The Witch

My Grade:  C+

Touted as the scariest movie to be released in quite a long time, the feature debut of Robert Eggers is a let down. It’s simply not that scary. This doesn’t necessarily make it a bad movie, though; and it’s not. But I do wish it was scarier.

The Witch is a New England folk tale about a religious family in the 1630s who leave their community because of differences in beliefs. Trying to make it on their own, they build a little farm just outside of some ominous woods. Before long, the farm and family become plagued by witchcraft and possession. 

It has all the makings of a solid horror flick:  dark woods, witches, creepy animals acting strangely, deep-seated religious beliefs, and little kids doing crazy things. It just never achieves the scares it’s going for. It does, however, spin an intriguing tale that slowly builds tension in a very successful way. And it has a fitting, albeit off the wall ending which will satisfy most viewers. It also suffers from some cliche and borderline silly tropes that you’d find in any witchcraft or possession movie. They’re only silly because they are over done… but silly none the less.

The true triumph of The Witch, though, is introducing the world to Anya Taylor-Joy who plays Thomasin. She’s barely 20 years old and is a force to be reckoned with. She carries the weight of this film on her young shoulders and does so with the skill and range of someone well beyond her years and experience. Without her emotional and sometimes down right insane performance, The Witch would fail.

Overall, The Witch benefits from a strong lead performance from newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy and a captivating score, but suffers from a lack of scares and reliance on played out genre tropes. Its story does build and keep tension well but is sometimes hard to watch due to the occasionally graphic violence and disturbing content. Don’t expect to be kept awake at night, but it’s worth a watch if you’re a fan of horror. 

Creep

My Grade:  A-

Found footage films are all too common in today’s horror film landscape. It seems like every wanna-be filmmaker starts off with a found footage horror that is supposed to scare the pants off of you. They can’t all be The Blair Witch Project or the Paranormal Activity films, though. It’s not often that something new and interesting is done with this overused horror trope. Creep breaks that cliche mold, though. 

Creep follows Aaron (played by writer/director Patrick Brice) a freelance videographer as he takes a one-day gig in a remote mountain community. His client, Josef (Mark Duplass in a stunning departure from his usual roles) wants to make a video diary of sorts for his unborn son because he is terminally ill and may not live to see the birth of his son. It has all the makings of a quirky, feel-good dramedy but, as you might expect, everything isn’t as it seems. Things get weird, awkward, dark, and down right terrifying. 

The thing about Creep is that it’s not all in when it comes to the horror genre. It plays out more like a slow burn thriller with some decent twists and turns and a top-notch payoff. But it does offer some solid scares along the way. As with any found footage film, the first person point of view is immersive and adds tension by mostly only letting the audience see what Aaron sees. Brice uses this format very well to keep his audience on the edge of their seats. 

This film would be nothing without the outstanding performance by the titular creep:  Mark Duplass. Duplass usually plays the quirky, good looking, goofball friend or the unexpected love interest. He is most well known as Pete in the FX comedy “The League.” That makes his performance in Creep all the more impressive because it’s a far cry from his usual roles. It’s refreshing to see him being, dare I say it... creepy.

The writing is also very good. The dialogue is so natural between Aaron and Josef that I would be willing to bet that a good bit of it is ad-libbed. But, there are so many set-ups and payoffs it’s ridiculous - and very rewarding for the viewer who has paid attention. Things get brought up almost as a joke that foreshadow something later that isn’t so funny. However, the script is surprisingly funny in that awkward comedy kind of way.

The biggest issue I have with Creep is that we learn very little about our videographer Aaron. Other than a few anecdotes about his life, there isn’t much of a character there. So, when he is in danger, I don’t worry as much as I should for him. Simply putting me in his shoes by showing me everything through his camera lens doesn’t make me root for him any more. I root for him because I’ve seen enough movies to know I’m supposed to, not because I know enough about him to empathize with him or really care about his well-being.

Overall, Creep is a stand out in the over-populated found footage genre. It’s even a stand out in the horror/thriller genre due to strong writing, natural dialogue, a solid build up of intensity, and (most of all) a stellar performance from Mark Duplass. This film just hit Netflix so I would highly recommend adding it to your list. Its taut 82 minute run time flies by and is well worth a watch. 

Tucker and Dale vs Evil

My Grade:  B-

I’m a sucker for a good B movie horror, so I had to check out Tucker and Dale vs Evil. I had heard good things and it just so happens to reside in the streaming portion of Netflix. Easy decision.

The story is simple and ripe for satirical comedy:  two rednecks on vacation at their dilapidated cabin in the woods get mistaken for killers by a group of preppy college kids. It’s brilliant because it turns the tables on the horror genre. Usually, these types of films are about the preppy, good looking college kids who get attacked by homicidal hillbillies. No so in this film. The college kids are the monsters.

There is plenty of blood and gore for fans of the horror genre, but the almost slapstick ways in which the “kills” take place would make Sam Raimi proud. It’s a wonderful blend of comedy and gore, but it’s not as scary as it should be as it takes shots at the horror genre. Amping up the fear would make the satire much more potent and the comedy hit harder.

It’s refreshing, though, for this film to not fall back on nudity and bad language as many similar films do. There is enough language for it to earn its R rating, but is very tame compared to most R rated films these days. That fact adds to the idea that Tucker and Dale are just a couple of nice, innnocent guys that get thrown into a situation that is out of their control and gets way out of hand.

That heartbeat which drives the film keeps us invested in these two lovable characters. If they weren’t crafted in such a way that we could empathize with them, this film would feel tedious and overly long despite running a short 89 minutes. It definitely doesn’t feel its length which is a good thing but the ending drags out a bit and some of the twists and turns feel forced.

Overall, Tucker and Dale vs Evil is a fun riff on the horror genre that could be improved by being a little scarier and a little more creative as it tries to surprise its audience. It benefits from a strong but simple premise and delivers a good dose of laughter. I enjoyed it and, if you’re a fan of horror-comedies, I think you will, too.

Sharknado 2

My Grade:  C

I know this review is a little late but, as Halloween gets closer, I will be reviewing some extra horror films for you guys. Today, I bring you Sharknado 2. This is the first time I am reviewing a sequel having not seen the first installment and it’s the first time reviewing a straight-to-TV movie. So strap in for the glorious B-movie fun that is Sharknado 2!

Sharknado 2 is exactly what you expect:  a tornado that brings sharks onto land to eat people. Flooding accompanies the tornado so sharks are able to swim in the streets and eat people as well. The first Sharknado happened in Los Angeles and brought together a bunch of no-name actors and... Tara Reid? I guess it isn’t so surprising that Tara Reid did a SyFy original movie because her career isn’t exactly one that has led her to critical acclaim. But she probably still makes tons of money, so who am I to judge?

Sharknado 2 picks up right where its predecessor left off. Fin (our ridiculously named protagonist played by the completely devoid of emotion Ian Ziering) and his girlfriend April (Tara Reid) are on a plane to New York for a book signing. April wrote a book entitled “How To Survive A Sharknado.” Which, by the way, allows for the word “Sharknado” to be thrown around a ton which is stupidly awesome. On the way, they encounter a mid-air Sharknado that destroys the plane and gets April’s hand bitten off. The plane successfully makes an emergency landing in New York and the sharknado doesn’t hit the city for a few hours. When it does, the action never stops.

The thing about this movie that makes it hard to review is that it is supposed to be campy and awful. So, on one hand, it does exactly what it is supposed to do making it a success. On the other hand, it is just awful from a story, character, dialogue, and acting standpoint. I have to be honest, though, it is a ton of fun to watch. I wouldn’t watch it again but I certainly enjoyed my two hours of badly rendered CGI sharks eating unsuspecting new yorkers and wildly bloody shark kills with everything from circular saws to chainsaws and even bombs attached to toys.

I’m not even going to talk about the attempted character development that fails miserably. I wish the filmmakers had left that out because it’s not necessary in this type of film. What I will mention is that there are some awesome cameos. Most notably, the annoying, ridiculously dressed, purpled-haired Kelly Osbourne gets owned by a shark early on. That was rather satisfying. Furthermore, Robert Hays (from the movie Airplane!) was, you guessed it, a pilot on the airplane. Also making appearances were Wil Wheaton (Star Trek:  The Next Generation), Andy Dick as a cop, Al Roker and Matt Lauer (who get a pretty solid team kill on a shark), Jared (from Subway), Billy Ray Cyrus (as a doctor... haha), Perez Hilton, pro wrestler Kurt Angle, and more. But my favorite was Daymond John from one of my favorite shows “Shark Tank”... get it? He turns to get a briefcase full of money and that hesitation ends him. How fitting. Those little tidbits of fun kept the movie entertaining but weren’t able to save the poor writing, dialogue and horrendous acting.

Overall, Sharknado 2 is not a good movie but it’s fun and it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It could have done without the pretending to have character arcs and twists but the over-the-top silly action and campy-ness of it all makes it worthwhile. If you’re in the mood for stupid, mindless entertainment, get Sharknado 2 from Redbox or Netflix when it is available.

13 Sins

My Grade:  B-

I am a sucker for a film with a unique premise. That is something that 13 Sins certainly offers. How it does with that premise is iffy, but it is still an intriguing premise. 

A guy gets a seemingly random phone call offering him 1000 dollars to kill a fly that is buzzing around in his car. That’s easy enough, so he does it and the money is immediately transferred into his account. He is then offered more money to eat the fly he just killed. He finds it strange, but does it and more money is magically added to his account. Then he is offered the chance to continue playing this game for more money. There will be thirteen challenges, two of which he has already completed, and he will be a very rich man if he completes all of them. He is responsible for taking care of his mentally challenged brother and is engaged with a baby on the way... and he just lost his job. So he accepts. Little does he know, though, the challenges will get progressively harder and more immoral. 

As you can imagine, things get worse as he becomes a wanted man for some of the things he has done; however, if he stops the game at any point, he loses all the money he accumulated thus far. The mysterious voice on the phone also offers a clean slate if/when he completes all the challenges. Needless to say, the stakes are very high.

I love the premise of this film. It’s the reason I rented it. I am not a fan, however, of how the film executes its strong premise. It has a nice twist at the end but never answers the questions I want answered. I want to know about the people that run the game and how they find out all of this personal information about you. How are they watching you? Why are they doing this? These are things that would, if explained, make the film much more believable and effective. By the end, I was thinking about how impossible it would be for something like this to happen which took me out of the story. And, this film is listed as a horror film in Redbox and it is considerably less scary since it is entirely unbelievable. 

The genre issue I just mentioned is something else that is uneven in 13 Sins. It has elements of horror, action, drama, and even dark comedy. It makes it hard to classify for my site, but it gives the film a unique feel. It’s sort of like David Fincher’s Se7en in that aspect but the genre mashup really works here in 13 Sins. I feel the action elements worked the best, though. Daniel Stamm (director of The Last Exorcism) handles the action sequences and horror elements particularly well but I feel he falls down a bit on the dramatic exposition scenes. Those are few and far between, though, so it’s not a huge issue.

The big story here, though, is the little known but very experienced Mark Webber as the protagonist. He owns the screen and doesn’t let anyone steal scenes from him. His performance showed many levels of emotion and he even showed off some skills in a decent fight scene in a police station. His character is also the only really well developed character in the film. His story is a bit cliche but at least he has a story unlike most of the other characters.

Overall, 13 Sins is good but not great. It could have been great with a little more genre focus and more well developed secondary characters. It also suffers from a lack of a real villain. The voice on the phone who seems to runs the game is the villain; but, since we never see him, it’s hard to consider him a huge threat. The unique premise and solid cinematography, however, keep this film afloat and it turns out to be a lot of fun to watch. I am also glad it has a message underneath the surface:  for enough money, anyone can be turned into a monster. It doesn’t just tell us that point, though, it challenges that idea and lets the audience decide for themselves. 

The Conjuring

My Grade:  B-

I had been hearing such great things about this horror film called The Conjuring so I finally got around to seeing it. I must preface this review, though, by telling you that I am not the biggest fan of horror movies. I like them but I am by no means a fanatic. There is no urge I get deep down in my gut to watch a horror movie. But The Conjuring is a reasonably solid effort by veteran horror director and one of the geniuses behind Saw, James Wan. As a side note, the first Saw was genius and that’s the only one he directed... that’s why I called him a genius.

The Conjuring captures a great mood and feels like an old school horror flick in the vein of The Exorcist (a film which I found to be rather silly and not at all terrifying). So, the look of the film is solid and it certainly delivers plenty of scares as it builds up to the inevitable exorcism. That’s no spoiler... there is always an exorcism in this kind of film. I also am into the idea that they call in experts and take this thing head on. It makes for an interesting dynamic between the evil spirits and the family being tormented by them. It’s better than the family just being docile victims and continuing to live in a place despite their hellish experiences. Also, the experts (played wonderfully by Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson) are the most interesting characters in the film. They are the only ones with any kind of backstory or any underlying issues. Unfortunately, the film focuses too much on the family being haunted by an evil presence and not enough on these more interesting characters.

As for the acting, it’s fine. The story is alright. The dialogue is acceptable. That’s the problem I have with this film:  everything is only alright. It doesn’t do anything new. You could watch any other exorcism or possession themed horror film and it be a similar experience to watching this film. That is actually one of my biggest beefs with the horror genre in general - it is so inundated with product that nothing seems to be fresh anymore. 

Overall, The Conjuring disappoints because, despite all it’s critical success, it fails to tread any new ground. With that being said, it does hold up as an acceptable entry in the annals of horror and is worth a watch if you are a fan of the genre. We have James Wan to thank for that. He is a talented horror director, but we’ll see if he can step outside of the genre and still impress us when his latest effort, Fast & Furious 7, rides into theaters next year.

V/H/S

My Grade:  C-

I heard everyone (friends and media outlets) tell me how scary V/H/S is, so I finally checked it out... on blu-ray, which I find quite ironic. It's a conglomeration of various short films directed by a number of unknown writers and directors made on shoestring budgets. The outcomes are varied, to say the least.

It's hard to say what this film is about. The overarching "story" is about a group of young criminals that are hired to retrieve a V/H/S tape from an old man's house. Once they get there, they find a dead body and tons of tapes, some of which they watch and all of which contain sick, twisted found footage films. Those films are what fill the rest of the time in the movie.

I enjoyed watching parts of this film. The story that is supposed to hold all the short films together is very weak and not scary at all. It also doesn't ever go anywhere. Fleshing that story out could have improved this film by a long-shot. Some of the short films are good, though, others are forgettable, and one in particular could have been good but is poorly executed.

Short Film 1 - "Amateur Night"

This is one of the better of these short films. It takes too long to get to the interesting part, though. Once all hell breaks loose in this one, it's a wild ride. I'd watch this one again. (My Grade: B)

Short Film 2 - "Second Honeymoon"

This one has the most interesting premise of any of them, but is executed poorly. It does feature one of my favorite moments in V/H/S, though. (My Grade: C)

Short Film 3 - "Tuesday the 17th"

This one is the most forgettable of the bunch. It's so cliche that it's not even worth watching, although it does have some pretty good scary images (even though they are a complete rip-off of Slender Man). (My Grade: D)

Short Film 4 - "The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger"

This is the one that is the most "out-there" as they say. Once you learn the twist, you may want to know more about it... but they don't tell you more. It's a bit disappointing. (My Grade: C+)

Short Film 5 - "10/31/98"

This is my personal favorite of the set. It doesn't make a bit of sense and is completely off-the-wall, but it offers the best scares and visual effects in V/H/S. It also has a jarring ending. (My Grade: A-)

Overall, V/H/S is not a good film but there some good parts and some creative uses of the played-out found footage genre. It's graphically violent and quite sick and twisted, though, so it's not for the more queasy audience member.

Warm Bodies

My Grade:  A-

Warm Bodies combines romance and action with... zombies? That doesn’t sound right, does it? Well it’s right and it’s pretty cool. I’m a sucker for fresh, original premises, though. I wasn’t even planning to see this film, however, until I realized that it’s written and directed by Jonathan Levine. He was the genius at the helm of the hands-down best film of 2011, 50/50 (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen), so I figured I’d give Warm Bodies a shot. I’m glad I did.

This film follows introspective zombie, R (an understated but amazing turn from Nicholas Hoult), as he falls for (and kidnaps) a living, breathing human girl, Julie (the gorgeous and genuine Teresa Palmer). It also teaches us a little more about why zombies eat human brains, which is great. When a zombie eats a human brain, they get to experience what that human experienced. It’s the closest they can get to dreaming. Sounds a bit cheesy, I know, but it’s very sweet and almost makes us want them to get the chance to eat brains... almost.

The best thing about this film is the self-aware, witty thoughts of our protagonist, R, which we are made privy to via voiceover. He is hilarious and he tries so hard to be a good person despite having an unquenchable hunger for humans. The film sags in the middle, though. It’s the whole “getting to know you” portion of the rom-com (which this film is, despite it effectively fooling some people) and it’s a rather boring version of that rom-com necessity. But, introducing the premise at the beginning is great, and the ending is surprisingly action packed. 

Now, the whole thing about zombies sort of gradually becoming more alive (which you should know from the trailers... no spoilers here) is kind of hard to cope with if you’re a big fan of zombies. It also comes off a bit cheesy if you think about it too long. Love can literally warm a heart... like the metaphoric phrase “heart warming.” I personally am cool with it and like the hope that it gives, but some of the more hardcore zombie fans may scoff at that idea. I guess it’s a good thing this film isn’t aimed at hardcore zombie fans.

It also has a great look. The gloomy, washed out nature of the film fits the mood perfectly and makes the vibrant flashbacks and dream sequences that much more incredible to watch. There are also some very creative shots. The most impressive thing visually, though, is how real the “bonies” (zombies with all their flesh gone) look. They are terrifying and amazingly realistic.

Overall, Warm Bodies is a welcome breath of fresh life in an overdone genre and it contains some wonderful performances. I mentioned Hoult and Palmer, but Analeigh Tipton (Crazy Stupid Love) and Dave Franco (21 Jump Street) are very fitting casting choices as well. And, of course, John Malkovich is always great. You wouldn’t think a zombie film would make a good date movie, but Warm Bodies would. Bring your tissues, though, because some of the more emotional audience members will probably shed a tear or two.

The Collection

My Grade:  D-

The Saw series of "horror" films have gone on way too long.  There were 7 (so far).  They say it's over but who really believes them?  The first one was groundbreaking.  It was shot in just over 2 weeks for just over a million dollars by first time filmmakers Leigh Whannell and James Wan.  It literally blew my mind (and made tons of money).  Their second installment was pretty good, too.  After that, they got progressively less interesting.  When Saw IV came around, Leigh Whannell (who had written the earlier ones) was no longer involved in the writing.  That is when it all went to hell.  That is also when Marcus Dunstan got involved.  

I know this review is supposed to be about The Collection, and I'm getting there, I promise.  Here's the deal, though:  I didn't want to see The Collection.  After some technical difficulties at a screening of Lincoln, I was forced to find something else to watch in order to kill time before seeing Killing Them Softly... that something was The Collection written and directed by the very Marcus Dunstan that helped mutilate the Saw series.  I initially was okay with seeing The Collection because the commercials I saw on TV said "from the twisted minds that brought you the Saw series"... I didn't realize that it was from the not-so-creative minds that brought me the later part of the Saw series.  That's what I get for not doing my research.

Be advised that this review is rife with spoilers.  I hesitate to call them spoilers, though, because the term "spoil" implies that something was good before, then (after spoiling) becomes bad.  In that sense of the word, it turns out the filmmakers already spoiled it.

The Collection starts with news stories of the widespread panic that this killer called "The Collector" has caused.  That was the moment that I found out that this film is a sequel to a terrible film called The Collector (also directed by Dunstan).  Again... research would have helped, I know.

Anyway, after this generic beginning, we get a couple of teenagers (played by young adults) headed for a mysterious party for which you need a password to get into.  Of course the password, "nevermore," invokes thoughts of Edgar Allan Poe.  And, if Poe knew that, he'd probably be pissed.  But once they get into this party, we start watching a generic music video.  People dance, grind with each other, drink, make out, do drugs, etc.  The camera caresses hot women's bodies, strobe lights flash... you've seen music videos for dance songs (unfortunately).  Then we get our first look at The Collector.  He stands menacingly on a random scaffolding overlooking the party.

That image of the killer brings up a few questions.  First, how did he get up on that scaffolding?  There's no logical means of access to that scaffolding and it's not a very good vantage point to actually kill anyone.  Secondly, did he throw the party?  Did he go around posting flyers saying "Come to this raucous party!  You'll get free alcohol and drugs while being able to gratuitously make out with models who think they're actresses... oh yea, and you'll get brutally murdered unless you are one of the leads."  Maybe he did and people were drawn to it because you need a password to get in... and they're dumb "teenagers" (played by people in their mid twenties).  

Finally, the biggest question that first image of our killer brings up is why does he not look scarier?  In this kind of torture/horror flick, the bad guy has to look terrifying for it to work.  This guy doesn't look scary at all.  All he has going for him is some leather mask.  And, in case you didn't notice from the poster of The Collector and from the poster of The Collection (which both look identical), that leather mask laces up in the back.  But, just in case you didn't see either movie poster, there are 5 or 6 shots of the killer putting on the mask and lacing it up in the back.  So... his mask laces up in the back... making it scary... I guess.

Once the party has clearly gone on long enough, the killer decides to wipe everyone out.  So he gets a giant spinning blade to just move across the party killing almost everyone.  It's ridiculous.  Maybe the filmmakers just wanted to set their film apart by bumping up the body count... in one fell swoop.  The few that escape, including the main girl's friend that we don't really care one bit about, get trapped in a cage and squashed like a toasted marshmallow between two graham crackers.  It's supposed to be emotional but it ends up just being hilarious.  Then, of course, our main girl, Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick), gets taken by the killer while the main dude from the first movie runs away like a coward.

Elena wakes up in a box and breaks out of that box using a ripped up bra... yea, you read that right.  She rips off part of it and uses the hooks to hook onto the latch of the box and yank it open.  Not only is that completely unbelievable, but it's a really weak excuse to have Elena go through the rest of the movie without a bra.  It's not to surprising because this film is written and directed by the same guy that wrote the 2012 cinematic masterpiece, Piranha 3DD.  I haven't seen that film, but its poster features a busty woman in a bikini whose face is not shown and has the following tagline:  Twice the terror.  Double the D's."

Meanwhile, the guy from the first movie, Arkin (Josh Stewart), is busy helping a rouge team hired by Elena's father (Christopher McDonald or, more importantly Shooter McGavin from Happy Gilmore) find this old hotel where the killer has been keeping his collection of victims.  He says he'll lead the mercenaries there but he wasn't going in to the hotel because it's undoubtably boobie trapped like crazy.  Then he's surprised when the head mercenary guy, Lucello (Lee Tergesen), forces him to go in and risk his life.  I wasn't surprised.

As they go through the house, it's not even that tense.  We already know that some of them are going to die, Arkin is going to come close to dying a few times but survive, Elena will end up joining with the mercenary group and almost dying a few times, then everyone but Arkin and Elena will eventually die at the hands of "The Collector."  Since everyone knows that, the interest has to come from the creative ways that people die... and all of them in this film are recycled from the Saw movies.  What a surprise!

I will say this for the film, though.  There are some good shots.  There are only 7 or so, but that's something.  Also, the acting from Josh Stewart and Emma Fitzpatrick is passable.  By passable I mean that they probably won't get nominated for any Razzies, which is a win for this kind of film.  Overall, if you are a fan of this torture-porn genre (as some people call it) then you may enjoy The Collection.  If you enjoyed The Collector, then you will almost certainly enjoy this un-needed sequel.  But, if you like good horror films that genuinely scare you, keep you on the edge of your seat and/or biting your fingernails, and keep you afraid of the dark for a few weeks... skip over The Collection.

There is some good news, though!  The killer somehow survived being burnt alive and being in a building that was blown to smithereens with him inside.  His survival led to a final scene in which Arkin shows up at the killer's house, having found him through some very intuitive detective work, and puts a gun to the killer's head.  The killer doesn't fight or anything, though, despite proving earlier in the film that he is very good in hand-to-hand combat and is more than capable of disarming an opponent.  But Arkin doesn't kill him... he throws him in the killer's characteristic red box with a plan to make the killer feel "everything that I felt" as he says.  So, the good news is... SEQUEL!!! 

Sinister

My Grade:  B+

When a trailer freaks you out, there’s a good chance that the film that trailer advertises will freak you out.  Sometimes that’s not the case; but, with Sinister, it is.  Ethan Hawke (Training Day) takes the lead in this one and he puts on a good show.  Obviously, in a horror film, it’s not really about the acting; but having a strong lead certainly helps the overall effect of the film.  If you have some guy/girl in there that can’t look scared to save their life... well I don’t have to tell you that it would suck (I guess I just did though).

Sinister is rather inventive, though.  It seems like the stereotypical haunted house story:  a family moves into a house where gruesome murders occurred and they are haunted by some sort of evil spirit.  This is different though because it’s not really the house... it’s the super 8 films found in the attic and, more specifically, the creepy guy in those films.  I do have a problem with this film’s use of the attic, though.  Not because it’s not terrifying, but it’s so over done.  When are people in horror films going to learn to not get houses with creepy attics?

But the scares extend beyond the attic.  There are plenty of jump scenes that are relatively cheap scares, but will definitely make you gasp.  Also (as seen in the trailers) the “Bagul” guy is simply a terrifying sight.  You only see some of him in the trailers, but when you see the film, he may haunt your dreams for a few nights to come.

As for the story that supports the scariness, it’s alright.  A writer who writes true crime novels needs a big hit.  It’s been ten years since his best seller and he wants to be back on top.  He wants it so bad that he somewhat neglects his family.  So maybe he deserves to get haunted... who knows.  There is a pretty strong emotional scene between him and his wife.

The most interesting thing about this film is the message it seems to try and get across.  It seems to call film itself evil.  More metaphorically, film as an art form.  It especially focuses on the way films affect children.  I don’t want to get too far into it because I don’t want to ruin anything and people seem to hate spoiler alerts.

The problem I have with this film is how they explain the supernatural stuff... or don’t really explain it.  This is a tough thing to write about without spoiling the film so I will go about this gingerly.  Ellison (Ethan Hawke) consults a professor of occult studies when things start becoming weird.  Through this professor, we find out facts about the supernatural stuff involving Bagul (the demon thing that seems to be messing with Ellison’s family).  The professor explains it all as if it’s myth but all those myths happen to be coming true in Ellison’s research.  That’s a fine way to explain stuff, but they don’t explain a few key things:  how it all started and what their son’s night terrors have to do with anything.  It feels like some things that happen in the house are just to add some scares and don’t actually fit with the occult things that go on.

Overall, the scares are pretty constant and some are quite intense but not all of them follow the occult portion of the narrative.  Also, more explanation of how this Bagul thing got started would be nice.  But the film does benefit from strong acting and good scares-to-downtime ratio.  But I will be able to sleep again.

Some Guy Who Kills People

My Grade:  A-

B movies are usually fun to watch because of how bad they are.  The acting, the premise, the special effects... everything is bad.  Sometimes, though, you come across a b movie that is actually good.  That is the case with Some Guy Who Kills People.  The title drew me in and I was pleasantly surprised with this film starring Kevin Corrigan - a guy you will recognize but not know his name because he has played small roles in a number of films you have probably seen.  His credits include Seven Psychopaths, The Dictator, Pineapple Express, American Gangster, Superbad, The Departed... and many, many others.

This film follows Ken Boyd (Kevin Corrigan) who is fresh out of the "looney bin."  What sent him there slowly gets revealed throughout the film, but we know from the start that it has to do with him getting tortured at the hands of some guys his age and that it has to do with a comic book.  Now, free from the looney bin, he works at an ice cream place with his friend Irv (Leo Fitzpatrick) who also got him the job.

Things start getting dark when seemingly random local businessmen start getting murdered.  What's even crazier is that their bodies get displayed in strange ways that clearly send a message.  What's that message?  What's the connection?  It's up to Sheriff Fuller (Barry Bostwick) to figure out.  Well, it's pretty obvious (to the audience, not the sheriff) that Ken is the one killing these guys.  They are the ones that beat him up back in the day and sent him to the looney bin so maybe they deserve it?

Things get complicated when Ken's estranged, talkative daughter shows up wanting to reconnect.  Ken has to balance his blooodlust, his attempts to be a good father, his new girlfriend (Lucy Davis), and his caring-in-her-own-way mother... all while trying to avoid the sheriff (who happens to be sleeping with Ken's mother).  

It's not going to win any Academy Awards or anything but it combines horror and comedy in a relatively fresh way and throws in a good twist at the end for good measure.  The twist is believable except for one scene that never gets explained.  When the film goes back to show what actually happened (as opposed to what you think happened), it skips a key scene that would be rather hard to explain away.

The acting is also surprisingly good in it.  Kevin Corrigan is quite good, making me think that he may be a bit underrated.  Yea, he has been in a lot of things, but he hasn't had many lead roles.  He excels in this lead role, though, as the mysterious loner that is forced out of his shell.  He's forced out of his shell by the outgoing, talkative daughter he hasn't seen in 11 years played wonderfully (and sometimes annoyingly) by Ariel Gade.  She's young but brings a sweetness to the role and, more importantly, to her father's life.  She lights up the screen and brings some attitude to boot!

What really makes this film take off is Barry Bostwick as Sheriff Fuller.  He is hilarious and seems pretty stupid but actually does good police work.  He constantly confuses his partner, makes us laugh, and seems to always be eating.  He's great.

Sanctuary: Quite a Conundrum

My Grade:  A

NOTE:  I saw this film at an early screening at a film festival. It was still just called Quite a Conundrum and some changes may have been made now that the film has been released. This review is of the festival version of the film.

I saw this film because I was forcefully told I had to attend the screening by the film’s director, Thomas L. Phillips.  I was at the opening night cocktail party of the New York International Film Festival in Los Angeles (I know it seems weird, but it has an LA leg and a NY leg) and I was talking with my friend Catherine Trail (an actress in the film) when she introduced me to Thomas.  He essentially told me that I HAVE TO go to their screening, so I did.  And I have to say, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.  I don’t know what I really expected, but Quite a Conundrum (which I will call QAC for the rest of this review since I don’t want to keep typing “conundrum”) exceeded my expectations.

Many words can be used to describe QAC.  Zany.  Hilarious.  Gross.  Dark.  Disturbing.  Violent.  Two words you can’t use, though:  “predictable” and “unoriginal”.  The film chronicles essentially one day in the lives of two 20-something girls who love to party, Mimi and Tabitha.  Mimi still lives with her parents, but they are out of town for the night... party time!  Mimi’s little sister, Kylene, joins them and they invite three guys:  Harris (Kylene’s boyfriend), Sean (Tabitha’s boyfriend), and Dutch (Sean’s friend).  The party is raucous fun drenched in alcohol, chlorine, and sex until it takes it’s first dark turn.  That dark turn is followed by many other dark turns that I won’t even mention because you wouldn’t believe me if I told you.  Basically all hell breaks loose at this party and it threatens everyone’s safety, sanity, and even their lives.

The amazing thing about this film is that, for how wild the story is, it feels realistic within the film.  The characters even recognize how unrealistically crazy the night’s events are, but they somehow make sense as the film progresses.  As hectic as the night becomes, though, the characters still keep their wit intact giving us just the right about of hilarious humor to counteract the darkness that pervades the film.  The seamless transitions from disturbingly dark to sidesplittingly funny are what make this film stand out.

The two other things that really stand out about this film are the acting and the editing.  Normally, when I watch an indie film, there are one or two really strong performances while the rest are mediocre at best.  Not so in QAC.  The entire cast is great and their ability to play well together is even greater.  The back-and-forth banter seems as natural as I have seen in a while.  This is in part because of the writing, but has a lot to do with the acting abilities of the cast.  Another impressive thing about the writing is how well we get to know these characters in one night of their lives and only 82 minutes of film.  They are as well-developed as they need to be for us to care about their personal problems and, more importantly, whether they live or die.

I don’t usually mention a lot of the technical aspects of filmmaking in my reviews because most of the general public are not filmmakers... however, I have to mention the editing here because I noticed it.  It’s tough to explain what makes the editing so good, but one scene in particular sticks out.  Near the beginning, Mimi is working out on a punching bag when Tabitha comes in and “works out” by dancing semi-erotically to a song by The Lonely Island (great song choice).  The angles and quick cuts of the punching bag make it look like a fight scene while the shots caressing Tabitha’s curves make it look like a music video.  That combination makes for a visually fantastic scene (and does a lot to develop their different personalities).

It’s not all good, though.  There were a couple of scenes in which I noticed some color correction could be used.  Now, I know this was a festival cut and some changes will inevitably be made; but, a couple of times, different angles of the same room in the same scene didn’t have the same look.  This may have only been noticeable since the rest of the film looked so good, but it’s still a small problem that could use some attention.

The bigger problem, though, is that this film will not reach the wide audience that the filmmakers may want it to because of how raunchy and disturbing it is.  For instance, the opening scene ends with a grossly funny moment (involving a condom) that may offend some people enough that they walk out and give up on the film all together.  There are also a few other scenes that delve into some pretty messed up things that some people may not be able to handle (3 people walked out during the screening I was at).  I’m guessing that the filmmakers are aware of the possibly limited audience and are okay with it, though.  I honestly can’t see this film making a big splash in a wide-release situation at thousands of theaters across the country because of the subject matter.  I do, however, see it being a HUGE hit on Netflix, and other similar platforms by garnering a very large cult following.

Overall, this film pretty much blew me away.  It is out-there, appalling, and chock full of very adult humor but there is much more to it than that.  The bad guy in the film actually has a purpose and reasoning behind his heinous acts (which you don’t see in a lot of films) and the ending is emotionally powerful.  I didn’t cry, but a handful of people in our 38 person screening room did.  This film will go places, and rightfully so because it is very good.  Kudos to all.

Let The Right One In

My Grade:  A

Vampires, these days, have gone soft.  What happened to the hard-core, scary as hell vampires of old?  Vampires should be in horror films, not romantic dramas... well, not all the time.  Tomas Alfredson's (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) 2008 film adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel, Let The Right One In, is mostly drama with horror and romance tossed in... and it's terrifying at times, but touching at times.  It's also Swedish, in case you were wondering.  If you haven't heard of this film, you may recognize the American remake named Let Me In (2010) directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield).  Let The Right One In did not make it on the Oscar's list of Best Foreign films but it did win a stunning 62 total awards from various film festivals and such from around the world.

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is sick of being bullied by his classmates.  He wants to fight back, but doesn't have the guts to do so.  But when he meets the new girl that moves in next door, Eli (Lina Leandersson), everything starts to change.  He finds her strange at first because she goes barefoot in the snow without being cold, she smells funny, and she considers herself "Twelve [years old]... more or less."  He looks past this, and they become friends.  Eventually, though, he falls in a 12 year old's version of love with her.  Unfortunately for him, she's a vampire. This obviously puts a strain on their young relationship and threatens to drive them apart forever. 

This is one of the best foreign films you will ever see.  It is very different from American cinema, however.  The pacing is a little more slowly paced than modern American films, the shots are longer, some of the phrasing is different, character interactions are more European (obviously), and the films does some shocking things that probably wouldn't cut it in American cinema.  But it's fantastic.

The locales are distinctly bleak but also beautiful.  The snow falling in most shots even adds a dream-like quality to the look of the film.  It's a decidedly dark dream, but it gives you a fantastic suspension of reality while the action that takes place is in your face and brutally gritty.  Even though Eli is a vampire and vampires aren't real (unless you ask some crazy people), the film feels very realistic.  It is also something a lot of people can relate to because everyone has felt inadequate at some point in their life and has needed someone to step up and help make them stronger.  That's what Eli does for Oskar.  And their young love is equal parts adorably touching and strangely twisted.

The Loved Ones

My Grade:  A-

Other than found footage films, torture films have become very prevalent in the horror world. It’s sometimes even tough to call them horrors, though, because they aren’t actually scary; they are simply disturbingly disgusting. And they all seem to be the same. Sean Byrne’s feature directorial debut, The Loved Ones (2009), is not just like the rest. It actually hit the Toronto International Film Festival in 2009 and won the People’s Choice Award. It hasn’t won any other awards, but certainly could have. It may have been overlooked because it was released in Australia, or because it is a very low budget indie horror... which are a dime a dozen.

Popular high schooler, Brent (Xavier Samuel), gets asked to the end of school dance by the very strange Lola (Robin McLeavy); he immediately says 'no'. She doesn’t deal with this very well. That’s an understatement because she seeks a brand of revenge that rivals any revenge ever taken in a film... ever. This film redefines sick and twisted. Will Brent be able to escape? Or will Lola get the revenge she seeks?

If you can get past the disturbing nature of Lola and her father’s plan... which is a big if... then you will thoroughly enjoy this film. The most memorable thing about it is how it’s shot. Lola’s version of the end of school dance is shot exactly like you would see a real school dance shot in the movies. And the way Byrne’s camera treats Brent and Lola evokes feelings of a sappy love story. But this is a very twisted story. It’s a wonderful paradox that is extremely well done.

Most importantly, however, Robin McLeavy is disturbingly good as Lola. She brings a childlike innocence to the character while doing some of the most disgusting and terrible things you will ever see someone do on film. This just adds to the gut wrenching paradox that defines this film. Be on the lookout for more of Robin McLeavy because she has a promising career ahead of her if she can be this good in other types of films.

The Woman In Black

My Grade:  C

Daniel Radcliffe will forever be known as Harry Potter.  That's just how it goes when you are in a long-running franchise.  Especialy if that franchise reaches the level of popularity that Harry Potter did.  Mr. Radcliffe can play other characters, though, as proven by James Watkins' second feature The Woman in Black (2012).  It's a horror film.  That might surprise you if you know much about who wrote it.  Susan Hill wrote the novel this film is based on, but that's not the interesting thing... Jane Goldman wrote the script. She helped write Kick Ass (2010) and X-Men: First Class (2012).  Those are about as far from horror as you can get.

Arthur (Radcliffe) is a young lawyer who leaves his wife and son behind to go to a remote village on a case.  The case involves dead children and seems to be a touchy subject around the village.  The locals also aren't thrilled he is there.  When he visits an old house on the ouskirts of the already disconnected village, he finds out that someone else doesn't care for his presence... the ghost of a woman in black (hence the title).  Just like most other horror stories, he gets scared by her, then makes it his goal to figure out why she is haunting the house and the village.  It's pretty standard.

As I said, it's pretty standard.  It does, however, have some good scares.  Since that's what you look for in a horror film, it does its job.  But it won't blow you away.  The supernatural reasoning behind the ghost isn't very original and the main setting (old, creaky mansion) is definitely not original.  The image of the woman in black and the other scary images are good, though... I jumped and gasped a couple of times.  Also, the film doesn't fall back too often on cheap jump scares which is nice.

Daniel Radcliffe's character is not poorly developed but I'm really just rooting for him during the film because he's the main character.  To be honest, I was also rooting for the ghost because I wanted to see more scares.  The worst thing about his character though is that there is really no reason for him to be a lawyer.  He could have been any other profession that would have gotten him into the big scary house (realtor, family relative, whatever) and the movie would have been the same.  He doesn't use any skills that are specifically lawyer-related in his attempt to deal with the ghost.  Radcliffe's performance is good, though.

Overall, The Woman in Black is a passable horror flick that will scare you while you watch but it won't stick with you.  If you are in the mood to watch Harry Potter get scared, then get it... if not, rent something else.

The Sixth Sense

My Grade:  A

M. Night Shyamalan is known for making films with wild twists at the end.  The film that really put him in the public eye was his 1999 film The Sixth Sense starring Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, and Toni Collette.  Not only did this film garner Shyamalan his only two Oscar nominations (Best Director, Best Original Screenplay), but it also made him a household name.  The film also picked up four other Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but didn't win any of them.  Many argue that Shyamalan's films after The Sixth Sense slowly slipped in quality, but that is for you to decide if you choose to watch them.

This film is really about two characters:  Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Willis) and Cole Sear (Osment).  Malcolm is a child psychologist who juggles a lot of different problems.  He is torn up about a previous patient of his named Vincent Grey, his marriage is crumbling, and he is having a hard time helping his current patient.  That current patient is Cole, who has a number of his own problems.  He is picked on in school, he and his mother have a hard time communicating... oh yea, and he sees dead people.

The film didn't win in any of the six categories in which it was nominated at the Academy Awards, but it is a very good film.  The acting is incredible.  Bruce Willis has been headlining blockbusters since the late 80s with mixed reviews, but he is very good as the troubled doctor in this film.  Toni Collette is also great in this film showing her range as Cole's struggling mother.  She even picked up an Oscar nomination for her role.  The standout performance, however, is Haley Joel Osment as Cole.  Osment wasn't even thirteen years old when filming The Sixth Sense but he captivates the audience in every scene he is in.

The story is also very good because it is engaging and, more importantly, audiences can relate to it.  Malcolm feels like he failed in his career and it haunts him so much that it affects other parts of his life including his marriage.  Many people can relate to that even if they aren't a child psychologist.  And Cole's issue of having a problem that no one else can understand is something that many have experienced.  It's a lonely situation to be in.  The strongest emotional thread in the film, though, is Cole's mom who wants to help her son but doesn't know how to do so.  There is nothing worse than knowing your child is hurting and being unable to help them.

Finally, the twist is amazing.  There are enough hints during the film that, once it's revealed, you think to yourself, "Oh yea... why didn't I see that?"  But it is unexpected enough to achieve the desired effect.  Ultimately, it gives the film a lot of potential for repeat viewing.