 Due to some of the subject matter within this particular slice of horror, let the record show that I'm reviewing this on its merits of being a horror movie as opposed to the story within. In short, it tackles 1879 America and how some people may have seen indigenous tribes back then. Up here in Canada, this is a very touchy subject right now, and I'm honestly hesitant to even review this. But I will do my best, as I do feel like the film has a somewhat appropriate message to convey - basically "the monster here isn't who the characters think".
The film opens one night when a family of settlers is violently taken in the night by an unknown source. This is where their fellow pioneers immediately suspect the surrounding tribes, and they form a posse to set out and find the missing family. Among them, Irish immigrant, Fergus Coffey (Karl Geary), hardened fighters, John Clay (Clancy Brown) and William Parcher (William Mapother), naive teen who keeps screwing up, Dobie Spacks (Galen Hutchison) and former slave, Walnut Callaghan (Sean Patrick Thomas) and if I missed anyone, my bad, but sometimes I rely on Wiki for reminders and it just plain doesn't list any character names. But Doug Hutchison is also a part of this as Henry Victor , and he's just as likable as always (the character you really wanna punch in the nose). As the posse sets out, they have to endure certain aspects such as the weather and the threat of the surrounding tribes. However, as the film unfolds, they soon learn that the indigenous people of the area are not what is to be feared so much as the monsters they have dubbed "the Burrowers" (not to be confused with "the Borrowers"). These creatures cut their victims and drug them with a paralyzing toxin. Then, the victim gets buried alive and consumed after decomposition has begun. I have to say, kudos to the film for creating such a terrifying creature, and providing the viewing audience with something truly disturbing. The idea of total paralysis followed by what it probably a torturous death is really disturbing, and the last time I saw something close to this was probably 'Serpent and the Rainbow'; also involving a paralyizing drug and getting buried alive. Setting certain things about this movie aside, they do a pretty good job here with the horror. I do have to give them credit for giving us a period piece horror movie as well - something I think the film industry lacks in a very big way. I mean, think about how much scarier horror can be when you take away something like what modern health care can help with. Things get much more visceral, and the disturbance of it all can build up much more if the victim can't do something we take for granted today like, say, call an ambulance. I further enjoyed the creature design of these burrowers - sort of reminiscent of a small version of the Rancor from 'Return of the Jedi' mixed with a Licker from 'Resident Evil'. It's just plain monstrous and intimidating and you don't wanna run into one. So given some of the subject matter involved in this one, I do have a hard time just telling certain horror fan to check it out. I think for the most part, it was pretty cool, but there could be some stuff here that has since been dated. I do think the underlying message here is still a good one in that there is more to fear than something we might not understand, and we often use our judgment in some pretty stupid ways. We're also pretty gullible - it takes a long time for these guys to accept that actual monstrous creatures are what they should be worried about. I think that this has the potential to be watched the right way, but I also think that right now this could be a very touchy one for my fellow Canadians, and to skip it would be perfectly fine. I'd probably sooner recommend something a little more educational at this point. But if you feel so inclined, this can be found on Amazon. 3/5  The last Grindhouse flick on the list is the sequel to 'Machete', brought to us once again by Robert Rodriguez, but sadly, with less effort put in. While 'Machete Kills' starts off with a great new fake trailer for 'Machete Kills Again... In Space', the rest of the movie does not quite feel right. The rest of the Grindhouse movies make this extra effort to feel somewhat crappy in old school quality, but this doesn't quite pull that off. This is more like a Grindhouse movie with a budget, and a lot of it is just bringing in names - two of whom people were already quite iffy about back in 2013, and you'll know who when their names get their credits as I go through this.
First I'm going to have to admit that I had a tough time trying to follow it. This is one of those titles you try to keep up with, but then wonder why it matters, as it's supposed to be a Grindhouse movie. So I'll do my best, but if things don't make sense, blame the damn movie. Anyway, it opens with Machete (Danny Trejo) and Sartana Rivera (Jessica Alba) from the last movie, teamed up in an attempt to intercept weapons dealers who have ben supplying the Mexican drug cartels. A fight breaks out, and many are killed, but then another team enters the battle, killing Rivera (spoiler alert) and arresting Machete. During the attempted hanging of Machete where he doesn't die, US President, Rathcock (Charlie Sheen - as "Carlos Estevez") intervenes, offering Machete American citizenship if he does a job for him. The job is to take out Marcos Mendez (Demián Bichir) who is threatening to nuke Washington, DC if America doesn't put an end to the drug cartels in Mexico and government curruption. Machete takes the job which leads him to his handler, Blanca Vasquez (Amber Heard) who leads him to a girl named Cereza (Vanessa Hudgens) who knows how to find Mendez. From here it becomes a bit of a mess as things unfold, and this is where it becomes a bit more action a bit less sensical. Along the way, Machete meets the likes of Cereza's man-hating mother, Madame Desdemona (Sofía Vergara), Medez's associate, Zaror (Marko Zaror), the Chamelion (Walton Goggins/Cuba Gooding Jr./Lady Gaga/Antonio Banderas - guess what this character's talent is) and Zaror's corrupt benefactor, Luther Voz (Mel Gibson). I mean, the names and roles are enough to say "hey, things get a bit confusing" when some of them don't really need to be a part of things. I did mention that 'Hobo with a Shotgun' might be the lowest of the bunch, but now I have to change that opinion. The charm of 'Hobo' comes with the fact that it's sort of "Grindhouse at its most Grindhousey" - it's a brutal movie full of shock value, and it makes sense that it belongs in that Grindhouse category. With this, it's a solid R, but you almost wonder if they could have gotten away with PG-13 here. As far as Grindhouse goes, this is probably the easiest one to sit through as far as brutality goes. This one relies a lot more on names, and the extreme cheese side of things. There is a bit of fun to it, if you want to just watch it because it's goofy. I mean, to be perfectly fair, there is supposed to be an element of "bad" here, and the film uses bad CG to make a lot of it happen. The problem with that, however, is that CG shouldn't even enter into things for a Grindhouse era movie. Granted, there's modern material through the fil, but so much of the charm of the others is the terrible, low-budget quality taking place before CG could "fix things". Personally speaking, I would probably consider 'Machete Kills' the throwaway movie of this group of five, and highly recommend the first one far above this one. I think if I had offer up this list as a Top 5, from top to bottom, I'd say 'Planet Terror', 'Machete', 'Death Proof' (with a new appreciation), 'Hobo with a Shotgun' and 'Machete Kills'. That said, opinions are most definitely bound to differ, and it could be that others get more from this one than I did. But one thing to consider is that this is the only one on the list, unanimously disliked on both "tomatometers". So, if you're ever in the mood to do a Grindhouse marathon of any kind, this is the one title you could potentially omit. Again, it doesn't even fully feel right for what it's supposed to be, and despite a few cheesy but fun lines of dialogue as well as moments, this one is the weakest link. 2/5  A Mexican Fed named Machete Cortez (Danny Trejo) and his partner open the film on a mission to find and rescue a kidnapped girl. In the process, Machete finds himself with a dead partner, a knife to the leg (compliments of the kidnapped girl), and betrayed by his chief to Rogelio Torrez (Steven Seagal); a powerful drug lord who, let's just say, has it in for Machete and his family. Fast-forwarding three years, Machete finds himself alone, down on his luck, and managing to get by with landscaping work.
Machete is approached by Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey) who explains that Texas State Senator, John McLaughlin (Robert De Nero) is threatening to cut down on the number of laborers by sending illegal immigrants out of the country. He then offers Machete a fine choice between $150,000 for the assassination of McLaughlin, or death - a reluctant Machete accepts the former. Soon enough, the assassination attempt turns into a setup, and Machete finds himself as the subject of a conspiracy that caters to McLaughlin's strong stance on illegal immigration. In the meantime, Agent Sartana Rivera (Jessica Alba), a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, is sent to find and capture Machete. However, long story short, she finds herself in the middle of things, torn between sticking up for her brothers and sisters and doing what she has been hired to do. During all of this, Machete teams up with a taco truck waitress, Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) and a priest named Padre (Cheech Marin) to seek revenge on Booth, who set him up. So it's a pretty basic revenge film that takes the whole illegal immigration scenario to an extreme, and as a Grindhouse film, it pretty well does the job. This is the first of the Grindhouse fake trailers to eventually become a real movie, and being that it was also directed by Robert Rodriguez (along with 'Planet Terror') you definitely get the wonderous "dude porn" he's so well known for (in other words, his movies are incredibly "manly"). I have to admit that I'm a bit of a sucker for his movies, as sometimes, speaking as a guy, sometimes we just need that no-brain adrenaline full of explosions, violence, and sexy but totally badass women - something found in the characters themselves as opposed to them just being eye candy. These Grindhouse movies are all pretty solid for these reasons, but this is probably one of the better of them. This also serves a a good fan service film for Rodriguez fans. Danny Trejo is the lead, sure, but further cameos pop up from some of our Rodriguez film favourites like Tom Savini, and to a lesser extent, an uncredited Rose McGowan (whose scenes were sadly deleted). But if you're a Rodriguez fan, and appreciate his slant towards a bit more of the hardcore, then this movie works out pretty damn well. One could even say this is as much a look into his basic formulas of filmmaking much like 'Death Proof' could be seen for Tarantino fans (although this was much more fun). In the weird world we live in nowadays, I might suggest this as being a step forward in film, even if it's going somewhat backwards. We're so dead set on our mainstream 80s and 90s nostalgia, but there's definitely an audience for the more hardcore movie-makers out there like Rodriguez, Tarantino, Roth, Zombie, hell, even my hero Edgar Wright puts some extremities in his "Cornetto Trilogy". So I have to admit that I'm certainly a part of that cult, albeit perhaps on the lighter side (Zombie and Roth films are just too torturous for my taste). I might go so far as to say 'Machete' represents the Grindhouse movie series at its peak. The next film, 'Hobo with a Shotgun' wasn't quite as well received, nor was it quite as fun as the first three. Then 'Machete Kills' seemed to have put the nail in the coffin, but more on those titles soon enough. As for 'Machete', I highly recommend it to the hardcore fans of Robert Rodriguez, and might suggest any fan of that particular cult of directors might have fun with it. However, it's important to keep in mind that there's a few extremities to this as a Grindhouse film, so it simply won't be for everyone. I have fun with it, but it also touches on some pretty controversial subject matter for this day and age. So nowadays, there's basically gonna be offended people, or people who get way too into it - but then, I suppose that's a grindhouse flick doing its job... 4/5  Here we have the second half of 'Grindhouse', directed by Quentin Tarantino. I saw it once before, have since generally considered it Tarantino's poorest work since then. The catch is, there's supposed to be a "badness" to 'Grindhouse', so in some respects, I get it. But cards on the table, I just thought it dragged - that is until that climactic car chase, which I will definitely give to the movie for keeping me on the edge of my seat for those last 20 minutes or so.
Up until that point, our plot (which I'm poorly going to explain now due to my boredom) basically involves a stuntman by the name of Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) who meets a handful of women in a bar, Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd), radio DJ "Jungle" Julia Lucai (Sydney Tamiia Poitier), Lanna (Monica Staggs) and the innocent Pam (Rose McGowan). Eventually, Mike carries out his serial killer tactics on them with his 1970 Chevy Nova that happens to be, as the title suggests, "Death Proof" to the driver - not so death proof to whoever happens to be a passenger. Do these ladies survive? I'll never tell. Months later, however, a new handful of women enter Mike's territory; hair and makeup artist Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), stuntwoman Kim (Tracie Thoms), Lee, the actress (Mary Elizabeth-Winstead) and eventually, real-life stuntwoman as herself, Zoë Bell. Long story short, Mike may very well meet his match with these ladies, and their stunt driving situation is by far the better half of this movie. The first half I find is still just talk and more talk that doesn't seem to really go anywhere. In a movie like this, although the action is great when it is on screen, I hardly feel like there's enough of it. I guess I hoped for more balls to the wall action as opposed to a lot of conversation. Having said that, I'm not fool. Tarantino absolutely has a gift for dialogue. If you're into his directorial style mainly because he's so good at writing dialogue, you might feel better about this movie than I do. Personally, my Tarantino fandom comes a little more from his dark sense of humour. Whatever it is he works on, he hasn't lost his fondness for the fun of movie-making, and he's one of the only directors out there who can have a massive cult following while being Oscar bait at the same time. 'Death Proof' most definitely lands more in his cult category though, and I think you just have to be the right kind of fan to really like this one. Personally speaking, for me, the best part of this involved the preceding trailers. I got such a good laugh from all of them, and really wish they could become real movies as well. Among them are Rob Zombie's 'Werewolf Women of the SS', Edgar Wright's 'Don't' and Eli Roth's 'Thanksgiving'. This adds a whole level of fun to everything, as they are each just fun fake trailers these guys made up to contribute to the 'Grindhouse' project. So while I don't hate 'Death Proof' and consider certain elements that save it (namely the trailers and the climax), I still think Tarantino just has much better films out there to choose from. Again, it's all a matter of taste. This could be considered a favourite by many just because it highlights Tarantino by showing off things like dialogue skills, action, style, his cameo and a whole bunch of bare feet. I can certainly give this a solid pass based on certain aspects of it, and maybe it's simply not so much for me but for the hardcore fans. I'm fairly basic when it comes to Tarantino as my fave will always and forever be 'Pulp Fiction', and to me, this doesn't really come close in quality. But for all I know, this could very well be the best choice for highlighting his skill set. One thing I can at least admit to here is that, despite still considering it as Tarantino's weakest film, I did manage to get more out of it the second time around. Who knows, with time, maybe it can grow on me. 3/5  Here's another entry into the long list of late 90s/early 2000s ghost movies that fell under the radar. I find that if I bring it up in conversation, not many people are familiar with it. This is one I tend to find a little more interesting than most in its overall execution, though. The fact of the matter is that this is much more of a mystery than a movie featuring a terrifying spirit. Yes, there's a haunting situation in this, but it's less about the scares and more about unravelling the secrets of a neighborhood.
A phone lineman named Tom Witzky (Kevin Bacon) lives in Chicago with his newly pregnant wife, Maggie (Kathryn Erbe) and son, Jake (Zachary David Cope). It's evident from the get-go that Jake has the uncanny ability to communicate with the dead. Instead of being freaked out by it, like in 'Sixth Sense', things run almost a little too smoothly for this kid. Jake reacts more like he's talking to an imaginary friend than a spirit. Anyway, Tom finds him talking to an unseen person while in his bath, but doesn't think much of it and goes about his evening, attending a neighboring party with Maggie while keeping a monitor on hand in order to keep check on Jake. It is here at this party that Tom challenges Maggie's sister, Lisa (Illeana Douglas) to hypnotize him. The hypnosis is a complete success, but Lisa manages to implant the idea that Tom's mind will now be an open door to what he can't comprehend. Soon, Tom begins to experience hallucinations that refer to a girl named Samantha Kozac (Jennifer Morrison), who has been missing for six months. As one strange experience occurs after another, and Tom seemingly begins to lose his grip on reality, he stumbles down a rabbit hole having to do with a missing girl he had never heard of before - at least not until his son started talking to her. As he quite literally digs for answers, he manages to uncover certain truths about Samantha that are downright disturbing, and even hard to watch. This is another one of those films I meet pretty much in the middle. On one hand, I can't help but admire the idea that hypnosis gone wrong is what leads Tom down this crazy path of seeing ghosts, and as the mystery unravels, it does carry a certain intensity with it. I'm also a fan of the ghost being very much in the background, much like in 'What Lies Beneath'. That said, in both cases, the film is much more about figuring out what happened to the dead rather than the more popular spookhouse movies of this day and age. I could definitely see an audience trying these movies out and not being fans simply because not a lot really happens. Just the odd, mild scare here and there. The similarities between this and 'What Lies Beneath' are actually many. They both involve delving into the cause of a mysterious death, both involve the idea of a spouse losing their minds, both essentially ghost movies, both even involve sex in the storyline in some uncomfortable way. The fact that these and many others came out around the same time like them sort of explains why some of these have been swept under the rug a little. You could Google a list of ghost movies, but if you look in the range of around '97-'02, there seem to be quite a few familiar but forgotten titles. This is just one of those titles, and it's pretty decent. But once again, one might get much more of a thrill with something a little more fresh. 3/5  A few years before Elsa was telling us all to "Let it Go", this was the film people would refer to if they ever asked you if you've seen 'Frozen'. Nowadays, this had been swept under the rug almost completely, because let's face it; "Have you ever seen 'Frozen'?" only ever seems to point to Disney's modern classic. This version is a harrowing survivor story involving three young adults stuck on a ski lift, up against some of the harshest conditions nature can throw at them.
The aforementioned trio consists of Dan Walker (Kevin Zegers), his girlfriend, Parker O'Neil (Emma Bell) and the totally ironic third wheel, Joe Lynch (Shawn Ashmore, who once played Ice Man in the 'X-Men' films). They head to the hills to do some skiing and snowboarding, but are jerks about the mountain having to close early for the week. They convince the ski lift operator to allow them one last run, but due to some confusion down below, the ski lift stops and the resort closes, leaving all three of them stranded up high in a ski chair. Together, they struggle to survive sitting in one suspended spot knowing that the resort doesn't open back up again for another week. Speaking for myself, this movie gave me the same kinds of feelings I got with 'The Edge' the first time I saw it. It really portrays nature working against these people, with cold, bitter winds that whip icy snow at their faces and a pack of wolves down below waiting for an easy meal. I won't spoil too much, but things get pretty brutal. I can say with all honesty that if you're someone who can't stand things like broken bones, skin peeling off, or even the picking of small blemishes (in this case, frostbite), you might very well decide to skip this one. I was cringing a LOT during this, but in all the right ways, considering what the film was trying to do. One thing some people know about me when it comes to movies is that I'm not the biggest fan of the vilification of wolves. Wolves are my favorite animal; so much so that I have one tattooed on my right arm. There are plenty of documentaries out there that show just how interesting they are as a species, and ALL of our favorite dogs have descended from them. Perhaps that's why they are used so often - it's the idea of "man's best friend" turning on you. There was something about this time around though - I found them convincing. They don't just show up to attack, they show up because something happens to lure them in. It is scary stuff, but to me, this felt like a justifiably dark take on wolves. It's almost like the movie scares you into respecting them, and it feels like one of the more realistically dark takes on wolves I've seen. Putting the wolf pack aside, though, it's also just an interesting take on character development. While suspended up there, they get to talking and bringing up some stuff that really pulls at your heartstrings. Admittedly, sometimes that heartstring pulling is pretty forced, but some of it adds character to some of these... characters. The mood is set immediately when they start talking about the worst way to die, which actually has a pretty funny punchline, but it's definitely some heavy foreshadowing. As soon as the lights shut off on the slope, you get this sense of foreboding, and it doesn't help that they start freaking out a little about it. I have to admit that this was a movie that was effectively scary to me. Things get very cleithrophobic (the fear of being stuck, often confused with claustrophobia; the fear of being closed in small spaces), and having my personal crippling fear of heights, it just worked. I was at the edge of my seat, cringing, wincing, even routing for them a little bit. It's movies like this that make me glad I never took up skiing or snowboarding, because I would NOT do well on a ski lift on the best of days, let alone getting stuck up there, even for an instant. I think if you don't mind some of the more gruesome stuff, and you're on the lookout for a harrowing suspense thriller, it's definitely worth checking out. 4/5  Based on a comic book miniseries, this one comes to us from director David Slade, who would later go from vicious to sparkling when he would direct 'Twilight: Eclipse' in 2010. Although there's nothing about that series that particularly interests me, it is interesting to know that this movie comes from a seemingly flexible director. The vampires in this movie are not at all romanticized, and are vicious, blood-thirsty creatures of the night - just the way I like 'em!
Taking place in the town of Barrow, Alaska (restored to its original Iñupiat name, Utqiaġvik, in 2016, thus somewhat dating the film), the townsfolk are setting up for their annual "30 Days of Night", when there is a month-long polar night. While this is going on, a random stranger (Ben Foster) comes to shore and takes out the town's communication and transport services, somewhat trapping them all. Meanwhile, the town's sheriff, Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) is facing the consequences of his estranged wife, Stella (Melissa George) missing her flight, and having to stay the 30 days. A group of vampires, led by someone named Marlow (Danny Huston) is connected to the mysterious stranger, and when he sabotages everything, they launch a vicious attack on the town. Soon, Eben, Stella, Eben's brother, Jake (Mark Rendall) and a handful of others find themselves hold up in an attic, hiding from the bloodsuckers. But how long will they have to hide when this group of vampires is basically immune to the cold and don't have to worry about sunrise anytime soon? Considering this whole polar night thing is very real, it sort of surprises me that this concept wasn't thought up sooner. Why wouldn't a hoard of vampires take advantage of a place where the sun won't rise for a month? I've always really liked the whole concept here. The film is very middle-ground according to other critics. At worst it's considered a waste of great talent, at best, it's an original and clever concept. I happily lean towards the latter, and find it to be sincerely underrated as a scary vampire film. For as "horror" as vampires tend to be, it seems to be rather rare for them to be portrayed as true monsters as opposed to something more romantic. But while so many prefer that vampire with class, I personally love the vicious, inescapable, blood-thirsty creatures, and this movie certainly has them. At times, sure, it feels a bit over-the-top, but it's a great gorefest for anyone seeking the more animalistic side of these creatures. While it doesn't entirely escape my criticisms, I can't deny that I have a lot of fun with this one as a horror movie. Certain things I don't like about it, however, include a hell of a lot of ear-piercingly noisy shrieking, and it's one of those movies that's quiet one moment, loud the next. You know, the kind of movie where you crank up the volume just to hear someone speak, but soon that's followed by an action sequence that suddenly makes your house vibrate. It's a big pet peeve of mine, although I do understand that it has to do with mood-establishment. Still though, it's irritating. On the other hand, the film is very dark and cold in its tone and sets the mood for an inescapable town of horrors. The vampire designs are pretty decent and creepy-looking, and it carries with it an atmosphere of dread through its entirety. I also have to give it up for its ending, which I certainly didn't quite see coming. It's actually pretty badass, if you ask me. So while it's nothing that's about to become an annual Halloween tradition, or even something I've gotten into as a series, I do enjoy this one as a horror fan who's more into the animalistic vampires than the more, shall we say, classy ones. I'd recommend it to anyone with similar tastes in the vampiric horror subgenre. 4/5  If you have access to Amazon Prime (Canada), you can go ahead and check this one out right after reading this review. I don't want to over-hype it much, but I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't enjoy this as a whole. I know I squeezed this into an Action Movie Month, but one should probably know that though the action is minimal, when it's on, it's pretty sweet.
The film is really more of a character study on the lead, David Collins (Dan Stevens). I have a friend by that name, so it added to a bit of the overall enjoyment of everything. David comes to the home of the Petersons, and the Mother, Laura (Sheila Kelley) invites him in after he claims to have served with her recently deceased son. Further evidence of this is seen in a photograph of the unit they served in together. The father, Spencer (Leland Orser), is reluctant, but eventually accepts him as a guest in their home. Meanwhile, daughter, snooty daughter, Anna (Maika Monroe) and bullied around trope of a son, Luke (Brendan Meyer) don't know what to make of the situation. As the movie unfolds, we learn more and more about David's past. That's interesting enough, but the film tests its audience in a way. All in all, David becomes a very likable character, but in the same way someone like Hannibal Lecter is likable. He does some pretty brutal things to people, but we can't help but route for him a little just because who he's doing it to is a terrible person. The test the film gives you is, who is the terrible person? Is it David, who he attacks, the people who are tracking David down for reasons unknown, or could it even be one of the family members? We get a loose answer around the climax, but it does keep you guessing a little bit. If I have any criticisms about this movie, they are pretty minimal. A lot of it is kind of cliche, and some of the answers end up being sort of obvious once revealed. But I'll be damned if I didn't have a good time watching this, nonetheless. For an idea, it comes to us from a hit-or-miss team; Director, Adam Wingard and Writer, Simon Barrett ('You're Next', 'V/H/S' 1 & 2, 'Blair Witch' 2016, and the 'Q is for Quack' segment of 'The ABC's of Death'). Just about all of their stuff hits this note where, while fun to watch, it's really just a cool execution of a just okay concept - 'Avatar' being the prime example of such a film. I love it, but I can't deny that it's been done before. This is definitely in that category. Some things to point out that give it that extra bump for yours truly begin with the fact that this is a story that takes place around Halloween. That mixes with this moody soundtrack, that in and of itself could be labelled as a Halloween soundtrack. In some ways, this is indeed a Halloween movie. The only thing is that the concept isn't exactly creepy in a Halloween way so much as a Who do I Trust kinda way. The movie isn't something that'll necessarily get you in the mood for the holiday, but the soundtrack just might. I dunno how to describe it, but maybe the darker side of synthwave and techno but with lyrics? Anyway, the point is, the soundtrack is as much a mood-setter as the cinematography - which is also solid here. The action sequences are nice and fluid, not much shaky cam, it's good stuff. So, if you happen to have Amazon Prime, I recommend popping over and checking it out. It's about an hour and a half, and interesting enough for what it is. It's not the best, but it's good for a movie to sit down with a tub of popcorn with and lose yourself to. As mentioned earlier, when the action is on, it's pretty well done. Beyond that, you have a suspense thriller that keeps you guessing (somewhat). I think I'll end up enjoying this one a little bit more than most due to certain biases I have, but I don't think anyone would watch this movie and say it was terrible... of course, I have been wrong about that before. Anyway, if you're looking for something new to watch for Halloween that isn't horror, it's worth a look. 4/5  For this month, I did a little bit more homework on Bruce Campbell's roles. Today's review takes a peak at another horror role of his, that has developed a cult following from his devoted fans - and that's about the only audience I'd truly recommend this to. For those who wish to watch something very disturbing, while blending a together lot of different material, it's pretty great. But that's just the thing. It borrows from a hell of a lot (or so it seems).
Released in 1991 (or '92, depending on what site you're visiting for research), one can pick out the recipe that formed such a film. You get yourself a 'Total Recall' base, add various measurements of 'Mad Max', 'Temple of Doom', throw in a dash of 'The Hills Have Eyes', and don't forget to add the Bruce Campbell cherry to top everything off. He's pretty much 'Army of Darkness' Campbell, but without the comedy. It's a little more serious, but he does get to play the broad-chinned hero here, which is what Campbell fans are gonna wanna see. In the year 2037, a nuclear war has all but destroyed the Earth entirely. Any of Earth's remaining people have retreated to a computer-controlled biosphere called Inworld, where computers control everything to do with human life, which includes a very 'Matrix'-like set-up. People are plugged in to live their lives out in a fantasy dream world, but in this case, they seem to be aware of everything, as they can unplug themselves to eat and use the bathroom. Some of the rules layed out for it are pretty open and loose. A young woman named Judy (Marta Martin), however, decides that she really wants to know what has happened to the real world. She wants very much to experience reality for all it's worth, and she spends about the first 15 minutes of the film talking about it until finally, Inworld's System Operator grants her wish by exiling her to the "Outworld" (no, not THAT Outworld). To her dismay, the world has essentially become the setting for 'Mad Max', sprinkled with a bunch of creepy 'Hills Have Eyes' mutants. Here, she meets Stover (Bruce Campbell), who rescues Judy, but soon enough finds himself down in the mutant underground with her. The mutants' plan, disturbingly enough, to breed with her. Can Stover save her, and can they escape with their lives intact? It's here that I'll feel fit to mention that nothing entirely graphic is seen. These mutants are creepy, and a lot of the imagery used is disturbing, but nowhere watching it did I feel like I had to brace myself for some really bad discomfort... that said, they do completely 'Saw' one young character here... Once again - for the hardcore Campbell fans. It ends with a fairly interesting twist that I, myself, didn't quite see coming. But once it happened, I will say I felt like it should have been more obvious to me. Altogether, it stands as a fairly standard film for what it is. This is a straight up B horror movie, starring the Campbell Man himself, who seldom takes on the serious. Campbell is there to give the horror fans a good time by playing a character who will cater to them, and this is really no exception. I had no problem accepting the film, and don't find it too necessary to pick on, despite its many flaws, which help the charm of it anyway. If I had to offer any real criticism, it's that parts of it drag in the beginning, and it borrows from so much that it looks all too familiar by 1991 (or '92 - which one is it, honestly?). Otherwise, this is one for the horror hounds who wanna see something that's gonna make 'em squirm. A lot of the practical horror effects here are based on gross-out moments, but they do look pretty freakin' good for something so low-budget. This is a good glimpse at some of Campbell's earlier work that isn't an 'Evil Dead' movie, featuring him as the action hero. It's not rated well for fairly obvious reasons, but I'm kinda glad I took the time to check it out. It's gruesome and disturbing, yes, but in all the best ways. 3/5  This one taught me a little something about the 'Harry Potter' series that I had no idea about. Weird place to start, I know, but the truth is that this one starts off with mentions of Nicolas Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone. Just when I was ready to write this off as an unnecessary rip off of 'Harry Potter', I kinda figured that would have been a little too "on the nose". I Googled the name, and it finally clicked that Flamel was the only non-fictional character in the 'Potter' series. Though the idea of the Philosopher's Stone is something of a Holy Grail or Ark of the Covenant, lost in history and lore.
Anyway, I guess I missed what may have been obvious to many, but it was fascinating to me that there was some element of realism in the 'Potter' series. But of course, we're not here to talk about Harry Potter and his adventures, so much as we're here to talk about an enthusiastic archaeologist named Scarlett (Perdita Weeks) who is seeking the Philosophers' Stone, herself. On her search, she finds a series of clues that lead her into the catacombs underneath Paris, France. She assembles a team consisting of her cameraman, Benji (Edwin Hodge), he former boyfriend, George (Ben Feldman), and guide who knows a few underground shortcuts named Papillon (François Civil) along with his team; his girlfriend, Souxie (Marion Lambert) and their friend Zed (Ali Marhyar). Together, they enter an area of the catacombs that is barred from the public, but soon find themselves trapped. As the film continues, more and more strange occurrences emerge, and the film pretty much acts like a spook house, wherein every twist and turn involves some kind of scary imagery. For the most part, the imagery they unveil has a lot to do with their sins in life, and eventually the group finds themselves in what is almost certainly a real Hell. The catch - the only way to get out is to keep going further down. Being that this is a found footage movie, the scariest aspect of it is probably the overall claustrophobia that sticks with you on the ride you take - especially when these guys have no way out but down, further and further. There's an uneasy sense of helplessness that comes with it, and I can say with enthusiasm that this one did the trick for me. Again, it's very much a spook house of a film, but instead of just having things jump out and say "boo", there's also a lot of unsettling imagery, and even a really cool kill or two - the car on fire stands out, particularly, but no spoilers. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. So, for found footage horror enthusiasts, I can honestly recommend this one pretty highly. I've seen much worse, and it's not quite as formulaic as one might assume. I won't spoil anything, once again, but the ending to this kinda left me in a sort of awe, and I give it credit for not following what practically every other found footage horror film tends to do. But with that said, I can also honestly point out that this one does not get very positive ratings, and admittedly, it's not without its flaws. At times, the camera action is just plain weird, and I'm not just talking about a lot of shaky-cam moments. Often, what you see being filmed doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, like one scene where our lead might as well think she's gonna die horribly, but is still carrying a camera around, getting shots of her facial expressions. On top of that, I can see this being very basic stuff for the average horror fan. There's not a lot of new here, but what I enjoyed was the execution of it. If you're looking for something creepy and claustrophobic, it's really not a bad one to check out, in my opinion. I'm have to admit, I'm very against the grain on this one. 3/5  In order for me to review this one in fairness, I feel obligated to state here that spoilers lie ahead for the first 'Creep' film, as this one branches off of the way it ends. So, if you've either seen it already, or don't care, read on. If you wanna know what happens, I highly recommend sitting through the first one rather than jumping into this one.
We start off here with a young man named Dave (Karan Soni - or as most "Deadpool' fans know him, Dopinder) receiving some creepy gifts from an unknown stalker. Along comes Josef (Mark Duplass) from the previous film, who has since changed his identity to Aaron (the quintessential victim of the last movie), who kicks things off by confessing to David what's going on, and confiding in him that he feels like he's losing his artistic touch, and all the killing has lost its luster. You can imagine what happens here, but it sets the tone for the film instantly, pushing us right back into the dark sense of humor that made the first film work well. Meanwhile, a YouTube video artist named Sara (Desiree Akhavan) is feeling down on her work as well. Her fearlessness leads her to interacting with creepy men on the internet, and trying to expose them to the world in an attempt to show us that maybe there's more to them than meets the eye. Things get a little too weird for her audience, though, and she feels like she needs something more groundbreaking. She finds her next project in the form of "Aaron", a self-admitted serial killer, who wants to make a video documentary about how serial killers work. The fun of this ends up being Sara's fearlessness, and how much she's willing to sacrifice to get her story. As harsh as that sounds, it's Aaron's reactions to everything she does that really gets me. He's there to try to freak her out, but he has apparently met his match, and she often turns the tables on him, confusing him. But make no mistake, things get uncomfortable here, too. You find the thrill of it all is in guessing which one of the two of them is actually worse. You even wonder at times if she's capable of killing, herself. As the movie unfolds, much like the last one, things get more and more uneasy. And for as much as I've praised its dark sense of humor, and its execution, it does go to some dark places to make the viewer genuinely uncomfortable at times. The catch is, you kinda don't know who you should feel uncomfortable about, and speaking for myself, it did have me guessing. It had more twists and turns than the last one, and I got more out of it as a horror/thriller. But I would still probably say the first one is a bit more comedic. It makes me wonder what the upcoming 'Creep 3' will have in store to keep things fresh. 4/5  I decided to lean towards taking another look at a few found-footage films that I've missed over the years for the month of April. I have done this theme before, but there are so many titles to choose from that this probably will be a recurring theme every year. To kick things off, we actually have a special request from a friend who wanted me to check these first two movies out, 2014's 'Creep' and 2017's 'Creep 2', in regards to 'Creep 3' being released... whenever the hell that might be.
The first film is shot from the perspective of a videographer named Aaron (Patrick Brice). He's on the way to a remote mountain town, answering an online ad to videotape a dying man named Josef's (Mark Duplass) final messages, with a main focus on the man's supposed unborn son. Aaron hesitantly agrees to Josef's terms, but the messages get more dark and disturbing as filming goes on, and Josef himself seems pretty unhinged, and overly desperate for a friend. What this essentially boils down to is a found-footage horror version of 'The Cable Guy'. All in all, this one ended up being pretty much what I expected, and ends up being somewhat predictable at points. However, I will give the film credit enough for blending a very dark and out-there sense of humor with its uncomfortable moments. If he was lightened up a bit, I could almost see Josef being a criminal on a show like 'Brooklyn 99'. This is rated R, though, so a lot the dark humor within is a little more uneasy - especially when it comes to a wolf mask that Josef dubs "Peach Fuzz". To give you the perfect idea of the tone that this movie sets, "Peach Fuzz" has a theme song. The first time the song is heard involves Josef dancing around and singing it like some kid, having a great time with it. The second time, however, is the end credits, in which the tone is completely different and you sit there wondering if you should laugh at the ridiculous lyrics, or be scared by them. It could be said that the film doesn't exactly know what it's supposed to be, between a horror and a comedy. However, the creepiness of the whole situation does get very real. Duplass pulls off a very disturbing performance here that, while you often laugh at, you're also often made to feel very uncomfortable by. Some of the real comedy actually comes from Aaron's reactions to Josef's behavior, which unfortunately involves several cheap jump scares. How cheap? He basically keeps jumping out from behind something, screaming. I can only appreciate a jump scare if it's done inconspicuously. In this, the moments were too obvious - tension followed by a jolt. I still might have jumped, but it felt wasted, especially if it's just someone essentially going "BOO!" to someone else. That is just elementary Halloween pranking. Wrapping up this "Part 1", I can't say that it's anything too special, but it's certainly not without a few appreciative factors. The performances were great, overall, between our two leads, and the dark sense of humor this brings to the table is almost something to be admired. It doesn't quite take things too far, but it does get into your head as another pretty solid cautionary tale about who you meet on the internet. But while this one is a little bit unoriginal, I must admit that the second one impressed me for what it was... 3/5  Here we have a good example of a film that horror fans are completely split on. On the one hand, some see it as a standard, goreless slasher flick - the kind that had been done before, but better. On the other hand, some of us see it as something underrated, utilizing old ideas, but still bringing something new to the table, all the same. After checking it out for myself, I tend to lean a bit more towards the latter.
We are introduced to a TV journalist named Deborah Ballin (Lee Grant), who is in support of a woman who killed her husband after taking too much abuse. Colt Hawker (Michael Ironside) is a woman-hating homicidal maniac, who just so happened to be watching Deborah's opinions on the matter, and he soon seeks out her home for an overall unsuccessful attack, which puts Deborah in the hospital. When Hawker sees that she's in the hospital, he continues his attempts on her life. Her only real support is from an admiring nurse named Sheila Munroe (Linda Purl) and her boss, Gary Baylor (William Shatner) who, despite their support, consider her paranoid in believing her attacker is hunting her down. Performance wise, it's decent, but the real star here is Michael Ironside, who does a pretty good job at looking intimidating, and even kinda psychotic. The interesting thing they do with the killer in this case, is put him right out there in the open for the audience to see. However, he still remains a bit of a shadow to everyone else, except Deborah. Usually in a movie of this sort, the killer remains a mystery until the end. I further just have to appreciate the overall concept. A hospital is a naturally creepy place, and a hell of a lot of people don't even like visiting them. Speaking personally, I'm okay with them unless I'm the one being taken care of. In that sense, this movie really engages that fear of being hospitalized and vulnerable. It managed to get under my skin in parts, but in a good, effective way that a horror movie should. This one's percentage on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty damn low, and based on so few votes, which leads me to believe that it's a pretty untapped movie altogether. While it's not one for the gore hounds, or even the sacred guild of torture porn that I shall never be a part of, it touches on certain themes that are very much alive in this day and age, and it makes me wonder if it would hold up if people gave it a chance. It's by no means a masterpiece, and I can understand where critics may come from with their stances. But personally speaking, I kinda found this one to be pretty original in its overall execution, despite the obvious borrowing from other slasher films. I found that showing us the killer from the get-go was an interesting way to engage the audience, again, Ironside's performance is nice and uncomfortable, and the whole hospital concept is effectively creepy. It doesn't stand among any legends, but give it a look and see what you think. I'm probably in a minority here, but I enjoyed it as an decent thriller one might find on TV while channel surfing. 3/5  This made-for-TV horror anthology dates back to 1975, and has pretty well remained under the radar the whole time, save for the potentially familiar African doll, who has since become the star and poster boy for this particular movie. It has a cult following, but I know that I hadn't really paid it any attention in the past, and it was something I could tap into easily, especially with my love of anthology films.
This anthology film is based on a batch of short stories by Richard Matheson. For those of you unfamiliar, Matheson is responsible for many books turned into movies, such as 'I Am Legend', 'The Shrinking Man', 'Stir of Echoes' and 'What Dreams May Come' just to name a few. The list is actually pretty long. This film's focuses are on 'The Likeness of Julie', here adapted to 'Julie, 'Needle in the Heart', here adapted to 'Millicent and Therese', and 'Prey', here adapted to 'Amelia'. 'Julie' introduces us to a college student Chad (Robert Burton) who one day gets a glimpse of his teacher Ms. Julie Eldridge (Karen Black) and develops a swift, lustful crush on her. At one point he asks her to a movie, which she reluctantly accepts. Without going into dark detail, we soon learn just how despicable a guy Chad is. However, unbeknownst to Chad, his teacher isn't quite what she seems, and soon it becomes a great revenge thriller story fo this particular day and age. It's perhaps the story here that has actually aged the best for what it is. 'Millicent and Therese' (both of whom are also played by Karen Black) was easily the weakest of the batch, profiling two sisters. Millicent is repressed, shy, and considers herself the "good sister" between them. Therese, however, is largely considered evil by Millicent, and is the party-going bad girl between the two. Millicent has plans to kill Therese and rid the world of her evil ways, but then it all comes down to a twist that you can probably predict reading this right now. 'Amelia' (Also Karen Black) is by far the most popular of the bunch, and is the only of the three to actually be adapted by Matheson, himself. Amelia purchases a wooden "fetish" doll (seen above). According to a scroll that comes with it, the doll is otherwise known as "He Who Kills", and sports a gold chain around its neck, which, if removed, unleashes the evil spirit within the doll. So the chain falls off, and it's basically this little thing chasing her around the house the whole time. It sounds pretty typical, but there's a cool twist ending to it that I didn't quite see coming. So with the first and third being liked pretty well by yours truly, but the second one being pretty bad and predictable, the film in its entirety comes out to be pretty average. It's a neat, fun little time if you're looking for some time to kill. But being that it was made for TV, there's not many extremities to this. That doll is about as violent and creepy as it gets, and is probably the best short of the film. But I do still think that first one deserves a do-over for newcomers. 3/5  Deciding to take another long-awaited peek behind the dark shroud that is unseen horror, I checked out a special presentation on Prime Video called 'The 50 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen'. This provided me with a whole whack of titles to check out, so rest assured, I'll eventually return to this theme a few times over for "Under the Radar". For now, however, the first foursome starts with the disturbing but somewhat humorous 'Motel Hell'.
Farmer Vincent Smith (Rory Calhoun) and his sister, Ida (Nancy Parsons) are a seemingly friendly couple of farmers and motel owners, keeping the Motel Hello open for business. Farmer Vincent is well-renowned for his famous smoked meats, only available to a short proximity from the farm itself. However, there's a terrible secret behind the meat - it's really human flesh. Vincent and Ida set traps to lure and capture travelers, only to plant them with severed vocal cords, in their secret garden. At one point, Vincent shoots out the tires of a motorcycle, "planting" victim Bo (Everett Creach), and bringing back Bo's girlfriend, Terry (Nina Axelrod) back to the motel, showing her nothing but the utmost hospitality. Here, she also meets Bruce Smith, Vincent and Ida's naive brother, and clueless Sheriff of the town. Much of the film consists of Vincent and Ida trying to successfully keep their horrors hidden, while maintaining peaceful relationships with Terry and Bruce. The film is apparently meant to parody slasher movies more so than actually being one, itself. The ideas are pretty over-the-top and 'Twilight Zone'-ish, and some of the redneck dialogue is kinda laughable. But this is still a very disturbing idea, especially when you hear these still-live humans trying to make any sort of noise. Pretty freaky stuff at first, but after a while, it admittedly does get pretty irritating. Imagine a typical sound of someone being strangled, and that's what we get an abundance of here. Creepy concepts aside though, I'm not entirely sure this one was quite for me. Moments of it just got a little too weird, and even viewing it as a comedy, it just wasn't funny enough. This belongs somewhere on that cult horror list of films I can appreciate, but personally find the execution just kinda "meh". I'd almost rather see it as a full-tilt horror, because they have a good idea here. It could be incredibly unsettling, but the comedic edge of the whole thing prevents it from being very effective. It does, however, carry a great, simplified horror soundtrack with it, right up there with something like the original 'Halloween'. It goes to show how effectively creepy just a couple of repeated chords can be, and proves once again that in horror, subtlety can help make things much more engrossing. I also have to tip my hat at the final line of the film, which I won't spoil, but it provides a good final laugh and close to the film. If you've seen it before, you know exactly what the line is. So would I recommend this one to the horror buffs? I think so. It might not be altogether up my alley, but there's plenty to appreciate here as far as a creepy concept, decent performances, and a pretty high-tension climax. There's plenty here for the gore hounds as well, also mostly towards the end. It's worth checking out, but do bear in mind that things are gonna get weird when you sit to watch it. 3/5  I'd be lying if I said I was gonna miss this month's theme all too much. The 90's was this weird era for horror where it didn't really know what it should do. It tried to resurrect the slasher era with more human characters as opposed to supernatural, but let's face it, it's still just more of the same formula over and over again. 'Cherry Falls' is certainly no exception. In fact, I'd say this movie is one big, bad horror trope.
This review won't be a long one 'cause there's just so little to say about it. Other than the film's idea, it's really just an unoriginal slasher-fest, full of teenage victims and basic, uncreative kills, sexual tension with teenage hormones for an easy-sell, and it's honestly just plain forgettable. In Cherry Falls, Virginia, a mysterious, long-haired killer, dressed in black, is murdering the virgins of the local high school one by one... yeah, that's the big twist here. The victims are the virgins for once, flipping that particular horror trope around. But even saying that's entirely original is a stretch. It's just a change of scenery, really. Otherwise, again, it's a very typical teen slasher. The story centers on Jody Marken (Brittany Murphy), daughter of the town's sheriff, Brent (Michael Biehn). Brent has been put in charge of the investigation behind these murders, and keeping his daughter safe is also his top priority (which leads to a really messed up conversation). Keeping her out of it, however, leads her to do a little investigating of her own, and your typical slasher horror movie carries on as you might expect, with very little surprise. It's not so much that the movie's horrible, it's just extremely weak. I've seen many slashers very similar to this that manage to actually tell a better story, of have you care for some of the characters involved. This one is kinda just weird, and it didn't feel I got anything out of it whatsoever. If horror was some sort of theme park, this movie would represent the merry-go-round. Very plain, simple, typical, everyone has seen and done it, and it's not really all that exciting. All in all, a throw-away for yours truly. 2/5  1998 seemed to be a sort of peak year for these teen slasher horror flicks. While 'Scream' was a large influence on so many of them, some others seemed to just sort of copy the whole idea. 'Urban Legend' happens to be one of these films. Replace movies with urban legends, a similar twist ending, and even similar dialogue, and one can easily see why this one didn't exactly do so well.
Here we have an insanely simple plot. Someone is going around, picking off college students one by one. The killer's pattern follows a series of urban legends that most people out there know pretty well - at least in some form. As with typical teen horror of this era, the cast is lead by an obvious "survivor girl" named Natalie (Alicia Witt), who gets the help of best friend Brenda (Rebecca Gayheart), school reporter, Paul (Jared Leto) among others to try to figure out who this killer is. Of course one by one, would-be victims get theirs in pretty unoriginal ways, and it all just kinda turns into a throw-away for me. This was a weird one for me. I've seen worse, but I know I've seen a whole lot better. For a very typical teen slasher movie, it's not exactly terrible. But that's just as long as you've come here for a lot of horror tropes. In a way, being that the kills are based on urban legends, I think even that's kinda cheap. Sure, films like 'Seven' did something similar with the sins, but 'Seven' was very unique and disturbing with what it did. This is just some killer slashing people with little to no "wow" factor. Most of these urban legends end up with some slasher scenario, as well. The kills are narrow-minded 'cause they follow a very particular path. Going back to the 'Seven' comparison, you can be very open with what you do with the concept of sin. There is, however, a sort of guilty pleasure to this film if you're any sort of horror buff. Some of the cameos in here are better known as classic horror villains - namely, Robert Englund ('Elm Street'), playing a sort of creepy professor, Danielle Harris ('Halloween') playing Natalie's goth roommate, and Brad Dourif ('Child's Play') as a gas station attendant. I have to admit that it was kinda cool seeing these faces pop up, supposedly passing a torch to a new generation. However, it's just not enough to save the overall quality of things here. It's all pretty predictable (at least as far as the victim list goes), badly written, and seemingly just some names slapped together to put butts in seats for a genre that was burning bright at the time. Other big teen names of the time like Tara Reid, Joshua Jackson show up as well, just to draw an audience (again, for it's time). The whole thing feels lazily put together, and a simple money grab, to me. I can honestly say I've seen worse, but I'm definitely not a fan of this one. 2/5  If you are in search of a new movie that you can love for how horrible it is (aka a "so-bad-it's-good" film), look no further than Netflix (Canada, anyway). Locate 'American Poltergeist', press play, and allow its horribleness to wash over you. What makes it even better is that it's meant to be a horror movie, thus accidentally making it a horror comedy - my favourite subgenre!
Our story follows a group of absolute no-name celebrity twenty-somethings who are looking for a place to stay as a group for the Summer semester. They soon find themselves in a famous murder house of sorts, which is an interesting enough twist to this. But it's THAT "under the radar" enough that I'm gonna decide to classify it as a (sort of) spoiler. However, that twist is followed by another that just makes things extra coincidental and terrible. The overall premise ends up being fairly predictable, and it absolutely insults the legacy of a famous real-life murder case. Oh yeah, this movie's also "based on a true story" as far as the plot allows it to be. But listen, I'll be damned if I didn't have a great time with this movie all the same. The acting is just God awful here, the final twist is brutal, and the climax is laughable, dishing out just about every horror climax cliche you can think of. But the acting, oh man, the acting. I was kinda laughing my way though this, almost sadistically, because even when a character becomes a victim it's always completely off-screen, and some of the screaming faces can be equated with the faces Dads make to their babies when trying to entertain them. So, here I sit with one of those mixed reviews. I was thoroughly entertained by this, but for all the wrong reasons. I really would put it up there with titles as rough as 'Troll 2', 'The Room' or even 'Manos: The Hands of Fate'. It's just so wonderfully bad. And so, I wrap up "Ghost Month" with this short review, not saying much about it because I want to spread this movie around like it's the plague. It starts with you, my audience. Please, tune into this movie on Netflix, or find it by any other means, have yourself a horrific laugh, and spread the word - there's another "so bad it's good" film lying somewhere in the shadow of its 4% Rotten Tomato audience rating, and NO critic meter. Even IMDb gave it a 2.2/10. Putting that into perspective, 'The Room' has a 3.7. Give it a chance, especially as a horror fan, you WON'T be disappointed. Or maybe you will, but like, in a good way. 1/5  In my search for interesting Under the Radar ghost-themed movies, I stumbled on this comedy title on Netflix. Knowing nothing about it, I still figured the team of actors involved messing around as ghost hunters might just tickle the funny bone enough to, at least, get by as a decent paranormal comedy. Unfortunately, however, the most the film ever got from me was a slight giggle or two - generally based on stupidity.
We meet Louis (Jon Heder); a die hard fan of the paranormal, and copy shop owner, and his best friend, Stan (David Krumholtz); a man depressed over his bride to be mysteriously disappearing at his wedding, leaving him at the altar. He theorizes that it was alien abduction. One day, a customer comes into Louis' copy shop, asking for "No Trespassing" signs. The customer tells Louis that the barn is probably haunted because it looks creepy, and this encourages Louis to recruit a ghost hunting team. The team, in question, includes mouth-breathing security dope, Ross (Justin Long), obvious love-interest-like character, Ellie (Melonie Diaz), token asshole trying to be comedy relief character, Zak (Paul W. Downs), and apparent psychic, Victoria (Amy Sedaris). Together, the crew head to the man's barn to check things out over the course of a night. Things are pretty passable for a little while, although not great, but then the movie just totally drops the ball, just as things start getting (somewhat) interesting. I won't spoil it, but it's the kind of movie where some big reveal happens that just plain kills the mood, taking you out of a movie that really wasn't that good to begin with. I even went back and checked out the trailer, which made it worse, because there's absolutely no hint to what this big reveal is. This was a decent team of actors that were given a bad script and bad direction. While none of them generally blow anyone away with their talents, they all still have some great roles out there that prove they're pretty flexible with their craft. This was kinda their most basic of basic performances, with jokes and gags that pretty much just fall flat. Again, this one barely gave me a laugh at all. But what really bugs me here more than anything is that reveal. It happens just as the movie is getting dark and entertaining. I like the comedy-horror blend more than any other blended genre, so when things started going down and I finally started to get interested, it all got taken away from me in an instant. Then, I just kinda waited for the movie to end 'cause I was so taken out of it. It's honestly one of the cheapest twists I've ever seen. They could have had something half-decent here. I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I wish writers didn't have to get so cheap with their craft sometimes. It was almost like half-way through, they just gave up. Anyway, disappointing to say the least. 1/5 |
RSS Feed