This one comes to me as not so much a high recommendation as a title in which Simon Pegg and Nick Frost coexist. I am a fan, especially when they team up with Edgar Wright, but that is not the case here. Still, I did check out the trailer, and to me, it looked like a fun time, if nothing else. Much like I appreciate in so many other films, it seemed to be a bit of a horror flick with plenty of comedy, and looked as though it would be right up my alley. However, sadly, sometimes things don't turn out quite how we would like. Following the tragic death of his father, Donald Wallace (Finn Cole) enrolls in an exclusive school known as Slaughterhouse. There, he attempts to fit in among his peers, meeting (among others) the odd but friendly roommate, Willoughby Blake (Asa Butterfield), a hardened prefect named Clegg (Tom Rhys Harries), Head of their Sparta House, Meredith Houseman (Simon Pegg) and the school's Headmaster, they call "The Bat" (Michael Sheen). The school is home to a fair share of secrets, one of which involves the Headmaster's scheme of fracking ("the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc. so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas"), Despite warnings from the local harbinger, Woody Chapman (Nick Frost), the fracking continues to the point where it eventually creates a sinkhole, unleashing horrible subterranean half-worm, half-dog creatures with an appetite for human flesh. Unfortunately, to get to this point takes a good long while, and the film really doesn't do anything special until that point. A lot of it is getting to know the characters, but no one really sticks out to me here; not even Pegg or Frost. Meredith spends his time pining for his far away girlfriend, Audrey (Margot Robbie) and Woody is just plain off his rocker, and not in the typically charming Nick Frost way so much as being all drugged up and serious. While it was easy enough to tell not to take a film like this seriously, I can't say I had as much fun as I wish I did. On paper, this sounds great - it's almost like 'Harry Potter' meets 'Attack the Block', except there's no magic and the aliens come from the underground. I can't deny that the gross-out creature effects were good and effective, utilizing a lot of practical over CG, but again, it just takes too long for anything to really happen. For almost the first hour, it's exposition and a sinkhole and then we finally get into the action. 'Attack the Block' is very similar in some ways, but it hits the ground running and you don't stop running until it's over. This was more like waiting for the timer to go off, and nothing particularly special happens in that time. I think this could have been a lot of fun, if it was only cut down a bit. I'm not sure I'd say the film was bad, exactly, but I would suggest that it's pretty forgettable, and that there are other films like it that are much better. As a British creature feature, I would still highly recommend 'Attack the Block' over this any day. This isn't something I feel like I need to go back and watch again, or show off to my friends, and there are several other better Pegg/Frost movies out there much more worth your time. However, if you don't mind waiting for the horror aspect of this to pop up, it does get fun within the last half of it regardless of how you might feel about the first half. It could be a fun thing to throw on absent-mindedly, but nothing very special. It's readily available on Netflix (Canada) if you want to check it out for yourself. 2/5 Right off the bat, we can safely say that knowing my particular tastes, this wasn't generally my cup of tea. It's just a little too messed up in its horror aspect, and I'd probably say that it's Kevin Smith's answer to 'Human Centipede'. The main plot of the story is very similar in that it involves a drugging followed by human biological experimentation. The thing about 'Tusk', however, is that it's based on a true story... well, not really, but kind of. More on that later. The film opens with podcasters Wallace Bryton (Justin Long) and Teddy Craft (Haley Joel Osment) who host a show called 'The Not-See Party'. Their podcast showcases humiliating viral videos; the latest being 'The Kill Bill Kid' in which a guy clearly parodying 'The Star Wars Kid' replaces lightsaber with katana, and chops his leg off. Upon reviewing the video, Wallace heads to Manitoba, Canada where the kid lives in hopes to interview him, but through certain circumstances, the interview cannot move forward. Not wanting to come to Canada for nothing, however, he decides to seek someone else out for an awesome story to share on his podcast. In the bathroom of a bar, Wallace finds an ad from a Howard Howe, offering a free room and the guarantee of interesting stories in exchange for a few chores. Howard is a wheelchair-bound, retired seaman, and claims he can't do certain things around the house anymore. Wallace answers the ad, and gets directions from Colleen McKenzie and Colleen Collette (Harley Quinn Smith and Lily-Rose Depp, respectively) to Howard's home, located smack-dab in the middle of nowhere. Arriving that night, Wallace gets some pretty cool stories from Howard that he could potentially bring back for his podcast; one involving a walrus that save his life, who he developed a friendship with. As anyone can predict, Wallace quickly gets more than he bargained for with a drugged tea, and waking up strapped to a chair, missing a limb. I won't sit here and spoil what else happens, but there are pictures all over the internet, and any Kevin Smith fan who hasn't even seen this movie has likely seen the end result. I knew that's what I was getting into as far as the main plot goes, so I can't pretend to be shocked by much. But once again, the whole human experimentation/shock horror thing isn't generally what I enjoy in a horror movie (even if it is a horror comedy). So right off the bat, I already knew this wasn't going to be a favorite. But I will admit, it's not without a perk or two. This is another American comedy that pokes fun at Canada in so many ways, with so many stereotypes. Even speaking as a Canadian, I'm all about Canadian stereotypes. Some are damn close to true, but some are so hilariously off that you can't help but laugh at them. To put the cherry on the sundae, Johnny Depp comes into the picture as Guy Lapointe; an inspector from Quebec (not the hockey player). The performance is very much a stereotype, but his delivery is pretty spot on, and I don't think he really says anything particularly harmful. Maybe it's just me, but being Canadian, I feel like I can embrace Canadian stereotypes far easier than I can get offended by them. That could be part of what makes us so "nice". One final note brings me back to that "true story" bit. The truth is, inspiration for the film came from a fake online advertisement very similar to the one Wallace finds. The ad was an old man, offering a rent-free room with the catch that the tenant has to wear a walrus costume and behave like one from time to time. To everyone's astonishment, the ad actually received over 400 responses, despite the fact that the ad was placed as a joke, written by Chris Parkinson of Brighton, England. So essentially, Smith took the idea and twisted it to that 'Human Centipede' standard, throwing in some fairly solid comedy along the way. Although it delivered a few solid laughs, however, this kind of thing is not up my alley as far as the horror aspect goes, and it's just plain weird and uncomfortable to sit through. To be fair, that IS the point, but I think it's safe to say that we all have something we don't like to see in movies. For me, it's basically any form of something torturous, and experimentation such as this totally counts. It had its moments, but for now, it's probably the Kevin Smith movie I'd furthest disassociate myself with. 2/5 There was once a time when Kevin Smith left his Askewniverse (AKA, anything that features Jay and Silent Bob) to dabble in other things. This all basically started with 'Jersey Girl' in 2004 and carried on with 'Zack & Miri' in 2008 and 'Cop Out' in 2010. But this was all still comedy, and about the furthest we ever saw him veer off a comedic course was how dramatic 'Jersey Girl' and even 'Chasing Amy' were. So, after 'Cop Out' (which perhaps I'll review another time) bit the guy in the ass with bad reception, he decided to try his hand at real-life horror with this film. For me, this one had a very 'Hostel' feel to it for various reasons; namely the idea of horny teenagers falling into a brutal trap. In this case, three hormone-driven dudes; Travis (Michael Angarano), Jarod (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun) are convinced that an older woman named Sara (Melissa Leo) wants to have group sex with them. Upon meeting her, Sara drugs the boys, and we are offered Jarod's perspective as he wakes up in a covered cage in the hyper-conservative Five Points Trinity Church, led by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks); a hate-filled, prejudice man - especially towards the gay community. The reality of this movie pops a bit when you realize he's based on Fred Phelps; a very real and frankly scary right-wing extremist. On their way to meet Sara, the boys manage to sideswipe the vehicle of Sheriff Wynan (Stephen Root) who gets his deputy Pete (Matt Jones) to go out to look for the vehicle that hit his. This eventually leads Pete to the church where he realizes very quickly that he's gonna need some backup, namely from Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Things eventually come to a stand-off between the authorities and the church while the boys do what they can to escape their captors. It's not exactly a plot you'd consider fresh or original, but I will admit that it's interesting to see Smith tackle not only the horror genre, but keep it in the real world (although apparently an alternate ending to this involves the Rapture). Make no mistake on this one though - it's not a fun horror movie, despite the fact that it's directed by Kevin Smith. This is very reminiscent of torture porn, although it's not nearly as extreme as something like 'Hostel'. But the general idea that someone seeking fun finds themselves drugged and held captive in any way just points in that direction. This one also has that does of reality that, most unfortunately, there are some right wing extremists out there who are that horrifying. I can't imagine actually being gay (or for that matter, any member of the LGBTQ community) and knowing that I have these real-life Boogeymen to look out for. I have no basis for comparison on a lot of things, being a straight, white, male - but I can certainly empathize when I see a film like this, and if that was Kevin's point, it worked. I can't really say I got a lot of entertainment value out of this one, but it was a fascinating one-off for a few different reasons. Namely, this includes Kevin breaking off from his regular comedy routine to try something new, bringing a reality to his horror, and basically just having the balls to tackle something so controversial. For me, this is one of those movies you watch once to try it out, but you don't feel much of a need to return to it any time soon. It's not something you can just watch over and over again like so many of his other films, but I'd say if you're curious about seeing Kevin flex that horror muscle, it could be worth checking out. Just bear in mind the controversial issues involved, as this one is bound to cause discomfort for a few. 3/5 I figured I'd close off Wes Craven month with what I consider a bit of an underrated treat - even though this was my first time seeing it. I admit, I consider it underrated for all the wrong reasons, though. Chalk this one up to a new guilty pleasure. It's all sorts of silly, but there are certain things about it that harken back to Craven's 'Elm Street' days. You sort of recognize that he develops a style of doing things, and the villain here may as bloody well be an early Freddy (he was much more sinister in the first film). The villain in question is the vile Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi - a lot of fun to watch as a horror villain) who is wreaking havoc in an LA suburb. Having killed 30 people, and being on the loose, everyone in town is considerably scared. But when detective Don Parker (Peter Berg) gets too close to Pinker, it results in the tragic murder of his wife and two foster children. It starts to get weird when it turns out that Parker's surviving foster son, Jonathan (Peter Berg) has some connection to Pinker, as he can see when and where he's going to strike next through his precognitive dreams. Without spoiling much, eventually these dreams do lead to Pinker's capture and execution, but at the cost of innocent lives. The horrific fun comes into play when we learn that Pinker has made a deal with the Devil that when he fries, he doesn't die, but absorbs and becomes electricity. Yes, you read that right, but it gets better. He's also able to carry on his body count by possessing other people. Does Jonathan have what it takes to stop him, which includes having more imagination than you could... imagine? Once the film gets into its climax, it doesn't just toss reality out the window, it drops it from a 50-story building with weights tied around its ankles. It gets so stupid but so fun all at once. I'm such an 'Elm Street' fan and there are tastes of it throughout this movie. It's fun to view this as though Craven's hinting at the directors who took the property over on how Freddy ought to be (he became a real wise-cracker). This was 1989, and 'Elm Street 5' had just come out a couple of months prior, so it would make sense. Pinker has so many similarities to Freddy, you almost wonder if they were once partners in crime. Upon everything else that brings up the original 'Elm Street', Heather Langenkamp cameos here as a murder victim. I think I see this as Wes Craven having fun with the genre, as was the style at the time. This film is all sorts of ridiculous, but I'm so happy I chose it to end this month with. On a bit of a more serious note, Craven left behind a legacy of horror when he passed most unfortunately and suddenly in 2015. He covered just about everything, going from the uncomfortable snuff film that was 'Last House on the Left' all the way up to making fun of the slasher genre he helped create with 'Scream' (although he only directed those). Fans of the franchise, including myself, will say that the best Freddy films were the original, 'Dream Warriors' and 'New Nightmare' - the ones Craven was involved with, and there are more titles on his resume to cover. Having seen some of them, I can recommend a few from his directorial resume. 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' is quite scary, and based on a true story of Haitian Voodoo; 'The People Under the Stairs' is perhaps his most underrated film, according to some sources; and 'Red Eye' as a great bottle thriller on a plane. I'm glad I sat through all of these, but it's a little sad that I could only ever "break even" with them. But even if they come out as average to me, I think I'd still recommend horror fans going through his work. Wes Craven is a name synonymous with horror, covering a lot of different sub-horror genres, and these movies deserve a good look. Five years later, rest in peace, Wes Craven. Thank you for providing us horror fans with some great material that would often haunt our dreams, and succeed in the scare. 3/5 Back in 1990, I can remember watching those Saturday morning cartoons of ours, and coming across an ad for 'Swamp Thing'. It was something I bypassed, and to this day, I have no idea if it was any good. I'm gonna guess probably not, since no one ever talks about it. But unbeknownst to me, there was also a live action series during this time, so for some reason, it was a real "thing" for some people. It even came back last year for the CW. Well, to be fair, this is based on a DC comic series, so one has to figure it has its audience. To be honest though, I'd probably still have put this on the back burner if it weren't for this month's Wes Craven theme. 'Swamp Thing', from my perspective, seemed like someone threw together Frankenstein and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and in 1990, I was way too busy with my Ninja Turtles to give a damn. I never did bother with "Swamp Thing' until now, but I gotta say, I'm pretty glad I did. Here we have a 1982 comic book film that seems to be a pretty self-aware comedy, and it comes to us from horror legend, Wes Craven, whose previous two films are relatively brutal for their time. To make a long and complicated story short, botanist, Dr. Alec Holland (Ray Wise) is on a quest to wipe out world hunger, and is placed under the protection of special agent Alice Cable (Adrienne Barbeau). Another scientist named Anton Arcane (Louis Jourdan) attempts a heist to steal Holland's research, which leads to an accident, turning Holland into the Swamp Thing - an odd blend of plant and human who defends Alice from Arcane and his henchmen, who remain constantly after his research. Apparently, Craven had a desire here to prove to Hollywood that he could take on something bigger and better than his usual harrowing formula, and much more different. Some similarities can still be seen, as it still dabbles in some horror aspects, and uses its environment as a part of the characters - which was apparently criticized, but I tend to admire it. If you can make the setting as suspenseful as the characters in the setting, you've really got something. 'Last House on the Left' used the family home, 'The Hills Have Eyes' used the desert, and this obviously uses the swamp. Hell, even 'Nightmare on Elm Street' uses 1428 Elm Street. So how is the film, as a whole? Well, it's bloody weird. This is one of those films that you watch and you don't know how to feel about it. One perspective sees it as so bad it's good, with a bunch of jokes and dialogue that just do not land, but another sees it as a positive message about environment and world issues in general. For me, I just can't see it as anything too deep. I personally find it campy and cheesy in all the right ways. This is a guy in a rubber swamp man suit, and it's about as easy to take seriously as the 1966 Adam West 'Batman' movie. It's a situation where the stupid and silly Dad jokes are kinda what make it so likable. I therefore can't finish this review without bringing up Jude (Reggie Batts), who, to me, was both the best and lamest part of the film all at once. He's meant to be the comic relief, but the dialogue is often about as funny as a standard knock-knock joke, which in a roundabout way makes it funny. Unfortunately, saying he's what's best about it doesn't give the movie much headway in terms of seeing it as "good". But I think it can easily be seen as one of those guilty pleasure movies that a lot of people can share. I enjoy that the film seems to embrace its tacky charm, and understands what it is, not trying to be anything more. The style is fairly comparable to 1960's 'Batman', as I mentioned earlier. Thinking about that, 'Swamp Thing' is also a DC property, and in 1982, the best superhero movie was either 'Superman' or 'Superman II', depending on your perspective (I'm a 'Superman' guy). Until Tim Burton's 'Batman' came along, changing the face of comic book movies forever, the cheese was what we not only got, but accepted. So for that, 'Swamp Thing' is a perfectly charming, silly, superhero time capsule. It drags at points, but all in all, not bad for a Wes Craven attempt at a superhero movie. Regardless, a couple of years after this, he created one of the biggest super villains of a generation. So consider this one of the higher steps on his ladder to success. 3/5 Continuing this Month of Craven, and taking a look at some of his work I missed out on, I figured 'The Hills Have Eyes' needed to be a part of things. It bears so many similarities to 'Last House on the Left', but it's a bit of an upgrade from the snuff film that was. For the record, if you Google both titles, 'Last House' is the only one Google dubs "horror/exploitation". The primary similarities between the two films lie in a few different aspects. They are both psychological real-world revenge films that play with our fears of strangers, both were considered Wes Craven's jumping-off points, both have become classics in the realm of cult horror, and both have been remade to fit a modern setting. The main difference is pretty much the budget. Its overall style and substance is pretty reminiscent, at least to me, of 1974's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. There's this overall discomfort behind everything, not just having to do with the threat at hand, but the setting is clearly a place one does not want to find themselves in, whether stranded or not. The story, for those unfamiliar, is about a family who are on their way to L.A. from Ohio. While parents Bob (Russ Grieve) and Ethel (Virginia Vincent) drive their loaded camper van, their teenage children, Bobby (Robert Houston) and Brenda (Suze Lanier-Bramlett) tag along, as well as the eldest daughter Lynne (Dee Wallace), her husband Doug (Martin Speer), their baby daughter Katy (Brenda Marinoff), and their dogs, Beauty and Beast. While passing through, they stop at Fred's Oasis - seemingly the only gas station for miles, where Fred (John Steadman) tells them their best to stick to the roads. He wishes them a pleasant vacation, but soon, an accident occurs that puts the camper out of commission. The family now finds themselves stuck in the desert where a hidden threat lurks behind the rocks in the mountains, in the form of a mutant, cannibal family named after a bunch of planets. Things are lead by Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth) who works with his sons, Mars (Lance Gordon), Pluto (Michael Berryman) and Mercury (Peter Locke) to hunt whoever passes through for food and supplies, supporting Jupiter's wife and daughter, Mama (Cordy Clark) and Ruby (Janus Blythe), who seems to wonder where she stands in all of it. This premise leads to some disturbing imagery, uncomfortable moments, and a seemingly constant panicked scream from Brenda which is probably the worst thing about the whole film, which is saying a lot. It wasn't effectively harrowing so much as it was annoying. Much like with 'Last House', there are a few comparisons to the remake to be made here. To start with, while I may have enjoyed the remake of 'Last House' just a touch more, I'd say that for this title, I'd have to go with the original. The remake felt far more brutal, ugly, disturbing, and contained imagery that I had a hard time shaking off. One may argue that would make it more effective, but I guess we all have stuff that we have a hard time stomaching. For me, it's things like torture and sexual exploitation, and considering the two 'Last House' films and the two 'Hills' films, this is probably the least stomach-churning of the bunch. The revenge here isn't quite as crazy as the revenge in 'Last House', but it's still there, and manages to fix some of the bad taste certain moments leave in your mouth. I think the film has a major downside, though, in that it just kinda ends. Often, I like an open ending like it offers, but it works better for some things than others. Something like this could have had a pretty interesting twist, but it leaves it up to you and your imagination to decide what happens to who. That is, until you watch the 1985 follow-up, which seems to set the record straight as to what happened afterwards, but there is a 7-year gap there, and I'm not really sure Craven intended on continuing it at first. I could be wrong though, so call it a nitpick on my part. I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but 'Last House' and 'Hills' are a couple of movies that fall into that category of being glad that I finally watched them, but have no real desire to revisit them. This month is essentially meant to be a homework assignment for me, by watching some of Craven's most famous non-'Nightmare' titles that I haven't seen before. Otherwise, considering what these movies are, they are not exactly for me. I know you're supposed to feel discomfort in a horror movie, but they both go a little overboard sometimes (the remakes more so) and seem to bask in the glory of pure discomfort as opposed to something more psychological, which I prefer. I know, it could be argued that providing the audience with pure discomfort IS psychological, and I probably should praise it for how it made me feel. But with that said, I prefer that psychological horror to be more of a "what the hell did I just see lurking behind that tree" rather than a "look at how bad this person is treating the other, this could happen in real life". At the end of the day, Craven definitely did his job at providing his audience with a couple of memorable first works that have gone down in cult horror history as cinematic gems. He made a name for himself with 'Elm Street', but his biggest fans know him for his early work just as well. 3/5 Come August 30th, the 5th anniversary of Wes Craven's tragic passing will be here. I therefore decided to take a look back on some of the non-'Nightmare' films he did, which I have never seen until now. Although, regarding the first two titles on the list, I have seen their remakes; 'The Hills Have Eyes', and this, which you could watch as a double feature if you wanna feel incredibly uncomfortable for a few hours. This particular film has reached the mantle of being a strong cult classic, considering the people involved in its creation - Wes Craven of 'Elm Street' fame writing and directing, and Sean S. Cunningham of 'Friday the 13th' fame producing, and this was pretty much a first for both of them, though Cunningham produced one film before it called 'Together', which was altogether his own. This film, regardless of how one may feel about it, is a piece of horror cinema history, bringing together the soon-to-be creators of Freddy and Jason, and they do a very good job here with getting to their audience. The story revolves mainly around two girls, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody), about to turn 17, and her friend, Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham). The pair head to a concert in what's considered a bad neighborhood, despite Mari's parents objections. She insists that Phyllis is street smart, and that they'll be okay as long as they stick together. Stick together, they do, but tragically not in the way they had hoped. In the meantime, Mari's parents are setting up for her birthday celebration when she comes back, making everything all the more harder to watch. Upon asking a stranger where they could possibly score some weed, Mari and Phyllis find themselves in a spider's web situation, as they are forced to face every teenage girl's worst nightmare; a group of sexually deviant serial killers. About 80% of the film is a dragged out and perfectly uncomfortable series of events, and it's altogether pretty horrifying to sit through, especially if you're like me and really squirm at that kind of stuff. Although, I will say that if you have seen the 2009 remake, it is much more graphic. I found myself fast-forwarding the discomfort after a couple of minutes because I just couldn't sit through it. This is much more dragged out, but probably not quite as brutal... but it's still not cool, man. Now, I've mentioned it a few times before, but I am absolutely not one to sit through torture porn. I simply don't like the shock value of it all, and the 2009 remake of this really cemented that fact. What's not so known about me is that often I feel like some of that can slide as long as the revenge taken on these characters ensures they get whatever they deserve. Honestly, 9 times out of 10, it works out that way, and this film is no exception. I won't say exactly what happens, but the revenge aspect of the film is what triggers thought. You come to realize that some of the revenge aspects may or may not be more brutal that what the revenge is about - but you also have no question about who the bad guys are. I have to admit that it's kind of interesting, and it's a good jumping off point for Craven and Cunningham. With that said, however, that's just me. It should be very clear that this is absolutely not just one of those famous horror movies I'd recommend people check out based on whatever. It's an hour and a half of pure discomfort, one way or another, and I still had a hard time sitting through it - although having seen the remake, I pretty much knew what I was in for. The "trigger warning" list here is pretty extensive, and it wouldn't be any sort of surprise if one doesn't feel like sitting through it. For what it is, it has its place in the horror history books. Aside from the names attached, it was also a borderline snuff film that went mainstream, and very risky for 1972. For context, one of the most shocking films of all time, 'The Exorcist', wouldn't be around until the next year, and that plays with the supernatural. This plays with real-world issues, and provides an in-depth cautionary tale about venturing out there and talking to strangers, even if you feel you're grown enough to take care of yourself. Craven could always write teenagers being forced to face their worst fears, and he does it here in a way that makes you fear for them. It's very hard to give this one any sort of rating. It's not something I'd rush back to anytime soon, or even really felt like watching in the first place. It's uncomfortable and difficult to sit through without cringing. But if that's the whole point behind it, then it's effective - and the whole revenge aspect of it is more than just a guy with a gun - it goes full tilt slasher. Considering this film's place in the history books, and the idea that it made me look at this kind of thing in a new light (appreciating it, not necessarily liking it) I'm gonna play generously. After all, without the film's success, would I have ever seen a 'Friday the 13th' or 'Elm Street' film? If you're curious to see a bit of history for the horror books, I say go for it, but proceed with the utmost caution. I'll say it again; trigger warnings are all over this thing. 3/5 This one is often regarded as Syamalan's best film since 'Unbreakable', which is a very generous gap between films (about 15 years). I suppose that all depends on personal taste, but for my money, that's pretty accurate. Of course, when Shyamalan is at his very best, it really is the twist ending that puts that lovely, ripe, cherry on top of the already pretty good sundae. This film is no exception. The film starts off by introducing us to a few teenage girls; the lead, Cassie Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy), and her two best friends, Claire (Haley Lu Richardson) and Marcia (Jessica Sula). Claire, Marcia and Claire's father offer her a ride home after a party, only to have Claire's father knocked out, and his car taken over by Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder. He kidnaps the three girls, and holds them captive, playing through several different personalities - particularly a "Dennis" and a "Patricia", who both seem to worship, and be awaiting the arrival of, something known only as "The Beast". The idea of holding the girls captive is basically so they can be food for whatever this "Beast" is. Meanwhile, we also see Kevin's sessions with his therapist, Dr. Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley), who takes a very keen interest in Kevin's disorder, believing that the different personalities mean much more than just a malfunction of the brain. One prime example is that one of Kevin's personalities actually needs insulin for his diabetes while none of the others do. As the film moves forward, we get to know his personalities, the girls make several efforts to escape their captor, and we remain ever curious as to what this beast is supposed to be. For me, the initial twist was something easy to see coming a mile away (I'm scratching spoilers for this post, just because 'Glass' exists and all the secrets are out in the open by now). Basically, the beast is one of his personalities that ends up being real instead of a figment of Kevin's imagination. The belief of the Beast being all in his head basically comes from the Beast being able to do extraordinary things like climb walls, and have extraordinarily strength. As we all know at this point (unless you've just been under a rock for the last couple of years), the twist that MAKES the movie is that this ends up taking place in the 'Unbreakable' universe, once we see David Dunn (Bruce Willis) in a coffee shop, referring to Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson - not appearing in this film). It was easily one of Shyamalan's best twists ever, turning this thriller into a superhero movie, much like 'Unbreakable' ended up being a drama that ended up being a superhero movie. Of course, this sets things up for 'Glass'. On a personal level, I actually really liked this one. Syamalan isn't always my cup of tea, but my God, when he knocks it out of the park, he really does knock it out of the park. 'The Sixth Sense' will probably always be my favorite of his, but 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' are in very close proximity. It's unfortunate to read that so many have thus far found 'Glass' to be a bit of a wreck in comparison. But with that said, I haven't seen it quite yet, so here's hoping I just see it as a "weaker-number-3-film" in a trilogy. I can't say Im surprised though, as 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' pretty much covered the twists that lead to 'Glass', so where do we go from there? I guess I'll find out soon enough. 4/5 Continuing right along with my catch-up on Shyamalan films, I decided to look at one that I was genuinely interested in after hearing mostly good things about it. People often refer to this film as Shyamalan's general resurrection with his previous films being the major bombs of 'The Last Airbender' and 'After Earth' - neither of which I've seen, and neither of which will end up on this review list anytime soon. It's my opinion that he went back to the solid twist here. Some of his twists end up being these deep and profound things that the audience has to think about long and hard. Probably the worst example of this, to me, being 'Signs'. But the "solid twist" I speak of is something more, well, solid. Not something you have to mull over, but just something cool and interesting like the endings of 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable'. This film is done in a found footage style, but it's the cleanest found footage you'll probably ever see. That's kinda one of those "take it or leave it" aspects of the film. It might not bother you, but you know it doesn't look realistic. That said, I know nothing about the cameras used, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Two kids, Becca (Olivia DeJong) and Tyler (Ed Oxenbound) (both of whom were recently in 'Better Watch Out') head on a trip to visit their grandparents who they haven't met yet. This is due to a falling out the grandparents had with the kids' mother when she was still young, but there's strong refusal to talk about what went down, and that's the big "guessing game" portion of the film. Anyway, the kids start noticing that the grandparents are constantly acting very strange, and though everything has it's own explanation, there's still a strong suspicion that maybe their grandparents aren't exactly your average everyday old folks. To their credit, you get to know and like these kids all right. You don't fall in love with them, but you get them and what they're about. Perhaps what's best done here is that you definitely feel their fear when it's necessary, and the found footage aspect really lends itself to what the movie is trying to do. This is easily one of his best titles, in my humble opinion. I have to admit that I thought I knew how this all ended, but I was actually kinda taken aback when it was all said and done. It's not perfect, and actually very simple when all is considered, but to me that's actually refreshing. I was hoping things weren't gonna get deep and confusing again. The ending gives you a nice "holy shit" moment, after spending the whole movie second-guessing yourself. It's almost like a 'Mind Trap' question, where the answer tends to be ridiculously simple, but you end up overthinking. But hey, maybe that's just me and how I felt about it. Truth be told, I actually enjoyed this quite a bit. It's not a favorite, but after Shyamalan recognized that he was drowning, it feels like he came back hard with this title. This makes for a fun haunted house film, often make you uncomfortable as you watch and guess, and plays with your fears quite well. 4/5 After seeing the first 'Creepshow' and enjoying it so much, the next logical step for my "Catching Up" reviews was 'Creepshow 2'. While it remains a fun, creepy anthology for the Halloween season, it's not quite as good as the first one. That said, it still has plenty working for it, including the once-again team up of Stephen King and George A. Romero. However, this time they are doing the writing while original 'Creepshow' cinematographer Michael Gornick is directing. This time around, there are three stories overall. They are each buffered with animation segments, depicting a boy reading and enjoying his 'Creepshow' comic. It was given to him by a Creepshow Creep, played by practical effect master Tom Savini (who also played a garbage man at the end of the first one). Story one involves an elderly couple who get robbed, and a native statue coming to life to take vengeance. Story two involves a terrifying black, oozing mass in a lake that melts human flesh once it takes hold. Story three is about a woman who just can't seem to shake a hitchhiker no matter how many times she kills him. Sadly though, that's it. It kinda just leaves you wanting more, especially when comparing it to the first. The animation sequences are okay, but they seemingly get a little more in the way here. They tell a sort of side story about the kid getting harassed by Stephen King bullies (watch 'It' or 'Stand by Me', you'll know what I mean). Of course this all leads to the kid taking his revenge on them, but I won't spoil how it's done 'cause admittedly it's pretty cool. Not believable in the slightest, but still, cool. The story that stuck out here to me was 'The Raft' (the second story about the oozing mass). It gets pretty damn traumatic once this thing takes hold. The flesh burns as they're happening seem incredibly believable, and it doesn't help that the first victim keeps moaning "It hurts! It hurts!" as it's consuming her. It ends with a nice little twist in things too, and is probably my favorite of the three, simply in that the imagery stuck with me as seeming very real and terrifying. The first and third are well done, but they aren't quite as scary as they are just unsettling, which does work in it's own way. While it's no where near as good as it's predecessor, which was kind of a landmark on the history of horror cinema, it still holds it's own quite well as a sequel. It manages to meet the expectations I had, but there's more of a lack of celebrity cameos and it's just shorter. While this one isn't based around Halloween, it's still a fun watch as a sequel to get you into the holiday spirit. 4/5 |