New Moon (2009)

New Moon was directed by Chris Weitz, and stars Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner.

What a cheesy mess.

My friend Sarah and I went to the midnight showing. Girls were there with "Team Edward!" signs, and someone even had a "Team Charlie" sign. People screamed and cheered through the whole movie. It was a spectacle to say the least.

On thing made it absolutely worth it that we went at midnight. There was this seemingly normal, middle-aged woman sitting behind us. Every time Taylor Lautner came on screen, she would make some disturbingly over-appreciative noise. Most memorably, when he first took off his shirt, she said, "Hot damn! That is a juicy man!" Sarah and I almost died.

Surprisingly, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. The director took out a lot of what made the book annoying to read, such as Bella's sheer mountain of ANGST, but didn't try to legitimize what was left into serious drama. They realized what crap they had as source material and just went with it.

As a result, much of the angst became laughable. Even Twi-hards, who made up most of the crowd, were laughing when Edward left. This is also partially because of Kristen Stewart's horrendous acting during the forest scene. Edward tells her he's leaving forever, and her face doesn't even twitch. Bad acting mixed with knowing winks from the directors makes it much more enjoyable than the first movie.

However, I do feel part of this was going on opening night. Watching this movie on your television at home would be funny, but not nearly so funny as when one is surrounded by screaming fangirls.

Movie Experience: A

Movie: B

Stewart's Acting: F

dinner_guest on Twitter

This is totally fake, but a new member of Twitter has been getting some buzz.

dinner_guest has been posting creepy, bloody tweets that chronicle his grisly deeds, such as:

"So difficult to know how much blood is too much, I know the body holds pints..but it's hard to tell how much when it spreads."

Still relatively new, but interesting. I'm thinking it's a potential viral campaign for a book? I don't know, but it's something to keep an eye on.

-DR

Underwood and Flinch Podcast

I started listening to "Underwood and Flinch" today, a free novel on podcast, and I'm already on section eight. The author, who also reads for the podcast, does a great job preforming as he reads, and I feel like I'm listening to an old thirties radio program.

It's a pulpy vampire story about Underwood and the family that serves him, the Flinches. There's secret Satanist plots, vampire resurrections, mobsters, and basically a lot of frothy good entertainment. Overall fun listening!

-DR

It was an accident....

Live Evil (2009)

A New Must-See!!



Interesting concept. We think of vampires as the ultimate predator, but we never think of them as subject to the laws of evolution, where a lack of resources or a change in ecosystem could lead to extinction. Nifty!

-DR

Sugar (2005)

Sugar was directed by Patrick Jolley and Reynold Reynolds, and features Samara Reynolds.

Such a promising start to a garbled and ultimately fruitless art-film. The look of the film is grainy and gothic, and leads to some very creepy moments, but as it lacks a script, an ending, and any sort of comprehensible plot, this basically comes to nothing.

How did this ever get to Sundance? "Post-narrative" is just an excuse for laziness.

A waste of an hour and a half.

D-

The Toxic Avenger (1984)

The Toxic Avenger is a Troma film directed by Michael Herz and Lloyde Kaufman, starring Mitch Cohen.

This movie is awesome. It's like every creature feature you've ever seen, injected with PCP and nihilism. It is truly indescribable except to say that if you like video nasties, this is for you.

Video Fan also has The Toxic Avenger, Part II (1989), Part III: the Last Temptation of Toxie (1989), Citizen Toxie (2000) AND Tromeo and Juliet (1996). Reviews WILL be forthcoming.

Also, Toxic Twins: The Toxic Avenger V will be released in 2011. See you in the theatre!

A

Martin (1977)

Martin was directed by George A. Romero and stars John Amplas, with cameos from Romero himself and Tom Savini, horror make-up and effects guru.

What a perfect, quiet little movie!

This film really cuts to the core of what it means to be a vampire. Vampirism is not about lace or sparkles or sex appeal. All those things have been later additions to the myth, covering up the raw truth: that a vampire is a human who preys on other humans, cutting them down and feeding upon them for sustenance.

In what I feel is the most important scene, Martin attacks his grandfather in the park. His grandfather has tried to exorcise him, believing him under the influence of the vampiric family curse. Martin leaps upon him, dress in full Dracula garb, complete with children's pop-in vampire teeth.

At first, one is take aback, thinking not only that the film has sold out, but done so using the absolute worst effects imaginable. However, as his grandfather cowers on the ground, Martin spits out the teeth, laughing, and shouts, "It's only a costume!" I think this is the main focus of the movie: that all the romantic trappings surrounding vampires are essentially a costume, masking their true, monstrous nature.

After all, besides claiming to be over eighty years old, Martin displays no real supernatural powers. It is quite possible he is only a human monster, abet one we have sympathy for.

In all, this movie reminded me a lot of Brian del Palma's Carrie (1976). I don't want to say too much, but both play on that essential happy moment before the tragic downfall. Wonderful.

A+

To The Devil... A Daughter (1976)

Directed by Peter Sykes for Hammer Films, To The Devil... A Daughter stars Christopher Lee (which makes this film worth watching in itself.)

I've been YEARNING to see this movie since I read about it in Clive Barker's A-Z of Horror a few years back. Now, thanks to my beloved Video Fan, I can proudly say I have borne witness to this gem of a film.

I really enjoyed this movie. Really, it has everything one expects from a Hammer film: lush scenery, beautiful women and atmosphere that overwhelms anything else, rendering it unimportant. Aspects of this movie were confusing, and the ending, which consisted of hitting Christopher Lee over the head with a rock, was a bit anti-climactic, but the baroque tone cancels out these shortcomings. The scenes of Christopher Lee as a fallen priest leading rites to Astaroth are compelling enough to tide one through the saggy bits.

Also, Natassaja Kinski makes a beautiful old-school nun. The scenes of her running through the streets in full habit are a must-see for genuine Sixties European scenery.

B+

True Blood, Anyone?

Scientists are now able to convert blood types.

Seems like it won't be long until artificial blood? Maybe vampires really will decide to come out of the coffin. :)

-DR

I Drink Your Blood (1970)

I Drink Your Blood was directed by Davis E. Durston and starred Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury, who had a tragic, but fascinating life.

This movie, inspired by the Manson Family, is abut a group of Satanic hippies who get on the wrong side of a little boy. As a result, he doses them with rabies by injecting the blood of a rabid dog into meat pies and selling them to the hippie clan. The rabies spreads as the hippies go on a crazy killing spree until the town is razed to the ground. The only thing saving the few survivors is that rabies causes an extreme fear of water, which allows for an anticlimactic escape through a river.

I think the description says it all, really. A wonderful example of why Grindhouse movies are great. :) I mean, this is two hours of hippies wielding axes as they foam at the mouth. Beautiful.

Also, Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury really gives a stand-out performance. His dance background is readily apparent in the theatricality of his acting. The movie is worth seeing just to see him as a Satantic cult leader. He comes across as much more of a protagonist than the sociopathic little boy.

A+

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Since I have so many to write, each of these is going to be quick and dirty, just the facts, ma'am. :)

Rosemary's Baby was directed by Roman Polanski and starred Mia Farrow and Ruth Gordon, who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role.

I have seen this movie MANY times, but it never fails to spook me. I read the book when I was eighteen, and it is the only book I have ever read that has given me nightmares.

However, I think people misplace the horrific aspects of this movie. While Levin is obviously drawing from the idea of the invasion of the body and ancient ideas of demonic possession, I think the true terror in this movie lies in the idea that sometimes the people you love betray you. It really speaks to the inherent evil in human nature and how trust can be so easily broken.

I mean, Guy sells Rosemary to the Devil for his own success in acting. Everyone around her, including her neighbors and her doctor, are in on the plot, and there is no one she can turn to. If you ask me, that's much scarier than her demon baby.

A+

Happy Halloween, Y'all!

Halloween is the time for horror, after all, so I have embarked on a two-day horror fest, reviews to come shortly. :)

So far:

Rosemary's Baby

I Drink Your Blood

Island of Death

Nightmare on Elm's Street

Hellbound: Hellraiser II

The Hunger

Practical Magic (Not Horror, but whatevs.)


Happy All-Saints!

Paranormal Activity (2009)

Just in time for Halloween, a RETURN TO EXTREME UNCTION!!!

Just a general note, I've decided I'm going to make my posts much shorter in general, so I will be more likely to get them up, rather than let them pile up.

Now to the good stuff:

Paranormal Activity was directed by Oren Peli, and stars Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat as themselves.

This movie's been kicking around film festivals since 2007, and it seemed to get good reviews, though not much hype until recently. I really wasn't too enthused to be seeing it until I actually got into the theatre. I mean, it's a found footage movie about a haunting, meaning it could have gotten real hokey, real fast. I was expecting the same old Amityville Horror House nonsense, with flies and dripping blood, but the actual movie was much more subtle.

Basically, the director did something really smart and avoided the obvious. No cats jumped out of trashcans; no hideous visages appeared in reflections from behind the camera. Each effect was well placed and timed, so that each new occurrence built on the previous with almost no lag in between. This allowed the director to get the most out of each paranormal event, winding the audience up in a way that one really doesn't see in horror anymore.

I mean, the audience never sees anything truly tangible beyond shadows or footprints. The first scare is a door moving slightly one way, stopping, then swinging back in place. The end scene, out of context, could be considered on par with an opening scare in other movies, but when I saw it, the entire audience screeched. I was genuinely scared even after I left the theatre.

The only problem I had was in the advertising. Like Quarantine, (2008) the end shot is shown in the trailer. It just seems counter-productive, and trivializes the suspense the movie works so hard to build.

Movie: A

Trailer: C

Throat Sprockets by Tim Lucas

Throat Sprockets was written by Tim Lucas and published in 1994 by Delta Books.

I picked this book up on a whim, not knowing that it had been listed by Rue Morgue as one of their "50 essential alternative horror novels," among other accolades.

I can see why it garnered such attention. Lucas chronicles his protagonist's (unnamed, an affectation that works here) growing obsession with the film Throat Sprockets and how that fixation draws him, and eventually the world, into oblivion.

Throat Sprockets is absolutely dominated by the influences of Lynch and Burroughs, which is both good and bad for the novel. Lucas juxtaposes the film and the protagonist's life as they intertwine, until the whole world is drawn into "sprocketing," the vampiric throat fetish featured in the film, and characters in the film begin to make appearances in the protagonist's life.

This use of overlapping symbols works for most of the novel, until the last section. I just don't know what to think of the last chapter. It almost ruined the entire book for me, honestly. Did Lucas really need to push the film's influence all the way to destroying the world? In the chapter before, we see how pervasive the film has become, how society has contorted itself into a mimic of the film.

Really, I think this vision of declining society is more evocative than a ruined landscape. The last chapter comes across as muddy and confused, with the Christian anti-vampire group STOKER roaming the land like Burroughs' Wild Boys, killing off sprocketers. It just came across as too contrived, and left me in a funk all night after I finished reading.

The Novel, Minus the Last Chapter: A

The Last Chapter: I don't even know.

Oh no....

I like musicals...

Squeaky Fromme!!

Lynette Alice "Squeaky" Fromme was released from prison Friday. She served thirty-four years due to her ill-fated attempt to assassinate President Ford, though she is most well-known as a member of the Manson family. She is the only member of the family still devoted to Charles Manson, even escape prison in 1987 to visit him when she heard a rumour he was ill and dying.

A few years ago, I read her biography, Squeaky: The Life and Times of Lynette Alice Fromme, by Jess Bravin. If anyone needs a bit of not-so-light reading, I would highly recommend it. Her life, especially her life with and devotion to Charles Manson himself, is absolutely fascinating. I don't want to tell too much, but from reading about her childhood, it is really no wonder she got caught up in such a mess.

Who knows, maybe now I could have her over for dinner. :) I would love for her and I to sit down and talk.

-DR

Much more chic than a musty old coffin...

I want this over my bed. For realz.

Also, TruBlood is going to be released as a real drink!

Coming Soon:

Recently, I have been absolutely awash in horror, so much so that I have quite a few reviews coming. These include:

Gingersnaps (2000)

The Ruins by Scott Smith

AND

The Ruins (2008)

Leprechan: Back 2 Tha Hood (2002)
(This is not, incidentally, number two, but instead the sixth in the series. Weird.)

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

And FINALLY:

Skeleton Key (2005).

Orphan (2009)

Orphan was directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, and stars Isabelle Fuhrman, Vera Farmiga, and Peter Sarsgaard. It is currently in theatres.


As a preface: SPOILERS! WATCH OUT!


What truly impressed me in this movie was Isabelle Fuhrman's acting. The girl is only twelve or thirteen, yet she pulls off nine and thirty three with equal aplomb. You see, the twist is that Ester is in fact a grown woman, a proportional dwarf masquerading as a nine year old girl. Now, this sounds patently ridiculous, as quite a few Internet sources have noted, but I feel Fuhrman gave a strong enough performance to make her secret believable.


Through almost the entire first act, Ester comes across as almost too sweet, and one finds one's self almost rooting for her, despite knowing that she MUST be evil. After a girl at school is particularly cruel to her, pushing her off a jungle-gym seems not only excusable but justified. However, Ester's rage intensifies as the movie progresses, and her transgressions get more and more serious, and correspondingly less well-thought-out, until she can disguise her true intentions no longer. Fuhrman gives Ester a snarl that slowly emerges through her East European accent as she begins her siege on the family, using their spotted history to turn them against each other until it is almost too late.


Additionally, I felt Vera Farmiga was excellent. She plays Ester's adopted mother, who lost her third child while it was still in the womb. She descends into suffering as Ester escalates into manic insanity, matching her in violence until they battle in the final act. In fact, one of the most shocking scenes in the movie is not due to Ester, but when Kate slaps her. She must be physically restrained from beating Ester, and this rage from a "good" character is quite jarring.


However, a few things did bother me about the movies. The reason Ester wears ribbons on her throat and wrists is to cover scars she recieved from her straight jacket when she was in the mental instituation, but these scars look more like cutting scars, rather than the abrassion marks one would get from rubbing fabric. I think they had these scars mostly for the sake of misdirection, really, and for visual effect.

In fact, I felt quite a few things in the movie were done mainly for mood, sacrificing logic. For instance, Ester likes to paint, but her seemingly innocent pictures are, when shown under blacklight, to contain twisted hidden images, such as burning children or heaqds on pikes. Now, these day-glow ciphers were certanly interesting and spooky, the whole thing seemed a bit too hoodoo-magic to fit with the logic of the rest of the film. I mean, did she own a blacklight in the orphanage? However, it did make for a great closing credits sequence.


B+

Drag Me To Hell (2009)

Drag Me To Hell (2009) was directed by Sam Raimi and stars Alison Lohman.

Now, I saw this movie well over a month ago. I really enjoyed it, yet I haven't been able to write anything coherent about it. It seems to just evade my grasp.

Raimi's gruesome glee is there in full force. There are scenes of absolute horror-comedy disgustingness you can't help but be swept along, such as the first fight between the gypsy woman and Christine. The gypsy woman loses her teeth at one point, and basically ends up gumming Christine's face. My immediate reaction was "Awesome!" and there were many moments that captured the joy of Evil Dead (1981).

But then... You could SEE the end coming from a hundred miles away. As soon as she puts the cursed button in an envelope identical to the one she gave her boyfriend, you KNEW what was coming. I just... this doesn't ruin the movie, it just... I can't decide. The fumbling bits would not have bothered me in ANY OTHER MOVIE, but from Sam Raimi...

Just...
B

Geraldo Rivera Is Silly

Really, how could anyone take this as anything BUT sensationalism?

Speaking of exorcism...

This has been out for awhile, but I thought I'd post it.



Now, what to think of this? I think even an extremely conservative believer in exorcism would find this offensive. Hypothetically, even if one believed it was a sin to be gay, exorcising someone for that sin could be seen as forgiving culpability. If one can be exorcised for homosexuality, it's not a far stretch to see other sins as similarly external. It forgives responsibility, which seems like an abuse of the rite of exorcism itself.

Add to this how offensive it is to equate homosexuality with evil, and I don't see how anyone could NOT find this disturbing.
-DR

The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Baglio

I've been reading The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Baglio, and so far it's been really fascinating, especially concerning the reality of demonic possession compared to possession in cinema. For instance, most exorcisms take only about twenty minutes to subdue the demon, and reactions to the exorcism can vary from screaming, speaking in tongues or unknown languages, or threatening violence to coughing and yawning, depending on the intensity of the infestation. However, I found this passage particularly interesting, so I thought I'd include it:


"In the lore of exorcism, perhaps nothing is more infamous (because it it so spectacular) as the victim vomiting strange objects or copious amounts of fluid, sometimes even blood. Most of us remember Linda Blair's projectile vomit in the film The Exorcist, and Father Carmine [a priest profiled in the book] had a case wherein a woman vomited buckets of sperm. Such action typically signifies a curse; the person has eaten cursed food that he or she needs to eject. Vomiting objects such as finely woven hair or beads, or even blood clots, is a common indication of a curse as well. Or, in the case of a voodoo doll, the victim may vomit up a nail.

Note that exorcists believe these objects don't necessarily come from the person's stomach, but instead materialize in the mouth. In this way, such people are not harmed physically even though they appear to vomit sharp objects such as pieces of glass or needles...

Other exorcists have seen things that defy explanations, such as pools of mysterious black liquid appearing on the floor, or live animals- including crabs and scorpions- vomited up. Father Carmine once saw a woman vomit a small black toad that was alive. When he went to catch it, it fizzled away into saliva" (Baglio, 151).

However, Baglio goes on to assure that, as "psychotic patients swallow strange objects and them routinely," this can not be held as sole proof of possession. I don't know about this. Could a person really swallow a live animal and bring it back up still kickin'? I would think such a thing would be definitive proof.

Anyway, whether or not one believes, this is a fascinating book to pick up for some summer beach reading. :) Once I'm done, I'll post a full review.

-DR

True Blood

True Blood is getting good, y'all. Seriously. The series has definitely expounded upon the books in an enjoyable and consistent way, making the series even truer to the themes in the book.

Also, Mary Anne is SO a maenad. That's why she could rile up everyone at Merlotte's so easily. :)

-DR

The HORROR!

The only horror in this post is that I am not PARTAKING IN THIS CUTENESS!!! AUGH!!






This is a Fennec Fox, the only species of fox you can have AS A PET. Seriously, why was I not informed of this before?

BRB you guys, I'm going to the pet store.
-DR

Can YOU tell the difference?

Can you tell the difference between a serial killer and a computer programmer? Take the quiz!

I got four out of ten. I guess that means if someone offers to show me their new code, I should politely decline, to say the least.

-DR

Christopher Lee is Knighted

Congratulations, Christopher Lee!

Lee was knighted last Friday through the Queen's Birthday Honours List. Lee got his start playing Dracula and other dastardly characters in a variety of Hammer films. Hammer movies have come to be known as classics of the horror genre, especially those starring Lee.

"New Moon" Trailer

Somehow, a scene that came across as melodramatic in the book managed to be even more over the top on film. I mean, I know I'm generalizing, but it was just a paper cut. Seriously. Anyway, doesn't it seem a bit backwards to leave Bella's luscious, vampire-bating self unsupervised in order to protect her? Nothing bad could happen with that...


Additionally, that's not even close to being the most ridiculous aspect of " New Moon." I mean, the whole suicide segment is too convoluted to even explain. I just hope there are some good car chase scenes in Italy, otherwise this whole movie will amount to watching Bella cry and write in her diary about how empty her soul is.


On the bright side, maybe all the the fans will get to see inside Bella's catatonic breakdown after Edward's departure. In the book are just four blank pages labeled with the month, but maybe we'll get to witness what actually happened in that time! Excellent! Like I don't do enough sitting around in my house that I'd want to watch Kristen Stewart do it as well.

Maybe they can throw in a subplot where Bella gets turned into a robot. That would definitely be something I'd watch, as long as they didn't build the robots using the same program they used for the werewolves. Horrible CGI.

However, I do like this poster. That's something, right?

Wow! Excellent!

Summer has officially commenced! The end of classes and Leaky Con (best weekend ever!) took up most of my spare time, but now that I'm back at school, I will most decidedly be back posting at least once a week.

I just checked through some old posts, and my Twilight/True Blood post actually has fifteen comments! I mean, some are not too pleased with my opinions, but some of you guys, who I hope are still reading, had some really interesting stuff to say. I'm just really glad people were interested, or offended, enough to write back. :)

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy, which may be detrimental to the horror level in my posts.

Yay!
DR

Kick-Ass!

School has taken over my soul for the last few weeks, but I'll be back soon with a review of Obsessed (2009) and maybe Skeleton Key(2004), finally?

But for now, I bring you: Kick-Ass.


All you need to know is that it involves an eleven year old assassin named Hit Girl. You know where I'll be Opening Night.

-DR

The Last House on the Left (2009)

\
The Last House on the Left is a remake now in theaters, featuring Garrett Dillahunt and Sara Paxton. The original was filmed in 1972. Both were produced by Wes Craven.

There was never any way this remake could ever exceed or even accurately reproduce the original. The 1972 version is a classic, but also a relic of its era, much like many other exploitation flicks, such as I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or Cannibal Holocaust (1980). These movies typify a certain gritty "reality" aesthetic that can't be sincerely reproduced.

The closest we come is Grindhouse (2007), which is intended as a homage and does an excellent job, but is irreconcilably different from its source material in that it is deeply ironic. It seems now, post Scream (1996), everything MUST be presented with a smirk in order to be taken seriously, as contradictory as that may seem. This can work quite well, such as in Behind the Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon (2006), but often this ironic winsomeness can choke the true terror out of a movie, leaving just a shell of self-satisfied hipness behind.

With the kitchy over-the-topness of exploitation movies pretty much ruled out, all that is left to work within is the Eli Roth School of Torture Porn. While both categories use about the same amount of gore, Saw (2004) and Hostel (2005) have somehow gotten a reputation for depicting much worse acts onscreen, I think mostly as a result of self-promotion.

This version of Last House has fallen onto the Saw bandwagon, like most modern horror movies. The unpredictable, almost dangerous edge of the original has been replaced by startlingly real effects that are nonetheless a bit lifeless.

One thing I have to address is the microwave scene. When I went to see this movie, people cheered and walked out saying how AWESOME and HARDCORE and GNARLY that had been, that the father paralyzed the main killer, then exploded his head in a microwave. As I listened, I wanted to tell them to see the original or Dead Alive (1992) or basically any classic gore fest, then come back and tell me what they thought of that scene.


It felt tacked on to me, like someone decided the last day of shooting that there wasn't enough gore, so they shot another few minutes for the end, so they wouldn't have to change the continuity. Not to be a party pooper, but a microwave wouldn't WORK if the door was still open, and anyway, why would he go through all the trouble of paralyzing the killer if he was just going to kill him immediately? It just felt poorly thought-out, and seemed too much like pandering for my taste.

Despite all my grumblings, however, there were some improvements over the original. For one, the levels of gore throughout were more even. In the original, as in many Revenge movies, especially I Spit on your Grave, the rape and torture scenes are often much, much worse than the revenge, so much so that one often feels cheated for the main character. If someone was brutalized for the first half of a movie, one would expect much more by way of revenge than just shooting their torturer a few times. The new version is much better about this, up until the very end.

In fact, the gore was quite good, especially in the second half. The garbage disposal scene, in which someone's hand is ground to pieces, actually made me feel a bit queasy. All of the actors, except for Sara Paxton as Mary, were excellent as well. Everyone gave it their all, screaming and flailing with the best of them, but at times Paxton looked lobotomized. She is literally expressionless as her friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac) is tormented and ultimately stabbed. I know she was supposed to planning her escape, but it got a bit ridiculous.

Also, I found it unusual that Craven changed the ending, allowing both Mary and the son of one of the killers, Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), to live. It even felt at times as if they were trying to imply the potential for a relationship between them! Would a girl who was raped and almost killed really go for the demented, sullen offspring of her attacker? Most likely not, I would think.

Besides this, their survival puts a completely different spin on the plot overall. Rather than the revenge of desperate parents, it becomes just another aspect of escape, a necessary evil more than the result of rage, and therefore much less effecting.

Overall: C

Drag Me To Hell (2009)

Does this seem just a little... racist to anyone else? I mean, Evil Gypsy Woman harasses Poor Innocent Blonde Girl! At least Stephen King's Thinner (the book, not the movie) was original, and gave its gypsies some humanity.

They say she's a Lamia, which could prove to be interesting, maybe. There's a rich history there, but I have a feeling the producers have done what seems so popular now, which is pick an interesting name from mythology, then proceed to write out all the interesting folklore aspects, turning the creature into something generically evil.

However, it IS called "Drag Me To Hell," so I HAVE to see it. I'm a sucker for a good title. :)

-DR

Blogging will re-commence in... Five... Four...

Hey folks!
I've been out of commission for some time, but I'm back, and ready to review! Expect Last House on the Left (2009) and Skeleton Key (2005) shortly.

-DR

Friday The 13th (2009)

Friday The 13th was directed by Marcus Nispel and stars Derek Mears as Jason.

This movie is NOT a remake of the original Friday (1980). I went into the movie assuming it was just another retread in the spirit of Rob Zombie's Halloween (2008), and was quite grateful it wasn't.

(By the way, watch the first fifteen minutes of Halloween, then throw it out and watch the original. There's a bit of interesting characterization for Michael Myers in the intro, then absolutely nothing else worth watching. I can't believe H2: Halloween 2 (2009) comes out this year. Rob Zombie's only good movie was The Devil's Rejects (2005).)

Anyway, I wasn't expecting much of the new Friday as a result. However, it picks up where the first left off, working as a sequel. I was glad they didn't attempt a remake, however, this creates problems for me, as does H2. If one makes sequels of the original, don't they then overlap with the existing sequels, cancelling them out? (And how could one ever cancel out Jason X (2001) aka "Jason in Space"?)

Besides the elimination of some good entertainment, it creates a problem. I'm not saying that Jason X is art, necessarily, but one can't simply eradicate so much material without creating weak spots in the canon, for the newer movies will unavoidably be informed by the older sequels. They're building on the foundation they are denying.

It strikes me as being a bit too close to fanfiction, or just fandom wish fulfilment, that if one can just ignore the pesky sequels, one can deny the basic cheesiness of the genre. This just doesn't work. Look at Prom Night (2008). By ignoring the source material, they alienated the built-in base of series fans. Conversely, the result was still too of the genre to be enjoyed by casual viewers. They got the worst of both worlds, and created a bomb the horror world views with shame.

However, the movie itself was entertaining, if uneven. It opens with the ending of the original, then shifts into modern day. A group of teens are camping near Chrystal Lake, they are stalked and killed, ect. The thing is, the killings are going too fast. No one will be left to finish out the movie. After twenty minutes, everyone is dead. However, this is really just the first act. ANOTHER group of teens (you'd think they'd start running out) go camping, joined by the brother of one of the girls, who's been kept alive by Jason because she looks like his mother.

The first movie could have been cut out, really, because it really functions mostly as clutter. The whole first twenty minutes could have been reduced into a flashback montage. I felt like the first act was mostly time filler, when I really wished they had used that time to elaborate upon the later killings.

Accordingly, gorehounds will be vastly disappointed. This movie does not try to top itself in any manner. I really think that, in this respect, it was written by someone who knew the conventions of the genre, but didn't really understand the purpose. Yes, people are supposed to be picked off one by one, but the draw is how this occurs. If everyone is chased all around for a few minutes, then stabbed, there is no reason to watch. One girl is burned alive, but when the camera focuses in on her face, she just has a few scrapes on her cheeks. It just doesn't make sense.

The lighting is so dark, as well, that one wouldn't be able to see any great effects anyway. I felt like they just didn't want to spend the money, so they just threw some Caro syrup on everybody, turned down the lights and asked them to scream. Darkness alone does not make something scary. Just look at The Burning (1981). The raft scene was done in broad daylight, yet it's really gorey and well done, especially for the Eighties.

Movie Itself: C+

Overall: D+

Cor Cordium: Percy Shelley on the Shore

I wrote this poem, and I thought I'd post it. It has what I would consider horrific themes, and is about Percy Shelley, the poet, and his wife Mary, who wrote Frankenstien.


Cor Cordium: Percy Shelley on the Shore

“Nothing besides remains:”

And Byron, that
Bastard Byron with his satyr’s hoof,
Lights the driftwood with a flint.

Too early for Lucifer matches.
Not yet the workers with phossy jaw necrosis,
With bones that glow green white bright in the darkness.
Eaten to the bone as Percy was eaten.

Sparks sizzle, go out against the wetness.

Heart meat is
Tough,
Springy to the teeth that
Gnaw its rubber gaskets, a
Fleshy phoenix egg boiled beyond rebirth,
Last to burn.

And Byron plucks the
Heart out of ashes and sand
To take home in his waistcoat pocket.

And Mary keeps it on her desk.

Twenty nine years sealed in a jar:
Her Modern Prometheus, her
Homunculus husband.





Note:

The quote is line 12 of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias.”

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

My Bloody Valentine 3D was directed by Patrick Lussier and stars Jensen Akers and Jamie King.

Augh! This movie was great!

Seriously. It delt out exactly what it promised: An 80's-style slasher romp that was fun to watch. It wasn't deep or nuanced in any way, but it didn't pretend to be. This lack of pretension allowed the film to foreground itself as derivational and thereby revel in its lack of originality.

My only problem was that our local theatre was only showing it in 2D. (Boo! Hiss!) However, the 3D effects were pretty well done, because quite often images seemed to pop out anyway, despite our appaling lack of 3D glasses.

A+

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

The Hills Have Eyes was released in 1977 by Wes Craven, and stars Susan Lanier and Robert Houston.

I decided that since I've been doing so many new movies lately, I should go old school and do something classic.

My mistake. The original Hills Have Eyes is boring! Seriously, y'all. I know I should tear my blaspheming fingers off for even typing this, but it just looked like a bunch of cave people running around to me.

I never thought I'd say this, but the new one is better.

D

Inside (2008) or À l'intérieur (2007)

Inside was directed by Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury and stars Béatrice Dalle and Alysson Paradis. It was released in 2007 in France, and has just recently been released on DVD in the United States.

First of all, if you do not appreciate stabbings, this is not the movie for you. At all. Just sayin'. It features quite a few puncture wounds caused by a wide variety of pointy objects, most notably by a shiny pair of sewing scissors. This especially freaked me out because I was working on a sewing project as I watched this movie, and just happened to have an identical pair sitting right in front of me on my desk. They were shining quite menacingly in the glow of my computer throughout the movie.

Also, according to Bloody Disgusting, this movie has been censored by Blockbuster in the states. They've removed a total of seven minutes, which I've heard really destroys the movie's integrity. Luckily, I managed to get a copy from a local independent rental place, (Video Fan, which, by the way, has an entire horror ROOM,) so my review will be of the complete film.

I think true suspense is not actually about the unknown, but more about knowing exactly what is about to happen and being powerless to stop it. Inside has a perfect understanding of this principle. I'm not one for yelling at the screen, but this movie had me cringing and shouting throughout. There were many moments where one could see exactly what was about to occur, which made that event so much more brutal to watch.

Accordingly, I think there is a legitimate place for predictability in horror. Twist endings are all well and good, but I feel they often result in "puzzle" movies. Figuring out the twist is entertaining, but as soon as the end is revealed, there is nothing left to ponder. Bruce Willis is dead and that's all one needs to know. I mean, there are notable exceptions, Fight Club (1999) being a prominent example, but most often all that results is a movie unworthy of a repeat viewing. There's nothing to care about once one knows the ending.

Consequently, it is when Inside attempts to be original that it fails. Towards the end of the film, the lights are shut off by La Femme, the killer who desires Sarah's baby. The police are of course killed when they go to the basement to turn them back on, along with a young Muslim man they had taken into custody earlier in the night for rioting. Later, Sarah enters the basement to confront La Femme in the dark when suddenly, the young man stands up and turns back on the lights. His eyes are blacked out, and I had a sudden "Huh? Is he a zombie?" moment before he was killed again. In a movie that seemed to pride itself in the authenticity of its brutality, this moment just didn't fit. It felt like a cop-out.

Similarly, La Femme's explanations for wanting Sarah's baby seemed a bit weak. It was just a bit too coincidental that La Femme and Sarah were both be pregnant when they crashed their cars into each other, killing La Femme's child and Sarah's husband. To me, it would have been more frightening to provide no motivation for La Femme's rampage beyond her desire for a child. Providing a reason breaks her character's actions down into a simple cause and effect reaction, rather than the result of a twisted human mind.

Overall, this movie is intensely feminine. A majority of the weapons, from sewing scissors and knitting needles to hair sticks and kitchen knives, have especially domestic connotations, especially in view of the motherhood-centric plot. In general, it was refreshing to see, in light of the constant barrage of plots concerning hulking men chasing after nubile college girls.

Suspense: A+
Movie Overall: B+

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

Repo! The Genetic Opera was written, directed by and features Terrance Zdunich. This movie stars Paris Hilton, Anthony Stewart Head (who played Giles in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series) and Sarah Brightman.

First of all, Sarah Brightman?!? I though she'd be much too... classy for this movie. However, she did a great job as Blind Mag, and her voice really shines against the more modern styles of the other actors.

Overall, this is an amazing movie. Seriously. The lyrics and plot may be a bit weak at times, but the sheer over-the-top lunacy of the movie makes it a wonder to watch. It's like Brian DePalma's Phantom of the Paradise (1974) in that it exists more as a spectacle than a story.

Also, it's worth watching to see Paris Hilton as a plastic surgery junkie whose face falls right off.

A+

Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009)

What a year 2009 will be for exploitation! This, Bitch Slap AND Repo: The Genetic Opera!

Baby Blues (2008)

Baby Blues was released in 2008 by Lars E. Jacobson and Amardeep Kaleka and stars Colleen Porch and Ridge Canipe.

I don't know what to think of the movie, exactly. It certainly took a rare kind of guts to make a slasher movie about Postpartum Depression, but that may not have payed off.

Baby Blues is, in fact, too heavily influenced by slasher films. This film could have been much more successful had it concentrated more on the mother's descent into her insanity and how her rage begins to manifest itself, like how Bug (2006) was set up, rather than parceling out a few faux-creepy/crazy scenes in the first few minutes before immediately segueing straight into the traditional stalk-and-kill second act.

Conversely, the slasher aspect could have worked had the movie not taken itself so seriously. I mean, the concept seems, to me, to be classic exploitation movie fodder, but by trying to be so SERIOUS and GRITTY, the movie lost what could have been a great example of bad taste. I mean, it IS a film about a mother murdering each of her children while spouting catchphrases such as "Come to Mama!" That's not exactly Highbrow Art Film material.

What makes exploitation movies great is their unapologetic and somewhat gleeful use of horrible situations, converting our deepest fears into something ridiculous we can goggle at. Without that sheen of hyperbole, the movie simply becomes uncomfortable to watch, and not in a thought-provoking kind of way. This is exactly the trap Baby Blues fell in to.

Also, without a mood of exploitation, the end of this movie seems jarring against the tone of the first two-thirds. The mother's survival, and the revelation that she is, in fact, pregnant again, seem a bit too "And the seemingly dead body sits up!" for my taste. Especially since the beginning of the movie worked so hard to retain realism, it feels cheap that she could have escaped, un-scarred, from a house fire to be taken back in by her husband, who then expects this relevation to sit well with his one surviving son. It's just too contrived.

Also, I understand the concept of Southern Gothic, but can't crazy people be from somewhere else every so often?

C

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

I can't wait!

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

The Devil's Rejects was released in 2005 by Rob Zombie, and stars Sid Haig, Billy Moseley, and Sheri Moon Zombie.

This is one of the best, most complex horror movies I have seen in a long time, and it far exceeds its predecessor, House of a 1,000 Corpses (2003).

Honestly, I didn't really care for HoaTC. I had high hopes for the movie, especially because one of my friends flat out refused to watch it, saying she had heard it was "corpse porn." Of course, after that, I had to see it.

When I sat down to watch it, however, I was disappointed. It seemed just like every other "stranded-in-the-South" killer movie you've ever seen, operating as a freak show display case for the Firefly family, who were simply not freaky enough to carry the movie. A car breaks down, tourists end up trapped with a Texas Chainsaw Massacre-style (1974) family, blah blah blah.

The Devil's Rejects is much more intricate than HoaTC, especially in its development of the Firefly family. A few months after the events of HoaTC, the police raid the Firefly Ranch, killing Rufus and taking Mother Firefly into custody. Baby and Otis escape, and later meet up with Captain Spalding, Baby's father. Basically, Baby, Otis and Capt. Spalding go on the run, until they are captured by Sheriff Wydell. Wydell has a particular vendetta against the Firefly clan, as they killed his brother in HoaTC.

What is truly interesting in this film is its moral ambiguity. Though Otis, Baby, and Capt. Spalding are serial killers, they become the victims in the face of Wydell's quest for vengeance. Baby is even shown at one point in the traditional slasher movie victim role, fleeing across a field, pursued by a gun-toting Wydell.

In this movie, good and evil are not mutually exclusive, permanent terms, but mutable concepts independent of one's status or actions. Wydell's status as a cop does not place him on the side of good, just as the Firefly's past homicidal actions do not make them evil in the eyes of the film. One's status really just depends on what side of the fence one is on.

What the film truly values, however, is freedom: from guilt, from fear, and from society's rules. The Fireflys are committed to their actions, and their willingness to go out fighting rather than surrender is portrayed as blatantly heroic, especially the strategic use of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird." Conversely, what makes Wydell the villain are not his actions, but his unwillingness to let go of his hatred.

A+

Also, the mask scene was gnarly. I was seriously horrified, which means the movie did its job perfectly. A++!

Bitch Slap (2009)

Who would NOT want to see this movie?

Amityville 3D (1983)

Amityville 3D, or Amityville 3: The Demon, was released in 1983. Directed by Richard Fleischer, this fine film stars Tony Roberts, Tess Harper, Candy Clark from The Man Who Fell To Earth(1976), and Meg Ryan.

I’m watching Amityville 3D as I write this. This is not out of sudden, joyous inspiration caused by brilliant movie magic, but because it is really boring. Really. Boring. You’d think, what with it being in 3D, there’d at least be a few things flying at your face to keep it interesting, but no such luck.

Lame. Whatever, I’m still SUPER EXCITED about My Bloody Valentine 3D.

F

Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning was directed by Grant Harvey, and stars Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins. It was released in 2004.

This movie was a mess.

I felt like I was watching The Simple Life: The Wilderness 1815. Ginger and Brigitte, two sisters who vow to be “together, forever,” despite getting caught up in a murky prophecy involving werewolves, have valley girl accents and Paris Hilton vocabularies, replete with an array of thoroughly modern curse words. I felt like the director forgot to tell the writer this was supposed to be a time travel movie.

Basically, nothing in this movie makes sense. There’s no reliability in the mechanics of the world, and things occur mainly for appearances. It’s disorienting, and most of your time is spent trying to dismiss the glaring inconsistencies in order to make the movie watch-able. Maybe I needed to see the original Ginger Snaps to understand, but one would think a movie called “The Beginning” would be able to stand alone.

Ideally, this movie should be enjoyed with the sound off. The pretty cinematography is the only thing that makes it worthwhile.

Overall: D

Cinematography: B

Watcher in the Woods (1980)

Watcher In The Woods was released in 1980 by Walt Disney Pictures. It was directed by John Hough, and stars Bette Davis and Kyle Richards (Paris Hilton's aunt.)

Bette Davis rocks my world. Though she plays a victim in this film, Davis is the most frightening part of the entire movie. Seemingly reprising her role, at least appearance-wise, in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” she stalks silently around, grieving for her lost daughter.

What makes Davis so fright-inducing is that, unless something terrible occurs, most people will be in her position. Invariably, we will lose someone. We will get old. We will be alone, and that’s what makes Davis’ performance so riveting.

Bette Davis : A+

Overall: B-