got out of the whole radio thing...

[megladon8]

A review of Paranormal Activity coming this evening...

[megladon8]

Paranormal Activity (2007 / Oren Peli)

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7450/paranormalactivityk.jpg


It’s hard to have reasonable expectations walking into a movie that has been hyped so enormously. Paranormal Activity came out of left field this year - I’d never even heard of it until about 4 weeks ago, and then I was suddenly bombarded with “it’s one of the scariest movies ever made and left its viewers traumatized for life”. Even the trailer for the movie was built around how much it scared audiences. It’s like this is the real-life version of the “Ringu” tape and anyone who sees it will never be the same again.

Well, in a nutshell, yeah, it’s a pretty unsettling movie. Have I seen stuff that scared me more deeply? Absolutely. The sheer terror I felt watching [REC] earlier this year was a good 3-5 notches higher on my “scare-o-meter” than this flick. But it still managed to be a thoroughly disturbing and unnerving experience, building tension for a full 80 minutes before its frightening (and abrupt) end.

What I think needs mentioning most is the two lead performances - that of Katie Featherston as “Katie”, and Micah Sloat as “Micah” (Blair Witch Project, anyone?). They were really good. Especially Ms. Featherston who, as my date to the movie stated, “felt really natural in front of the camera”. While the character of Micah was a thick-headed ass-clown who deserved a sharp punch in the noggin, Sloat played him very well, and he felt like the type of hard-headed asshole I have met a million times in life. Despite all the evidence pointing in one direction, he still maintains his stupid crusade to be the “macho man”.

But unlike other films where I felt the reality of the characters was what gave the scares so much power, here it is the reality of the location and situations. We’ve all heard creeks and thumps in the night. Most of us have even had times when we swore we heard whispering in the dark. Oren Peli (writer/director) gave his film an aura of authenticity - that this is what it would really be like to be tormented by some kind of malevolent force in your home.

After all this, though, the film is not without its many flaws. At its short runtime of 88 minutes, there are a few segments here and there that could have been trimmed - in a film this short (especially one like this, that relies on tension so dearly) even one or two minutes of filler can kill the pacing. The day-night cycle got slightly repetitive at times, such as having one night pass where they hear a thud, then the next night they hear two thuds, then the next night three thuds (this doesn’t actually happen like this, I’m just trying to illustrate my point without spoiling anything). There are a few nights that pass where nothing really substantial happens to further the plot or continue the build of tension.

There’s also the abrupt ending that I mentioned earlier. It felt like the very last shot was used to cut short what was going to happen after the final events of the film, and its presence is a little cliché. Upon doing some research, I read that Steven Spielberg suggested this ending change. So I’m really curious to see what Peli originally had in store for us.


Paranormal Activity is a good little horror movie. It shows us that low budget horror does NOT need to mean “terrible script and acting”, and similar to our previous entry for Pontypool, it’s a film that relishes the “less is more” approach, leaving the audience to imagine most of the terrors for themselves.

7 out of 10

[jenniferofthejungle]

I agree with 95% of what you've written, Braden, and that will make a review pretty difficult for me. :lol:

In a random comment I have to say I would have left the house, if only to spare my loved one. :)

[lovejuice]

you won't write a review for saw movies?

[megladon8]

you won't write a review for saw movies?


I was thinking of doing one big review for numbers 1-5 all together.

But that'll be a little ways away, because I still have Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Night of the Creeps to review :)

[megladon8]

Watched Lady in White tonight.

A full review will come, but I'll say right now that it sucked.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I posted my thoughts on Trick 'r Treat in the sangre thread, but I'll say that I line up with Jen on this one more than Braden. Considering that their scores are separated by one point, though, this is a minor point.


the build-up over movies like this one is a bit of an annoyance because what you get doesn't often live up to the hype.

Yeah, the hype is pretty overwrought for this one. I'm not sure why people are so vocal about it - maybe you're right, in that the American horror scene is so pitiful that "superior" is considered "great."


it perfectly captured the mood of the season.

This I completely agree with, as well. I can see it becoming a perennial, and it's one of the few horror movies I've seen in recent years where a sequel would be welcome, assuming it's as spirited and well-paced as the first one.

Did you guys watch the "Seasons Greetings" short? I thought it was really creepy.

[megladon8]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 / Rouben Mamoulian)

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6095/drjekyllandmrhydexl02fi.jpg


I had to spend a good week reflecting on this one, because I had some problems during my initial viewing. Not problems with the movie itself, but it was an instance where I found some of my company for watching the movie to be rather distracting - totally unwilling to take anything in this “really old movie” seriously, they giggled, made jokes and even sound effects. So yeah, it took some reflection and another viewing for me to feel I could really judge the movie fairly.

While not without some serious faults, I thought this adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel to be quite good. Frederic March’s dual performance is astounding, as are the make-up effects used to transition his boyishly handsome looks into the ferally ugly Mr. Hyde. Reading about the process was quite interesting, too - the make-up was already applied to March’s face, and it was the lighting around him that was changed, to show his face hollowing out and getting darker and more devilish. Couple that with his incredibly creepy grin as Hyde, and I could see how this must have been some terrifying stuff for audiences that were only a few years into the era of the talkie.

Onto my issues with the film. I found the camera work quite strange and distracting. The choice to film so many straight-on close-ups of the actors was...odd...and really didn’t work. At times I even found this, well, unintentionally comical. Being a huge fan of the silent film era, I can see where this was a holdover staple from those days - these straight-on shots of the actors’ faces were quite common then, since they needed as clear a view as possible of the person’s expressions to communicate the appropriate emotions for the scene. It just doesn’t work here, though. On the flipside, there is some beautiful black-and-white photography here as well. Moody shadow-work, striking sets marking the stark difference between the classes in London at the time.

Above all, though, is that March’s incarnation of Mr. Hyde remains terrifying and loathsome to this day. Seeing how he treats Ivy, trapping her in a relationship so filled with abuse and hate that she feels her only course of action is suicide - Mr. Hyde is a character whose psychopathic apathy was a precursor to dozens of killers, rapists and sociopaths after him.

8 out of 10

[Rowland]

Sorry you had to experience the film in less-than-ideal circumstances, Meg. Anway, I think it's brilliant, with dizzyingly expressionistic direction, feverish carnality, a resonant thematic exploration of the dangers inherent to an overly repressed societal code, and an enduringly disturbing performance by March, whose scenes with the hooker (Miriam Hopkins at her most seductive) in particular remain difficult to watch. So yeah, I generally agree with your thoughts, so kudos!

[megladon8]

Did you guys watch the "Seasons Greetings" short? I thought it was really creepy.


Sorry I missed this, DaMU!

Yes, we watched the little short, and thought it was very cool.

When we watched Trick 'r Treat initially, my friend Collin was over, who works in animation. None of us realized at the time that this film was based on that original animated film, so I'd really like to show that to him next time I see him, since he loved the movie.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Did you guys watch the "Seasons Greetings" short? I thought it was really creepy.


Yep, watched it and agree that it was creepy.

I read your review and was happy I wasn't the only one to see it that way, Jim. :D I enjoyed it a lot, but the hype was a bit too much for it.

I was also thrilled that you loved Memories of Murder. His face at the end just broke my heart.

[megladon8]

Sorry you had to experience the film in less-than-ideal circumstances, Meg. Anway, I think it's brilliant, with dizzyingly expressionistic direction, feverish carnality, a resonant thematic exploration of the dangers inherent to an overly repressed societal code, and an enduringly disturbing performance by March, whose scenes with the hooker (Miriam Hopkins at her most seductive) in particular remain difficult to watch. So yeah, I generally agree with your thoughts, so kudos!


Yes, I really liked Miriam Hopkins here. We seem to agree that the scenes between Mr. Hyde and Ivy really defined how awful Hyde was.

I wish I had liked the technical aspects better. I really did not like the straight-on close-ups of the actors' faces. The only instance of this I did like was the transformation, where it really show-cased the fantastic make-up effects.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yep, watched it and agree that it was creepy.

I read your review and was happy I wasn't the only one to see it that way, Jim. :D I enjoyed it a lot, but the hype was a bit too much for it.

I was also thrilled that you loved Memories of Murder. His face at the end just broke my heart.

Oh my God. It was so heartbreaking. A lot of the reviews were praising all this subversive political context the film has, but I was way too engaged with the actual story to care much about anything else. It's so sad how

he looks so helpless and regretful. I think he understands for the first time just how inadequate a detective he was.

[megladon8]

Memories of Murder was incredible. Korean cinema has gone through the roof over the past 10-15 years.

Jen, my parents and I watched the two Corman/Poe films this weekend - The Fall of the House of Usher and The Pit and the Pendulum.

Reviews coming soon, but for now I'll say I'm eager to see more stuff by Roger Corman :D

[Dead & Messed Up]

Memories of Murder was incredible. Korean cinema has gone through the roof over the past 10-15 years.

Jen, my parents and I watched the two Corman/Poe films this weekend - The Fall of the House of Usher and The Pit and the Pendulum.

Reviews coming soon, but for now I'll say I'm eager to see more stuff by Roger Corman :D

Oh man, if you haven't seen The Masque of the Red Death, you're in for a treat.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Night of the Creeps

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1496/vlcsnap755674.png (http://img261.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap755674.png/)

"Thrill Me."

Fred Dekker's 1986 horror "classic" finally has finally been released on DVD and while for some old school horror lovers it will mean the end to crappy VHS copies they guarded with their lives, for others it will mean the chance to finally see what all the fuss was about. As I have stated before I think the cult following it has will lead to quite a few disappointed first viewings of what is supposed to be one of the funniest and best horror films ever made, but for me it was a chance to revisit an old favorite I hadn't seen in quite a while. It was a nice visit.

I have always bounced back and forth on this movie because it seemed to want to be several different genres at once (aliens, space worms/leeches, escaped lunatics with axes, quasi-zombies, nerds, nice sorority babes, and fraternity assholes don't often share the same screen) and yet seemed to poke fun at these same genre devices. I have decided now that I really do like it and think it's just a fun movie, though it is certainly not the best at any particular thing.

Tom Atkins is great as the cynical, weary Detective Ray Cameron, a man who is closely connected to the events about to take place in the movie. He holds the movie together which is surprising because I never thought of him as an actor with great style or presence. This character just fits and I often found myself watching and waiting for him to come back on, especially when I had to sit through some of the scenes with the lackluster Jason Lively.

Jason Lively is one of the only real complaints I have with this movie. He is so vapid and uninteresting that one wonders how or why he got this job. There had to have been someone better for this role, someone like Steve Marshall, who plays his best friend, J.C. Their banter after a failed fraternity stunt, a stunt which unwittingly sets all of the horrors in motion, is really funny and it is only when Lively is with Marshall that he shows a bit of charisma.

The movie itself is a bit cheesy, now some will argue that it is intentionally so, but to those I will say that some of that cheese is due to bad writing, unintentional bad writing. Horror humor is tough and more often than not it is so juvenile that I imagine the only ones who will find it hilarious are pre-teen boys and girls who don't know better, and stupid adults who should know better. This movie has a few eye-rolling lines and situations (who REELS in a middle finger? Who? I mean besides Micah in Paranormal Activity? That is just not funny at all.) but overall I just enjoyed the movie in spite of the cheese and not because of it.

There are also lots of small (and a few obvious) injokes for horror fans, and a few familiar faces in small roles (hello to David Paymer and the always welcome Dick Miller). The effects were really great and it is just a reminder of how truly awful some of today's CGI effects look. Let us please have less CGI in horror, please. If directors want to copy old movies then they should copy their effects and not just the kills or stupid motives.

I'll wrap things up by saying that Mr. Dekker really seemed to have a love and talent for the genre and I wonder what happened to all of that. His B&W segments were gorgeous ( the flashback scenes were my favorites) and I enjoyed his direction more in this movie than I did in Monster Squad (another movie with too rabid a cult following). I wish he had been able to make a few more movies in the late 80's because that decade seemed to suit his style.

Night of the Creeps is a fun horror flick and it gets a solid 7.5 from me, which could change back down to a 7 or up to an 8 because I'm crazy like that.

[megladon8]

Awesome review, Jen.

I have to say I wasn't overly impressed with this one. Not to say I didn't like it - I did, it was fun - but man, oh man...the hype surrounding this one was INSANE. People talking about its DVD release like the second coming. Saying that it practically defines '80s horror and was brilliant, funny, gory, blah blah blah.

I thought it was OK. That's about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Wow. I agree...

Compared to contemporaries like Evil Dead II and Re-Animator, it's a lightweight. It's maybe on the level of Fright Night and Return of the Living Dead, but even that's pushing it.

Still, it's not a bad flick, per se.

[Bosco B Thug]

who REELS in a middle finger? Who? It's the girl who does this, right? If so, I used to interchange this mentally with the older sister's shove it gesture in Poltergeist back in my pre-teen years. Yes, I suppose one is cooler than the other...

I re-watched this fairly recently. I agree with the apparent consensus.

[Rowland]

I don't have any nostalgic memories of Night of the Creeps, given that I've only seen it once on HDnet two years ago, but I thought it was pretty fantastic as horror comedies go, certainly more competently made and consistently entertaining than the solid-but-overrated Re-Animator or the hugely overrated Fright Night. About on par with Return of the Dead, I'd say. I can't think of many modern horror comedies that strike a similar tone and balance it so successfully.... I suppose Slither, which I'm rather fond of as well.

[Dukefrukem]

I've never seen Night of the Creeps. :-\

[lovejuice]

I can't think of many modern horror comedies that strike a similar tone and balance it so successfully....

how's about?
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/killer.jpg

[megladon8]

The absolute black-hole of charisma that was Jason Lively really damaged it for me.

He couldn't sell the jokes unless Steve Marshall was with him, and even then, it was Marshall who made things fun/funny.

[megladon8]

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6782/jigsawpuppet.jpg

I want to play a game.

Throughout your life, you’ve sought out quality movies, particularly horror. You reveled in the feeling of fright, in the celebration of the morose and the macabre. Today, you’re going to see how far that can go. You’re going to watch all five Saw movies. If, at the end, you are still alive, you will find yourself with a greater appreciation of life and of the time you spent watching these movies, when you could have been doing something productive.

Let’s begin.


Saw (2004 / James Wan)

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3046/sawej.jpg

The beginning. As I watch the first film I do not get the feeling that it was originally intended to go on this long. It was a neat little concept that wasn’t written, directed or acted in a stellar fashion. It was all about the concept – surely someone had been watching David Fincher’s Se7en when they came up with the idea of the serial killer teaching moral lessons with sick games.

The final twist is ridiculous, but it seems ingenious when you know what is to come later in the series.

5 out of 10


Saw II (2005 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1470/saw2.jpg

Saw II presents to walking contradiction of a better concept than the first film, and worse writing than the first film. The overall story here is better, and the way things tie together in the end is actually, well, kind of clever. But the awful characterizations and even worse dialogue makes it hard to call this movie “good”, or to even recommend it.

“The only doors she can open…are between her legs!” is a line that is actually spoken in this film. By a human being. That is, a sentient, conscious creature. It’s unbelievable, really.

Oh, and Donnie Wahlberg screams a lot.

5.5 out of 10


Saw III (2006 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4426/baharsoomekhsawiii.jpg

Oh, Mr. Bousman and Mr. Whannell. Why didn’t you stop when you were (relatively) ahead? Did you NEED to make this a trilogy? Especially when you screw up your own timeline so badly that it resembles an animé series. But I’m going to once again use a phrase that I’ll surely use again with regards to these movies – when you know what comes next, this actually seems pretty smart.

This time starring horrid Scottish thespian Angus Mcfadyen as yet another pathetic depressive whom you wish Jigsaw had just outright murdered so you wouldn’t have to watch him mope around any longer, Saw III seems to be some new sequel and new story. But in fact, the MiNdFuCk at the end tries to make you think this all happened in some great plan.

I want to at least give Whannell and Bousman kudos for trying to be original…but no, they don’t deserve it.

3.5 out of 10


Saw IV (2007 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2472/saw4dvd2b.jpg

That picture appropriately describes how one feels after watching this movie.

It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Since it hasn’t exactly been a secret since it’s been mentioned in the trailers for every saw movie for the last 3 years, Jigsaw is dead. Yet he apparently had elaborate traps already laid out for the rest of the world’s population before he died, and bought stocks in mini tape recorders.

This film introduces both two new detectives played by Scott Patterson and Costas Mandylor. But the main character is the returning character of Rigg, the SWAT leader from the second film.

It also introduces the idea that even before he was the Jigsaw killer, John (Tobin Bell) had some kind of eerie, almost psychic power over people. I mean, there’s nothing supernatural, he’s not really psychic, but you see him talk people out of stupid decisions with ease on more than one occasion. It’s just too much.

This is the absolute low point of the series. It’s stupid, repetitive, stupid, poorly acted and directed, and stupid.

2 out of 10


Saw V (2008 / David Hackl)

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/6025/saw1.jpg

Once again, a picture appropriate to how I felt watching this movie. Notice that the head still remains, though – Saw V didn’t quite make my head explode, it just made me feel like I was trapped in a glass head-box and I was running out of air.

This movie, for as horrid as it really is, is actually a step up from Saw IV. At times it almost seems to be self-aware, embracing its own retardation as a guy gives himself a tracheotomy with a ballpoint pen.

Then again, it could just be that it’s so terrible I was rendered delusional while watching it.

We see the return of Scott Patterson as Agent Strahm, and Busty…I mean…Betsy Russell returns as Jigsaw’s widow whom I couldn’t in a million years see marrying that creepy dude.

And of course, more mInDfUcK with the timeline.

3.5 out of 10



Now you’re finished the game. You passed your final test. Do you feel changed? Do you feel that your life now has a purpose?

No?

Well, go see Saw VI then.

Game over.

[Winston*]

I feel like every time a new Saw movie comes out there's always two more Saw movies than I thought there was.

[Ezee E]

Now how about the Saw video game?

I actually think that video game is the best thing for the franchise. Haven't played it.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't have any nostalgic memories of Night of the Creeps, given that I've only seen it once on HDnet two years ago, but I thought it was pretty fantastic as horror comedies go, certainly more competently made and consistently entertaining than the solid-but-overrated Re-Animator or the hugely overrated Fright Night. About on par with Return of the Dead, I'd say. I can't think of many modern horror comedies that strike a similar tone and balance it so successfully.... I suppose Slither, which I'm rather fond of as well. Better than Re-Animator? I don't know if this sentiment's quite fair, but Re-Animator's more "mature" perverseness and eccentricity just gives it an automatic superior placement over Night of the Creeps for me. They're both pretty equally [intentionally] cheesy... I say that because I wouldn't call Re-Animator incompetent, personally.

[jenniferofthejungle]

It's the girl who does this, right? If so, I used to interchange this mentally with the older sister's shove it gesture in Poltergeist back in my pre-teen years. Yes, I suppose one is cooler than the other...

I re-watched this fairly recently. I agree with the apparent consensus.

Yes, it was the lead girl.

Ouch, now I remember that Poltergeist scene and it's also one of those eyerolling moments for me.


I watched the original Night of the Living Dead today, several times, and I am still utterly in love with it.

[megladon8]

Now how about the Saw video game?

I actually think that video game is the best thing for the franchise. Haven't played it.


I agree, it looks pretty cool. Very neat concept, too - the way they transferred the universe to a 3rd person horror/action game seems pretty clever.



I watched the original Night of the Living Dead today, several times, and I am still utterly in love with it.

I totally agree with this, too :)

It's still a very creepy movie, and I still love Duane Jones in it.

[Rowland]

Better than Re-Animator? I don't know if this sentiment's quite fair, but Re-Animator's more "mature" perverseness and eccentricity just gives it an automatic superior placement over Night of the Creeps for me. They're both pretty equally [intentionally] cheesy... I say that because I wouldn't call Re-Animator incompetent, personally.I wouldn't call it outright incompetent either, but the filmmaking has always struck me as a bit amateurish, while stretches of the movie are duller than necessary, perhaps due to unpolished storytelling. And while its perversities/eccentricities may arguably be more "mature", I laughed more at Night of the Creeps, so given that Re-Animator doesn't really work for me on a serious front, that's an important point.

[megladon8]

Lady in White (1988 / Frank LaLoggia)

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2637/ladyinwhitel.jpg


I've always been a sucker for a good ghost story. On a good day I might even say this is my favorite sub-genre of horror. More often than not they are tales dealing with human emotion, weakness and tragedy. Also, the great ones have an air of authenticity about them - that is, I am pretty sure that zombies, werewolves and vampires are creatures I'll never encounter in my life. But ghosts, I'm torn about. I wouldn't call myself a "believer" in spirits, but I (like most people) have experienced those feelings of being touched by something other-worldly. Of being alone in a dark room and feeling that something is there with you.

Lady in White, unfortunately, is not an example of a great ghost story. It fails at just about everything it sets out to do - its scares are telegraphed, its drama is cliché and poorly written, and its acting and production values make it feel like something that was meant for TV. It's really too bad because there seem to be some great admirers for this film. I just cannot count myself among them.

It stars Lukas Haas (who I guess was the go-to child actor of the mid-to-late '80s) as a little boy who, in a mean-spirited prank by fellow students, is locked in the cloak room of his school on Halloween night. There he sees the ghost of a little girl - the first victim of a serial child murderer and molester. The boy then takes it upon himself to try to solve the mystery of who in this small town has been committing these horrible crimes.

When the twist comes around and all is laid out for us to see (that is, the identity of the killer, and the truth behind the mysterious "lady in white" who roams the forests) it's all too obvious. I'm not exaggerating when I say I knew who the killer was 10 minutes into the movie. It's the exact same plot device I have seen used in countless movies before, and all too obvious in the way the characters are introduced and presented to the audience.

Combine this total lack of mystery with several instances of expository dialogue and atrocious performances from nearly everyone in the film, and it really is just not any good. It also features some of the most offensively stereo-typical Italian characters I have ever seen in a movie - I half expected them to be revealed as mod leaders whose front is an Italian restaurant. But no, just lots of putting "-a" at the end of-a every-a word-a!

It strikes me as the type of film I may have really connected with as a little boy, as I shared many similarities with Lukas Haas' character at that age. Maybe then I could watch it now and appreciate it with some nostalgic value. But no, I just didn't see much to like about this one. Just some occasionally stylish cinematography.

It's still better than Saw IV, though.

4 out of 10

[megladon8]

The Fall of the House of Usher (1960 / Roger Corman)

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9885/thefallofthehouseof001.jpg


Vincent Price has always been one of my favorite “go-to”’s for horror. Like the British-produced Hammer films of the same era, Price’s films almost always featured beautiful gothic sets and costumes, and a wonderful mix of self-aware horror sensibilities and genuine chills. They’re just fun to watch, and this is why I think these and the Hammer films have remained favorites for so many horror-heads like myself - they have this feeling of having been made to entertain in the best way possible. Made by horror fans, for horror fans, and with the utmost respect. A balance of visual terrors and building suspense. Rich characters and delightfully brutal deaths. It’s great stuff.

I’ve never really ventured into Roger Corman’s filmography, though, and with this double feature of Poe adaptations, I can say that I am very eager to look at more of his work.

The Fall of the House of Usher is a slow-building mood piece, looking at the destruction (both inner and outer) of the noble Usher family. Having never read any Poe aside from “The Telltale Heart” and “The Raven”, I can’t really comment on the accuracy of the adaptation. But the story has Vincent Price playing Roderick Usher as a creepy, eccentric man whose incredibly protective relationship with his sister is hinted at being, well, less than appropriate. Both of them suffer from a strange disease where their senses are incredibly overactive, leading the faintest sound, the tamest touch or the dullest light to cause them horrendous pain. This is not all there is to their odd existence, though, and I’ll leave that unspoiled because it’s a film to seek out for sure.

7.5 out of 10


The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 / Roger Corman)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8995/pitandthependulum15.jpg


Roger Corman and Vincent Price return to Edgar Allan Poe with The Pit and the Pendulum, a film which I found to be tighter, slicker and generally better than the already great The Fall of the House of Usher. Price again leads the cast, this time joined by horror queen Barbara Steele as his recently deceased wife whom he fears may have been buried alive (a theme Roger Corman returned to the next year in another Poe adaptation, Premature Burial).

As with The Fall of the House of Usher, nothing is as it seems, and the many twists and turns in the plot keep everything moving briskly until the tense, frightening finale. This is where I felt the film managed to exceed its predecessor - it has the same focus on rich, eccentric characters but everything just feels more focused and is able to move along quicker. The climax is much more satisfying, as well, with the physical pendulum a great representation of the tumultuous happenings occurring in the mansion, and the way that the psychological wounds inflicted on Price’s character of Nicholas were too deep to ever be healed.

It’s hard not to compare these films to the works of the Hammer studio in the ‘60s and ‘70s because they’re just so similar. And believe me, that is a very big compliment.

8 out of 10

[Dukefrukem]

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6782/jigsawpuppet.jpg

I want to play a game.

Throughout your life, you’ve sought out quality movies, particularly horror. You reveled in the feeling of fright, in the celebration of the morose and the macabre. Today, you’re going to see how far that can go. You’re going to watch all five Saw movies. If, at the end, you are still alive, you will find yourself with a greater appreciation of life and of the time you spent watching these movies, when you could have been doing something productive.

Let’s begin.


Saw (2004 / James Wan)

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3046/sawej.jpg

The beginning. As I watch the first film I do not get the feeling that it was originally intended to go on this long. It was a neat little concept that wasn’t written, directed or acted in a stellar fashion. It was all about the concept – surely someone had been watching David Fincher’s Se7en when they came up with the idea of the serial killer teaching moral lessons with sick games.

The final twist is ridiculous, but it seems ingenious when you know what is to come later in the series.

5 out of 10


Saw II (2005 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1470/saw2.jpg

Saw II presents to walking contradiction of a better concept than the first film, and worse writing than the first film. The overall story here is better, and the way things tie together in the end is actually, well, kind of clever. But the awful characterizations and even worse dialogue makes it hard to call this movie “good”, or to even recommend it.

“The only doors she can open…are between her legs!” is a line that is actually spoken in this film. By a human being. That is, a sentient, conscious creature. It’s unbelievable, really.

Oh, and Donnie Wahlberg screams a lot.

5.5 out of 10


Saw III (2006 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4426/baharsoomekhsawiii.jpg

Oh, Mr. Bousman and Mr. Whannell. Why didn’t you stop when you were (relatively) ahead? Did you NEED to make this a trilogy? Especially when you screw up your own timeline so badly that it resembles an animé series. But I’m going to once again use a phrase that I’ll surely use again with regards to these movies – when you know what comes next, this actually seems pretty smart.

This time starring horrid Scottish thespian Angus Mcfadyen as yet another pathetic depressive whom you wish Jigsaw had just outright murdered so you wouldn’t have to watch him mope around any longer, Saw III seems to be some new sequel and new story. But in fact, the MiNdFuCk at the end tries to make you think this all happened in some great plan.

I want to at least give Whannell and Bousman kudos for trying to be original…but no, they don’t deserve it.

3.5 out of 10


Saw IV (2007 / Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2472/saw4dvd2b.jpg

That picture appropriately describes how one feels after watching this movie.

It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Since it hasn’t exactly been a secret since it’s been mentioned in the trailers for every saw movie for the last 3 years, Jigsaw is dead. Yet he apparently had elaborate traps already laid out for the rest of the world’s population before he died, and bought stocks in mini tape recorders.

This film introduces both two new detectives played by Scott Patterson and Costas Mandylor. But the main character is the returning character of Rigg, the SWAT leader from the second film.

It also introduces the idea that even before he was the Jigsaw killer, John (Tobin Bell) had some kind of eerie, almost psychic power over people. I mean, there’s nothing supernatural, he’s not really psychic, but you see him talk people out of stupid decisions with ease on more than one occasion. It’s just too much.

This is the absolute low point of the series. It’s stupid, repetitive, stupid, poorly acted and directed, and stupid.

2 out of 10


Saw V (2008 / David Hackl)

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/6025/saw1.jpg

Once again, a picture appropriate to how I felt watching this movie. Notice that the head still remains, though – Saw V didn’t quite make my head explode, it just made me feel like I was trapped in a glass head-box and I was running out of air.

This movie, for as horrid as it really is, is actually a step up from Saw IV. At times it almost seems to be self-aware, embracing its own retardation as a guy gives himself a tracheotomy with a ballpoint pen.

Then again, it could just be that it’s so terrible I was rendered delusional while watching it.

We see the return of Scott Patterson as Agent Strahm, and Busty…I mean…Betsy Russell returns as Jigsaw’s widow whom I couldn’t in a million years see marrying that creepy dude.

And of course, more mInDfUcK with the timeline.

3.5 out of 10



Now you’re finished the game. You passed your final test. Do you feel changed? Do you feel that your life now has a purpose?

No?

Well, go see Saw VI then.

Game over.

I LOLed at this write up. Well done.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It’s hard not to compare these films to the works of the Hammer studio in the ‘60s and ‘70s because they’re just so similar. And believe me, that is a very big compliment.

Great write-ups, Braden! I think you really hit the nail on the head when you say that they survive because of their fun factor - there's so much enthusiasm and joy in these wonderfully cheesy Gothic tales. And I say "cheesy" in the best way, because the sets are so clearly sets, the acting is so deliciously arch and theatrical, and the plots come from material that's really old-hat.

I also noticed that weird link between Corman's Poe pictures and the Hammer films; there's a deliberate revival of the classic Gothic tropes with both studios, as they're both revamping classic horror tales with bright colors, good cheer, and a slight dose of gore (Hammer moreso than AIP).

Hard to believe that realistic, "mundane" thrillers like Diaboliques, Peeping Tom, and Psycho are contemporaries.

[megladon8]

Great write-ups, Braden! I think you really hit the nail on the head when you say that they survive because of their fun factor - there's so much enthusiasm and joy in these wonderfully cheesy Gothic tales. And I say "cheesy" in the best way, because the sets are so clearly sets, the acting is so deliciously arch and theatrical, and the plots come from material that's really old-hat.

I also noticed that weird link between Corman's Poe pictures and the Hammer films; there's a deliberate revival of the classic Gothic tropes with both studios, as they're both revamping classic horror tales with bright colors, good cheer, and a slight dose of gore (Hammer moreso than AIP).


Yes, your use of the word "cheesy" is perfect! I actually used that word several times in my reviews, but edited it out completely for fear of people misinterpreting what I was saying. As you said, it's cheese and hoakiness in the very best way possible. Just great fun.



Hard to believe that realistic, "mundane" thrillers like Diaboliques, Peeping Tom, and Psycho are contemporaries.

I haven't seen Peeping Tom but yes, I do agree that it's puzzling why the Hammer films and much of Vincent Price's library of work are almost completely forgotten by people outside the whole film scene.

Everyone knows of Hitchcock. But I find it rare that I encounter people who even know who Christopher Lee or Vincent Price are, let alone have seen or are fans of their films.



I LOLed at this write up. Well done.

Thanks dude!

They're all pretty terrible, and I'm kind of "Saw'd out" right now so I have no drive to go see Saw VI. But I'll definitely check it out on DVD, if for no other reason than to just say I've seen them all.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I haven't seen Peeping Tom but yes, I do agree that it's puzzling why the Hammer films and much of Vincent Price's library of work are almost completely forgotten by people outside the whole film scene.

Oh my effing gee. You must see Peeping Tom at some point. Thoroughly satisfying film, of a piece and on par with Psycho.

[Spun Lepton]

Oh my effing gee. You must see Peeping Tom at some point. Thoroughly satisfying film, of a piece and on par with Psycho.

I have to admit, I went into Peeping Tom expecting to be bored, but I wasn't. It's actually a pretty damn good flick.

[megladon8]

Oh my effing gee. You must see Peeping Tom at some point. Thoroughly satisfying film, of a piece and on par with Psycho.


I really want to see it, for sure. I think a few Match-Cutters saw it for the first time this year and everyone raves about how great it is.

And I'm dying to watch The Masque of the Red Death.


I also just found this picture, and I have to share it because it's so awesome...


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6268/89201064757879172183276.jpg


It says so much about these actors and the films they were in. It's wonderful.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also, Anna Massey's Helen is adorable.

http://verdoux.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/anna-massey.jpg

Crushville.

[Dukefrukem]

Coincidence that you just watched these movies Meg, I just bought the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe last weekend.

[megladon8]

Coincidence that you just watched these movies Meg, I just bought the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe last weekend.


Cool!

Like I said, I haven't really read much Poe. Something I hope to change.

[Dukefrukem]

Paranormal Activity (2007 / Oren Peli)

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7450/paranormalactivityk.jpg


It’s hard to have reasonable expectations walking into a movie that has been hyped so enormously. Paranormal Activity came out of left field this year - I’d never even heard of it until about 4 weeks ago, and then I was suddenly bombarded with “it’s one of the scariest movies ever made and left its viewers traumatized for life”. Even the trailer for the movie was built around how much it scared audiences. It’s like this is the real-life version of the “Ringu” tape and anyone who sees it will never be the same again.

Well, in a nutshell, yeah, it’s a pretty unsettling movie. Have I seen stuff that scared me more deeply? Absolutely. The sheer terror I felt watching [REC] earlier this year was a good 3-5 notches higher on my “scare-o-meter” than this flick. But it still managed to be a thoroughly disturbing and unnerving experience, building tension for a full 80 minutes before its frightening (and abrupt) end.

What I think needs mentioning most is the two lead performances - that of Katie Featherston as “Katie”, and Micah Sloat as “Micah” (Blair Witch Project, anyone?). They were really good. Especially Ms. Featherston who, as my date to the movie stated, “felt really natural in front of the camera”. While the character of Micah was a thick-headed ass-clown who deserved a sharp punch in the noggin, Sloat played him very well, and he felt like the type of hard-headed asshole I have met a million times in life. Despite all the evidence pointing in one direction, he still maintains his stupid crusade to be the “macho man”.

But unlike other films where I felt the reality of the characters was what gave the scares so much power, here it is the reality of the location and situations. We’ve all heard creeks and thumps in the night. Most of us have even had times when we swore we heard whispering in the dark. Oren Peli (writer/director) gave his film an aura of authenticity - that this is what it would really be like to be tormented by some kind of malevolent force in your home.

After all this, though, the film is not without its many flaws. At its short runtime of 88 minutes, there are a few segments here and there that could have been trimmed - in a film this short (especially one like this, that relies on tension so dearly) even one or two minutes of filler can kill the pacing. The day-night cycle got slightly repetitive at times, such as having one night pass where they hear a thud, then the next night they hear two thuds, then the next night three thuds (this doesn’t actually happen like this, I’m just trying to illustrate my point without spoiling anything). There are a few nights that pass where nothing really substantial happens to further the plot or continue the build of tension.

There’s also the abrupt ending that I mentioned earlier. It felt like the very last shot was used to cut short what was going to happen after the final events of the film, and its presence is a little cliché. Upon doing some research, I read that Steven Spielberg suggested this ending change. So I’m really curious to see what Peli originally had in store for us.


Paranormal Activity is a good little horror movie. It shows us that low budget horror does NOT need to mean “terrible script and acting”, and similar to our previous entry for Pontypool, it’s a film that relishes the “less is more” approach, leaving the audience to imagine most of the terrors for themselves.

7 out of 10

Having seen this yesterday I can now comment. I agree with everything. The acting was top notch for having very little to go on... I'm guessing most of the script was adlibed? As I mentioned in the PA thread, the film is effective at achieving tension and fear, any time a movie can make me uncomfortable or hold my breath that's a good sign that the movie is succeeding. I also don't feel the movie flowed very well between the day/night scenes and the ending really caused me to roll my eyes (I had no idea Spielberg suggested the change). The original ending sounds more satisfying. Also after reading this I feel I need to drop my grade a bit, Pontypool is a much more effective movie in inducing tension.

[Dukefrukem]

Cool!

Like I said, I haven't really read much Poe. Something I hope to change.

I did an oral report on him in high school, reciting one of his poems and dressed up like him. It was an awesome report. Reason I did the report was because he lived in my hometown for a few months writing. There's a plaque outside the house that tells the dates, it's kind of a local tourist attraction.

edit: haha found the plague via google.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/13206339_823a042559.jpg

[megladon8]

We watched The Spiral Staircase today.

A review will come soon.

[Rowland]

We watched The Spiral Staircase today.

A review will come soon.I hope you two liked this, as I think it's a wonderful gothic horror that deserves a much broader reputation.

[megladon8]

I hope you two liked this, as I think it's a wonderful gothic horror that deserves a much broader reputation.


We loved it.

Though, what made it gothic? Aside from atmospheric lighting, I didn't notice any gothic tropes at all.

[Rowland]

We loved it.

Though, what made it gothic? Aside from atmospheric lighting, I didn't notice any gothic tropes at all.Standards devices of the gothic melodrama, with the gloomy old estate, shadowy woods, flashes of lightening, pounding wind, and buried family secrets coming to the fore, in addition to the menacing expressionism of the visuals.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I hope you two liked this, as I think it's a wonderful gothic horror that deserves a much broader reputation.


A positive experience on my part, Rowland.

I think it was The Mike who'd tried to get me to watch this one long ago, but I didn't want to blind buy it so I put it off til now. It was worth the wait.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Fall of the House of Usher (1960 / Roger Corman)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 / Roger Corman)

8 out of 10 I was not impressed by my re-watch of The Pit and the Pendulum recently. For some reason it struck me as somewhat rote. No matter, though, they are definitely joys to watch. Vincent Price and Barbara Steele!

And I still feel as if House of Usher will hold up nicely, though, I like that one a great deal as of this point.


And I'm dying to watch The Masque of the Red Death. I agree with DaMU that it's probably the best one.


I also just found this picture, and I have to share it because it's so awesome...

It says so much about these actors and the films they were in. It's wonderful. Sweet.

[megladon8]

We watched The City of the Dead last night (known in the USA as Horror Hotel).

So coming up are reviews for:

Night of the Living Dead 3D
The Spiral Staircase
The City of the Dead

And we hope to watch a couple more movies from our list before Jen leaves on Thursday.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So coming up are reviews for:

Night of the Living Dead 3D

Why? Why did you do this to yourself? Why did you do it to Jen? What was the goal? Ironic fun? The promise of an entertaining review? Just what in the hell is going on here?

:evil:

[megladon8]

Why? Why did you do this to yourself? Why did you do it to Jen? What was the goal? Ironic fun? The promise of an entertaining review? Just what in the hell is going on here?

:evil:


I guess I felt I deserved it after dedicating so much time to the Saw series.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Why? Why did you do this to yourself? Why did you do it to Jen? What was the goal? Ironic fun? The promise of an entertaining review? Just what in the hell is going on here?

:evil:


I kind of volunteered for that pain, Jim. It was one of those moments of insanity I hope to avoid in the future.

I really did know better, but that damned curiosity....

[megladon8]

Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006 / Jeff Broadstreet)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7931/notld3d.jpg


Night of the Living Dead 3D is awful. It’s terribly written, filled with stoner humor that even extends into the 3D aspects of the film where one of the most effective examples of its use of the technology involves one of the characters passing a joint forward and IN YOUR FACE!!! Sid Haig is both the most recognizable name and most talented actor in the film, which gives you some idea of the caliber of acting to be found here. And unlike Romero’s original (and just about every zombie film made since then) there is no social commentary or moral dilemma here. It’s people vs. zombies, and makes no attempt to be anything more.

At least I can’t find fault with the film’s pacing, as it finds ways to move from place to place, plot-point to plot-point quickly and easily. We’re even “treated” to a sort-of explanation of the events of the many incarnations of Night of the Living Dead, involving government experiments (of course!) left to be cremated at a funeral home.

But in the end, my biggest beef with the movie is a question of “why?’. Why did this movie need to be made? We already had a perfectly good and loving remake of Night of the Living Dead in 1990. This one is terrible in every regard, its 3D is mediocre at best with only one or two short instances of anything really “popping” (though to be fair, it was seen at home using the old school red and blue glasses which totally eliminate colour and don’t provide as good an effect as newer technology).

When one sees the gems people with shoe-string budgets are able to pull together, “well, look at what they had to work with” does not seem to be a fair defense of such a terrible movie. I suppose if you’re really stoned and want some gratuitous nudity and on-screen pot smoking, maybe this will be fun for you. For me, it wasn’t.

1 out of 10

[jenniferofthejungle]

My review of Night of the Living Dead 3D is plagiarized straight from the rather awesome neumdaddy's review of House of the Dead.

*farts*

[megladon8]

Last night's movie was The Collector.

Review coming after reviews for The Spiral Staircase and The City of the Dead.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm very interested in The Collector write up.

[megladon8]

Our final viewing was J.T. Petty's The Burrowers.

Apologies for running this a little late, and for not seeing everything on the list. I think we saw a really nice chunk of them, though.

Expect my review for The Spiral Staircase to be up sometime this afternoon/this evening.

[megladon8]

The Spiral Staircase (1945 / Robert Siodmak)

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7835/deuxmainslanuitthespira.jpg


Described by many as a “Hitchcock-like thriller”, The Spiral Staircase is a taut, suspenseful mystery which certainly evokes the same incredible tension Hitchcock was able to create in his prime. Dorothy McGuire plays Helen, a young mute woman working as a servant in the Warren house – a family of rich eccentrics. This house plays as the set for most of the film, as the elderly, bed-ridden Mrs. Warren (Ethel Barrymore) tries to convince Helen to leave the house amidst news that a serial killer targeting young women with various “afflictions” may be in the vicinity.

The writing is splendid, dropping subtle hints here and there as to the identity of the killer and the reasons behind their crimes. But what really stood out to me was the luscious photography – rooms are painted in shadows, lightning strikes illuminate heretofore unnoticed details, and all these sinister little bits and pieces add to the mystery and tension in the story. It’s one of those films that, despite being black and white, feels full of vibrant colour.

I don’t really know what else to say about this one other than “it’s great”. I strongly recommend it to anyone here who hasn’t seen it – it’s a wonderful, tight suspense thriller, and I’d probably say is one of the best of its time.

9 out of 10

[megladon8]

The City of the Dead (1960 / John Llewellyn Moxey)

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5756/cotd.jpg


Within the first five minutes of this film, I was immediately reminded of the peak of Mario Bava’s career in the horror genre. Films like Black Sunday and Black Sabbath (particularly the former) - strikingly atmospheric photography using moody lighting, copious amounts of fog, and an eye for framing and composition reminiscent of Sergio Leone’s westerns. The City of the Dead is a visual feast which, unfortunately, doesn’t maintain its striking sights throughout its very brief runtime.

Very much a gothic horror, it centers on the young, beautiful student Patricia Russell (Betta St. John) who travels to a little-known New England town to conduct interviews and investigations into the town’s pivotal role during the great witch hunt of the 17th century. What she finds, though, is a town that seems to have frozen in time - perhaps the witch hunt never ended, and the town is still under the grasp of the most powerful witch of all?

Christopher Lee is the most recognizable name here, playing Russell’s professor in occult studies at her school. His presence also marks where the life of the film builds and fades - he appears shortly into the film, marking a hiatus on the luscious gothic photography. He then scarcely appears until the final 15 minutes when both he and the visual delights return in full force.

The whole thing is pretty uneven, but in the end I found myself liking it quite a bit, and its brevity certainly adds to its likeability. Nothing has a chance to get tedious, as the film’s runtime of just barely 70 minutes keeps everything moving briskly, and the climax hits its stride right around the hour mark.

Fans of Hammer horror and Bava should definitely take note. It won’t shatter your world, but it’s a fun ride.

POST-SCRIPT: The film was released in the USA as Horror Hotel, so if you’ve seen that movie (which is readily available in $1 and $2 bins, as it is in public domain) then you’ve seen an edited version of this film.

6.5 out of 10

[jenniferofthejungle]

Ooh, very nice review, Braden.

I won't review it myself, but will say that I enjoyed it and I'd probably give it a solid 6. I love the look of the film because it's one of those movies that make black and white seem rich and colorful, though I have yet to see one more gorgeous than Black Sunday.

Lee should definitely have been used more and the lead girl a bit less, especially when you consider how unimportant she seems to be in the end. I liked it.

One complaint I have with lots of older movies is the obnoxious use of slang. It never seems to fit and I can't imagine finding it "cool" at the time. I bet I would have thought it ridiculous even then.

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh, Horror Hotel! Then I've seen this! Hopefully not too edited.

This was one of my indelible childhood horror movies. A recent re-watch revealed it's essentially average, but I have fond memories of being really disturbed by the Psycho-like first half and thrilled by the kicking-in climax.

[megladon8]

The Burrowers (2008 / J.T. Petty)

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3395/burrowers.jpg


The horror western is a sub genre that seems like a dream come true but is so, so rarely carried out in an effective manner. At first I was going to suggest Dead Birds as a good one, but then it’s really not a horror western. It’s a horror that takes place during the time period typically associated with westerns, and features some familiar western tropes, but that’s about it. J.T. Petty’s The Burrowers mixes the two genres together beautifully and with few missteps, creating both an intriguing moral dilemma and revenge tale with a slow boil honoring its western roots, and is also an unsettling monster movie with hints of The Descent and Alien.

A group of men from various backgrounds set out to rescue a family they believe to have been kidnaped by Natives. However, everything just doesn’t seem to add up, and strange holes in the ground around the family’s house hints at something else being involved. When they come across some rogue Natives who talk about “the burrowers”, the men assume this is some new tribe, but in fact it’s something much more frightening.

I really liked the film’s look at racism during that time, and how blacks weren’t the only people to be persecuted or made slaves and servants. In fact, the treatment of the Irish was similarly despicable, as is shown in the friendship that builds between Walnut Callaghan (Sean Patrick Thomas), a black man enlisted as a cook for the group, and Fergus Coffey (Karl Geary) whose Irish heritage makes him the scum of the group in the eyes of the rest of them, except for the level-headed John Clay (Clancy Brown) who is somewhat of a leader by nature.

The Burrowers is just a really good movie, and one of the greatest surprises of our horror month. The acting is all quite good, the monsters are done with practical effects (everything from animatronics and costumes, to make-up and prosthetics) and it appreciates the audience’s patience, building slowly to a great climax. There are some shocking surprises in store, as well. I’m now even more eager to see J.T. Petty’s previous horror film, Soft For Digging.

7.5 out of 10

[Rowland]

Glad you liked it. I found some of it shaky, particulary the climax, which struck me as rather clunkily executed with its muddy cinematography and monster effects that didn't withstand such scrutiny, and the NotLD-esque twist didn't feel entirely earned, but I really dug the suggestion that it's the children who suffer the worst and are largely forgotten by the older generation, their fates symptomatic of a diseased culture. The mid-film sequence with the boy travelling alone with the frozen girl was the highlight for me.

Not only do I recommend seeking out his debut Soft for Digging, but believe it or not, his direct-to-video Mimic 3: Sentinel is worth checking out as well.

[megladon8]

I found the story of the boy quite good as well, Rowland.

I can understand your dislike of the climax in theory, as it does provide quite a change in tone, but I found it to be executed quite well. I have to admit, though, that I was really surprised watching the "Making Of" featurettes on the DVD that the creatures in this sequences were all done with practical effects. Through most of it I was certain they were CGI, but I guess it was just the way that the moonlight was reflected on the costumes and make-up - it gave it that "sheen" of poor CGI.

[Rowland]

I have to admit, though, that I was really surprised watching the "Making Of" featurettes on the DVD that the creatures in this sequences were all done with practical effects. Through most of it I was certain they were CGI, but I guess it was just the way that the moonlight was reflected on the costumes and make-up - it gave it that "sheen" of poor CGI.Weird, I thought they were lousy CGI effects as well, which surprised me given Petty's use of practical effects in his first two features. I suppose that's an example of how practical effects aren't adverse to lousy lighting/staging.