If you want to see people torn to pieces by a frenzied animal, you've found your movie. If you're hoping for a thoughtful horror movie that utilizes atmosphere and character development to forward the creepiness of the story, you're going to have to look elsewhere.

The main issue with the production is that it doesn't go anywhere. Yes, there is a werewolf...and..? Once Lawrence Talbot is bitten there is the expectation that there will be violence, of course. There is also the expectation that Talbot will be dropped into a moral quandary where his ferocious nature does battle against his more civilized sensibilities. The story here fails to ignite that kind of turmoil in Talbot. Instead the story becomes a series of attacks where the victims are quickly and brutally eviscerated.

I was constantly reminded of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. This is partly because it is a period monster movie with Anthony Hopkins in a prominent role. I was also reminded of this movie because they both struggled to remain coherent. Like Dracula, this film feels like it was created to be far grander than it eventually became. The story, the script just doesn't have enough power to create a great film. So, like Dracula we are left with a great cast fumbling through what seems to be a first draft script in front of impressive scenery.

The lacking storyline becomes evident in the final confrontation. What should be an exciting battle is just another fight sequence. There are no surprises, no suspense and no horror. It is just a bunch of poor saps being ripped up until the credits roll.

For a more successful and interesting werewolf movie, I suggest An American Werewolf in London. It is a tad dated, but the script is well thought out and the tongue-in-cheek elements somehow manage to heighten the frightening aspects of that production. Here, even the transformation scene, the bread and butter of werewolf movies, isn't that impressive.




Related Reviews:
Horror movies
Alien (1977)
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Film Reel
Film Critics United



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Anthony Hopkins, Benico Del Toro, Emily Blunt, film, horror, Hugo Weaving, movie review

Short Review: Quite possibly the worst adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's I've ever seen.


What do you want me to say? This is a remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - it is what it is. Teens gets lost. Teens find creepy country folk. Teens get sliced up by a chainsaw. Teens have their skin removed by the creepy country folk and are worn around the house like Halloween costumes. I’m not certain there’s much more that really needs to be said.

The bottom line is this, you have a question to ask yourself - is this beneath me or not? Yes, you can be entertained by films such as this. They can give a thrill and can tickle your guttural instincts. They can scare you. Fine. But at what cost do you need to be scared? You are watching images of people being sliced apart by a chainsaw, hung up on hooks, tortured. Don't think viewing this kind of thing, even when its fake, has no impact on your psyche. It does.

So the question you have when presented with a film such as this is simple: is this beneath me? Are you worth more than this? Is your time worth more than this? You have a finite amount of time and it is slipping away moment by moment and you have less of it than you know.

You are worthwhile, you have potential to do wonderful, memorable things. Why threaten that by wasting your time on junk - real poison like this? You have other things, important things, you can be doing. Why do this?

Okay, my sermon said, let's talk about this thing.

I have to admit upfront that while this is a violent movie - very violent, it is lacking in gore. The difference? People get chopped up by a chainsaw but the way it is presented focuses more on the violent act than the sanguine elements. We see Leatherface tag someone with the chainsaw but instead of getting an eyeful of gaping wounds and drooling blood, we see the puffy lining of a coat fly in the air as the sound of the chainsaw cutting is heard. It is still horrifically violent, but to give credit where it is due, it isn't sophomoric in its presentation. I know that may sound strange, especially in light of my rant above. Given the overtly psychotic sequels to the original and perverse tone of the slasher genre as a whole, this film at least makes the attempt to be somewhat within the realm of possibility...somewhat.

Before you start thinking that I’m recommending this film, let me state that I am not. Garbage in, garbage out. There is precious little reason for anyone to watch a movie having people being disemboweled by a chainsaw (unless it is to keep them from watching a Ben Stiller movie, but only as a last resort.) This is a graphic slasher film and should be avoided. That said, as slasher films go, this is one of the better ones. It has a slow build to increase the tension, as I mentioned the horror is played up and the gore is played down. This is a more mature look at the slasher genre. Which is like describing an hourly-rate hotel as "one of the higher class dumps I've stayed in."


Worldview: There is something in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies that is of note. They typify a character motif I call The American Savage. The American Savage is a dull-eyed hick who is prone to racism and violence.

The America Savage, a staple of all Stephen King stories, is a backward, dangerous ignoramus. They are the hillbillies, crackers, drifters and bubble gum chomping diner waitresses of flyover country. Think of any film where a car breaks down – chances are, the hero comes across American Savages.

As a rule the American Savage is there as a representation of the barbarism of American culture (according to those on the coasts). Most films are made by people who live and/or are from the coasts. Flyover country is a mythical place where WalMart Greeters and Hee Haw extras are made.

Often used to denigrate Americanism, conservatism or any other ism that doesn't jive with snotty coastal thinking (remember you folks from the coasts, you're living on the outskirts of the country), the American Savage motif is an easy "Us vs. Them" tool used to great effect in many films.


Related Reviews:
Horror Movie Remakes
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Amityville Horror (2005)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Views
Roger Ebert




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: horror, Jessica Biel, R Lee Ermet, remake

Wes Craven’s low-brow, high concept money train was the cat’s meow when it was released. Now it’s a caterwaul of embarrassing movie making.

To give this film and the sequels their due, Freddie Kruger is an outstanding villain and speaks directly to the human psyche. Despite this fact, this film’s expiration date ran out shortly after its initial release. The only reason to see this film is to establish, that yes, it wasn’t as good as you remembered.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
Amityville Horror (2005)
[REC] (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Popcorn Pictures
Monsters & Critics





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: film, horror, movie review, Wes Craven

Ángela Vidal (Manuela Velasco), a fresh-faced, young, reporter and her cameraman Pablo are shooting a video piece for a late-night show. She is spending time in a firehouse, interviewing the firemen and generally getting in the way. Ángela and Pablo tag along when the firemen are called out. They all enter an apartment building, responding to the reports of a disturbance.

What turns out to be a run-of-the-mill call turns into a nightmare when it becomes apparent that the residents of the apartment building are being infected by a mysterious disease which turns them into...let's all say it together - ZOMBIES. Authorities quarantine the building with Ángela, Pablo and the firemen inside.

The entire film is shot through Pablo's camera. This over-used gimmick actually works in this instance. First, because its logical. Second, directors Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza make use of the limited viewpoint of the camera to their benefit. Pablo can only catch so much so as things begin to hit the fan, his frenzied shots allow for some good surprises. It also lends a sense of reality to the proceedings which is notably effective.

Balagueró and Plaza set up the one camera gimmick by spending time with Ángela in the firehouse before the call. She is shown not just doing her on-the-spot interviews but also in her more natural moment between takes. By the time the call comes, the audience has become familiar with the use of the camera, and with Pablo as a character even though he is rarely seen.

The duo directors also effectively build their story. Things begin with some confusion which slowly turns to concern. The horror, the loss of hope, is saved for the end. This is a slow boil, but when it begins to cook it is fantastic.

The downside is the insertion of an anti-Christian message at the end of the film. It is a little like enjoying a nice dance with someone only to have the slap you as you're walking off the dance floor. To be fair, I think most people won't fully digest the message being presented. It is shoehorned in at a moment of high tension. It is there however.

Overall, this is a fun, inventive film worth a look if you don't mind a little gore and lots of subtitles.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
The Exorcist (1973)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Pop Matters
The Flickering Wall




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, horror, movie review, zombie

Just imagine if the studios put this much effort into making original material.

Remakes of cheesy 80's horror flicks is about as being offered a bag full of secondhand Doritos.





Screenwriters: Wesley Strick (Doom) and Eric Heisserer
Director: Samuel Bayer
Actors: Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen), Rooney Mara (Youth in Revolt), Thomas Dekker (From Within), Katie Cassidy (Taken), Kyle Gallner (Jennifer's Body) and Clancy Brown (Highlander)

Labels: Clancy Brown, film, horror, Jackie Earle Haley, movie trailer, remake, Rooney Mara, Thomas Dekker

Short Review: I kept hoping this was the tape from The Ring so that damp little girl would pop out of my TV and put me out of my misery.


If you saw The Ring (staring the impeccable Brian Cox of Super Troopers fame,) you have seen The Grudge – except the lighting is better. This opus, like The Ring, is actually a remake of a Japanese horror film. That means this mindless crud is infecting two cultures at the same time. Moreover, they released The Grudge II (I believe it will be called The Grudge Takes Manhattan.) And you thought the invasion of Pearl Harbor was reason enough to go to war.

The interesting thing about this film is that it goes out of its way to make certain we know the victims are wholly innocent. Morality has nothing to do with one's fate in this film. Much like The Ring, each character happens across an unstoppable evil that consumes them for its own private pleasure. There is nothing intentional to get on the death list and there is nothing one can do to stop it. Actually, in The Ring you could stop it by propagating the evil. It’s as if the movie wants us to believe we’re all just flies trapped in a large web. The spider will get you sooner or later.

What's fun is that? That the thing about fatalists, they're so darn boring. Everything is always so gloom and doom.

The film isn't well done. The Ring was cheaper looking but at least had more detail and depth. This film is flat. The writing is still and wanting. There is not a serious moment of suspense in the whole piece. You know up front that everyone is going to die, so there is no shock when everyone eventually bites the dust. Furthermore, the only reveal is the crime that brings the curse into being. The problem is the situation that gives birth to the curse is not compelling. I've see worse situations in the morning paper every week. The reason for the curse should be a huge payoff and it isn't even chump change.

Looking to the acting: Sarah Michelle Gellar should stick to the facial astringent commercials. Leave the acting to the adults. I’ve seen mimes with more subtlety. Bill Pullman is apparently in a good portion of the film, I don’t quite remember him being in there. I do remember a large chunk of driftwood lumbering about muttering lines, but no Pullman.

Overall, if you’re over thirteen and can read books without pictures you can skip this one. If you want scary go watch MTV for an hour – if that doesn’t get you begging for the mercy of our Lord, nothing will.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Ruins (2008)
Gwoemul "The Host" (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Beyond Hollywood
ReelViews

Labels: Bill Pullman, film, horror, Japanese cinema, movie review, remake, Sarah Michelle Gellar

Short Review: Drag me to hell, just don't drag me to this movie.


Is this film is as good as Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films? Nope. Its not even close. Raimi goes back to his schlock horror movie roots with this straight forward horror story about a young woman who gets cursed by a gypsy and is then tormented by a demon on a mission to take her to Hades. There's hints of his humor, moments of his inventiveness, but its clear the youthful spark is missing. This is more of an ode to his earlier films rather than an addition to them. It is too clean and careful where his early films were kinetic.

Another deficieny is the lead. The Evil Dead movies largely succeeded because of the mixture of Raimi and his lead Bruce Campbell. Campbell's genius for camp combined with Raimi's quirky style worked beautifully. Here, Raimi's lead Alison Lohman (Matchstick Men) is too plain to add anything to the proceedings. While she looks the part of a country girl trying to make it in the big city, Lohman seems out of place with the humor. It is as if she wasn't in on the joke. Where Campbell could carry a scene with a well executed smirk, Lohman is doe-eyed and flat.

Looking at this divorced from Raimi's history, it still doesn't mount up to much. The story is simple and strong but Raimi doesn't take it as far enough. Its not scary enough to be a useful horror movie and its not funny enough to be a comedy. Since there's no other purpose for making a movie like this, we've run out of reasons to see it.



Related Reviews:
Horror movies
Scream (1996)
The Shining (1980)


Other Critic's Reviews:
USAToday
Christianity Today

Labels: Alison Lohman, film, horror, Justin Long, movie review, Sam Raimi

Short Review: A horror movie without the horror - and that's actually a good thing.


This is one of my favorite films. Consisting of four Japanese ghost stories with fantastic set work and mouth-dropping cinematography, this film is a rare treat. This is a different kind of horror movie. The four short films are less about the characters being haunted by ghosts than by their own pain, guilt and burdens. This is less a series of horror stories and more of a samurai Twilight Zone.

If you are a fan of The Ring or The Grudge, and you don’t mind subtitles, this film may work for you. This is the grandfather of these films. As with Ringu (the original Japanese version of The Ring) the stories all slowly build to satisfying conclusions. This differs to most horror films made in the West today, which are in a hurry to get to the gore and are almost never satisfying.

The four stories are as follows:



This is a simple story about a poor samurai who abandons his young bride and lives to regret it. The first of the films shown, this story is a perfect set up for the remainder of the movie. The dark, brooding story is presented in equally morose scene work and lighting. The story is simple and offers an easy introduction to the strange worlds the film offers. If you’re unsure about watching a foreign film, I would suggest trying out this first story to see if the film will match your tastes. You must remember however, the point is not to be scared – these films are far from frightening. It is about character and story not cheap thrills.



This film shows the visual brilliance of Yoshio Miyajima’s cinematography. Even if you’re not thrilled by the narrative content of the film, the scenery may just keep you watching. This section tells the tale of a poor woodcutter who survives a run-in with a vicious demon in the woods. The woodcutter promises the demon he will not tell a soul about their encounter in exchange for his life. Years later we find out what happens when the woodcutter breaks his oath.

This portion of the film builds on the ground laid in The Black Hair. Where The Black Hair is soaked in darkness and brooding scenery, this short film is glowing with the shine of snow and the haunting glares of eyes literally looking down from the sky.

The eyes in the sky I mention may indicate to you that this is a visually odd movie – it is. The films are clearly shot on sound stages. There are obvious backdrops and very theatrical lighting. It is amazing but the backdrops and intruding lighting and scenery actually work to improve the film. The fake sets offer a strangeness and falseness to the worlds that only serve to set the character’s lives further off kilter.



This is the reason you'd watch the movie. From the absolutely enthralling battle sequences to the creepy ghost story that follows, this piece carries the whole film.

The battle sequence may not be for everyone. Again, we have a scene presented on a sound stage in front of easily identifiable backdrops. The battle is surreal and dreamlike rather than realistic. In a stroke of genius, the narrated battle sequences are inter-cut with images from paintings of battles. The ancient paintings support the strange visuals of the battle (the disjointed colors, the backdrop, the sharp angles, etc.) It is as if you’re watching a sort of living painting of a battle long since over.

The remainder of the film centers on Hoichi, a blind monk who is lured by the lost souls of the ancient battle to their hidden temple. At the temple Hoichi plays songs to the souls of the great war. Hoichi is seduced by the lost soul’s flattery and respect but at what cost to his life?

I simply cannot offer enough praise of this portion of the film. This part of the film blew me away with its story and its design. You can scoff at the rest of this film, but this section will command you attention. This is simply brilliant film making and this section will show why this film won the Jury Special Prize at 1965 Cannes Film Festival.



This is the weakest of the four stories. This simple little ditty is about a man keeps seeing the image of a smiling ghost looking back at him in his drinking cups. Soon the smiling ghost and his cohorts descend upon the haunted man.

This section of the film is disappointing. Like the other portions of the film it is a joy to watch for its look and the great acting, but the story itself is lacking.



This classic film is a pleasure to watch if you have an ounce of film geek in your veins. If you’re one who doesn’t get into foreign films (foreign in this case meaning non-Western based) and/or hates subtitles you’re best just moving on. Personally, this is one of the better films I’ve seen in months. I would place this in one of the better films ever made.


Related Reviews:
Japanese films
Samurai 1: Musashi Miyamoto (1954)
Sword of Doom (1966)



Other Critic's Reviews:
Combustible Celluloid
The Criterion Contraption

Labels: film, ghosts, horror, Japanese cinema, movie review

The Unwatchable.

Anna (Emily Browning) returns home after some time in a mental institution only to find her dad has taken in an cranky wife. On top of this unpleasant unpleasant surprise, the teen is being visited by the dead. This is a very conventional, and somewhat boring horror flick. It is reminiscent of a dozen other similar films and follows all the expected paths (An American Haunting, Watcher in the Woods, and The Haunting in Connecticut to name some).



Related Reviews:
Ghost movies
El Orfanato “The Orphanage” (2007)
Ghost Town (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Jerk
Roger Ebert

Labels: Elizabeth Banks, Emily Browning, film, ghosts, horror, Jason Statham, movie review

I went into this not expecting too much. It's a stock independent horror film with a rudimentary plot and stars the chick from the Mercury commercials. This isn’t fodder for the Oscars broadcast. I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the film. Yes, it is a very basic horror film, but taking it on its own merits, it’s as well done as it could be.

The plot is about as simple as it gets, a couple Seth (Paulo Costanzo) and Polly (Jill Wagner) are out in the Styx when they are carjacked by the criminal Dennis (Shea Whigham) and his drug-addled girlfriend Lacey (Rachel Kerbs). The four stop off at a gas station in the middle of nowhere. At the gas station a strange parasitic creature traps them inside the establishment. They then must combine their wits to overcome the creature. Again, this isn’t Shakespeare. The script by Kai Berry, Ian Shorr and Toby Watkins is very tight and clean. Where most horror scripts concern themselves setting up scares and eviscerations, this script has some good plotting and reasonably solid dialog. Don’t get me wrong, you won’t walk away from this film quoting the lines, but with the exception of one element, you probably won’t be rolling your eyes.

I love smaller independent films like this one because it forces the filmmakers to be inventive with the limited resources they have on hand. In the case of this film, director Toby Watkins only shows very little of his monster and instead focuses his story on the trapped characters. He avoids the typical Pick-Off Movie routine where someone breaks away from the group and is slowly hunted down. Smartly, Watkins keeps the action stationary and explores the space he’s given with the gas station. The film is slimmed down and doesn’t have many special effects. With the exception on one shot of someone being torn in half, the violent monster’s rampages are rather tame. There’s lots of blood and there’s the illusion of gore, but the actual display of horrific scenes are as limited as they can be. This isn’t to say there aren’t horrible things that happen during the story – this is a horror film after all and there are things to make you squeamish. The grizzly stuff is handled with some restraint, which makes this film somewhat of an exception.

The cast all does quite well. It can be a hard thing for an actor to suffer through a low budget horror flick – heck, it can be hard to get through a big-budget one. Generally, these are discount rate productions with cheap scripts, directors who are either unproven or on the decline and the whole affair is pieced together to make a quick buck. Given the better than average plotting and some good character development, the cast actually has some room to grow in the production. In a strange turn, Jill Wagner is the defacto star of the film. This is strange because she’s a familiar face for being the spokesperson for Mercury. This is like the Verizon guy landing a lead role. It is rare for an identifiable commercial actor to transfer to screen roles, but from what I’ve seen here, it is very possible you’ll see more of the Mercury Chick on screen. Wagner’s turn here is quite good. She is a likable and sympathetic lead. This kind of role is a stepping stone for most actors and that is certainly the cast with Wagner. Like the script, she was a pleasant surprise. Opposite Wagner, Whigham also gives a good performance. Dennis is a conflicted criminal and his character arc is rather illogical when pressed. Whigham does a good job of muscling through some awkward bumps in the script and provides a strong leading man performance.

Overall, if you’re looking for a good, no-frills horror movie, this is a very good pick. It isn’t challenging but it’s not insulting either. The film will not win any awards, but it is far better than a lot of the garbage out there. The whole production gives the feeling of a crew of people playing a little below their ranks. They’ve taken something that should be a dismal embarrassment and have churned out a smartly played small flick that easily does its job.



Something I noticed about the script, that I wanted to quickly discuss for anyone who is interested in how these things break down, is how the hero character is handled in this film. Before you go further, please note that there are spoilers ahead.

The couple, Polly and Seth, are kidnapped by the couple Dennis and Lacey. Lacey is bumped off right away, leaving a trio behind. Given that Dennis is the kidnapper, it is standard practice to have him act as the villain for the remainder of the film with the monster outside in the role as secondary antagonist (the heavy). Something happens in this film which is a little odd. Seth is a non-entity. He’s established as a half-man geek who holds no discernable masculine skills. He can’t even change a tire. Polly is set into the masculine role, she fixes the flat tire, she stands up to the kidnapper, she is stronger against the monster. Since Seth is a weakling, there is a heroic void. The writers fail to bring Polly completely into the heroic role because one of the aspects of the hero in a story is that they change – they have an arc. Polly doesn’t change. She’s a strong woman at the opening, she’s the same at the end. Seth has the most potential for change and does change near the end, but not in a dramatic way. It falls to Dennis to retain both the villain and the heroic roles. Dennis, a brutish criminal, would normally be shown as a survivor and shown to discard the others to save himself, which in turn would spell his doom. In this story, he instead admits his crimes and he is given a sympathetic goal of trying to repay his debt for his wrongs. This is done to make his appear more heroic than he really is. When this is done he is compensating for Seth’s lack of heroic stature. He takes on the heroic actions in the final act as a proxy for Seth. Seth remains the hero of the story, but only structurally. This is a pretty rare thing to see actually work in a script (another example of this happening is in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.) Normally, when this kind of archetype swapping goes on it spells disaster. I don’t have much of a point here, just spouting off some geek story structure stuff.


Related Reviews:
Indie horror movies
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
The Signal (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Film Critics United

Labels: film, horror, Jill Wagner, movie review

Screenwriter: Jonas Barnes
Director: Jonas Barnes and Michael Manasseri
Actors: Sarah Thompson, Matt Dallas and Kristen Dalton

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer

When it was released, the special effects in this film were top of the line. The transformation of American student David Kessler (David Naughton) into the werewolf was a big deal back then. How does it hold up today? Well, it was almost thirty years ago, things have improved.

As a director, John Landis is far from brilliant. Actually, I think it’s fair to say that the man is a hack, but to his credit, his movies tend to be approachable junk. This movie, is better than most of his others, then again with a resume that include s Amazon Women on the Moon, Innocent Blood, and Spies Like Us, this the bar isn’t high.

The movie itself is a interesting bit of trickery. There’s not much story and the performances are laughably bad. Landis manages to avoid these pitfalls by inserting jarring images and humor. The story is very straightforward, David, while backpacking across England survives a werewolf attack in the countryside. Taken to London to recoup, David falls for his nurse Alex (Jenny Agutter). At the full moon David becomes a werewolf and slaughters innocent people whose lost souls come to haunt him in his waking hours. Landis smartly leans on the hallucinations/nightmares David is inflicted with to punch up his story. David’s friend Jack (Griffin Dunne) is killed in the original werewolf attack and his languishing soul accompanies David through the rest of the story. As time moves along, Jack decomposes until David is stuck talking to a moldy skeleton. This kind of dark humor serves the film well.

Overall, this is not a masterful film but it is an enjoyable chunk of popcorn fodder. It should go without saying since this is a Landis flick, gratuitousness is the driving force, there’s plenty of nudity, violence, gore, and rough language. The morality of the film is non-existent and it serves no purpose other than to titillate and distract. Since the special effects now appear childish, the main original draw for the film is gone. What’s left is an empty production that, at best, will serve to fill in the holds on the overnight schedule of basic cable networks.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
Scream (1996)
The Mist (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, horror, John Landis, movie review

As a rule, if the movement of the camera is accompanied by a rushing sound effect, the movie is going to stink. This isn't a 100% rule, but its a reliable indicator of junk coming your way.

There's that and the fact that this is a remake of a bad movie. It's bad enough when they remake good movies.

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer, remake, Selma Blair

Sure it needs to be remade, we wouldn't want this generation to miss out. It needs to be updated, the stabbings will be in Hi-Def now, it will be so much cooler. This looks like the rehash of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, an intricately well shot but ultimately frivolous piece of cinematic waste.

Its one thing to have our culture dip into the slasher genre in the first place, its another thing that we've become so stagnant that they have to go back to the same cheesy franchises. Honestly, this generation is so pathetic they don't even get their own crap, they get fed rehashed crap from their parents. This hand-me-down culture is getting too much to bear.




Screenwriters: Damian Shannon (Freddy vs. Jason) and Mark Swift (Freddy vs. Jason)
Director: Marcus Nispel (Pathfinder)
Actors:Jared Padalecki (House of Wax), Danielle Panabaker (Mr. Brooks), Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle (Meet the Spartans), Derek Mears (The Hills Have Eyes II) and Aaron Yoo (Disturbia)

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer, remake

The American version (The Ring) is superior but the original directed by Hideo Nakata (Honogurai mizu no soko kara "Dark Water") is still great. Nakata has a great style and is a sharp filmmaker. His visuals are creepier than heck. Even if you've seen the American version it is still worth your time track down the original Japanese version and give it a whirl.

Labels: film, horror, Japanese cinema, movie trailer

This is a very patient and intelligent ghost story. Sparse use of cheap horror theatrics, director Juan Antonio Bayona spends time developing characters and situations and allows the story to drive the spookiness. This film is more aligned with Poe inspired horror rather than the blunt Stephen King variety.

Consider this one if you're a fan of Guillermo del Toro. He is the producer of the film and his style is all over this production. It is has the same qualities as del Toro's The Devil's Backbone.


Related Reviews:
Guillermo del Toro movies
The Devil's Backbone (2001)
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Mark Reviews Movies

Labels: film, foreign film, Guillermo Del Toro, horror, movie review

If you read the title of the film, look at the DVD box and still decide to watch it, me writing a review telling you to avoid it probably won't do too much good.

This is a low film inasmuch as it delves deep into the underbelly of humanity and evil. It’s the granddaddy of the slasher film and is unrepentant in its brutality. If you decide to watch this film please be cautious. This is a very harsh film – luckily it is dated and is goofy in places as well.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
28 Days Later (2002)
The Thing (1982)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Blog Critics
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, horror, movie review

Labels: film, horror, indepdendent film, Justin Welborn, movie review

Swedish director Tomas Alfredson's Låt den rätte komma in "Let the Right One In" has been getting rave reviews across the board. Oskar, a dispondent and abused boy strikes up a realtionship with Eli, who, as the trailer shows, just happens to be a vampire. The horror genre seems a bit stuck in a rut right now. I hope this film will break it towards a new direction.

The trailer itself is very effective and plays up the film's creepiness well.

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer, vampire

Short Review: The trash heap.

Little more than a disposable, soulless, horror flick. Rich white American college kids go to Mexico and meet a rich German guy. The gang then heads out to some ruins where the German guy's brother is working on a archaeological dig. They arrive at the ruins to find the locals are all nervous and angry. The locals are all appropriately dingy, violent and reactionary. Remember that in the movies, Mexicans are generally treated like dirtier versions of American southerners - its only whites (and select friends) from the coasts who are clean, happy and smart. Hollywoof social policies aside, the whole point here is that there is something in the ruins and our hapless college kids are going to find it. Yawn.

The only good things I can say about this film is that it doesn't drag on too long, and it avoids the sanguine torture scenes so prevalent in horror movies today. If you're looking for mindless horror, you can do worse than this. If you're looking for something that is actually good, you will need to look elsewhere. Its as frivolous as it looks.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Thing (1982)
28 Days Later (2002)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Reel.com

Labels: film, horror, Jena Malone, Joe Ansderson, Jonathan Tucker, movie review