Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Jay Hunter's Journal of Horror Films
-
29-10-2012 5:07pm#1I watch a ton of horror films so I thought I'd start chronicling them here
First up are the six films I saw at the 2012 Horrorthon.
Citadel (2012)
Claustrophobic thriller (directed by Ireland's own Ciaran Foy), about Tommy (Aneurin Barnard - who looks a bit like Elijah Wood), a man crippled by his agoraphobia due to faceless hoodlums killing his wife. The bleak setting (a poverty-stricken council estate in the shadow of huge run-down apartment blocks) sets a overbearing tone and a real sense of hopelessness. The film really felt like the embodiment of the Director's real life experience of being attacked by hoodlums for no reason (a few years ago on his way back from UCI Coolock) & his own struggle with agoraphobia; it felt quite personal and real.
This intangible, faceless fear-mongers really drive the dread of the film - successfully). He wants to move away but various circumstances prevent it from happening, and these hoodlums are out to get his child. It might seem contrived to say a troubled, antisocial priest can help him out but they tie it together nicely. There's some wonderful cathartic moments. A few scenes of reprieve from the constant oppression and dread, and a bit of well-worked supernatural aspect to it, I'd recommend. I don't think a bigger budget would've helped at all, it was about this man's struggle to save his baby. Well executed and the streets of Glasgow and Dublin could represent any poor area. Very heavy-going film, but a well-made one. It's quite oppressive and bleak, but if the story interests you, definitely go for it.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9mfDiYIY6EComments
-
Silent Hill : Revelations 3D (2012) - 2D
This one seems to get a lot of flack (it got booed after the film finished). It's a loose adaptation of Silent Hill 3 (the game) and stars Heather (Adelaide Clemens - who is perfectly cast) her father (Sean Bean/Ned Stark from Game of Thrones) as she moves to a new town and befriends Vincent (Kit Harington aka Jon Snow from Game of Thrones!). I'll assume you've seen the first Silent Hill. Well SH2 has a plot and clear motivation for the protagonist (find her father in Silent Hill). Although there are some cheesy lines that got laughs instead of emotion, there IS dialogue, there IS a simple, forward story, and not just a hazy, half-remembered nightmare with useless cameos the first one was.
It's not particularly scary and the story moves along like a video game, there's some sparing use of in-game music (but mostly new orchestral score). There is a few scenes with Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity from the Matrix Trilogy) who does an average job, and Malcom McDowell whom the crowd reacted strongest to. There were some obvious "this is 3D!" moments but they were generally bunched together; the freaky Nurses are used in a more 'look at the 3D' scene as they pan around the room. Pyramid Head is given a reason for being there and eventually an important -although short- role. A bit too much style over substance but I thought it was much better than the first film's attempt. As far as a horror film, it's alright but it's quite easy-going and nothing spectacular, so I wouldn't recommend, unless you're a SH fan and going to see it anyway. Personally I enjoyed the telling of the tale and the link to Silent Hill Origins/Downpour shown.0 -
Rites of Spring (2011)
Pretty run-of-the-(wheat)mill indy American horror film about two eventually-intersecting stories; a group who pull off a kidnapping/ransom, and a farmer who kidnaps girls to use as sacrifice for a bountiful harvest, to a would-be slasher monster. The kidnappers hide out on the farm during ritual time. The characters are nothing special. It was odd that the film goes out of it's way to not show any nudity, although there's one shot of complete nudity. The monster lives underneath one of the barns, and comes out to feed, is really a dude wrapped in toilet paper/bandages/etc. He initially runs at people like an animal, but when they enter the old buildings, he turns into a slasher stalker, appearing and disappearing the background, which is WILDLY inconsistent with what they showed beforehand. There's not much gore, a couple of decapitations and kills, people turning on each other etc. It's perfectly watchable (to me, I've a high tolerance for cheap horror) but it's nothing special, original or really laudable. Reminds me of the similarly veined 'Husk'. Avoid.0 -
American Mary (2012)
This one, written and directed by The Soska Sisters, punched above it's weight. A medical student (Katharine Isabelle - gorgeous, but also believable in the role) suffers a traumatic event, and her new love for maiming & body modification engulfs her. A wide range of medical inaccuracies and disregard for basic hygiene protocol aside (I'm a doctor, and she's supposed to be a fantastic would-be surgeon), the story is quite compelling, even if her descent into sadist isn't as fleshed out as I'd hoped.
Her experiments and entry into the world of cosmetic body modification is compelling and fits really well with the horror genre. Her new-found friends, a sleazy but relatively well-meaning club owner, and especially a woman surgically altered to look like Betty Boo, are likeable and interesting. Some moments of humour and seriousness and unbelievable just-go-with-it moments all blend together well. The film did go a bit too long before the closing sequences wrapped up the film, but overall it was an entertaining and well-made indy horror film. Well done to the Twisted Twins.0 -
Among Friends (2012)
Directed by Danielle Harris and starring all of her friends, including the awful Jennifer Blanc-Biehn (Michael Biehn's wife). The premise is fine, a woman invites over her friends and traps them in the dining room and shows them what horrible people they are, and tortures them. The character are all dressed in 'kitsch' 80s attire, explaining the almost cartoon-like get ups. Unfortunately the writing is really, REALLY bad - "You suck. You ALL suck. You suck.", There is no budget, so no gore, it just plays out like a bunch of friends sat down with a tape recorder and banged out a script over a weekend, using direct quotes from vacuous Hollywood stereotypical douchebags. There's some would-be sex scenes but the film is apparently above nudity. I can't speak to how bad the script was, but it was the worst film I've seen in many years. It was like they used the first take on many scenes (like cutting of some fingers, the actor doesn't react to it) and moved on. It seemed like someone else's imaging/rip-off of SAW - a twisted morality tale where people have to pay for their crimes. To it's credit, the characters in the story point out that they don't particularly care, what was done wasn't all that bad, and the antagonist keeps changing the "rules" of her game to oppress her victims.
The idea of the film is fine, but the execution was just God-awful. I'm sorry, there's just nothing laudable about this film. Shot in 10 days, with no budget, "it's a film Danielle Harris wanted to see", it really shows, for the worse - this is a terrible film from an acting/writing/execution standpoint, but not terrible enough to be fun.0 -
Bad Meat (2011)
A group of wayward teens are send to an isolated Boot Camp to be disciplined. The only notable star is Mark Pellegrino (Jacob in LOST, Rip's brother Randy in No Holds Barred); Amongst them is a goth, an activist, a christian girl (who might be gay), an abrasive urban girl, a would-be tough black kid, and some regular white people. It's hilarious that the girls sit around chatting in their underwear but this film needed all the help it could get. The disenchanted chef buys some bad meat and makes the staff violently sick (and eventually maniacs), before leaving with the only car. Then the film drags quite a lot until the counsellors actually change into frenzied infected zombies. The budget for this film was quite low although the characters -although stock- are more interesting and so makes the film watchable.
The film is bookended by the sole survivor -completely bandaged- in the hospital, so we're left to wonder which one made it (although it's obvious it's a white girl, so it narrows it down to two). The idea is fine but honestly the budget was too low so there wasn't nearly enough gore. There was a hilarious bit where a kid eats some of the bad meat, so the goth pumps his stomach with a cafeteria hose, which doubles in the movie like a large penis. It's quite funny and they play it up for all it's worth. Some off-screen deaths (which I absolutely despise) and a very cheap "Oh my God!" ending bring down the film. I'd say avoid. Great premise - would work well if given the money - but as it stands, avoid.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sinister (2012)
Plot :
Ellison Oswalt is a now-stagnant true-crime writer. Desperate for inspiration and his next big hit, he decides to move his family into a murder house and write about it. In the attic, he finds horrific 'home movies' depicting grizzly murders, and strange things start to happen around his house.
Cast :
Starring Ethan Hawke (Gattaca, Training Day) as the troubled, driven writer Ellison, relative newcomer Juliet Rylance as his supportive wife Tracy, and written/directed by Scott Derrickson (Exorcism of Emily Rose).
Good points :
- After about half an hour, the film has a great sense of foreboding dread.
- He makes friends with an affable rookie police deputy, who looks like Alberto Del Rio.
- Despite the plot-device to stay in the obviously haunted house ("I need this novel!") thankfully common sense prevails and furthers the storyline.
- The antagonist is pretty freaky-looking and the back story is cool enough.
- It was cool to see Ellison editing film footage by hand.
- The murders shown on tape are not explicitly graphic (like we don't SEE gore), but are definitely heightened for all their worth by showcasing them to low-resolution, shaky Super-8 home videos from decades ago. We get the setup, and the idea, it's done very well. The gore isn't needed, we see all we need to - great stuff.
- There are a ton of music-montages, and although I quite enjoyed them, there may be a few too many. The musical choices/freaky beats are pretty cool.
Bad points :
- Unfortunately, the scares are generally relegated to "STARTLING!" as opposed to genuinely scary moments : OK there's nothing behind you OMG NOW THERE IS! I'm looking and there's nothing there OMG YOU'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA! That kind of really lame shock-horror is the pay-off for some excellent dread.
- The film is bloody shot in the dark - roughly 20% of the screen can be seen even during the day time. Listen, exposition during the day, eating breakfast, turn on the damn light. There are points where this is done for effect (i.e. focus on the tree outside) but the whole film is like this.
- The cast are nothing special. I'm not exactly rooting for any of them. The kids are alright as well. You can see the wife's point - she's right! - but there's nothing to her character, she's just normal. I actually cared more for Del Rio than the rest really.
The "death" makeup on the kids is pretty poor.
- These kids are given a bit too too much screen time, which goes from freaky to ok to by the end, kinda lame and cheesy.
- The final scene is not executed well - unfortunately. The idea is grand and fitting itself, but it wasn't done well.
Overall :
The film is marred by a not-particularly warm cast and predictable BOO! scares and a disappointingly-executed ending, but despite that, it creates great tension & dread - it's an enjoyable, effective horror film. I'd recommend.0 -
Chernobyl Diaries (2012)
Plot :
A couple of Americans decide to visit Pripyat, Ukraine, a ghost town near the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. The restricted area isn't home to just stray wildlife...! Of course this is pure science-fiction, as actual Chernobyl affects resulted in ~250 dying of radiation sickness and ~5,000 eventual deaths attributed to cases of Thyroid cancer. But don't let the facts get in the way of this horror film!
Cast/Crew :
Directorial debut of Bradley Parker (Viz FX - Fight Club, Let Me In), screenplay by Oren Peli (Paranormal Activity series), starring Jonathan Sadowski (Die Hard 4.0), Jesse McCartney (2008's Keith) and Olivia Dudley (Chillerama).
Good points :
- Great setting for a horror film - shot in Hungary and Serbia, place looks absolutely desolate after a massive nuclear disaster.
- The pace & story keeps moving forward
- Does well with the quite limited budget
- I'm glad we don't have the "found footage" shaky-cam. The camera is just along for the ride.
- Also glad they didn't go down the "Hostel" route. They tease it at one point and we never hear from it again.
Bad points :
- Not particularly tense
- Characters are the same-old, although I warmed to Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) most. They come across better/less annoying than your standard disposable teens.
- The mutants aren't great. And that's being kind. They tried the best they could to hide them.
- Jesse McCartney looks about 12. It's like looking at John Connor from Terminator 2!
- The characters' demeanour despite seeing some horrific moments seem very out of place. (Like seconds afterwards they're 'back to business'...)
- Mostly STARTLED!/shock-horror scares. Have a look, it's quiet - BOO! Or there's nothing....then BOO!
- Some plot devices feel quite cheesy.
Overall :
The setting and pace were good, and the characters weren't complete idiots. Despite the laundry list of problems, I quite enjoyed the film, although it got a bit hammy towards the end. I wouldn't recommend though.0 -
7 Below (2012)
Plot :
Seven Below is a horror film about a group of people who are travelling in the middle of nowhere, crash their car, go into a spooky house where (apparently) scary things happen. You'd never guess that murders took place in the house 100 years ago.
Starring :
Matt Barr (Brandon from American Pie Band Camp), Rebecca Da Costa (stilted actress), Ving Rhames (Marsellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction; the guy who ushers them into the house, that's convenient) and a depressing-to-look-at Val Kilmer. Directed/written by Kevin Carraway.
Good Points :
The trailer successfully hoodwinks you into thinking this isn't an awful film.
Bad Points :
The plot is pretty derivative
The Freaky kids gimmick is completely ineffective
There's no tension
The shock horror "scares" are predictably lame and
Oh man, Ving Rhames speeches are so awful. His final speech is particularly cringe-worthy.
No nudity. This film is not anywhere near good enough to think it's above nudity.
Overall : Listen, you get the idea. I just wanna stop there...Do not see this terrible film.0 -
Scream 4 (2011)
Cast/Crew :
Directed by Wes Craven, starring the old crew of Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox & David Arquette, along with new faces that take the lion's share of the screen time. Some nice cameos that I won't spoil here.
Plot :
This one can be described as a "living remake" of Scream 1, where events happen in Woodsboro very similarly to the first Scream, so instead of the protagonsits trying to figure out the rules of a horror film, they try to figure out the new rules of a horror film remake.
Pre-Amble :
I think that's quite a clever plotline! This is an enjoyable film, if you know it's style and what it has to offer. I definitely think there is a niche market for self-referential horror films. With that, this film requires a good amount of suspension of disbelief, disregarding basic sense. The characters' emotions sometimes don't match the situation or what has happened. Are there only 3 police officers in the entire county? Are they really this stupid? You gotta just accept these things in order to enjoy it.
Points of note :
- I was shocked that the old cast is back, not just for a cameo.
- The whole thing is based around the "shoot" and "work" Scream/Stab film franchise, which is quite enjoyable.
- They reference the previous Scream films so often it's like they're apologising/explaining why this plot twist is taking place.
- It's cool to see a horror film set in a world where horror films exist, something very rare; some swerves are used to some great comic effect
- I didn't appreciate them trotting off the generic "internet dismissals" of other horror franchises while this one itself isn't very well written or with great characters.
Overall :
This isn't a great film, the characters are "normal", the kills are hilariously cheap sometimes, and the film gets lost in it's own twists...This is a Russo-esque take on horror films. But it's just mindless entertainment, easy-going fun. In short, if/when they do Scream 5, I'd give it a watch.0 -
Panic Button (2011)
Plot :
This should've been called "SAW on a plane". A group of 20-somethings have won a holiday of a lifetime from All2gether.com (a thinly veiled parody of facebook) which starts with a 1st Class flight to New York. Little do they know, they've all been selected to play a deadly game.
Cast/Crew/Production:
The cast is either forgettable or instantly irritating, which makes it a tough watch. The writing and plot is nothing special and the budget is almost non-existent as almost the entire movie is set in one location (a plane's cabin interior), and with that, there's no gore or gratuitous deaths etc. There's very little positives. The faceless perpetrator (seen as a televised animated crocodile) slowly lets them in on the real reason why they're there, starting with listing out their shortcomings and despicable acts, all chronicled on the faceb all2gethr.com.
Thoughts :
The idea is fine enough, and the revelations make sense and are decent, but the execution and the overall production is flimsy. You'd imagine that this film would be heavy on the finger-wagging of big companies collecting personal information that it's users freely distribute, but no, not really - it's just used as a vehicle and explanation of the events. How the antagonist created a billion dollar networking site for this purpose is a little specious, but ok...It'd be easier to forgive if there was something positive to focus on. They should've just given the idea to the makers of SAW. Regardless of your feelings on the franchise, at least SAW has enjoyably unnecessary gore, cooler characters, better writing, wrapped in solid moral reasoning that ties itself into the other iterations.
Overall :
Oh. And there's NO BLOODY PANIC BUTTON in this film called Panic Button! That's about enough on this waste of time. Avoid at all costs!0 -
Advertisement
-
Dead Silence (2007)
*This review is a little spoilery*Plot :
It's a film about a haunted/evil doll, which is innocuously possessed and murders people. Of course, initially nobody knows if the doll is actually possessed and deadly shenanigans ensue.
Cast/Production :
Brought to you by the creators of SAW! Surprised this slipped my radar for so long. If you didn't know it was done by James Wan & Leigh Whannell beforehand, you'd definitely see their hallmarks in the film, via the aesthetics and editing. Donnie Wahlberg (SAW 3/4) plays the cynical cop, Det. Lipton.
Influences :
The film also reminds me greatly of The Ring, from the plot progression, the disfigured bodies, to the shots used. Man receives doll, loved one killed, slowly uncover horrible story, makes things right, things go wrong, finale. To their credit, they do employ different types of scares, they do revisit the "darkness, flash of light, movement!" scare much like the photographer in his apartment in Saw 1, and the 'SAW revelation montage' at the end. Also SAW has a freaky doll. I won't spoil it but Wan & Whannell seem to have recycled a main character from Insidious as well.
Overall :
It's a haunted doll film, made by the SAW guys, sans gore - it's exactly what you'd expect. There's nothing really laudable or revolutionary, but if possessed dolls are your bag baby, go for it!0 -
Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)***BE WARNED - THIS TRAILER SHOWS ALL THE GOOD PARTS!***
Plot :
Tucker & Dale are two naive, well-meaning hillbillies (the titular Tucker and Dale) who have recently bought a dilapidated murder-cabin in the woods (their "Summer House") as they come across a stock group of teens, who are convinced they're serial killers, in this comedy horror film.
Cast/Production :
Directed by Eli Craig, featuring Alan Tudyk (Dutch in Transformers 3, Debbie in Life & Times of Tim); Tyler Labine (Robert in Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and their 'captive' Allison (Katrina Bowden; Cerie in 30 Rock). I'm quite pleased to say they all play their parts well and are easily likeable.
Thoughts :
This is an interesting take on the well-worn horror staple (American teens get stranded in farmland and get murdered by local psychopaths), and it's able to hold it's charm throughout the film. However, almost all of the best jokes and lines (as well as most of the deaths) were shown in the trailer, so it's worth will vary upon yourself.
It's refreshing to see a horror that's intentionally funny and not due to a small budget or poor writing/acting, this is a well-made horror comedy, with a splash of romance. Don't let that last part put you off though.
It's shot nicely, much like campside-horror, it film has been washed out. It looks pretty though, despite the overriding colour being brown. Tons of brown, with a bit of grey.
There's no nudity, and the gore is portrayed in a comic sense.
The plot progresses nicely and makes sense. It's nothing revolutionary but it always managed to be upbeat with some fun dialogue.
The song when the credits roll is some God-awful tweener-rock song. Boo! It felt quite out of place as well. I'm sure it cleared the cinema very quickly. Afterwards there's a much more fitting country song.
Overall :
Don't watch the trailer, just watch this film now! Very enjoyable, easy-going horror comedy. This genre's staple is turned on it's head, quite successfully. Definitely recommended.0 -
The Apparition (2012)
Plot :
College students recreate a summoning using more sophisticated technology, which ends badly. Paranormal activity (the occurance, not the movie) starts affecting the survivors.
Cast/Production :
Directed and written by Todd Lincoln, starring Ashley Greene (who released nude pics of herself), Sebastian Stan (Sgt. Bucky in Captain America) and Thomas Felton (Malfoy in Harry Potter) in a supporting role. Wait 'til my father hears about this!
Thoughts :
It was nice to see a more high-budget horror film, it's shot nicely and most of the film is well-lit. The idea of having a proper game-plan & equipment in a horror film is refreshing (parapsychology students being haunted as opposed regular folks). I felt slightly hoodwinked as Malfoy isn't the protagonist. He is Mr. Exposition, either by himself or his tapes. The film addresses some 'rules' in the film (eg people are haunted, not houses) and the protagonists generally don't make stupid decisions. The horror is quite run of the mill, e.g. quietly walk around a darkened house with a infrared camera, spooky stuff in the background, shock!-false alarm. It's all been seen before, although I did like how the evil would start 'nesting' in the house. The apparition takes humans (to God knows where) and I was happy to see they even briefly expounded on that. I wasn't impressed that the previously-working-for-weeks plan immediately didn't pan out when they needed it, although it did forward the plot.
Overall :
A mediocre film in every aspect, it got badly panned by critics but I didn't think it was horrible, it just wasn't particularly great. Nice to see Malfoy getting work. Good production values, humdrum scares/tension, average film.0 -
The Woman In Black (2012)Pre-amble :
From one Potter kid to the next...This is Daniel Radcliffe's first film since finishing the Harry Potter series. Good God, is this the best film he could land a feature part in? Small trivia note, the 1989 TV film version of The Woman in Black featured Adrian Rawlins in Radcliffe's part, who played his father in the Harry Potter movies! How about that.
Plot :
Early 1900s Britain, Harry's a failing lawyer who's tasked to sort out papers for a large manor. When he gets to the remote area, he finds it's haunted, death surrounds the town and the villagers know something but aren't telling. One kindly old man drip-feeds him the plot, Ciarán Hinds (Caesar from ROME). So far so good.
The Horror :
It all falls apart when you get the sinking realisation that this film has nothing to offer. All this film can muster is the same monotonous startling/shock!-horror that is truly the lowest of scares. Over and over again for 90 minutes. Oh it's crow, how startling, oh a music box starts playing, how startling. Specifically-placed mirrors in the shot, something moves! Oh no!
Anything Else?
Tell you what though, Potter in this film has balls. He has no problem checking out an obviously malevolently-haunted house with absolutely no concern for his own safety. The film tries to add gravity as the targets of said Woman in Black are always children, and Potter's kid is on his way to the haunted town and such a fate could await him. Horrible film. So little positives to say about it. It had the customary washed-out look, it never looked cheap, so that's something positive.
Overall :
The script and the 'scares' were bankrupt. Hugely disappointing, fell short of average. Avoid.0 -
-
-
A Nightmare on Elm St (2010)
Pre-Amble : Ah, Rorschach as Freddy Kruger? Sign me up! The film had generally unfavourable reviews so I was aware that it wasn't warmly received, which usually means I look to enjoy the film more and try to look for the positives. This film marks the first time Freddy has not been portrayed by Robert Englund (after 7 Elm St. movies and 1 spin-off Freddy vs Jason).
Freddy Krueger is a horror icon. Initially intended to be a cash-in on the slasher flicks of the early 80s, it became a unique blend of darkly comic and horror with a great premise - the monster is the ghost of a murdered paedophile who kills children/young adults in their sleep - a terrifying notion. He stalks his victims by blending reality and a horrific fantasy before killing them, which is absolutely perfect for a horror film.
Cast/Crew : Directed by Samual Bayer, best known for directing rock concert DVDs. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach from the Watchmen) plays Freddy Krueger in a decent performance, but his character has no charisma so...Thomas Dekker (John Connor from the Sarah Connor Chronicles) plays the brooding angsty teen heart-throb. No thanks! A niggling point, but all the teens are played by mid-20s actors. Kris (Katie Cassidy) is not believable as a high-school student in the least.
Plot : Kris sees a burnt man in her diner, and watches in horror as he cuts her boyfriend (Dean)'s throat. That was a dream! In reality Dean is shown killing himself the same way. Kris believes this burnt man is responsible, and must uncover the truth while not falling asleep herself.
Anyway, here's a list of good, bad and indifferent points of observation I made about the film, see if you think you can overlook the flaws or if it confirms your suspicions!
GOOD POINTS :- Freddy looks cool enough, and he's kept strictly as a heel (i.e. no rapping or cheezy one-liners that'd warm you to him)
- The victims are more likeable than your typical douchebag disposable American teens.
- There is an interesting swerve with the victims that I appreciated :
They kill off the protagonists at the start, so you follow other victims.
- There's two cool special effects bits (the landing turning into a blood pool, and it exploding through to the bedroom.
- They go through Freddy's back story, which is the most interesting (although curtailed) part of the film.
- The score sounds like "The Ring" without the main song, which isn't bad.
BAD POINTS :- The film overly relies on shock-horror, not actual scares or atmosphere. Get ready for 20 "Boo!" moments; they're pretty hackneyed, some of them are painfully obvious and become a chore.
- No atmosphere, no suspense is built. Shock-horror can be effective if you build atmosphere. There's none. They go for the "Boo!" immediately.
- They miss the point of Freddy - The whole genius of the Freddy scenario is that his victims don't know if they're asleep or not, Freddy intentionally melds the dream and real world in the victim's mind. This is thrown out the window because certain green/orange lights flicker, telling you that the victim is dreaming :mad: Way to kill the suspense.
- Apart from the two instances previously mentioned, the special effects are pretty meh. (Freddy coming through the bedroom wallpaper looked particularly cheap)
- It's not explained how Freddy came back in general, or how he can 'exorcist' throw people around the room in the real world. Not even an attempt! C'mon, one line!
- It's a small point, but all of Freddy's lines sound voiced over; i.e. they were re-recorded in post production. I'm sure it was to give it more emphasis, but it took me out of the moment constantly.
- It would've been nice to have more interaction/payoff with Freddy's killer(s) expounding on what they did ~15 years ago.
Overall :
I cannot recommend this film as it has very little redeeming qualities. It defines a cash-grab on a famous franchise. It's such a wasted opportunity, with today's special effects and Freddy's amazing gimmick. There's a BLOODY VISUAL CUE to tell us if we're in dream land or reality, ruining any suspense. Freddy deserves and can do better. I judged this film on it's own merits, and no, it's not a good film. Sadly, avoid.0 -
Monster House (2006)
Note : This is a CGI animated children's horror film. I weighed up posting it and decided it's worthy of mention.
Cast/Crew : Directed by Gil Kenan, starring voice talents from Mitchel Musso (Disney), Sam Lerner (Cartoon Network) and Spencer Locke (K-Mart in Resident Evil) as DJ, a 12-year old inquisitive boy, his chubby best friend Chowder, and Jenny respectively (basically the 'Hermione' of the group, but she's more than that).
Thoughts :
For a CGI animation, especially a children's film; it's remarkably well-made. This is not a lavish affair from Disney Pixar, which is likely why it went under the radar. From the synopsis, the plot and characters sound very formulaic, but the writing and story progression keep you really interested in the film the whole way through, with a satisfying finish.
The CG itself is akin to The Incredibles, if it were just set in the suburban town. Nothing spectacular, but more than enough to get the story across. The art direction and camera-work itself is all very, very good. The characters were animated using performance capture (with the actors), which makes their movement look very natural & smooth. The monster house animation has that wonderful stop-motion feel, emphasised by the crooked lines of the structure; giving it that 'Nightmare before Christmas' feel. If that doesn't sell you, living in the monster house is an old coot, who yells at kids to keep off his lawn! What more could you ask for! A lot of time and talent went into it's production and it shows. A kid's tale that is charming, scary and a fun adventure? This one's definitely worth your time and a few bucks.
Overall :
If you're into animations (Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wallace & Gromit etc) I'd highly recommend watching it. As a children's horror film, it over-delivered. I was thoroughly satisfied with the movie.0 -
jaykhunter wrote: »The Woman In Black (2012)Pre-amble :
From one Potter kid to the next...This is Daniel Radcliffe's first film since finishing the Harry Potter series. Good God, is this the best film he could land a feature part in? Small trivia note, the 1989 TV film version of The Woman in Black featured Adrian Rawlins in Radcliffe's part, who played his father in the Harry Potter movies! How about that.
Plot :
Early 1900s Britain, Harry's a failing lawyer who's tasked to sort out papers for a large manor. When he gets to the remote area, he finds it's haunted, death surrounds the town and the villagers know something but aren't telling. One kindly old man drip-feeds him the plot, Ciarán Hinds (Caesar from ROME). So far so good.
The Horror :
It all falls apart when you get the sinking realisation that this film has nothing to offer. All this film can muster is the same monotonous startling/shock!-horror that is truly the lowest of scares. Over and over again for 90 minutes. Oh it's crow, how startling, oh a music box starts playing, how startling. Specifically-placed mirrors in the shot, something moves! Oh no!
Anything Else?
Tell you what though, Potter in this film has balls. He has no problem checking out an obviously malevolently-haunted house with absolutely no concern for his own safety. The film tries to add gravity as the targets of said Woman in Black are always children, and Potter's kid is on his way to the haunted town and such a fate could await him. Horrible film. So little positives to say about it. It had the customary washed-out look, it never looked cheap, so that's something positive.
Overall :
The script and the 'scares' were bankrupt. Hugely disappointing, fell short of average. Avoid.
I agree with everything you said, I saw 1989 version two weeks before seeing this movie,
1989 was so much better played out and the ending gave me the creeps.
And the remake was one of the most dullest movies, I have ever seen,
I won't seeing the Sequel!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The Tall Man (2012)
Plot : Cold Rock, a generic small town gas seen a lot of child disappearances, linked to the legend of the "Tall Man". When Julia (a brunette Jessica Biel)'s kid goes missing, she sets off to unravel the mystery and retrieve her son.
Note : Based on the mythology of "Slender Man", who in 2012 saw a hit free-to-play indie horror game circulating around the internet. Both the various iterations of the story and the game are far better than this film. The basic premise of Slender Tall Man is that he is a tall, thin humanoid creature with no facial attributes, that lives in the woods and kidnaps children. The monster has no facial attributes, has multiple arms/tentacles and is dressed in a would-be black suit. None of which matter a damn in this film!
Thoughts :
This an awful film with barely any horror and some horrible dialogue and forgettable characters. The film features some twists which are clunkers. There's nothing redeeming music or directing-wise, and is lacking in suspense. You get the idea, I'll stop there...it's an absolute waste of time. It's a shame since the mythology sounds quite interesting.
Overall :
The most impressive part of this film is the trailer that completely hoodwinks you into thinking it's halfway decent - it's not! Avoid at all costs!0 -
ZOMBIELAND (2009)
Plot :
This is an odd time where the trailer is worse than the movie. It's a light-hearted "informational" Zombie apocalypse movie, focusing on a bunch of survivors. The outbreak is due to a tainted Big Mac, which wiped out most of America, with only a handful of survivors. We start with the film version of "George Michael from Arrested Development" (i.e. a bumbling, insecure teenager, played by Jesse Eisenberg) who explains how he's been able to survive so long. On his journey to his parents' place he meets other survivors, all the while trying to keep sane, not get bitten, and maybe find love.
Cast/Crew :
Jesse Eisenberg is the protagonist, and despite his anti-social tendencies, is easily likeable. Woody Harrelson plays a gun-toting, would-be-hick that's seemingly loving the apocalypse, and provides most of the humour. Even though it's the Zombie Apocalypse. Emma Stone & Abigail Breslin play a younger and older sister combo, both trying to survive. It may seem contrived but they all work well. Jonathan Levine directs, he has a new somewhat similar movie (Warm Bodies) coming out next year.
Writing :
The writing is quite light and easy-going, never obnoxious or arrogant. It's nothing deep or considered, but it's perfect for the movie, and absolutely believable. There's a few idiotic moments but they're easily overlooked. It's a well-worn premise but it's executed very well. It's about still retaining your sanity by having a laugh in this bleak world and learning to trust again.
Art-style/Effects :
Nothing particularly standout The film uses some slo-mo for comic effect and some graphics to remind us of the rules of survival. There's also some fun gratuitous gore.
Thoughts of the movie :
The film is punctuated by many humorous moments, and the Zombies are taken out with gusto, instead of screaming/running away for the entire movie. Which is really how it should be done. Gotta enjoy the little things, right? There's also a really fantastic cameo.
Verdict :
It's a (much-needed) well-executed light-hearted take on the Zombie Apocalypse, much like Shaun of the Dead. Go see this film. It's great. If you have, see it again!0 -
Grave Encounters (2011)
Plot :
Grave Encounters is a found-footage supernatural horror film set in a supposedly haunted, abandoned psychiatric hospital. The premise is simple - a group of hoax paranormal reality show basic TV crew lock themselves in the hopital overnight to search for ghosts, equipped with various gadgets. The film is spliced footage from all of the different hand-held cameras they bring with them. The film itself relies heavily on night-vision, so the grainy green/black footage can mask the cheap special effects better. It's obvious but it's successful!
Horror itself :
Scares come in the way of exactly how you'd expect - creeping around pitch-black desolate rooms, knocks, clangs, swooshes, and the malevolent spectre(s) become increasingly violent. Ghosts busy doing something, stop, look up at you, OH MY GOD! So your standard shock-startling.
Positives?
There are some really neat ideas - like the night lasting 30+ hours, and rooms and hallways changing where they lead. Physical impossibilities (eg getting pulled into a wall) are also pretty cool.
Anything else?
The film's haunted ghost element is -for some reason- supplemented by inhumane medical experiments and ALSO black magic! No nudity, little gore, this is a low-budget film. But they make do with what they have. People disappearing into smoke works well.
Overall :
This is a cheap horror budget that is pretty by the numbers, they throw in needless "this is evil" bits towards the end. Not recommended, but I did enjoy it. However the next review might twist your arm...0 -
Grave Encounters 2 (2012)
YES! They made a sequel.
Plot : Alex, a young filmmaker, leads a group of students to investigate the same haunted hospital to see if the film Grave Encounters was real. I love it! Extremely meta.
Type of Horror :
It's the same, quiet, BANG! Shock horror. Nothing to write home about. You've seen it before, but hey, it can still be enjoyable.
Thoughts :
So...Grave Encounters is ('in reality') a DVD-released film and fans go to check out it's filmed location. And we're watching the would-be sequel! It opens with webcam-reviewers both praising and slamming the original - Immediate brownie points. The budget feels higher than the original although almost all of the effects are still in the night-vision mode. (Although in reality it was substantially reduced - $2 million down to $100,000 - I guess they still had all of the props!). The budget is seen with the group have more sophisticated equipment, including a infra-red camera and an iPad to watch the original film on & compare their location - great! There are deaths ripped straight out of the first film, similar encounters that go differently, and the theme of the hospital becoming an inescapable maze is built on - there's a lovely breather-moment that was appreciated. Last time they couldn't leave because they locked themselves in, this time it's because they left expensive equipment around! There's also some other callbacks to the original that I won't ruin but are a lot of fun. Much like the original it gets a bit hokey at the end, but just run with it.
Overall :
This is going to be quite a divisive film by the whole meta/'movie within a movie'/'that was fake but this is real' nature of the film, but I loved Scream's central premise, and Back to the Future too. So despite the ropey acting/effects etc, I quite enjoyed it. If you're gonna watch this, why not watch both films back-to-back? Go for it! (*prepares for rotten tomatoes to be thrown*) 0 -
The Possession (2012)
Plot :
A daughter of a recently divorced dad picks up a seemingly evil box at a garage sale, and it starts to change her. By the name of the film you can probably guess the rest!
Type of Horror : Exorcism Movie, some shock-horror moments
Production/Cast :
Directed by Ole Bornedal (Nightwatch), Clyde the father Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian from Watchmen), Kyra Sedgwick as Stephanie (the mother) and Natasha Calis as the possessed daughter Em. All do a grand job in their role.
Thoughts :
This film does exactly what you'd expect - for better or worse. Stopping 'for plates' at a garage sale is a bit ropey but besides that, the logic in the movie is solid enough. There's a couple of moments where you'll have to suspend belief (like silently pointing towards something instead of saying anything, or losing sight of someone in a small kitchen) but overall it makes sense. For example, when the father suspects this evil-looking box, the first thing he does is throw it away. When his daughter has a convulsion, exorcism is last on the list! -- They go to the hospital for a full body CT scan. I did appreciate those logical steps. Sure the scares are predictable, but I did like how they bring Jewish folklore into it. That felt like a new spin on things. What's the deal with casting a 13 year old as a protagonist? It seems an awkward age to cast someone in a horror film, either go for young child or teenager...
Overall :
This is a solid average 5/10 movie. There's nothing wrong with the movie, there's no standout bits, but it's perfectly acceptable watching. Sure, why not!0 -
ParaNorman (2012)
Plot :
A misunderstood/isolated young boy who can see ghosts, has a deadly premonition that a witch (that his town is 'famous' for killing) will return and wreak havoc.
Type :
Children's comedy-horror, stop-animation, 3D.
Production :
Directed by Sam Fell & Chris Butler, starring Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road, Let Me In) as the protagonist Norman, Tucker Albrizzi as Neil, the ginger sidekick, Anna Kendrick (elder cheerleader sister), Casey Affleck as Mitch (his sister's boyfriend) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad, Kick-Ass) as Alvin the school bully. All do a great job with their voice acting.
Thoughts :
Much like Norman himself, the film is charmingly oddball, with a love for horror films. It's simple storyline and progression make it easier for jokes, scares (well...) and getting a simple point across without being preachy. The animation is wonderfully stop-motion, and the 3D works surprisingly well. The timing of the jokes and delivery is quite good. The art style is like the happy younger brother of Tim Burton. The film successfully gets you to care about the protagonists and the smulchy ending isn't too overbearing and hopefully you'll land on it the same side of the fence as I did. As it's a children's horror they're never in any real peril, which might take some of the drama away and so make it slightly boring, but there's enough fun lines, facials and references to keep you interested.
Overall :
You'd already know if you're gonna be interested in this film! But I quite enjoyed it and would recommend. A well-made, charming children's comedy-horror.0 -
Paranormal Activity Franchise (2009-Present)
Paranormal Activity (2009) may have the absolute greatest marketing of any film ever made. This film was originally rejected by the Sundance Film Festival in 2007 but thanks to genius marketing somehow finding the right audience, the film became a runaway success when it opened 2 years later. Made on a budget of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS by Oren Peli, it brought in over $193million!
In order to enjoy this film (now franchise) here are it's rules :
1) It's found footage spliced together, from a hand-held and security cameras.
2) The ghost/demon is invisible and so there's little to no CG.
3) Cameras are set up around the house and you are asked to actively "monitor" the room for changes
4) The films work on a day/night cycle. Scares happen at night, footage is reviewed during the day. This works twofold, giving the audience a chance to relax after "monitoring" the night footage and also anticipating the night-time as 'scary time'.
5)Attacks (aka jump scares, bangs, light-flickers, rumbling noises with abrupt stops) start off subtle (things moving, stopping), at night, eventually during the day, and continue in increasing violence to the crescendo at the end of the film.
6) There's a bit of occult storyline thrown in to tie the films together.
7) No we can't leave the house we don't have the budget for that.
Point 3 effectively makes this film the worlds' laziest video-game. The film is asking you to participate by looking for the ghost. So opposed to nothing happening, hey that chair moved, it's supposed to be "oh God the chair moved!". The horror buff inside me hates the franchise for what it is, but that said, if you can accept the aforementioned rules and get into it, it can be a lot of fun! To enjoy the film you have to accept the film for what it offers. If you have someone who generally doesn't watch horror films, they'll love this franchise.
Another point : Very smartly, some scenes in the trailer do not happen, or do not happen in the same manner as in the final film. This both gives you a taste for the film and swerves you into expecting something else, so the actual scare works better - genius.
Some spoilers follow.0 -
Paranormal Activity 1 (2009)
Cast :
Katie (Katie Featherston) and her sarcastic boyfriend Micah (Micah Sloat)
Plot :
Katie and Micah have recently moved house but Katie claims she feels an evil presence. Micah initially dismisses it, but sets up a camera in their bedroom (to look for Paranormal Activity) and checks it during the day. Seeing proof, he initially enjoys the minor hauntings and even buys a ouija board after a psychic tells them a demon is in the house. Of course things turn sour as outlined above.
Thoughts :
The film asks a lot of suspension of disbelief and accepting the rules to enjoy the film. Even with that, the ridiculous assertion that Micah would accept not leaving for a motel (as a obviously possessed Katie says it's grand) is really at breaking point. The snarl/jump into the camera finish is so hackneyed it really ruins whatever goodwill the film has built up. Thankfully on the DVD there exists a few better alternate endings.
Overall :
Give it a watch. You may love it...you'll probably hate it. Accept it's rules and you can enjoy the film!0 -
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)
Cast :
Sprague Grayden as Kristi (Katie's sister from PA1), Brian Boland as Daniel (her husband), Molly Ephraim as Ali (their daughter), and....well, Katie and Micah.
Plot :
Kristi's house is initially burgled but only a family necklace is stolen. Afterwards the two experience Paranormal Activity.(Stop groaning!) and refer to the rules of the franchise.
Thoughts :
The budget has increased to $5million, which means pretty much the same setup, but bigger - so a nicer house, and more cameras : Instead of one static camera in the bedroom, PA2 sees Dan install security cameras inside & outside the house, where we see short clips cycling through the cameras, which works great for a new spin on monitoring changes. Kristi is pretty much Katie, down to her storyline, and Brian is a less-douchey Micah. In this film research/tape review is done by the daughter (instead of Micah in the first). This time they explain more of why Katie & Kristi are affected and the demon leaves more physical marks (like scratchings on the basement door). They go about things differently, and they tie the 2nd film into the 1st, which is admittedly pretty cool. They also have a sick dog to pull at your heart strings. There is a really great jump-scare in the kitchen.
Overall :
The film is in all aspects better than the original. It follows the same path, does it better, unfolds more of the overarching plot (but not much, mind you!) and ties in nicely. If you liked the first, go see this.0 -
Advertisement
-
Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)
Cast :
Chris Smith as Dennis (the 'Micah' role, setting up cameras record, researching demonology), Lauren Bittner as Julie (the mother, who is basically the dismissive/disbelieving part of 'Micah'), Dustin Ingram as Randy, Dennis' friend (and wreckless part of Micah) and Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown as young Katie and Kristi respectively.
Plot :
Ah, a prequel. Everyone loves those! The majority of the film is sourced from 1988 home movies with somehow-high definition widescreen footage, where the home looks like it was made in 2011... Mentioned in the previous films, Katie and Kristi can't remember much of their childhood and odd things used to happen around them. Here we get to see what happened before the PA1/2.
Thoughts :
From static bedroom camera, to multiple cycling security cameras, now we have cameras around the house, especially the sitting room camera, which is on a fan's pivot, so it slowly pans from left to right, giving you a new way to "monitor" the activity. I have to say, that's genius. Scares come into and out of view with the left-to-right panning. The film plays by the PA rulebook, as PA starts to happen after Katie's new invisible friend, Toby, shows up. More demonology and witches coven symbols graffiti the house, and they go to their grandma's house for the final act. The film expands and explains well the reasons why this is occurring and the usually static camera comes first person, and is done quite well. The thread is running thin on this yearly found footage yarn, but it is a decent sequel.
Overall : This film has the most plot of the three so far. Although the premise is wearing thin, it's worth a watch, if you've seen one or both of it's predecessors.0 -
Microsoft Kinect presents Paranormal Activity 4
Plot :
When an odd boy stays with the family across the street, odd happenings start to occur around the house.
Cast :
This time the protagonist is also the film's target demographic, a young teenage girl Alex (Kathryn Newton). What little exposition is done by herself and her typical douchebag male friend, Ben (Matt Shively). Her younger brother Wyatt becomes increasingly distant as he spends more time with creepy kid Robbie.
Thoughts on the Film :
The film leans HEAVILY on startling, lots of quietly walking around, people appear/there's a bang. There is actually a scene of Alex walking around in the dark, slowly, waiting for the jump scare. When her mam asks her why, she literally says "I don't know". We know - lazy writing.
There's numerous blatant advertising in the film (pepsi, Kinect etc). It's very noticeable.
New Film PoV : From one static camera (PA1), to security cameras (PA2), to a camera on a rotating fan axis (PA3), to now, multiple static cameras, "webcam view" (someone's face takes up most of the screen, we also see the background behind her) and infrared Kinect vision. Both are actually quite cool, with great potential for scares. Unfortunately the film never delivers.
Pragmatic things like the parents don't mind everyone's laptops running 24/7 and their Kinect/laptop/light switch setup wouldn't work in reality bugged me. It's more noticeable if the film is poor. They must have two laptops in Wyatt's room as there's two different static camera positions.
Time spent with young American teens is grating, but I'd imagine it's accurate.
Nobody listens in this film, so the film can progress like the writer/director wants. Sigh! We get a shoe-horned "parents don't get along" to explain why they dismiss these shocking occurances. "Hey! This thing almost killed me!" "Just go to bed." It's annoying at this point.
Audio-wise, I get it's part of the scare, but the combination of people whispering far away from the camera, and really loud bangs make the film a frustrating experience.
Plot Wise :
PA3 expanded on the background of the franchise but this one offers almost nothing - very disappointing. What's (not) happening in the house can't carry the film by itself. There's about 4 lines in the film that deal with backstory.So... Hunter? After Katie killed her family and her sister's family, she abducted Hunter. But apparently she left the woods, put on her Sunday best and went to the adoption agency. And who's the f**k is Robbie? Katie didn't have kids, Hunter is the first born male child in generations. This annoyed me - I held judgement until the film was over but it was never explained. BOOO.
The film ends the same way as #3, except much crappier. The all-female PA fan club show up - it was really very lame. As is the really played out "my face is a demon face" effect.
Overall : This film should never have been made - this is the definition of a cash-grab. The film has plot retconning just to make the film - they're clearly out of ideas. Avoid this film.0 -
-
-
The Pact (2012)
Plot :
Annie (Caity Lotz) returns to town for her mother's funeral. When her sister Nicole (Agnes Bruckner) goes missing, and strange occurances happen in her late mother's house, she pledges to uncover the mystery.
Thoughts on the film :
- "The Pact" itself is never referenced or explained. What was it?! :mad:
- There is minimal exposition, it feels like we're missing the first 20 minutes of the film. Although you find out the story by the end, there's very little to go on for a while. Hearing a bump every now and then isn't really enthralling.
- They start with the less pretty sister, then move the film's focus to the prettier one. I wonder if that was a conscious decision.
- Annie believes her sister has left town, but is surprisingly cool with going back into an obviously haunted & likely malevolent house.
- Getting a medium that looks like a human 'corpse bride' was pretty good.
- There is a storyline reason for it, but the film is aggravatingly shot in the dark. Protagonists shuffle around in the pitch black house for no reason other than for the film to grasp some atmosphere.
- About the unnaturally dark house, they say that electricity attracts the spirit...wouldn't it brighten the house then? Maybe it absorbs the light/electricity.
- I've never seen a makeshift Ouija board before. And it works!
- Weaving in a much bigger story, and the twist that takes the past into the present was pretty well done, definitely best part of the film.
- They go for some really obvious scares, and decide not to in other circumstances. Couple of groaners.
Overall, it's a very average forgettable film, but it's not a bad film. The impromptu revelation that leads into the finale makes the film an acceptable watch.0 -
The Wicked (2013)
Cast : Nobody you know
Plot : Scary folklore in the small town of Summerset becomes the talking point after a child is snatched from her bed. The tale goes that there's a (wicked) witch that lives in the woods. If you smash a window of her cabin, she hunts you down & abducts/kills you, especially young children, which maintains her lifeforce. Teenage douchebags head to the woods to see if it's true.
Thoughts on the film:
- The most obvious problem is Don't Show The Witch! She looks incredibly hokey. It's plainly some cheap prosthetics and is wildly unimpressive! I know the CG smoke must be expensive but it's a hard sell seeing the state of the supposedly scary witch. As soon as you see her hand and she looks to be dressed like a drunken hobo, it's hard to take it seriously.
- The characters are mostly unlikeable (most prominently there's a stereotypical college guy and his bland/quieter/more sensitive teen brother, and a bratty teen girl who wants to make prank calls, breaks people's things and doesn't bother to show up for her friends' grandfather's funeral)
- There's no nudity to distract you from the flaws.
- Characters go from 'I'm scared I can't move' to 'I've got a plan let's go' and 'i'm terrified' to a calm 'sure no problem' a bit too fast.
- Sets, set dressing, props etc are all bog standard so (like the brown cob-webs) look pretty hokey.
But what was good about the film?
- There's a lots of different people, and only one witch, who doesn't kill people straight away (she has a ritual) so there's a continual merry-go-round of who gets caught, who gets free and frees others & tries to escape, gets caught/who dies, who gets freed etc etc and that really does keep the storyline ticking over.
- The opening bits with the typical blurry spectre (dis-)appearing and the kids smashing the window (invoking the witch - who was minding her own business by the way!) and shadows in the window were pretty cool. The 'oh sh** it's real!' aspect was good fun.
- I always find the gimmick of folklore interesting, and that it's true, and deal with it right now! Imagine if the Blair Witch Project was just the opening half hour of a horror film, and they tried to escape! That's pretty interesting, right?
Overall : There's nothing particularly redeeming about the film, it's a big shame about how cheap the witch is - it really breaks suspension of disbelief. It's just some clumsy woman in a costume! The characters aren't particularly likeable and I can't recommend the film, but...I found it an easy watch. The will they/won't they escape cycle was fun.
0 -
Advertisement
-
This review contains some minor spoilers, but nothing beyond what the trailer shows.
Dark Skies (2013)
Cast :
Father Daniel Barrett (Josh Hamilton - Robert Irwin in J. Edgar), wife Lacy (Keri Russell, the kidnapped sister from The Marine 3), older son Jesse (Dakota Goyo, Max from Real Steel) and younger son Sam (Kadan Rockett).
Plot :
Daniel Barrett has a typical American family, but money problems are putting a strain on everyone. A series of odd occurrences happen around the house & (initially) their youngest child. These increase in severity and lead them to believe something malevolent is targeting them.
Thoughts on the Film :
- It's blatantly obvious that this flim has ties to Insidious and Sinister (same producer), since this film combines the two and adds aliens (called "The Greys"). Thankfully it's shot traditionally and NOT 'found footage'! From the way the characters learn more about what is causing these disturbances, to setting up many cameras around the house and reviewing it the next day, it might feel like you've already watched this film.
- The film does a good job at building tension. The first visible sighting of The Greys in the film is a great shock. The dialogue stops when it needs to.
- Shock-horror? There is use (but not abuse) of the 'startling' loud bang moments.
- There's some cringe-worthy coming-of-age dialogue with elder son Jesse but it's not much of the film.
- I enjoyed the ominous signs & 'things that can't be naturally explained' such as birds converging on a particular house.
- As with these 'haunted house' films, it seems incredulous that the family would not move when such obvious bad things are happening in their home - I appreciate the film quickly mentioning that moving house would not solve the problem.
- There's somewhat heavy-handed commentary on family : Financial woes are causing strife between the parents, the husband wants to internalize his worries and denies problems, dismissing the child's explanations, and parents failing to communicate with their children. This is mirrored with the unsettling events in the house causing upset & denial, and when temporarily possessed, the family members literally can't talk (to each other). The Greys want to tear the family apart, much like their own problems. The film comes right out and preaches to the audience when the parents are told that a strong family unit will save them from The Greys. Hilarious jump-cut to the father disregarding that and buying guns and has no idea where his kids are. I also thought it was hilariously shoe-horned that the final act takes place on July 4th with Stars & Stripes/fireworks playing.
- There's an unnecessary somewhat SAW-like 'revelation/explanation' at the end that the audience would've figured out by then. But hey -best be sure everyone in the audience understands why.
Overall :
The build and tension increases throughout the film, and it's well done, but it's a rather short pay-off and the film as a whole isn't particularly scary (like most horror films). The protagonist father isn't that amiable either. This was a better than average sci-fi/horror film but it's main problem is that it really does feel unoriginal. A mix of previously-worn ideas with a fresher idea on top. But it is a decent watch...You won't be enriched by it, but it'll easily hold your attention.0 -
Mama (2013)
I included a clip instead of the trailer. Whoever made the trailer doesn't know anything about horror, or playing to this film's strengths. The trailer would actually turn you off seeing this movie.
Plot :
2 young, newly-orphaned children are left in the woods. When they are eventually found 5 years later, they are feral and speak of a protective force called "Mama".
Cast :
Written/Directed by Andrés Muschietti, E.P. Guillermo del Toro.
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (aka King Slayer/Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones) plays both the father & uncle to the kids. Jessica Chastain (Maya, Zero Dark Thirty) plays his girlfriend Annabel, the daughters Victoria & Lilly (played by Megan Charpentier - Red Queen from Resident Evil 5, and Isabelle Nélisse - Simone from Whitewash respectively).
Thoughts on the film :
• Within minutes of the film you'll see how creepy and higher-quality this film is.
• Excellent use of shot composition (like shooting the hall, while being able to see into rooms in front of and behind it) and wonderful camera movement, giving a really very creepy atmosphere. There's a scene where the camera pans watching Annabel, but in the darkness, Lilly (the younger, more detached, feral girl) comes out of a box - sounds contrived but it's unsettling, the film has lots of 'em and it's great. Seeing the two kids in the new house walking around is sad and captivating.
• The foreboding by odd-happenings/presence around the house is great, such as Lilly gleefully playing tug-of-war with a bedsheet with something off-camera.
• Del Toro's 16:9 aspect ratio. Thank you.
• Perfect mix of expected scares, jump scares and building tension/creepiness.
• Gradual unveiling of Mama (who is CG) is done really very well. You know how Jeepers Creepers went terrible when you saw the ghost? This is the opposite of that. Short bursts used judiciously throughout the film, increasing as you find out more. It couldn't be done physically so doing this was the best you could do. Top notch stuff.
• Lilly is FANTASTIC. And I hate child actors. The use of CG with the kids being ferral is brilliant. Her unnatural movement, emaciated/disheveled look is constantly unsettling. They only need them to be animalistic/contort for a handful of shots and it's very effective and freaky.
• Annabel has a great story arc. She's the girlfriend, bassist in a rock band helping out as a good girlfriend, becomes a completely reluctant mother figure.I was surprised and intrigued how she became the primary 'good guy'. She literally starts off her story saying thanking God she's not pregnant/not a mother! How she continues on at the end does seem a bit odd seeing how powerful Mama is.• As if rehabilitating these kids and apparently their protector isn't enough, there's Lucas' brother's mother-in-law looking to gain custody of the children. You hate her in the short amount of screen-time she gets.
• There is a nice but not-altogether-that-important plot twist/revelation.
• Use (change & lack of colours) for flashbacks are beautiful.
• The use of children, and protecting them against a supernatural foe, use of insects (moths instead of flies), the way information is uncovered, use of psychiatric tapes, recalling shots from earlier in the movie, splicing past with present footage, and where the final act/confrontation takes place is very reminiscent of The Ring. Considering that's my favourite horror movie, that's a great thing. It's perfectly laid out, makes sense, an unexpected explanation, the characters evolve/change, and all comes back around. Excellent.
Ok I must have some negatives....!
• They re-use the 'saw'/Read Window use-a-camera-as-a-light-source terrifying trick that does work, although it's not that new, it's still creepy.
• It was lame when "M-A-M-A-M-A-M-A-M-A-"[etc] showed up on a hospital display. Boo!
• Lucas (Jaime Lannister) had a smaller role than I would've hoped. But this gives way to a much better story arc (Annabel's) so again, not really a complaint!
• There's a scene that overstays it's welcome a little and shows their kids' acting up.
These negatives are all very small compared to the wealth of positives of this film.
OVERALL : Go and see Mama! It may remind you of other films, but it's one of the creepiest films I've seen in a long time. Lilly is brilliant & for once the child actors are great! HIGHLY recommended.0 -
The Box (2009)
Yes. For some reason the marketing department added the SAW theme to the end of this trailer.
*Note : This review contains spoilers*
Cast :
Cameron Diaz, and James Marsden (Cyclops). Written/directed by Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko) and Richard Matheson.
Trivia :
This film is based off a short story called "Button Button" by Richard Matheson in 1970. It was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986.
Plot :
A mid-30s couple with a son is delivered a box with a button. Push the button, a stranger will die, and you receive $1,000,000. Do you push it?
Thoughts on the film :
- The premise of the plot has me intrigued. Unfortunately they only spend a few scenes deliberating this moral quandry, and well, the story wouldn't be any good if they didn't push it and went on with their lives. So they do, and the story unfurls out in a parade of piece-it-together explanations, extra-terrestrial plot developments, some lame attempt at social commentary & finger-wagging, and you're left with a rather unsatisfactory film that pitched something interesting but quickly ran in the other direction, involving pod people and some other tripe.
- It's set in the 70s, so there's lots of set-dressing/nods of "hey this is the 70s".
- Runs 1hr 55, far too long for a convoluted story that devolves into a boring sci-fi story.
Overall : The initial question is something to chat about over a pint (and spice it up by asking if you'd push it, if it was someone you met over the course of your life) but this film is a waste of time, and about half an hour too long. Avoid.0 -
Evil Dead (2013)*Don't watch the trailer if you haven't already. Some really cool parts are in this trailer that are best seen while watching the film. Go see it!*
Production :
Directed by Fede Alvarez, produced by Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert G. Tapert
Cast :
Not Bruce Campbell, just accept that he's not in it. Hey! Did you know, the names of the main characters (David, Eric, Mia, Olivia, Natalie) form an acrostic spelling of the word Demon? How about that.
Plot :
For all intents and purposes, this is a 'group of Americans in a cabin' movie. But it happens to be the Evil Dead experience. These friends are here in order to help one member, Mia, beat her drug addiction and become clean. They find some occult objects in the cabin cellar. When things get unnaturally weird, two things compel them to stay : They have no intention of failing to get her clean again, and it's raining so hard the road is out - they can't leave.
Thoughts on the film :
• This film doesn't have Bruce Campbell, just accept it, don't take it out on this film! I feel that people may be basing their love of him because they had 3 films with Bruce, as opposed to just the first film, which seriously did not age well.
• This could be seen as a slasher flick, as a deadly force terrorises and picks off the group one by one.
• As with most slashers, the cast is largely unmemorable. They dress very plainly, and they do have a hippie douche, so it well could be the 70s, even though it's present day. A small point, but I took umbrage that it was the calm nurse that took the lead in health treatment of the group and not the 'scatterbrain' doctor.
• The unveiling of the Necronomicon is pretty cool. It's not a big thing but I thought the gravity given to getting to open the book was great. The images in the book are cool, and in some instances they herald what's coming next; a great way to anticipate the next nasty shot.(Specifically thinking of the 'victim will cut her face off', and in the dark you can hear the girl furiously cutting with a small knife)• I did feel getting the Evil Dead spirit into the house & possession/torture did happen pretty quickly. Some things (like in the thorn bush) I expected to happen later in the film. That said, the pace is kept up, things happen quite quickly and there's little down time.
• There is some really wonderfully gratuitous gore. Some of it is quite over the top but any horror fan should love what they've done. Funnily enough there were more people wincing at the stunts (eg hitting your back off the toilet) rather than the nasty stuff. Some of the coolest parts are seen in the trailer, that are not as impactful in the movie since you've seen it already.
• I appreciate there was no cheap "BANG! SHOCK!" horror bits. They preempt any shock contrivances (eg reflection in the mirror, nothing's there, something's there!) so you know it's coming, and don't go for the loud-noise scares.
• I was hoping to hear"Klaatu barada nikto" and "dead by dawn" so that was a little disappointing.• There is little to no CG, the gore is all practical effects, and it's really wonderful. It gives it so much more realism, something that'd be very lame in CG.
• They drop a few plot points that are easy to remember and I like how they were used later in the film. For people who've seen some weird stuff, they sure don't gather their weapons or even keep an eye on them. It works better for the plot but after it happens a few times you start to side with the demon...
• The last 20 minutes of the film were great. It was like an extra bonus, some cool stuff.I loved the blood rain, and the tease and getting the 'end of days', but the Abomination from hell turned out to be not as awesome as the name suggests! The chainsaw finish was really very enjoyable.• In the credits, there's some audio from the original evil dead from the first film, and a snippet afterwards - nothing huge but you should stick around if you see the movie.
Overall : This is the best cabin horror movie I've seen. Ok, it's no Evil Dead 2 and the characters are forgettable, but the pace, gore and Evil Dead routine is a lot of fun. Go see it.0 -
Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)
Cast :
Alexandra Daddario (Annabeth Chase from Percy Jackson) as the protagonist, Heather Miller, and 6'6" Dan Yeager as Leatherface.
Plot :
This slasher flick is about Heather Miller, a regular 20-something girl, who receives word of her inheritance. She heads down to her new, large, old house in a small Texan town with her friends...Turns out it has a sordid past & deadly secret.
3D :
I saw the 3D version. There are a lot of parts where the film just looks 2D, but there are definitely some "hey look it's 3D!" parts, so it's best watched with those uncomfortable glasses.
Thoughts on the film :
• This is a sequel to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and not the other 5 TCM films.
• Opening credits : recaps the main scenes from the original, now in 3D, which was pretty cool to see.
• Prologue : picks off right at the end of the original, which is also pretty cool. It plays into this film's storyline, which is nicely weaved.
• Characters : your stock care-free Americans waiting to be picked off, but they aren't as annoying as in other films.
• I'm surprised despite the film being Rated-R, and the protagonist having large breasts, there is no nudity.
• We all know there's gonna be a scene where Leatherface (who's never actually called that) is going to be running after Heather with a chainsaw. Thankfully it happens about 40 minutes into the film, and so the film is past that, and can continue.
• Why he uses a chainsaw as his weapon of choice isn't explained. It just feels a bit odd as he has a cupboard full of them.
• There's only a few gory bits, it's not a gore-fest.
• Grating use of "the car won't start!" hackneyed tension spot.
• Not too much stupidity in the film, beyond two instances(the sheriff is evil, but you get into the back of a police car, and the other girl having a shotgun, using it, but not bringing it with her)• Some suspension of disbelief is required when a police officer checks the house, holding up his iPhone with the video function on so the lads back at the police station can see what he sees. This severely limits his attention and steadiness of his gun. Ridiculous! But it made for an interesting scene - probably the best scene in the film.
• I chuckled when "the letter that explains everything" was given at the start of the film, but not opened until the end so it provides a fitting conclusion/revelation.
• The final 20 minutes make sense and a satisfying conclusion. Nothing great, but better than expected.
Overall : Pretty average slasher film. Don't go out of your way to see it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish film : Dead Bodies (2003)
Synopsis :
Not so much a horror as it is a dark thriller/drama starring Andrew Scott (Jim Moriarty, BBC's Sherlock Holmes). Tommy (Scott) is a regular 20-something Irish lad whose ex-girlfriend accidentally dies after a fight. Fearing he'll go to jail, he decides to hide the body instead, and things spiral out from there.
Thoughts on the film :
- Always enjoyable to see Irish films & actors
- Not large budget
- Starts as quite comical before taking a turn
- Some bits require suspension of disbelief
- One quite unexpected scare
- Lots of twists/developments
- No real standout moments or quality drama but perfectly fine.
Overall : Decent watch but nothing special.0 -
Warm Bodies (2013)
Cast :
Directed & written by Johnathan Levine (50/50, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane) , and Nicholas Hoult (Beast in XMen First Class) as "R", an atypical zombie, and Teresa Palmer (Number 6 in I Am Number Four) as Julie.
Plot :
Looking for his next meal, the undead R feels something for a human survivor (Julie). When he saves her from being eaten by others, they strike up a friendship...and maybe more.
Thoughts on the film :
• This is a film aimed at teenagers. Only teenagers. Did you know that love and feelings can undo being undead? The world's prettiest zombie started feeling! Maybe I can change him!
• Musical interludes and dialogue are very teen-centric as well. From "stop shrugging, shrugger", why vinyl sounds better, to "you rescued me, like, a bunch". Her ditsy friend Nora is the typical gal-pal comic relief. OMG Make-over!
• There are two types of undead, zombies (who still contain some humanity) and "Bonies", skeleton-like creatures which have lost all humanity, just coldly devour and kill.
• "Bonies" are here give the movie a real non-human threat. The Dad character is quite the 2-dimensional villain, and gives the movie a human threat.
• The tone is quite light-hearted. R has a few irreverent monologues about daily life as a zombie and there's never a real sense of danger.
• Zombie speech patterns/comprehension etc is inconsistent. Like R can understand and think quickly but can only grunt words slowly to verbalize. Some zombies try to communicate, some are mindless. This could've been explained but as is, the film just feels sloppy. The zombies/bonies having collective will/plans (we gotta find him!) adds to this.
• Blatant advertising for the Sony PSP, and Call of Duty : Roads to Victory. More aggravating, the player says "I'm on level 5". COD has MISSIONS, not levels, a**hole. I assume the screenwriter hasn't played a videogame for 20 years. Aiming towards teens again.
• To keep the movie progressing, Julie unnaturally gets quickly accustomed to being rescued by, and chatting to, the first ever talking zombie. It's a bit jarring.
• Some of the acting is quite dodgy in parts (like when Julie returns to the bunker and hugs her dad)
So! What's good about the movie?
• R is quite likeable. His want to not come off as a creeper to Julie (despite being a zombie!) is entertaining.
• R's friend M (Rob Corddry) gets a few laughs.
• There are a few funny lines in the film (eg "nice watch!")
• I did enjoy the gimmick that if you eat someone's brains, you gain their memories. It gives rise to flashbacks and progressing the story.
Overall : This is a horror film for teens. It's not very serious, the storyline revolves around a budding romance and some stock perils for them to overcome, but it's decent enough. Whether you can get over that it's aimed specifically at teens is up to yourself!0 -
-
The Colony (2013)
Plot : Laurence Fishburne stars amongst a bunch of survivors in a post-apocalyptic, snow-bound world, which has possibly some new human-ish threat.
Thoughts : I watched this film. It's horrible. Slow, boring, and cheap. I didn't realise Fishburne did this kind of low-budget garbage. Lazy, generic writing and characters, run-of-the-mill plot - it's been done many times, and far more effectively in every aspect. Bit of Lord of the Flies, bit "man is the deadliest of all", just a mish-mash of cliches. Poor makeup for the zombie-ish guys and naff special effects was the final nail, really. I've seen reviews being kinder to it, I just don't see it. I tried - I saw it through to the end, and it failed miserably. I just wanted to post about it to tell you to avoid seeing it.
Overall : Please, don't watch this.0 -
The Conjuring (2013)
Plot: Exorcism horror film about a family whose house is inhabited by a demon. A married couple/demonologists check it out.
Thoughts on the film:
• Nice use of expected horror anticipation, when/how the scare is going to happen. The children playing a clapping game is ripe for future scares.
• The music box with mirror is a great idea, used a few times throughout the film
• It's unprofessional (;)) that Ed Warren (the demonologist) suggests patterns "knocks always in threes? Stops at dawn?" to the tenants as opposed to asking for information.
• We know the place is haunted but we're not too far ahead of the cast.
• It's set in the 70s. There's some "hey it's the 70s" moments (one scene especially, where teens say "groovy" and "far out") but it's nice to have a different setting than the norm, and also being limited to older equipment. Not that exorcisms have changed that much since then!
• I enjoy the repetitious nature of hauntings, similar incidents that get more sinister, the exposition, explaining the rules and past instances.
• It's explained that demons need to make the host more vulnerable before possession, I think it comes about a little quickly. It's a bit odd that the demon haunts different family members rather than isolating one.
• There's a scene where the ghost haunts laundry (it's better than it sounds) and should've been given to the mom, rather than the female Demonologist (Lorraine Warren)
• Great use of sound, the noise of a noose tightening is nasty!
• They do give some kind of explanation for ways out that you might think of, the most obvious being "just move". The dad explains their financial woes and nevermind, the demon is haunting the family, not just the house.
Anything else?
• I would've liked to have seen what Lorraine saw that mentally scarred her.
• If you didn't eat or drink for 8 days you'd almost certainly die.
• The reveal of the demon couldn't make good on the great anticipation/build it got.
• The cop (John Brotherton) sounds just like Seth Rogen. Seriously!
• Nobody says the word "conjuring" in the film. Good or bad, you decide.
Overall I really enjoyed it. It doesn't break the mould or do anything new, but it is great at being creepy and it's rare you feel for the family being haunted. Quite entertained. Recommend watching.0 -
jaykhunter wrote: »The Conjuring (2013)
Plot: Exorcism horror film about a family whose house is inhabited by a demon. A married couple/demonologists check it out.
Thoughts on the film:
• Nice use of expected horror anticipation, when/how the scare is going to happen. The children playing a clapping game is ripe for future scares.
• The music box with mirror is a great idea, used a few times throughout the film
• It's unprofessional (;)) that Ed Warren (the demonologist) suggests patterns "knocks always in threes? Stops at dawn?" to the tenants as opposed to asking for information.
• We know the place is haunted but we're not too far ahead of the cast.
• It's set in the 70s. There's some "hey it's the 70s" moments (one scene especially, where teens say "groovy" and "far out") but it's nice to have a different setting than the norm, and also being limited to older equipment. Not that exorcisms have changed that much since then!
• I enjoy the repetitious nature of hauntings, similar incidents that get more sinister, the exposition, explaining the rules and past instances.
• It's explained that demons need to make the host more vulnerable before possession, I think it comes about a little quickly. It's a bit odd that the demon haunts different family members rather than isolating one.
• There's a scene where the ghost haunts laundry (it's better than it sounds) and should've been given to the mom, rather than the female Demonologist (Lorraine Warren)
• Great use of sound, the noise of a noose tightening is nasty!
• They do give some kind of explanation for ways out that you might think of, the most obvious being "just move". The dad explains their financial woes and nevermind, the demon is haunting the family, not just the house.
Anything else?
• I would've liked to have seen what Lorraine saw that mentally scarred her.
• If you didn't eat or drink for 8 days you'd almost certainly die.
• The reveal of the demon couldn't make good on the great anticipation/build it got.
• The cop (John Brotherton) sounds just like Seth Rogen. Seriously!
• Nobody says the word "conjuring" in the film. Good or bad, you decide.
Overall I really enjoyed it. It doesn't break the mould or do anything new, but it is great at being creepy and it's rare you feel for the family being haunted. Quite entertained. Recommend watching.
Not seeing that really pissed me off!:D I really wanted to see something terrifing.
I have not been impressed by any of the demon reveals from these type of films, they never live up to hype, the flashing image in the exorcist was about the best.0 -
Carrie (2013)
Plot: [This review is based soley on this film's merits and not the original.] Starring Chloë Grace Moretz (Kick Ass 1&2) as Carrie, an extremely timid teenage girl, sheltered by her ultra-religious mother, begins to develop telekinetic powers.
Thoughts on the film:
• Not unique to this film but a pet peeve of mine is Hollywood's "ugly duckling" casting. Chloë Grace Moretz is pretty, but just everyone in the film pretend she's ugly...until the night of the big dance.
• I always enjoy a religious slant to horror films, as the mother believes the Devil possesses her.
• Some uneasy use of blood and her overbearing mother is particularly convincing - it made my life seem so much more stress-free!
• Stock horrible "mean girls" who are unbelievably cruel, spear-headed by sociopath Chris (a girl) who records said cruelty and uploads it to youtube. I couldn't believe a normal girl would do these things - I would've liked to spend more time with her to get inside her head, how she justifies her actions
By the end she's the highschool equivalent of a homicidal backwater hick. For the film to work the writers just made the entire school out to be real heartless arseholes.
• Despite her abusive upbringing Carrie 'grows' as a character extremely fast (from shy social-outcast to happy, well-adjusted teen). By the end she's hurting everyone indiscriminately - so I'm not with or against her, it's just stuff that happened. Her tirade is done without a spoken word - and looks hilarious as the actress widdles her arms about - so it was just alright. Some insight into her rage would've been great.
• I was surprised they didn't make a great effort to have the film be a metaphor about menstruation, emotion, coming of age etc., it's more just something that happened to get the ball rolling.
• The telekinesis power with a teenager feels a bit like Chronicle, which is a much more enjoyable film.
OVERALL: Nothing wrong with the film, just nothing laudable. It's fine but I wouldn't recommend watching it. More of a drama with horror elements.0 -
Insidious (2010)
*Minor spoilers but it's to brace you, trust me it's for the best*
Director & writers of SAW (James Wan and Leigh Whannell) team up with Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli to bring us the supernatural horror Insidious: A couple's young child falls into a coma, as his spirit is in a dangerous place called "The Further", while malevolent beings hope to inhabit his physical body. His parents try to save their son before it's too late.
Thoughts on the film:
● Starts off as a lot of horror films (move into new house, kids don't like it) but it takes off in a different direction. Mother Renai (Rose Byrne aka Moire from X-Men First Class) sees things, but the father, Josh (Patrick Wilson aka Ed Warren from The Conjuring) doesn't believe. You can see the parallels with Paranormal Activity!
GOOD THINGS:
● Astral projection is a cool idea and a great excuse to step outside reality.
● Big fan of the creepy grandmother-in-black-dress ghost
● You can tell it's quite low budget as the Astral Projection is mostly fog and a lamp against a black background. Really effective use of the $1.5m budget.
● I enjoyed the sarcastic bit-players surveying the place for paranormal activity (Leigh Whannell is one of them). The jaded co-workers talk about the equipment they use, which I always like hearing about.
BAD THINGS:
● Extremely heavy-handed with the strings, this-is-scary shock music, which gets really grating.
● Relies a bit much on shock scares, but some of them are really well done.
● Not a big point, but the use of still/creepy contorted smiles is a bit naff.
● Sadly, the main demon really hurt this film. He's like a camp Darth Maul. I don't think I'm ruining the movie telling you this, I'm bracing you for it so you can accept it so it doesn't ruin the movie! He's properly shown in an almost comedy-style old timey music piece, and the CGI for his wall-walking is really rough. It's such a shame as the Astral Dimension/ghost house stuff is really very cool.
OVERALL: Knowing to expect to groan when the main demon appears, I recommend seeing the film. The postives outweigh the negatives: There's some effective scares and great anticipation, and astral projection is a more unique storytelling device. Go see it!0 -
Insidious Chapter 2: Outsideous (2013)*I recommend not watching the trailer, it makes the film seem worse than it is. But sure here it is.*
Plot: Insidious: Chapter 2 is the follow up to James Wan & Leigh Whannell's successful branching out from the SAW franchise & teaming with Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli. All the major cast return. The story picks up where the first ended, with the mother (Renai) being fearful that her husband Josh has been possessed.
Thoughts on the film:
GOOD THINGS:
● I appreciated the film's efforts to tie itself around the first film, making sense of prior strange happenings. At the centre of it is Josh, seen in flashbacks as a child, but mostly as an adult in the present, and it works very well. I wish the story had been written as a trilogy straight off so they could've implemented more of that.
● The film fleshes out a lot of the backstory - focusing on Josh's (malevolent) "friend" - the old woman in black, and completely dismisses Darth Maul (thank you!).
● While uncovering the plot the film splits into two - traditionally shot in the house, and 'on location' handheld cameras.
● Evil dad with the baseball bat feels very Shining!
● Some very creepy scenes that I won't spoil. After moving the bookcase was my favourite part!
BAD THINGS:
● I still hate the overuse of quiet-then-deafeningly-loud scary strings used to shock you. It is cheap and breeds contempt.
● 3 new haunted tropes - baby roller (meh), tin cup walkie-talkies (one really great use) and ghostly dice (fine, not great).
● The sarcastic investigator duo return, but in some scenes they lean too heavy on buffoonery, and it actually detracts from important, tense scenes. I imagine the writers/directors love these bits but they jar with the rest of the film.
● It was a big selling point in the last film, but Astral Projection isn't all that special in this one.
● As before the contorted smile gimmick really isn't that creepy. Definitely less is more...some shots linger too long on the ghosts - the more you see 'em, the more it's some actor in white makeup instead of a ghost - and that's a shame as it's cool in itself.
OVERALL: A bit more scattershot than the first, fixes some problems of the first but continues on with others, but still a decent movie. You are not missing anything by skipping it though. Regardless, it was impressively made with $5million, it grossed over $150m. See you 2015!0 -
Darkroom (2013)
Plot: A wayward girl takes a modelling job in a mansion. Whilst there she is trapped by three people who 'cleanse' waywards of their sins. I recommend never watching the film so I'll recount the story: Michelle can't come to terms with being the only survivor of a car crash that left her 3 friends dead. The film employs frequent flashbacks to show this, and though her mental/physical torture, she can admit what happened, overcome her current and past situation so she can now move on with her life. That's what the film is trying to portray.
Cast/Crew: Starring Kaylee DeFer as Michelle (Ivy Dickens of Gossip Girl), Directed by Britt Napier (Redirect), and written by Michaelbrent Collings of WWE's The Barricade fame. The trailer made this film look much better than it was.
GOOD POINTS:
● It's shot in 16:9, my favourite aspect ratio.
● There's a shot of nipple. I'm glad the film didn't think it was above nudity.
● They give a bit of backstory for the antagonists motivations so that's something.
BAD POINTS:
● The storytelling is quite shallow not well executed.
● The Michelle character is unlikeable (they also only use the takes where her voice breaks)
● The dialogue is average at best
● The acting's naff
● The film is cheap. In a grimy/grainy way but also poor lighting and sparse sets so it looks quite generic.
● There's a bit of SAW in there with her holding 'cell' and showing footage of light torture but there's little gore and no moral revelation.
● The film uses religious overtones to explain the antagonists' actions (which in general I like) but never show any actual religious iconography (crosses etc).
● The antagonists' backstory is shown through archival footage of the siblings being brow-beaten by their religious mother. I appreciate that but the child actors are HORRENDOUS.
OVERALL: Please don't watch this film. IMDB gave it 3.7/10 which I feel is a bit harsh - probably backlash from the cast and crew influencing the score, giving it a hilarious initial 7.8 rating. 4-4.3 is about right.0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4iOhWswYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gp1nAYgG_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32O5Kj6bpGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7bSoZzEDlQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPuf1Dt6Ej0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgYxydrVlDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq47T48u8Zo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHecUD6jkVM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5TsZ6iyaH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NHd4hKOxcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b_HVtHmK30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjmhuYgZrow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkmzXVwLtH0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lReemWmO5o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8XYZDu5zs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yezkM0h_xq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_QqA0sDMec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=071KqJu7WVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8FBRATbJoA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiIIKSRHuyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBeG31fX40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NbtltCSpcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZW2b0FzPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_UxLEqd074
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07XbSk7Rjt4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbmK9o9DJn4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Xn2JqH5ng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztc5Nq1JL4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jlPK19XlVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8iLp1xQtPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aHQMJjdZ_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEysX-cgRFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBXUyuv4Q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9vXTMvzL0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syjgS9sp4E4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07s-cNFffDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZENI7UC3WQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejMMn0t58Lc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-VcPDkTySQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf0FJW6Hp_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8B9hisNcuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1jLsDlxpRUAdvertisement