eytand94 Reviews

Phantasm (1979)

Phantasm: If This One Doesn't Scare You, You're Already Dead

[9/10 · 17 June 2013]

A flying silver sphere that latches onto victims' heads and drills into their skull. Monstrous hooded dwarfs that attack in darkness. A beautiful lady in a lavender dress equipped with a knife. A scowling, menacing middle-aged man that towers over you. These are all classic elements of Don Coscarelli's highly bizarre but wildly creepy 1979 horror film "Phantasm". I just recently revisited the movie after a long time, and was easily reminded of how undeniably scary it is.

13-year-old Michael Pearson spies on his brother Jody and his best friend Reggie, an ice cream vendor, as they lay their friend Tommy to rest in Morningside Cemetery after he supposedly committed suicide. But Mike sees too much when he catches a glimpse of a tall man in a black suit picking up Tommy's coffin with intimidating super-strength, throwing it in his hearse, and driving away. When things take a turn for the worse, Jody unfortunately doesn't believe his brother. Until he and Reggie become involved in this puzzling and dangerous game of where reality is broken and the dream becomes real. And The Tall Man has insidious plans for our three protagonists.

"Phantasm" is truly a product of its time, a horror flick that was released in the wake of "Halloween," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and others. Director Coscarelli found the inspiration to scare the audience in his dreams and his previous drama "Kenny and Company". And he manages to scare us immensely by employing a strange and dread-filled atmosphere with surreal and dream-like imagery. Right from the opening sequence, Coscarelli establishes a bleak environment.

The film has some goofy effects by today's standards and some bad acting, but deep within its cheesy but inventive execution lies a fear that hits home for all of us: fear of dying. Most of us believe in Heaven or Hell. Others believe that when we die, we are nothing. "Phantasm" comes up with something different, a fate far worse than death. Not much of the movie makes sense, but is it supposed to? Perhaps not. And once the film ends, we are left with food for thought. Is there really a Heaven or Hell? Does The Tall Man represent the Grim Reaper or the Devil? Those who haven't seen "Phantasm" would laugh at such remarks, but once you watch it, you realize that Coscarelli, who not only directed the movie but also wrote and edited it, focuses on something we can be genuinely afraid of.

The Tall Man is easily one of the scariest bogeymen in horror cinema. With only five lines, he is able to effortlessly freak us out through his body language and facial expressions. He almost doesn't have to say anything to scare you.

Although the three main characters are mostly well-developed, they are all hammed up by C-grade actors. Sometimes, their delivery of the dialog can even be a little funny. But the performances are forgiven thanks to likable, nicely structured people. Kathy Lester's Lady in Lavender is seductive and creepy enough (even though we all know by now that those are not her real boobs). But the best acting job here goes to Angus Scrimm as The Tall Man. A man Coscarelli had previously worked with, Scrimm fits the role like a glove and does most of his own stunt work. His appearance is unforgettable, and he has made The Tall Man what he is today: one scary-as-hell villain.

Music is always a trait that could make or break any horror movie, and Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrave's combination of cymbals, guitars, and simplistic tunes holds up as one of the best horror movie orchestrations to date. It serves the movie well and adds a whole new layer to the already existent horror.

"Phantasm" may not be perfectly made, but a flawlessly characterized antagonist, eerie camera-work, surrealism, a bang-up finale and its ability to stand on its own cause it to remain a cult classic. It cannot be classified into a certain subgenre of horror, which may be the main reason why it works so damn well. And who could miss out on a movie with such a knockout tagline on its poster? "If this one doesn't scare you, you're already dead!"

Evil Dead (2013)

What A Horror Remake Should Be and More

[10/10 · 7 April 2013]

I am a sucker for horror remakes. Don't get me wrong, some of them are downright bad (ahem, "Psycho"). Others, like "The Fly" and "Let Me In," prove worthy companions to the original and a little bit more. Hearing the news that Sam Raimi's 1981 classic "The Evil Dead," one of my all-time favorite horror movies, was getting a redux brought on some skepticism. Why touch "Evil Dead?" It's a movie not built on plot or acting, but on the sheer passion of the director and crew behind it. Certainly, the need for a remake was unnecessary, but I am very welcoming when they come out, and I was more than impressed. 2013's "Evil Dead" is the best horror remake since "Let Me In."

The story of Raimi's flick was never very complicated, and it's pretty basic here: Four friends journey out to a cabin in the woods to help their friend Mia battle withdrawal after she quits heroine. There's her estranged brother, David, Natalie, his girlfriend, Olivia, a nurse, and Eric, a teacher. Of course, the cabin is equipped with a cellar filled with eerie things, one of them being a book wrapped in barbed wire, made out of human skin and inked in blood. Eric, of course, takes an interest to the book and recites an incantation. Bad move. The incantation brings out a vicious supernatural force that takes over Mia and proceeds to the others one by one. Cue the flying limbs!

"Evil Dead" is exactly the type of horror remake that works and then some. Uruguayan newcomer Fede Alvarez and his partner Rodo Sayagues have crafted a story that not only shows the deepest appreciation for the original, but also stands on its own two feet without depending too much on it. Alvarez and Sayagues are fans of the original themselves, and they know exactly what the audiences want to see. Their "Evil Dead" pays tribute to the original and even works for those who never even knew there was an "Evil Dead" in 1981.

Every character is likable, if not a little underdeveloped. But none of the characters in the original film were three-dimensional either, and that's okay. Everyone here is lining up for a body count, but they still gain your sympathy before the Kondarian demons take them over. Shiloh Fernandez is good as David and Jessica Lucas is the same as Olivia. Elizabeth Blackmore's Natalie is the most underdeveloped character, but I still liked her. The movie's two standout performances are that of Jane Levy (TV's "Suburgatory") as Mia and Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric. Both are put through serious hell as a demon and as a human being. Being buried alive and being stabbed in the eyes with hypodermic needles was certainly not on their bucket list. Levy and Pucci are real troopers, and their terrific work comes off in spades. But when it comes down to it all, the best performer is Levy. She is believable as a druggie and frightening enough as a Deadite. And boy, can she scream.

Something's missing from this "Evil Dead" and that's the gallows humor of the sequels. Personally, I prefer it that way. I was never a fan of "Evil Dead 2." It's overrated and abandons the scare factor of Raimi's predecessor. Dedicated fans tend to forget that Raimi wasn't making a horror comedy in 1981. He played the original straight, and the camp set in on its own. Still, it was a creepy and shocking film labeled as "the ultimate experience in grueling terror." Alvarez's movie is played with minimal laughs, and truly wants to get under your skin. When it's scary, it's very scary, with perfectly orchestrated jump scares. And when it is funny, it's not too funny. It's a perfect balance.

But let's be real here. "Evil Dead" was always best known for its graphic violence, and now, the violence is more graphic than ever. I've sat through the likes of some very gory movies, and the amount of goo this flick gets away with is shocking. It walks a truly thin line between an R-rating and the original film's NC-17 rating. "Evil Dead" is swimming in blood, bathing in it like it was a giant pool in someone's backyard. There isn't a single moment that won't make you cringe, mostly because there's no CGI here. The effects of Roger Murray are all-natural practical effects, so when someone is stabbed or cut in half, you feel it. I won't give it away for those who haven't seen the redband trailer, but Levy's character pulls some squirm-inducing action with a box cutter.

In the end, Alvarez had a lot of pressure on his shoulders. This could have been a standard, by-the-numbers R-rated horror movie. But that doesn't fly here. It's not even discussed. Either be true to the original or don't make the movie at all. 2013's "Evil Dead" is true to the original respectfully while being its own movie. Deadites will enjoy the winks at Raimi's film (tree rape, anyone?), and they will absolutely geek out over the gore. Plus, the finale is an utter blast. Those who have never seen the original will love it equally. When Sam Raimi, Robert Tapert, and Bruce Campbell, the original's writer-director, producer, and star, give a remake their blessing, the filmmakers must be doing something right. Add to it the applause I heard at the end of the movie, then you know you have something special. "Evil Dead" is a hit, not a miss!

Extremities (1986)

Extremities Hits You Where It Hurts!

[8/10 · 18 January 2013]

As a stage play, one can imagine how shocked audiences were when they stepped into William Mastrosimone's "Extremities." Having to watch a woman on stage being brutalized in her own home by a stranger is not an experience I imagine to be fun. But it is a fascinating and utterly compelling story that leads into some very unexpected directions. In 1986, "Extremities" became a movie, adapted by Mastrosimone himself. With the incredible performances of Farrah Fawcett and James Russo, some very believable fight choreography, and a tightly woven script, "Extremities" goes to new extremes as a film.

Alone in her car one night, innocent Marjorie is threatened by a man with a knife. Just before he attempts to rape her, she escapes. The bad news is the cops aren't helpful and the criminal has her credentials. He knows where she lives. A week later, Marjorie is home alone while her friends, the attractive Terry and social worker Pat, are away at work. Out of the blue, a man waltzes right into the house and asks Marjorie if a guy named Joe lives there. No matter how many times she tells him "No Joe lives here," it becomes evident that this is the man that attacked Marjorie the other night. He beats her, tries to smother her with a pillow, and then tries to rape her again. But he doesn't get away with it when Marjorie sprays him in the face with insect repellent, ties him up, and jails him in the fireplace. But when Terry and Pat come home and there's no proof that the attacker laid a hand on her, Marjorie's only safety net is to keep him locked up until he confesses his sins. If he doesn't, she'll kill him.

Ariel Dorfman's "Death and the Maiden" bears remarkable similarities to "Extremities," but Mastrosimone's story works exceptionally well as a film knowing the decade that the film was released in. The same decade produced such crime movies as "The Accused" and TV's stunner "The Burning Bed," another Farrah Fawcett feature. This was when women took hold of their sexuality and wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited by men. Keeping that in mind will allow the viewer of "Extremities" to connect to the plot, whether they're male or female.

The movie also raises several questions about where the line is drawn in terms of justice. If a man rapes or beats a woman, does the victim have a right to physically hurt the other person? Worse: if there's no proof of rape, what can the victim do to save herself? Marjorie pulls no punches. She is dead serious about keeping the police out of it and killing this home invader. But with his word against hers, she could go to jail for life. Though she is fully aware of the consequences, she can't allow him to walk away. "Extremities" is controversial, and gives the viewer plenty to talk about when the movie's over.

However, I find it impossible to avoid the movie's rather typical opening, which begins differently from the play. The opening is almost like a B-grade 80's slasher movie, and I'm sure that's not what Mastrosimone was aiming for. But things get much better once we're isolated with Marjorie and the rapist in the house. When he walks through the front door, the guy easily gives us the creeps. We know he's up to something. The tension grows and grows as he commits more embarrassing and painful acts towards Marjorie. When she takes control, the suspense goes together perfectly with the drama, a classy combination for a movie so gritty and violent.

In terms of casting, Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young picked up two of the stage production's regulars: the beautiful Farrah Fawcett and the alarmingly intimidating James Russo. Fawcett was just breaking free from her "Charlie's Angels" reputation, and this movie put her on the map. Marjorie is not at all an easy role to play, but Fawcett gladly accepts the challenge. Her performance is booming and simmering with a quiet anger. She makes Marjorie a very sympathetic and frail woman at first. Notice how her voice breaks every time she's about to cry. And when she throws the rapist in the fireplace and threatens him with a shovel, you understand her pain. Fawcett turns Marjorie into a force not to be messed with. How she walked away without an Oscar nomination proves that this woman was one of the most underrated actresses of her time. James Russo is absolutely spine-tingling as the rapist. His beady eyes and twisted smile make your skin crawl every time he's on screen, which is for the majority of the film. He, too, deserves more praise. Alfre Woodard is decent as Pat, but Diana Scarwid's performance as Terry is flawed. It is basically too over-the-top. She cries too much, and her dialog is delivered too unbelievably, her worst case being a monologue about a past encounter with a rapist. What translated so effectively on stage to the public has changed here, and the way Scarwid portrays it, it comes off more as forced subtext than being related to Marjorie's troubles.

Does "Extremities" have its minor quibbles? Of course. Most movies do. But this is a film that plays most of its cards correctly and aims its darts close to the bullseye. If it weren't performed so believably by its leads, the movie wouldn't have nearly as much impact as the play. Movies like this are always more frightening when you realize that it can happen. Mastrosimone's story feels very real, which helps "Extremities" to be a powerful adaptation.

V/H/S (2012)

V/H/S: A Hit and a Miss

[7/10 · 5 January 2013]

A found footage anthology horror film. Sounds intriguing, right? The actual "found footage" idea has become horror's biggest gimmick, resulting in a tired and at times silly payoff. But it has been a while since we saw as good a horror anthology as George Romero's "Creepshow." "V/H/S" combines the two concepts in order to squeeze out one more effective found footage movie, and the results are rather mixed. The best way to review the movie is to dissect each tale one by one.

The first segment that is intertwined with all of the other stories is Adam Wingard's "Tape 56." A group of despicable criminals who get off on filming their exposing the breasts of local women are sent off on a new job: to break into a house in the middle of nowhere and steal a VHS tape. When they do enter the home, they find a corpse and videotapes scattered across the floor with several video monitors. While the rest of the criminals explore the home, one stays in the room with the dead man and sets a goal: to watch one VHS tape after another and figure out which one the gang is supposed to steal. Therefore, the setup is presented. The problem with this segment is the characters. They are completely unlikable people. Who cares if they live or die? I certainly don't. But one thing "Tape 56" has going for it is mood. An old, dark house is a good, old-fashioned atmosphere for a horror film, and Wingard uses that to his advantage.

The anthology truly begins with David Bruckner's "Amateur Night." Two horny college boys hook their friend up with a pair of spyglasses that film their every move. Their intent is to go out for a night on the town, pick up some girls, and film their sexual encounters in their motel room. The bad news for them is they pick up the wrong girl. This is personally my favorite story in the film. It's scary and gory in equal parts, with a brief touch of comedy hidden inside. The crucial point in "Amateur Night" is in the casting of the girl, and Hannah Fierman gains points as one of the creepiest looking women I have ever seen. When she stares at you with those large, strange eyes, you easily get freaked out. The story ends on a good note, and sets the ball rolling.

Up next, we have Ti West's "Second Honeymoon" in which a couple head out on a road trip for a few nights in celebration of their marriage. They get a hotel room, and one night, they receive a knock on the door from a girl asking for a ride. The events in the next few nights determine the gruesome fate of the couple. West is one of my favorite names in the horror genre, having released the amazing "The House of the Devil" and the equally fun "The Innkeepers." West is known for slow-burn terror, and he sticks to the formula here. It is even a little bit creepy at times. However, we have seen this all before, and the ending leaves you with more questions than answers. Decent, but slightly disappointing.

Luckily, "Second Honeymoon" isn't the worst segment. That title goes to Glenn McQuaid's 80's slasher riff "Tuesday the 17th." A group of standardly stupid teenagers go to a lake for a day, and are killed off one by one. None of these characters are sympathetic, and what's worse is they are all so obviously acting. They don't get any help from the implausible and badly delivered dialogue, and the gore effects here are truly sophomoric.

Joe Swanberg, on the other hand, manages to pack a fairly good segment titled "The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger." For the first time, the found footage subgenre introduces a rather original method: a Skype conversation. A young woman has conversations with her long-distance boyfriend, and while her arm is growing harsher in injury, she comes to a conclusion that her new apartment is haunted. Her boyfriend doesn't really believe her, so she asks him to record her nightly encounters as proof. Swanberg pulls a few awesome scares out of his tale, and Helen Rogers is an attractive and likable heroine.

The last story is presented by newcomers Radio Silence and it is called "10/31/98." A few college guys go out for a Halloween party, and so obviously wind up in the wrong house. Their drunken escapades around the home are instantly shattered when they go upstairs. Great effects and funhouse scares make this one a very decent entry.

I, for one, am growing very tired of found footage. Too many films have been made since the success of "Paranormal Activity," and despite "V/H/S"'s interesting concept, the movie is not much different from its predecessors. But since the majority of the stories shown here are quite entertaining and scary, I can forgive its flaws. Is it a movie that will forever play on the nightmarish recesses of the mind? Absolutely not. Is it a nifty contribution to the horror genre? It certainly is.

Sinister (I) (2012)

Something Truly Sinister

[10/10 · 10 November 2012]

If you can find new ways to expand on familiar formulas, you just might have a good horror movie. "Sinister" isn't a good horror movie. It's a GREAT one. Directed by Scott Derrickson (director of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"), this shiver-inducing fright fest is the perfect genre flick for the Halloween season or any time of year.

Ellison Oswalt is a struggling writer, barely living off of money he made from a book that was successful at least 10 years ago. In order to make his comeback and pen down a thrilling new piece of non-fiction, he moves his wife, Tracy, and children, Ashley and Trevor, into a new house. The family isn't exactly fond of this choice, but they're warming up to it. "I'm going to write the best book anyone's ever read," Ellison tells Ashley. They don't know, however, that they have just moved into a crime scene. Several years ago, a family was hung from a tree in this house's backyard, and the daughter is yet to be found. The most disturbing notion, for Ellison, is that while in the writing process, he discovers and watches this and other gruesome acts on Super 8 videotapes he found in the attic. But there is an unsettling string attached to these murders, and it's lurking in the background of the screen.

Sure, "Sinister" follows the formula of other horror films, but it doesn't dumb things down for the audience. Once we find out terrible things happened in this setting, a lot of the fear we expect is in the imagination, with creaking floorboards, slamming doors, and eerie whispering. Therefore, it is a brilliantly scary horror film. I haven't been this terrified since "Insidious." And surprise, surprise. "Sinister" is produced by Jason Blum, producer of "Paranormal Activity" and "Insidious."

Owing a lot to "The Shining," "The Amityville Horror," and "The Ring," newcomer C. Robert Cargill and director Derrickson have written a smart script with a truly nightmarish villain: not just the film's monster, but film itself. The Super 8 tapes presented to us are some of the most disturbing pieces of footage I have ever seen, and they definitely give a feeling of discomfort to the viewer. If a horror movie can make you feel appropriately uncomfortable, then it's done its job.

The cast is actually small, and it is led by A-list performer Ethan Hawke as Ellison. Hawke has given his best performance in years. At first, Ellison seems like a selfish jerk. He's not exactly the perfect father figure for Ashley and Trevor, and it's a miracle that Tracy has endured this much with him. But after he finds the Super 8s, he's not in this to make a book out of blood money. He's concerned and dying to put together the pieces of the puzzle before anyone else is endangered. Hawke portrays that flawlessly, and it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have chosen to be a part of this movie if it wasn't good.

Newcomer Juliet Rylance is also very good as Tracy, her best moment being when she finally confronts Ellison about his actions. She is believable and always sympathetic. James Ransone also stars as a town deputy, providing some great humor to help the audience breathe before the big "BOO!" And Vincent D'Onofrio goes uncredited as a professor who provides Ellison with a hefty amount of information about the events behind these home movies.

The jump scares of "Sinister" are perfectly executed, and there are no cats waiting to falsely freak you out. All of the horror in this film is real and genuine. From the beginning, "Sinister" is dark in terms of atmosphere and tone, and the ending, unlike the opinions of the critics, gave me chills. Why "Paranormal Activity 4" would make more money than this film is understandable, but that doesn't make that sequel a good movie. This is the rare film that incorporates found footage into a realistic, non-home video setting and it manages to scare you out of your wits. You want something frightening? "Sinister" is the best horror movie of 2012. Not for the faint of heart, but it will suit the needs of the more intelligent horror movie buffs.

Carrie (1976)

Carrie: Classic King

[10/10 · 16 October 2012]

On paper, "Carrie" was, and still is, one of Stephen King's greatest literary creations, one that almost didn't happen. It is a moving but disturbing horror-drama, unique and frightening in every way. Since film adaptations of King's novels are mostly hit or miss, this story had to be made correctly and with enough class and scares to mark a memorable place in the film-goer's mind. Unsurprisingly, Brian De Palma's 1976 adaptation of "Carrie" is brilliant.

Working from a script by Lawrence D. Cohen, the film brings us the story of Carrie White, a mousy, quiet high school misfit who suffers at the hateful hands of her peers and takes tremendous physical and emotional blows from her overly religious psycho of a mother. Only one adult, gym teacher Miss Collins, truly looks out for her. After a terrible experience in the girl's locker room, classmate Sue Snell takes it upon herself to fix things for Carrie by persuading her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, to ask Carrie to the prom. Carrie accepts, and at first, prom night is an exciting and engaging experience, until someone pulls another joke, a prank that goes way too far. Then people begin to laugh. That's when Carrie takes her revenge. The school doesn't know that Carrie has a secret power, and tonight, she's going to use it to her full advantage.

De Palma's "Carrie" is a respectful adaptation of the book, one that hews closely while making some appropriate changes. There are two ways to view this film: as a drama and as a horror movie.

From the dramatic standpoint, "Carrie" hits all the right buttons as the viewer is subjected to what could be the worst case of school bullying ever committed to celluloid. The torture Chris Hargensen and her fellow females inflict upon our poor title character is overwhelming and shocking, especially in the opening shower scene, which is iconic for its heavy amount of nudity. You feel sympathy for Carrie, which is intimidating because of the transformation she undergoes in the third act. She is an ugly duckling, the shy little fish in a big pond.

The behavior of Margaret White, Carrie's mother, is arguably as cruel as that of the teenagers at Bates High School. A nightmare of a woman who dedicates her time to tea and the constant reading of the bible, Mama's own sins have convinced her that since her daughter is now a woman (Carrie has her first period at the beginning of the movie), she is equally but unjustifiably guilty.

On the flip side of the coin, there's the horror aspect, and boy, is that important. "Carrie" is a perfect scare show. When it's scary, it's very scary. When it's gory (and it has to be), it is very gory. Certain times, the film is also surreal and hallucinatory. When Carrie gets doused in pig's blood at the prom, are her peers really laughing or is it all in her head? We don't know, but from the look in Carrie's eyes, we tell right away that she is angry. The prom scene is a disturbing, epic sequence where a moment of bliss turns into utter chaos. It's an excellent turning point for the movie.

The cast, filled with young talent, is led by the unforgettable performances of Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie as Carrie and Margaret White. Spacek, at the time, was almost 30 years old, but still looked young enough to play a teenager. She was almost not given the part, but her determination and personal makeover earned her the role. She is pitch perfect as Carrie; she puts in the perfect amount of sympathy before taking a hard left turn. It is a wondrous and gut-punching performance that got Spacek a well-deserved Oscar nomination. The same is equally said for Laurie, who viewed Margaret as a satirical look at religious stereotypes. Her performance recalls the portrayal Jack Nicholson put in for Kubrick's "The Shining," another Stephen King adaptation. One can't tell if she's being over the top or if her method acting is making her disappear into the character. She scares us probably more than anything that could be prevalent in Carrie's personality. Her monologue at the end of the film is absolutely chilling.

Brian De Palma's direction is spot-on and creative. Split-screens are employed with some of the most horrific imagery, and his other sequences are almost dream-like.

The movie is finally helped by Pino Donaggio's unsettling score, which, in this viewer's opinion, is one of the best musical orchestrations in horror movie history. It is, at some times, sweet and lullaby-like, but other times screeching (echoing "Psycho") and dread-filled. There's really no other score like this one.

Overall, "Carrie" is a classic horror film through and through. Its religious and pubescent metaphors make the viewer cringe, the casting is unbelievable, the scares are palpable, and it does all of this well while sticking closely to its source. There's no movie like it, and after 36 years, it shows no sign of aging. It will have you seeing red in the best of ways. King fans, be not afraid. "Carrie" is completely worth its status! P.S. The ending still makes you jump!

Silent House (2011)

The Old Dark House Movie Gets A Nifty Upgrade

[9/10 · 25 August 2012]

Chris Kentis and Laura Lau hadn't mounted a film since their amazing shark movie "Open Water" 9 years ago. So "Silent House," a remake of a Uruguayan film called "La Casa Muda," seemed like an intriguing project from the beginning knowing that Kentis and Lau would be directing. This film has received incredibly mixed reviews, most complaining about the film's final payoff. But I must say that "Silent House" is an intense, eerie, smart horror film that delivers a fresh take on the rather tired 'old dark house' concept.

Sarah returns to her old childhood home to help her father John and uncle Peter clear it up before they get ready to sell it. They walk around the house with lanterns, surrounded by darkness, without phones. After Peter leaves, Sarah and John are left alone, and then she hears a noise upstairs. They go up to investigate, but after a moment, John disappears and he can't be found. Things start to get scarier when Sarah, alone and frightened, hears banging on the walls, doors slamming, and when she sees what may be dark shadows of people, getting out of the house is harder than it seems.

Like 3D and found footage, "Silent House" introduces a new kind of gimmick: real time. The film sets up the illusion that it was shot in one long, uncut take. And surprise, surprise. The gimmick works to tremendous effect. For almost 90 minutes, the camera quivers, turns left to right, and clusters you into a corner with Sarah, creating great claustrophobia.

The film goes in several different directions, and like Sarah, you are confused as to what is going on. The house is way too dark, and you can hardly see anything. What is Sarah seeing? Is what she's seeing even real at all? Is the house haunted? Is the home being invaded? The questions pour out for a long time until the ending, and the confusion the main character and the viewer feels enhances the fright. It's a lot about what you don't see in "Silent House," but also about what you imagine seeing that scares you.

Another major trait to the film's success is its star. Elizabeth Olsen (more talented and pretty than her child star twin sisters) is an unbelievable young actress, making her first appearance in the devastating "Martha Marcy May Marlene." She has a knack for playing damaged, terrified young souls, and "Silent House" makes for an awesome addition to her resume. Even though she doesn't have too much to do except be scared out of her wits, she does it incredibly well. Her fear is natural, unforced, and palpable. Moments when she's hiding in the dark trying to stifle her screams are intense and creepy. Olsen is an excellent scream queen, and having to carry the movie on her shoulders for most of its running time, she shows a ton of promise for a girl who's new to the business. This movie guarantees her more parts.

I pretty much like any horror movie nowadays because I'm such a fan of them. But it takes a lot for a flick to truly scare me and get under my skin. "Silent House" is one of those movies. It is creepy, ambiguous, original, and disturbing: what a horror film should be. It revives the 'old dark house' sub-genre and does awesome new things with it. Think what you want about this film and its interesting ending, but I appreciate it thoroughly.

The Woman in Black (2012)

A Dark, Wildly Atmospheric Exercise In Supernatural Horror!

[9/10 · 7 June 2012]

Since the publication of Susan Hill's 1983 novel, "The Woman in Black" has endured great success in London as an underrated TV movie of the 80's and a rather popular theatrical adaptation. Seems to me that it was in dire need of attention in America. Director James Watkins, screenwriter Jane Goldman, and the newly resurrected horror studio Hammer have brought it back by giving it the remake treatment, and for the first time in a while, a horror remake is as solid as its inspiration.

Just coming off of the tragedy of losing his wife in childbirth, Arthur Kipps is sent to an ordinary and lifeless town to settle the will and other documents belonging to the dead Alice Drablow, who owned the supposedly haunted Eel Marsh house. While he makes a friend in a man named Daily, the residents of the town treat Arthur as a disease and strongly encourage him to stay away from Eel Marsh. But Arthur is not a superstitious man, and spends several nights in the house. Then things take a turn for the worse. Creaking floorboards, imaginary footsteps, and large shadows plague Arthur while he is on his mission. Worst of all, a female figure in a black dress makes her presence known, and it's quite clear that she is a restless and angry spirit.

As gruesome as director Watkins' first film "Eden Lake" was, the stark realism of his antagonists' gory actions set up a tremendous sense of reality for the audience. "The Woman in Black" takes a different route. Watkins understands that as fictional as a ghost story may be, such a film requires minimal blood and intense tension and paranoia. We see the title specter very rarely, or even from a distance to bring up Arthur's supposedly blurred imagination. Is she real? Could the house really be haunted. Well, such a phantasm is questionable to the main character's sanity.

But tension abounds in "The Woman in Black" right when Arthur steps foot into Eel Marsh House. You can tell right away that the place is destined to be haunted. The inside is raggedy and aged, and the creepy dolls in one of the rooms are still eerily playing. Once a noise occurs, Arthur and the audience go quietly ballistic. As an entry into mainstream horror fare, the film does have its share of "BOO!" scares, but here, it's all about suspense and waiting for the fear to creep up on you.

Most movie buffs will check this movie out for the casting of Daniel Radcliffe as Kipps. Fresh off the conclusion of the "Harry Potter" series, Radcliffe has a lot of weight on his shoulders. Most of the movie depends on him and his reactions to the supernatural events going on around him. He still looks a little young to be married with a child, but Radcliffe handles himself surprisingly well. Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer back up the main character greatly as Daily and his unstable wife.

Perhaps the movie could have been better if Jane Goldman included some humor in her dead serious script, but "The Woman in Black" sticks to the old-fashioned formulas of such films as "The Haunting," "The Innocents," and "The Others." Throw in a few creepy children and some great effects, and you have a recipe for a solid haunted house movie. Thanks to a heavy atmosphere and a good performance from the Harry Potter alumni, "The Woman in Black" achieves its goals and brings some great chills to the spine.

The Innkeepers (2011)

The Innkeepers: Another Smash from An Indie Horror Master!

[10/10 · 19 May 2012]

2009's "The House of the Devil" put director Ti West on the A-list of horror directors, exhibiting the most promise through his love for slow-burn terror. For two years, we waited for West's follow-up. It had to be good, scary, and downright suspenseful. The good news is we get all of that with "The Innkeepers," an old-fashioned, classy ghost story with a great sense of humor that sets up an idea that "The Shining" and "Poltergeist" had a baby.

During the last days of the Yankee Pedlar Inn, Claire and Luke strut around as wanna-be ghost hunters. With three guests quietly packed into their rooms, they roam the halls in search of a sign that the ghost of Madeline O'Malley exists. Some hints are thrown around that Madeline does lurk in the hotel, and thankfully one of the guests, retired actress Leanne Rease-Jones, is a psychic who can help them communicate with the spirit. But everyone knows by now that usually, ghosts are not happy beings and they will mess you up for life.

"The House of the Devil" favored tension over gore. It allowed the viewer to sit, watch, and wait for something to strike. "The Innkeepers" pulls that off as well. The resident specter of the Yankee Pedlar never truly shows herself until the finale. While we wait for the paranormal activity to occur, we get marvelous chemistry and comic timing from Claire and Luke. They are vulnerable, funny, and likable. We care about them, and West achieves that in his script while other horror movies don't establish time to like the leads.

When the movie is funny, it can also be very scary. I did find myself jumping several times. And the finale is something truly frightening. There is hardly any gore, and when there is, it's used for the right purposes. But the setting pulls in a lot of attention. The Yankee Pedlar Inn, a hotel that West and his crew stayed in while filming "The House of the Devil," is a strangely nostalgic place with no major technology. It's also a very quiet building, almost too quiet. You could almost guarantee that something is haunting this place in reality.

Sara Paxton and Pat Healy are great together as Luke and Claire, especially Paxton. She gets some serious laughs out of the audience. But she also gains a lot of sympathy. Paxton puts out a performance that is convincingly scared and never over the top. Her eyes are wide and expressive, and her youth contributes to her unique beauty. Healy provides us with some good chuckles also. And Kelly McGillis is wonderful as Leanne Rease-Jones, giving us a strange but interesting appearance.

There's no doubt about it. "The Innkeepers" jokes, but when it's time to scare the audience, the director knows exactly how to make people scream. It's a creepy and suspenseful funhouse ride that firmly establishes that Ti West is one of the most underrated and exciting horror directors in years. You want a classic ghost story? You've found it here.

Once (I) (2007)

Once: A Revolutionary Turn for Movie Musicals

[10/10 · 1 April 2012]

Campy and energetic are two words that come to mind when one thinks of musicals. "Sweeney Todd" and "Les Miserables" fall into a different category. But who says a musical has to be cheesy? What if we can watch a musical and not leave the theater dancing, but thoroughly mesmerized and stunned? John Carney's 2006 Irish film "Once" proves that.

Our two main characters are extremely natural. They don't even have names; they are labeled Guy and Girl. Guy is a street singer, banging away on his guitar and belting out ballads he composed himself. He only gets minimal attention, but then, Girl comes along and listens to his music. She is not from Ireland, but she is Czech, and Guy's music immediately grabs her. After fixing up Girl's crappy vacuum cleaner, they both wind up sitting down together and creating music. She plays piano, he plays guitar. But as they compose their songs, a love story begins to develop.

Before we get to the main reason this movie is so amazing, let's look at the characters. Both Guy and Girl are leading flawed lives. Girl lives with her mother and her baby, her husband away while Guy is alone after being dumped by his girlfriend. When they sit down together, they're not just making music. They're making love. Their affection for one another simmers inside of them through their songs. Is their love admitted in words? No. But that's not really the point of the movie, or the music wouldn't have as much meaning.

The soundtrack is the key to the film that all movie buffs are going to criticize after all the hype the movie has gotten over 6 years. The music is actually composed by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, our leads, and it is beautiful. None of these songs are toe-tappers, but aching, soul-touching ballads that get under the skin in the most positive way possible. The meeting of Guy and Girl results in "Falling Slowly," a piano and guitar piece that is marvelous in its emotion and soothing in its sound. It perhaps may be one of the best love songs not on the radio, and that's a fact since the song got an Academy Award. The one that will really make you tear up is Irglova's heart-breaking tune "The Hill." The score demands to be heard.

If I were to come up with one word to sum up "Once" overall, it would be simplicity. This entire movie is beautiful in its ways of being natural, from a story so simple to the undeniably improvised chemistry and appeal of the leading characters, played wonderfully and effortlessly by Hansard and Irglova. It has stood the test of time and is quickly starting to reach the mainstream. How: it's now a critically acclaimed Broadway musical. There's no doubting you're going to love this film. Such a classic and influential movie with such a triumphant soundtrack only gets made "Once."

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

The Mothman Prophecies: True Horror That Brings On Some Serious Chills!

[9/10 · 24 March 2012]

While several horror movies advertise themselves as being "based on true events," they are usually just fabrications of the actual material. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's" brutality and nightmarish setting make the movie's inspiration(the Ed Gein murders) something to look into, especially since the events inspired "Psycho" and "The Silence of the Lambs." "The Amityville Horror" is a question of truth or myth. Was that house haunted? We don't know, mostly because Hollywood had to exaggerate everything. However, 2002's "The Mothman Prophecies" comes along, and when one is knowing of the real story and John A. Keel's book, the movie makes you think differently about "true story" horror. Music video director Mark Pellington has given us a movie that not only interests genre fans, but actually pulls through on bringing you a big case of the creeps.

Washington Post writer John Klein is happily driving with his wife Mary one night after going house hunting. Suddenly, something catches Mary's eye and the car swerves and crashes. John visits Mary in the hospital before she dies, and one of the last things she asks him is "You didn't see it, did you?" We ask ourselves, what exactly did she see? We don't know. Strangely, John finds himself in the West Virginia town of Point Pleasant within hours, where weird things are occurring. Lights are flashing across the sky, John is getting strange phone calls, and people are reporting that they've seen a large winged creature with red beaming eyes. John teams up with Point Pleasant sheriff Connie Mills to discover what is going on in this town. What is the moth-like creature attacking this town's locals? What does it want? Is it intending to do harm or is it an omen of things to come?

When faced with the observations presented in Keel's book, "The Mothman Prophecies" only makes a few minor changes, including the time the actual events took place. The story shifts from the 1960's to present day. But otherwise, it stays very true to its source material, which leaves the audience completely in awe. Director Pellington and screenwriter Richard Hatem refuse to let the story be fabricated, and we love them all the more for it.

This supernatural chiller keeps its suspense factor high by not treating the audience like idiots. It doesn't stick to any of the usual horror standards. No one says "I'll be right back." The film doesn't succumb to boobs and gore. The script keeps the relationship between John and Connie from turning the movie into a sappy love story, which makes the leading characters more sympathetic and pure at heart, thanks to Richard Gere and Laura Linney's great performances.

What really gets to you about "The Mothman Prophecies" is that you are left questioning right up to the end what this creature's motivations are. You never know if the apparition exists to warn people of future disasters or to bring fear into the hearts of the townspeople. We're also not really sure if the Mothman is actually real. What if it's just a figment of imagination, what our minds want us to see and believe? We're always more frightened when we don't know what we're supposed to be scared of. A nice addition is Pellington's decision to stick to the "less is more" formula, and he does it extremely well. He never shows us the monster, only flashes of light in varied colors and what we our told of the creature's appearance. Only true fans of horror will appreciate this.

All of the tension builds up to a perfectly staged and nerve-rattling climax that poses more questions. The film builds slowly to produce this giant ball of supernatural horror. This may test the patience of moviegoers who take their horror with ridiculous explanations and CGI effects. But the story of "The Mothman Prophecies" was always meant to leave you with questions. The movie is scarier that way. By the time the credits have rolled, you are emotionally devastated, stunned, and ultimately freaked out. What could have been an "X Files" wannabe turned into something much more horrifying than anything "The X Files" could have created. "The Mothman Prophecies" is truthful horror at its finest. Watch it at night with the lights off, and prepare to be spooked.

Footloose (2011)

Footloose: A So-So Remake

[5/10 · 14 March 2012]

Of course, when you talk about remakes, you instantly make comparisons to the original. The original 1984 film "Footloose" had a ridiculous plot and cheesy acting, but with some neat choreography and classic music, that contributed to its charm. Was a remake of "Footloose" necessary? I don't think so. I approached this one expecting the worst. Fortunately, the movie wasn't awful. In fact, at moments, it's quite good.

Boston resident Ren McCormack moves to the small town of Bomont, where everything to the adults is religion and dancing isn't allowed. After a tragedy that occurred ten years ago, the town decided that any dancing or teenage activity is just wrong. Many teenagers are still breaking the rules, including Reverend Shaw Moore's daughter Ariel. Soon enough, Ren leads the pack in fighting to abolish the no-dancing law.

This remake is almost a scene-for-scene, line-for-line adaptation (the original film's writer Dean Pitchford co-wrote the script), so that certainly sets the film slightly on the wrong track.

But it should really come down to how the actors portray their characters, and there are some highlights of disappointment. Newcomer Kenny Wormald as Ren has his benefits, being a professional dancer. He sports some good choreography, especially in what I like to call "the angry dance" scene. However, some elements of believability are missing. At times, I didn't believe Ren's rebellious nature, unlike with Kevin Bacon's portrayal in 1984. Wormald seems afraid of his actions, which probably won't sit well with fans of the original. As for Ariel, Julianne Hough falls into Wormald's category. She is also a professional dancer, and her solo work during the film is energetic and entertaining. Her acting chops are decent, surprisingly. But the fact that she is almost 30 years old hurts her performance and makes us think her age doesn't fit the role. Dennis Quaid is still hamming it up in his movies, but actually holds back here as Ariel's father. There are some nice moments of father-daughter confrontation and Quaid's care for his family is a nice icing on the cake. Andie MacDowell's screen time as Vi Moore, Shaw's wife, is minimal. She almost disappears into the set.

The best actor here is Miles Teller as Ren's buddy Willard. Teller is funny and likable, and the sequence where he finally learns to dance is nifty and enjoyable.

And then there's the soundtrack, one of the film's biggest challenges. The original's music is a stand-out and still has people dancing to it. Over four songs from the original have been covered, and since director Craig Brewer (known for "Black Snake Moan" and "Hustle and Flow") has Southern roots in him, the soundtrack has a lot of country twang to it, but settles for a few hip-hop moments. One cover of "Holding Out For A Hero" is quirky and interesting. Blake Shelton's shot at the Kenny Loggins title classic is not bad. But then there are moments when the music falls flat. Jana Kramer's rendition of "Let's Hear It For The Boy" is missing the stylish 80's funk of the original. And last, we have the classic love theme "Almost Paradise," originally performed by Mike Reno and Ann Wilson. Victoria Justice and Hunter Hayes try their hand at this emotional classic, and the emotion feels stripped away. What was once a wonderful and vibrant ballad has turned into a Disney track.

Overall, the movie does have its strong points. The choreography is fantastic, and the acting sure isn't terrible. But the story of "Footloose" is dated by now and remains a fine display of an 80's guilty pleasure. This is just a carbon copy of the original that lacks some of its pizazz. The 1984 movie was cheesy to a hilt, and we love it for that. So why does the remake sometimes take itself too seriously? Pre-teens might find this one a blast. Die-hard fans of the original will be split right down the middle. But since I am a fan, Craig Brewer's "Footloose" could have been much worse.

The House of the Devil (2009)

The House of the Devil: Nostalgic, Suspenseful, and Creepy Satanic Horror

[10/10 · 11 February 2012]

Ti West is certainly a force to be reckoned with in the horror genre. While other directors in horror are keeping things bloody, West refuses to stick to the status quo, making suspense his top priority in scaring the hell out of the audience. He also knows how to use gore the right way: minimally and realistically. Known for some straight-to-video B-grade work, West finally cracked the A-list of horror with "The House of the Devil," his 2009 effort that promises some genuine chills.

Samantha is a down and out college girl desperate to get out of a dorm with a lousy roommate and praying to find money for her new house. For her, a babysitter flier outside her dorm is just the ticket. After Samantha's plucky friend Megan drives her out into the middle of nowhere, they arrive at the house and meet the strange inhabitants: Vincent and Vivian Ulman. They pay her 400 dollars just to sit around, watch TV, and care for their "child," who is upstairs fast asleep. That's when the noises start happening. Floorboards start creaking, loud footsteps invisibly march through the upstairs bedroom. Something's not right, and Samantha has no clue that she's in for her worst nightmare.

Okay, okay. It sounds familiar, I know. It even explains it in the title. But it's not the story that draws you in. It's West's execution and attention to detail that really grab you. This director grew up on the real horror movies and the classic approaches of Hitchcock, De Palma, Carpenter, and Polanski. We follow Samantha through the house and just...wait. The movie is a ticking time bomb. It becomes so unbearably suspenseful that the final payoff is satisfying and still quite scary.

Another advantage to "The House of the Devil" that old-school horror fans will take delight in is for a movie released in 2009, it certainly doesn't look that way. It pays tribute to the early 70's and 80's, when communication in a far off place was a problem. Facebook wasn't around, e-mail didn't exist yet, and there was no such thing as a cell phone. A plain old house phone was your only option, and you still had one of those dead voices saying "Please leave a message after the beep." The fashion trends also stand out. Samantha and Megan's hair styles are feathered and elaborate, and they wear jeans that go past the waist. Even the choices of music are incredibly 80's, from the cool opening credits theme to the Greg Kihn Band's "The Breakup Song" to The Fixx's "One Thing Leads to Another." We're on a high nostalgia factor with this movie, and it is key to its attraction.

The casting is perfectly solid. Newcomer Jocelin Donahue is wonderful as Samantha, exhibiting vulnerability and strength through a completely natural performance. We're scared for her even before she gets to the house. She also has a nice set of lungs for when it comes time to scream. Greta Girwig is a joy to watch as Megan. She's funny, cute, and still very caring for her friend's safety. She almost resembles P.J. Soles' character Lynda in "Halloween."

And in pour the cameos. First, we get Dee Wallace("Cujo," "The Hills Have Eyes," and "The Howling") in an entertaining appearance as The Landlady. Then, we get Tom Noonan("Manhunter") and Mary Woronov("Night of the Comet" and "Rock N' Roll High School") as the Ulmans, and let me tell you that both of them, especially Noonan, bring out the shivers. Of course, when we meet them, we don't talk back to the screen and shout "I don't think so!" We're enticed into the house, knowing that Samantha has the opportunity to make big bucks. However, their apparent motivations and plans are creepy, for sure. AJ Bowen also gives a frightening performance as...well, let's not spoil it.

With his newest limited release, "The Innkeepers," Ti West continues to prove to us that he knows how to make a horror movie. And "The House of the Devil" remains an overlooked, eerie exercise in terror, due to its limited release in 2009. If you're tired of the boobs-and-gore formula, try this for a switch. You definitely won't regret it. This movie guarantees you that you will be checking under the beds and inside the closets at the end of the night.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

A Terrifying Portrait

[9/10 · 18 January 2012]

Now, we've definitely had our share of horror movies that weren't fun. From Wes Craven's "The Last House on the Left" to Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to Wes Craven's follow-up "The Hills Have Eyes," the 70's allowed for a time in horror when a director could write a script, choose unknown actors, and with a low budget, disturb the hell out of an audience. Those movies were classics for their ability to truly frighten. 1986's "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" echoes the 70's with its loosely true story, utterly believable lead, and a kind of violence that would intimidate even the most jaded horror fan.

The plot is so simple, yet very well-executed. Inspired by real-life murders, the film revolves around Henry, a quiet human being who is a closeted serial killer. He roams the night streets of Chicago, ready to pick off his next vulnerable victim while at other times, he lazes around his apartment with his perverted roommate, Otis, whose sister Becky is just visiting after marriage problems. While Becky begins to develop attraction towards Henry, he keeps his life under wraps, but soon exposes Otis to his actions, getting him involved in his murders.

A film like this could never get past the MPAA, not even as a script. However, Chicago native John McNaughton was able to pull it off. The movie certainly does its job. Unlike the "Friday the 13th" films of the slasher craze at the time, the violence in "Henry" is nowhere near entertaining. The film does its job and pulls no punches.

The script doesn't seem to take any sides, and leaves its characters for us to judge. But for some strange reason, we almost do take a side. Both Henry and Otis are equally as monstrous, without a doubt. On the other hand, after all of the murders Henry has committed, one scene boils it down for us to understand how Henry became that way. Is his life story true? We don't know. His sexuality is definitely questionable. When it comes to Becky being a love interest for this antagonist, Henry pushes himself away. Whatever happened to him in his childhood obviously has an effect on the way he feels about women, and his lack of kindness or compassion makes him a very frightening character.

As for the acting, McNaughton chose a cast of newbies who knew what they were doing. Tracy Arnold provides us with a sympathetic performance as Becky, making her a likable and fragile character. Played by Tom Towles with a shocking realism, Otis becomes a person who goes from subtly creepy to downright horrifying.

But "Henry" really belongs to Michael Rooker, whose portrayal of the title character set him up for other classic horror stereotypes to come. While horror movie villains nowadays bring about goofiness instead of real fear, Rooker knows better. He understands that Henry is a madman without a motivation to kill, causing him to become the role. He never smiles. His eyes never twitch. And his unclean hairstyle as well as his expressionless eyes contribute to the movie's fear factor. Basically, Rooker is incredible.

That doesn't go without saying that the film is flawless. One component holds it back from complete believability, and that's the music. The score at times helps to set the mood of the movie, but other times, it's just not attractive to me.

Otherwise, there's nothing much else that could be a cause for failure. "Henry" succeeds in disturbing us and making us uncomfortable. Its awareness of its gruesome subject matter and the performance of Michael Rooker leave you with a lot to think about after the movie is over. You never truly know the people surrounding you in your environment, and the film's disquieting content proves for the most real, most palpable kind of horror.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Another Winner From David Fincher!

[10/10 · 22 December 2011]

The lights dim, the movie begins with a brief prologue, and the zany and incredibly weird opening credits begin, set to a creepy cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song." From the beginning, we are in for a wild ride as Stieg Larsson's incredibly popular novel "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is brought to life on screen.

Scorned journalist Mikael Blomkvist is called upon by Henrik Vanger, a very wealthy man, while writing a book. Vanger is in search of an answer to the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, which occurred over 40 years ago. He assumes that Harriet is dead, and that she was murdered. He looks to Mikael to investigate her disappearance and who killed her. Then Mikael gets assistance from Lisbeth Salander, a dangerous but intelligent 24 year-old punk who is an accomplished computer hacker and a great contribution to the solving of other crimes. Together, Mikael and Lisbeth go on a dark, eerie journey into a world of crime, Nazism, and corruption that will lead them to Harriet's assassin.

I walked into "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" with almost no knowledge of Larsson's novel or the Swedish film made a few years before David Fincher's version. The end result is ultimately an extremely satisfying, brutal, and complex thriller thanks to great direction by Fincher (known greatly for his work on "Seven," "The Game," and "The Social Network"), excellent writing, and an impeccably chosen cast.

After only a few years, the character of Lisbeth Salander has become an attention-grabbing heroine that is as iconic as Edward Cullen of the love-it-or-hate-it "Twilight" series. And we can understand why. After all the truly awful and hideous things that have plagued her life, Lisbeth doesn't take any crap from anybody. She may be angry, violent, overtly sexual, demanding, and perhaps a little crazy, but she is a genius at what she does, and has reasons for all of her actions, no matter how gruesome they may be.

The mystery surrounding the film is sophisticated and white-knuckling, adding to the intensity and mood of the story and its characters. We're not sure of who is Harriet's killer, or if Harriet is even dead, until the last half hour of the film, and when we do find out the twist, it leaves a stupendous impact.

After cementing his reputation in brutal crime thrillers, and surprising us with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "The Social Network," David Fincher was the right man for the director's chair. Every film he makes, even a drama like "The Social Network," sets up a tone of genuine suspense, tension, and fear for the characters. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" isn't any different as Fincher adds his signature touch to the movie.

Of all of the people they could have chosen to play these roles, the casting director landed in a pot of gold. Daniel Craig does a wonderful job as Mikael, showing us that he can play characters other than James Bond. With the amount of screen time she has, Robin Wright is also very good as Blomkvist's business partner Erika Berger. Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgård also turn in great performances as Henrik Vanger and Martin Vanger.

The person to really watch out for, however, is Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. Getting her big break in the underrated remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and later starring in Fincher's previous film "The Social Network" (giving a dynamite performance in the opening scene), Mara has sealed her future with many more promising and exciting roles because of her portrayal of Lisbeth. This is not an easy role to play, knowing that Mara is the second person to play the character. She must endure two shocking rape scenes and a torture sequence, and there is a hefty amount of nudity involved. Mara embodies Lisbeth, immediately bringing immense intimidation, danger, and fury every time she comes on to the screen. Her eyes are wide and emotionless, almost as if you can see right through her. And with everything that has happened to the character, we understand that Lisbeth has a right to be that way. She may be smart, but she is not interested in attraction or friendships with another human being. Overall, Mara gives a sensational, fearless, dedicated, and electrifying performance that guarantees an Oscar nod.

Being released during the cheery time of the holidays, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is not a feel-good film, by any means. It is a harsh, gritty, and rough cinema trip that answers the question of leaving the kids at home with the babysitter. Also, if you're squeamish, you will not like it. However, those who have read the book, and those who have not read it, should check it out. Even without having read Larsson's novel, I left the theater completely satisfied. It is a movie experience that you don't commonly get. Fincher has done it again. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is a must!

The Innocents (1961)

The Innocents: A Perfect And Exquisitely Frightening Ghost Story

[10/10 · 19 December 2011]

It seems to me that all of the best haunted house movies came out in the 60's, one flawless example being Robert Wise's "The Haunting." In this decade, it was scarier to be afraid of something that you couldn't see. Jack Clayton proves that this formula works again with a movie that came out two years before "The Haunting," and it could almost be its twin in that it is an exceptionally scary, strange, and psychological fright flick. The film is called "The Innocents."

Based on the famous novella "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James, the film centers around Deborah Kerr as Miss Giddens, a young governess that loves children. Her first job is handed down to her by a man who is too busy to handle his niece and nephew, young Miles and Flora. She is aware of the death of the first governess, Miss Jessel, but her only concern is, for the time being, parenting the children. Therefore, Miss Giddens is sent to the beautiful Bly Mansion to take care of Flora while Miles finishes his term at boarding school. But after Miles is expelled from school and returns to the mansion, a newer kind of behavior is exhibited by the children that Miss Giddens finds extremely odd. Their behavior is almost too mature, too secretive. And then Miss Giddens begins to see two frightening figures that, according to the housekeeper Mrs. Grose, are dead. Could the house be haunted? Could the children be hiding something? Or could Miss Giddens be losing her mind?

All of the movie buffs that watch "The Innocents" get the feeling that it's a psychological study disguised as a haunted house movie in that a sense of ambiguity is prevalent throughout the film. Is it ever made clear that Bly is haunted or the children are possessed? No. It is also never truly discovered what kind of twisted relationship Quint and Miss Jessel had, especially with the children. But that allows the movie to lend an idea of uncertainty to the viewer, which is a positive note.

Most of the time, it's arguable that Miss Giddens is on the brink of insanity. She knows that what she's seeing and claiming is real, but it might not make sense to others. The film only takes Miss Giddens' side of the story, which makes us feel unsure of ourselves.

Thanks to some delectable cinematography from Freddie Francis, "The Innocents" has a benefit to being black and white. At one moment, when Miss Giddens encounters Quint for the first time, the screen suddenly darkens around the character, setting a mood of unbelievable dread. And that mood stays existent as the movie goes on.

Scripted by William Archibald, Truman Capote and John Mortimer (who provided additional dialog for the film), the story's symbolism and motifs are an important part of why the movie creates such fear and sympathy for the characters. Miss Giddens is seen crying and praying in the opening credits, her hands clasped together tightly. She is an innocent, only wanting happiness and peace around her and the children. She is seen this way at the end of the film, returning to her emotionally damaged state. The theme of innocence or corruption brings to mind something pure and beautiful that soon becomes horribly rotten, like the bug that crawls out of a statue in one scene of the movie. This theme is found more, however, in Miles and Flora. Just children, the idea that they are being taken over by the spirits of such horrible people suggests that they have been corrupted and are at a loss of innocence forever afterward.

Even though sound effects are key in the film, the score, composed by Georges Auric, is exceptional and elegant. At times happy but other times disquieting, the music is a highlight, and the tune that Flora is constantly singing just brings chills each time you watch the movie: "We lay my love and I, beneath the weeping willow, but now alone I lie...oh willow I die."

And last but not least, the cast is filled with talent. One of the most underrated actresses of her time, Deborah Kerr gives the best performance of her career, showing the right amount of subtlety, sexual repression, and questionable insanity that the character of Miss Giddens requires. Megs Jenkins and Michael Redgrave are also great as Mrs. Grose and The Uncle. Redgrave's screen time is minimal, but he makes the most of it. The performances that easily equal Kerr's portrayal belong to Martin Stephens and Pamela Franklin as Miles and Flora, especially Stephens. Facially, he is childlike, but in his body movement, choice of actions, and interpretation of dialog (i.e. Miles's morbid and disturbing poem) suggest maturity and adulthood. In a scene when he intimately and grossly kisses Miss Giddens, he shows no sign of discomfort, reminding us why British horror movie kids are so terrifying.

Overall, "The Innocents" is one of the best horror movies of all time with a hefty amount of symbolism, some excellent performances, an amazing creep-out factor, a fantastically original story, and an ending that leaves you with just as many questions as it does shivers. It's a film that reminds us that nowadays in haunted house horror, we may be used to poltergeist activity, but a real ghost doesn't terrorize much at all. They linger in an area of the house and the mind, leaving a subtle warning that you're never alone.

Friday the 13th (2009)

Friday the 13th: A Remake That Is Surprisingly Lucky

[9/10 · 20 November 2011]

Let's face it, shall we? Being one of the largest and most profitable franchises in history, the "Friday the 13th" movies are a series of films that are hilariously and entertainingly B-grade. Parts 1-4 were low budget with an almost no-name cast ((except for appearances by Betsy Palmer in part 1 and Crispin Glover & Corey Feldman in part 4), fantastic kills, and loads of nudity. The acting isn't Oscar-worthy, as most horror films aren't, but these movies, even going on to "Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan," are ridiculously fun to watch. Basically, you're not a fan of horror if you don't like "Friday the 13th." However, the series was dying after taking its iconic villain, Jason Voorhees, through space and body possession. Was a remake needed? Perhaps. 2009 was a huge year for remakes, with the immensely enjoyable "My Bloody Valentine 3D" and the extremely effective "The Last House on the Left" on the belt. But everyone was waiting for Jason to come back, after so much hype and some teases on the Internet. This was the first time in a while that a "Friday the 13th" movie was fantastic.

Not exactly a remake, but more of an homage to the first few films, this "F13" begins with a prologue, summing up the ending of the first film. Fast forward 20 years later, and a group of horny, good-looking teenagers are camping around the mysterious Camp Crystal Lake in search of a crop of weed. Drugs are smoked, beers are drunken, and sex ensues. Then they are killed off one by one by an unknown assailant. We transition to a few months later, where another group of sex-crazed, illegal teens are taking a trip to their pompous friend Trent's cabin for some drinking games and nutty entertainment. While Clay Miller looks for his missing sister, Whitney, the party begins. The bad news for the teens is that they're in the wrong part of the woods. This is Jason Voorhees territory, and he's making it quite clear that they're not welcome.

Inevitable but fun, this "Friday the 13th" was a blast for me. But like always, a Michael Bay remake gets trashed by purists of the original 1980 film. Some people just don't get it. The filmmakers are aware of the original "Friday the 13th," or they wouldn't have made the movie. They respect it, and only want to pay homage to it, not act like the film never existed and try to take a beloved franchise into their own hands.

The film has everything that the 80's series had and more: ignorant teens dropping their tops and not listening to the locals, drinking, drugs, good atmosphere, terrific murders, and surprisingly, the most intimidating and frightening incarnation of Jason Voorhees in 30 years.

This Jason is the hard-core, furiously violent monster that some of the sequels failed to capture. In a disturbing game of cat and mouse, our villain throws little hints here and there that he wants to be left alone, and then inches his way towards his victims with an intelligent rage. He also takes a liking to the ways he kills people, which is something we've never seen in Jason before. He makes sure that his victims die a slow and painful death. The actual kill may still shock us, but it's who gets killed first and waiting for it to come that's the fun.

Thanks to some good plot development and some great stoner comedy, most of the characters in the movie are likable, except for Trent, an arrogant tool that we love to hate. Chewie and Laurence are enjoyable re-imaginings of Jimmy and Ted from part 4, always cracking jokes and praying they get laid. And Clay's search for Whitney allows us to care about him and his sister enough to hope that they can fight Jason off.

A good cast is in order here. Jared Padalecki is not given much to work with here, but he is always enjoyable to watch, thanks to some help from Danielle Panabaker. whose performance as Jenna is instantly likable. Aaron Yu is a joy to watch as Chewie, and the rest of the cast does fairly well also(who knew that you could care about a slut named Bree?).

There have been several different actors to play Jason, ranging from Ari Lehman to the more popular Kane Hodder. For me, Derek Mears qualifies as one of my favorite Jasons. A tall and muscular actor, Mears brings a wonderful dread and creepiness to the character that makes us believe that he is Jason and that he can do major harm to us.

The effects are very well-done and at times reminiscent of Tom Savini's effects for the original movie. All of the kills are delightfully 80's!

Now, "Friday the 13th" is far from perfect. Like most horror teenagers, the characters make rather dumb decisions, say the wrong things, and go down the wrong shortcuts. The story needs a little work, and a little bit more insight into why Jason is killing (which we got a lot of in the series) would've helped. But when you compare Marcus Nispel's 2009 film with the likes of "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday" and "Jason X," this entry is welcome in my book. It is entertaining enough, scary enough, and respectful enough to meet the requirements of a good remake. And as always in the franchise, there are plenty of boobs. It's time that people started showing Michael Bay a little mercy and just accepted that his horror productions are good. I really liked this edition of "Friday the 13th." Consider it to be the opposite of what the title suggests: it's very, very lucky.

Halloween II (1981)

Halloween II: A Sequel to Scream About

[9/10 · 12 November 2011]

The first "Halloween" is a genuine classic. In 1981, capitalizing on such a frightening movie's success with a sequel was probably the farthest thing from John Carpenter and Debra Hill's mind. If they were to ever make a sequel, they wouldn't just do it for the money. They'd do it to build on the original's story and to keep Michael Myers scary. Carpenter and Hill sat down to write a script about where The Shape would be now and how he would continue his reign of terror. The end result was "Halloween II," and surprise, surprise! It's a sequel that rocks!

The film begins right where the first film left off. It's October 31st, 1978. Laurie Strode has had a horrific ordeal after an escaped madman attacked her. She is sent to the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital to have her wounds treated while Dr. Sam Loomis wanders the streets looking for Michael Myers. We then transition into the hospital to check up on Laurie. What she doesn't know is that The Shape is not dead, and has followed her to the hospital. He roams the hallways, searching every room for his target. Anybody who gets in the way will suffer the consequences.

Ordinarily, when people think of sequels, they stay away. They want more than just blood, guts, and naked women hitting the chopping block. They're smarter than that. Luckily, "Halloween II" doesn't treat its audience like idiots. It respects the original, and keeps its atmospheric and frightening tone. However, it IS a sequel, and when you're making a horror movie in 1981, you have to give the audience what they want to see. There is much more violence and gore in this film than there was in the first. But it goes to show you that Michael Myers is more intimidating. And for those who enjoy their horror movies with a bit of nudity, "Halloween II" satisfies.

While the first "Halloween" was fairly limited in its setting(it was set in Illinois, but took place mostly in just two houses, which were The Shape's stalking grounds), part 2 expands its environment. We get to see how Michael's murders affect the town of Haddonfield overall. Reporters flock the Wallace and Doyle houses hoping to catch a glimpse of a body. A pack of high school kids cause a riot at the abandoned Myers house, breaking bottles and getting drunk. These events don't go quietly in this town, and they're not just a random occurrence.

There is still a great amount of mystery to Michael Myers. We never truly know what he looks like without the mask, and his super-human strength is still quite shocking. He keeps playing his deadly games with his victims before they die, especially in that iconic scene in the therapy room. The twist on why The Shape is after Laurie always stuns the viewer the first time they watch the film, and although it provides more motivation for Michael to kill than in the first film, it still leaves you questioning why he is that way.

Another cast of sympathetic and talented leads elevates "Halloween II" over your average slasher sequel. Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis return as Sam Loomis and Laurie Strode, and both are once again fantastic. Then we get some new faces. Lance Guest is entertaining as Jimmy, a friend of Laurie's who works at the hospital. Other great performances include Pamela Susan Shoop as Karen(an actress with a great rack), Gloria Gifford as Mrs. Alves, Tawny Moyer as Jill, and Leo Rossi as the obnoxious Bud.

With Carpenter and Hill only writing the script, the director's chair was filled by newcomer Rick Rozenthal. Of course, he's no John Carpenter, but he understands what made the first "Halloween" so amazing. He keeps the tension high and stays true to keeping all settings darkened. Rozenthal does a fine job as the director.

If the film has any flaws, it's that Jamie Lee Curtis's hair is noticeable as a wig, and Carpenter's music, with some assistance from Alan Howarth, is more 80's and not as simplistically disturbing as the original 1978 score. But otherwise, I enjoyed "Halloween II" thoroughly. With it, and the 8 films that followed, the Michael Myers mythology stays alive, and is plenty scary. This sequel carves deep, like a knife penetrating a smiling pumpkin.

Halloween (1978)

Halloween: Carpenter's Classic Chiller

[10/10 · 1 November 2011]

Michael Myers has become a bigger icon than Ronald McDonald. He has carved his way through eight sequels, a remake, and a remake of a sequel, and he is the first major horror movie villain to inspire other classics to follow in his wake("Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). But to really know who Michael Myers is, to understand why he frightens us, you have to go back to 1978, when John Carpenter released a low-budget independent horror film that not only gave birth to an icon, but stood the test of time after more than 30 years as one of the scariest movies of all time. That movie is "Halloween."

The story is extremely simple: In 1963, a six year old boy murders his sister, Judith Myers, in cold blood with a kitchen knife. After 15 years of confinement to Smith's Grove Sanitarium, the killer escapes and heads to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois, with Dr. Sam Loomis(played magnificently by Donald Pleasence) in desperate pursuit. Enter Laurie Strode(played by Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends Annie and Lynda. It is October 31st, and Laurie and Annie are babysitting in houses right across from each other while ditsy Lynda messes around with her boyfriend Bob. What they don't know is the killer has targeted them and has some pretty gruesome plans for this Halloween night.

Such a bare-bones plot could have resulted in an average exploitation film a la "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Black Christmas." But, obviously, John Carpenter and Debra Hill had other, more serious intentions when they wrote their script and filmed the movie. With a tiny budget of just $300,000, they were out to make a horror film that would transcend the way we looked at the genre. And it did. "Halloween" still terrifies, with its mind-numbing suspense, its creepy villain, a fantastic cast, and a nightmarish musical score.

When it comes to supernatural forces, John Carpenter knows the way to any movie buff's fear factor, after such films as "The Fog" and "Christine." "Halloween" was Carpenter's first major film, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the character of Michael Myers, or let's just say 'The Shape.' The character may be a human being (isn't it always more scary when a killer is human?), but he is not seen that way by his creator or the audience. Michael is frightening because he almost gets a kick out of killing his victims. He plays psychological games with them until the time comes for them to die. Michael is treated as a furiously violent force of nature, a predator that can be anywhere at anytime, ready to strike. His strength is overwhelming, his lack of emotion is shocking, and his inability to die makes him all the more spine-tingling. That is why he is called 'The Shape' in the first film.

We never need to see Michael's face, and we barely do. Everything that we're afraid of can be projected on his choice of visage. The mask that he wears(originally a Captain Kirk mask that was spray-painted white, with the hair teased and eye-holes widened) is disturbingly expressionless, allowing the viewer to project anything they want on it.

As suspenseful as the movie is, the score(composed by Carpenter himself) is almost just as effective. The recurring musical themes symbolize evil, the feeling that something horrible is approaching us from a dark corner or at our front door. No shrieking violins are found here, but Carpenter's simplistic music makes the movie more chilling.

Later over-analyzed in the "Final Destination" movies, "Halloween" subtly hints at the subject of fate. The film has something to say. It tells us that fate is inescapable, that no matter what, some form of evil or death will come for you, whether it's watching you from outside, or crossing the street, or staring at you from a backyard.

Dean Cundey's cinematography is something worth noting. The film takes place almost entirely at night, making the streets of Haddonfield and the Doyle and Wallace houses a little abnormally dark. This allows for our villain to creep into the shadows and watch from places you can't see him.

The cast is pure gold. Back in 1978, the choice to cast an important cinematic performer in a horror film kind of brought some skepticism. Donald Pleasence was an exception. He could have portrayed Sam Loomis(the name of Janet Leigh's boyfriend in "Psycho") in a cheesy way with over-acted dialog. But Pleasence wouldn't allow it. He plays Loomis with great intensity, the fear that Michael will kill again evident in his eyes. Annie and Lynda are played by Nancy Loomis and PJ Soles(famous for Brian De Palma's "Carrie"). Both are played very realistically and sympathetically, especially by Soles. She is funny and a joy to watch. Her death is disquieting because of that.

And then there's Laurie Strode. "Halloween" marked the debut of Jamie Lee Curtis, and for an actress that doesn't exactly love the horror genre, she makes for a flawless heroine. Thanks to Curtis, Laurie is human and likable. We don't want to see her die. We want to see her triumph and fight back. She is our protector. This role was meant for Curtis from the beginning, and being "Psycho" star Janet Leigh's daughter, she knows how to scream!

Overall, what hasn't been said about "Halloween" that hasn't been said by everyone else? The movie is a horror masterpiece, a classic that no slasher follow-up, not even the wonderfully entertaining "Friday the 13th," can possibly beat. Not including part 3, this movie franchise is a ball for all genre enthusiasts, even Rob Zombie's films. Like Michael Myers, "Halloween" will never die. After more than 30 years, I think it's safe to say, I quote the character of Tommy Doyle, that "you can't kill the boogeyman."

Godspell (1973)

Thank God for Godspell!

[10/10 · 28 October 2011]

As I placed "Godspell" into my DVD player, I could feel a certain skepticism in myself that I don't normally get when it comes to movie musicals. Being a Jewish teen watching a musical based on the gospel according to St. Matthew really makes you wonder whether the film is meant for you. Thankfully, I enjoyed it immensely. "Godspell" is some kind of forgotten and underrated musical classic among the more contemporary movies and Broadway shows. It is relaxing, funny, entertaining, and heartfelt.

The film takes place in NYC. Here we are introduced to eight common-folk just trying to make the best of their lives in the world. One is a clumsy waitress, another controls traffic, another is a struggling actress, etc. Then, a mystical being appears, a man by the name of John. Once he blows the shofar, the eight disciples abandon their lifestyle and meet up in Central Park, where John baptizes them in the nearby water fountain in song. That's when another person comes into the picture, a wimpy but outgoing man wearing light circus makeup and a "Superman" t-shirt with an afro by the name of Jesus. He is baptized also by John, who is rather stunned by his appearance. Jesus goes on to teach the eight other people of God's ways and his commandments.

You get the point. Basically, "Godspell" is about Jesus Christ. You've probably seen this many times before. But this movie musical, based on the off-Broadway show, is fresh and original in its ways of storytelling.

Of course, a heavy point of the movie is religion. "Godspell" came out in 1973, the same year as the film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's "Jesus Christ Superstar." Why do I prefer "Godspell" to the latter? As beautiful as the music from "Jesus Christ Superstar" is, Norman Jewison directed the film from a Christian standpoint. Therefore, it doesn't work for everyone. Obviously, "Godspell" finds its place among Christian viewers, but it doesn't favor that specific religion. You don't have to be Christian to like it, as you can already tell from when I mentioned I was Jewish. There are even great instances of spoken Hebrew in the film.

Stephen Schwartz, known best for scoring the music for shows such as "Pippin" and "Wicked," makes great music for this film. It is not too difficult for the actors to perform, but it feels like Broadway through and through. Such songs as "God Save The People," "All For The Best," "By My Side," and of course "Day By Day" make their mark here and really stand out among songs from other movie musicals.

The cast is relatively, and sensibly, unknown, but everyone shines here, even if they don't have major Broadway voices. At least three of the film's cast members starred in the original stage production, and do very well adapting to film. But many of you will recognize a young Victor Garber as Jesus. With a string of performances in his Broadway repertoire("Sweeney Todd," and "Assassins" came later in his career), this was Garber's big break in the film business, and does an amazing job here. He has a great enthusiasm and love for the role, and provides the character with the wisdom and importance he deserves, as well as a great singing voice.

In the end, "Godspell" is a fun and lovable musical with positive morals, a good cast, great songs, and an ending that erupts with intense rock and roll beauty and emotion. The older moviegoers who have known the show since they were young will probably enjoy the movie version as well, but it deserves more appreciation from the teenage theatre buffs who are raised on the newer form of musicals. Thank God for "Godspell!"

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

Paranormal Activity 3: The Most Terrifying Film In The Series

[10/10 · 22 October 2011]

Love 'em or hate 'em, the "Paranormal Activity" films are genuine horror movies, with real scares, sympathetic characters, and tremendous dread. With an ingenious marketing campaign and a low budget, Part 1 creeped us out. Then Part 2 offered the same scares, but elevated them, making it as good as the original, if not better. So, how does "Paranormal Activity 3" do?

The third film has taken us back in time from 2009 all the way back to 1988. Here, we get a chance to see the childhood of the ill-fated Katie and Kristy. Before things go wrong, we are introduced to the kids' parents: sweet and funny mother Julie and her new husband, Dennis, a man with a penchant for filming weddings. When an earthquake occurs and something is caught on tape, thanks to Dennis's camera, it is a must that Dennis installs cameras throughout the house to see what they can find. The recordings you see will shock you!

After "Paranormal Activity 2," I was only slightly worried about what would happen if Paramount released a third movie. Would the found footage concept get old? Would it be just a simple money-making scheme? Well, fortunately, the answer is no. The "PA" series works so well, unlike the "Saw" movies, for several reasons. They are smart, they are brilliantly scary, they build fantastic tension, and they don't over-explain things. Explanations in these movies are only very brief and not talked about too much. So things make sense, but a lot is left to the imagination. "Paranormal Activity 3" keeps the story going, and doesn't throw pointless characters onto the chopping block. The filmmakers are only interested in scaring the hell out of the audience, and they've done it again.

"PA3" is the first horror film I've seen in a theater where I screamed like a little girl, and I don't scare easily nowadays. The first film had an impact on me, and I definitely jumped several times with part 2, but "PA3" had double the scares, double the tension, and insane "BOO!" moments(thank God there were no pets in this movie. Every "boo scare" always involves the cat.). This film is sincerely the scariest of the series.

The plot line of the film is fresh and interesting. The fact from the first two movies that these supernatural occurrences have been following Katie and Kristy since they were little, and that this was not uncommon to them really makes you feel their horror, psychologically and emotionally.

Suspense in the "Paranormal Activity" movies has never been this high until now. Dennis's cameras around the house, especially the oscillating fan camera that roams back and forth between the kitchen and the front doors of the house, toy with your mind and challenge you to a creepy game of "Where's Waldo?." We are constantly looking around the house, waiting to catch something out of the corner of our eye in the bedroom or near the front door. When the series adds more cameras to the experience, the tension never drops.

The cast of "PA3" have been chosen well. Christopher Nicholas Smith and Lauren Bittner have a great, natural chemistry as Dennis and Julie. They also add some good humor to their characters. They are enjoyable to watch, and we care about them. The performances of young Katie and Kristy(Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown) are quite good, especially Ms. Brown as Kristy. Whenever a child in a horror film is in danger, you are immediately frightened for them, and Csengery and Brown do a competent job of portraying their fear.

After three movies, I think it's obvious that "Paranormal Activity" isn't just an average trilogy. Unlike the "Friday the 13th" sequels or the "Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise, which always bring back Jason or Freddy in ridiculous ways to kill a bunch of nubile teens, this series keeps a story going while adding something new each time.

I'm not sure if a fourth film will happen or even help the franchise. The movies are already so damn good, and another follow-up with more found footage could make the concept old very quickly. But I will end on a positive note. You're not likely to find any other major Halloween thrills this season outside of this film. "Paranormal Activity 3" is the best film in the series yet, with heart-stopping scares, a wonderful cast, the right directors(Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost directed the critically acclaimed mockumentary thriller "Catfish"), and an ending that will raise several questions, but leave you in state of pure horror. That's right, guys. More sleepless nights await you.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Paranormal Activity 2: A Miracle Sequel!

[10/10 · 22 October 2011]

When it was released in 2009, "Paranormal Activity" had been a box office success from the start, thanks to its ingenious marketing campaign that insisted that audiences "demand" to see it. The first film is not necessarily scary, but ultimately one of the creepiest movies I had seen in a long time. I own it on DVD, and after watching it just twice(once in the theater, the other time at home), I'm afraid to watch it again. The film certainly leaves a lasting impression on you. Even the die-hard boobs-and-gore fans took an interest.

So, did I see a sequel happening? Well, at first, yes and no. If it were to only encourage more money-making, then sure. But as another effective fright-fest, I just didn't see a "Paranormal Activity 2" happening. Of course, we learned how something so original and terrifying can go wrong in a sequel(I'm talking about "Blair Witch 2"). However, Tod Williams, three screenwriters, and a natural cast have proved us wrong. "Paranormal Activity 2" is just as good as the original, with more scares, more tension, and characters we care about.

Instead of following the standard sequel formulas of "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th," although those are fun and enjoyable sequels, "Paranormal Activity 2" is a prequel, expanding on the events that occurred 62 days before the events in the first film. The main focus now is Katie's sister, Kristy, who is happily married with a beautiful stepdaughter, Ali, and a newborn baby named Hunter, and she is living in a beautiful house. But after a series of mind-numbing break-ins, curiosity ultimately kills the cat. Kristy's husband, Dan, sets up several different cameras around the house so they can see what goes on at night and so they can ensure safety in the home. What is recorded on those cameras is absolutely bone-chilling.

"Paranormal Activity 2," like the first one, doesn't begin with a bang or a great big "BOO!" It takes its time to introduce us to the characters, so we can like them and worry about them when something freaky goes down. No character is obnoxious and overly encouraging the supernatural phenomena to happen(ahem, Micah in the first film), and that's how we want them to be.

For anyone who's seen the first film, we know that all of the paranormal activity that goes on has been happening to Katie and Kristy since their childhood. This is nothing new, which makes their fear on the screen all the more palpable. Why are these entities terrorizing this family? The question is broached about briefly, but not looked into too intensely, allowing for this second film to keep its layer of mystery.

There is certainly more tension in "Paranormal Activity 2" than in the first. Instead of limiting our eyes to one room, the second film expands its cameras all over the house. Sometimes we see almost nothing, which brings our anxiety to the highest point. We are so on edge, crouched in our seats, just waiting for something to show up on a camera. The suspense is unbearable, and when something does happen, it leaves us all the more frightened.

In the tradition of "The Blair Witch Project," "Paranormal Activity 1 and 2" may have scripts, but all of the performances and the phenomena don't come off forced. They have a natural feel to them, as though everything that is occurring in the house is real.

The cast is talented and sympathetic. Katie Featherston returns for another go-round, and once again gives a marvelous performance. The performances of the rest of the cast, including Sprague Grayden as Kristy and Molly Ephraim as Ali, are all-around fantastic.

Now, not everyone loved the first "Paranormal Activity," so it's definite that you shouldn't watch it if you're not a fan. Then again, I could be wrong. Those who didn't like the first left the second one feeling truly scared. Overall, "Paranormal Activity 2" will leave fans of part 1 hungry for more. It's scary, entertaining, and you're guaranteed to have more sleepless nights. "Paranormal Activity 3" is up next, and I will always enjoy this series more than I ever liked the "Saw" films.

Fatal Attraction (1987)

Fatal Attraction: Still Attracting And Frightening Us 24 Years Later

[10/10 · 8 October 2011]

"I'm not gonna be ignored, Dan!"

-Alex Forrest

Dan Gallagher is a happily married attorney with a beautiful wife, Beth, and a cute young daughter, Ellen. His life is steady and calm. Until he meets Alex Forrest at a book-release party. When Beth and Ellen go away for the weekend, Dan and Alex have a one night stand that Dan will soon learn to regret, and not just in his marriage. The weekend tryst may be over between Dan and Alex, but she refuses to let the relationship go ignored. Soon enough, Alex's attraction turns Dan's life into a waking nightmare that not only threatens him, but also the lives of Beth and their daughter.

Although Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty For Me" was a nifty romantic thriller, "Fatal Attraction," released in 1987, pushed all the right buttons and kept a lot of pants on (not off) men. Once the film found its audience, no man ever wanted to get involved in a one night stand, especially with somebody like blond seductress Alex Forrest.

The cultural resonance and heart-stopping suspense of the film still works today, but stuns even more when viewing it from the perspective of an 80's generation moviegoer. AIDS had just been discovered, and women and men alike viewed Adrian Lyne's film as an answer to the disease. Once Dan and Alex have sex, she becomes an infection in Dan that won't go away and nearly kills him.

James Dearden's characters are complex and well thought out. His script allows us to view the perspectives of Dan, Alex, and Beth, and they all provide a healthy dose of empathy, especially and surprisingly for Alex. A woman that would come off nowadays as a simple psychopath, we can understand where Alex is coming from. For the first two acts of the movie, Alex, and maybe the female viewer, feel that Dan dragged HIMSELF into this attraction, and he can't just act like it never happened. Then the third act comes around, and a sympathetic, lovesick human being turns into a dangerous femme fatale that we the audience demand to see taken down.

Then there's Dan's point of view. With such a happy marriage, there was really no reason to succumb to infidelity. But he knows it was a mistake, and we later sympathize with him more than Alex.

And poor Beth. Such a beautiful woman with a faithful marriage and a close relationship with her daughter. Like I said before, why on earth did Dan have to have a one night stand? When she finds out, the scene is heartbreaking and her anger towards her husband is definitely jarring. But knowing of Dan's mistake, she gets the idea that Alex won't leave her family alone, and she's ready to take a stand. With a restrained rage and intense bravery, she picks up the phone, and says to Alex: "This is Beth Gallagher...If you ever come near my family again, I'll kill you!" The audience stands up and cheers.

Adrian Lyne squeezes some fantastic performances from his cast. Michael Douglas does a perfect job of playing the normal and sympathetic husband that everyone can relate to. The lovely Anne Archer gives a great performance, as well. But I think, after twenty-four years of popularity, it's pretty obvious that people watch the movie for Glenn Close's terrifying portrayal of Alex. Known for such good-natured films as 1983's "The Big Chill," nobody expected Close to play a role like this, which makes her performance all the more memorable. She makes Alex the subtly frightening and sexy predator that she is. With just a tiny wink of an eye, or a stare into the camera, or a twitching smile, Close pulls out all of the stops and makes for one of the most iconic villains in film history. This performance guarantees some major shivers.

After multiple viewings, my feelings toward "Fatal Attraction" stay the same. It is a flawless erotic thriller with genuine suspense, some truly shocking moments(you know what scenes specifically I'm talking about), Oscar-worthy performances from Douglas and Close(why didn't she get it?!), and some extremely steamy sex scenes. Movies like "Obsessed" (an exact replica of Lyne's film with not even a particle of originality) or "The Crush" fail to measure up, and no movie will ever be able to do what "Fatal Attraction" did. Brace yourselves, folks. This classic is a ride unlike any other!

Straw Dogs (2011)

Straw Dogs: An Entertaining and Frightening Remake

[10/10 · 23 September 2011]

Sam Peckinpah's 1971 rape-revenge classic "Straw Dogs" was, and still is, pretty damn controversial, due to its pessimism, violence, the performance of Dustin Hoffman, and a shocking rape scene. What in the world makes somebody think they can remake it? Well, someone has done it, and made it work! Rod Lurie's 2011 remake of "Straw Dogs" gets it right.

Screenwriter David Sumner(played by Dustin Hoffman in the original) and his actress wife, Amy, take a break from the big city life and head to Amy's old town of Blackwater. Her presence is welcomed by most, especially Charlie, her ex-boyfriend. But as soon as David hires Charlie and his crew to fix their roof at the house, things go wrong. Charlie blasts his radio at the crack of dawn, creating a nuisance for David and Amy. Some of the men walk into the house and grab beers without permission. And then Amy catches them sexually eye-balling her. David fires Charlie and his crew, but things only get worse. In order to keep his house and his family safe, David must fight back.

2011's "Straw Dogs" is an example of what a remake is supposed to do. Like Cronenberg's "The Fly," Craig Gillespie's "Fright Night," and Matt Reeves' "Let Me In," Rod Lurie's version of Peckinpah's film sticks very closely to the original while still doing some new things with it.

The first difference between 1971's "Straw Dogs" and the remake is the setting. Taking it from a British village to a house on the coast of Mississippi, Lurie brings more eeriness to the film than the original did. There are no inbred monsters, like in "Deliverance," but there certainly are creepy locals who we are never quite sure of who they really are inside.

Another difference is tone. While Peckinpah's film rubbed your face in its graphic content, Lurie allows the audience to experience a more humanistic and suspenseful approach. He creates a wonderful build-up of tension until things finally take you on the roller-coaster ride you are expecting. There isn't much shown in the rape scene, which makes it all the more effective (the remake trades disquieting ambivalence for a restrained and terrifying assault on the senses).

Also, the film doesn't celebrate violence, which is the first thing negative reviewers have disliked it for. Like the original, it's a thinking man's thriller. It's not just a "What would you do?" situation. It's more about the things we don't know about each other, the bad side of ourselves that we never show. Amy thinks David is a coward, but he is really pacifistic. He knows there are other ways to solve problems. But when his home is invaded, his anti-violent self is tested, and is forced into violence. Overall, Lurie carries Peckinpah's psychological message throughout the remake.

The casting is fantastic! Many will go to see "Straw Dogs" because of "True Blood" heartthrob Alexander Skarsgard's performance as Charlie. With a perfect southern accent, Skarsgard is menacing without going over the top. Like Colin Farrell's performance in the remake of "Fright Night," just a stare can really frighten somebody. James Marsden is not Dustin Hoffman, but he is able to step into some pretty big shoes and surprise people, especially after such comedic films as "Enchanted" and "27 Dresses." I believe in his performance. Kate Bosworth is also great as Amy. More of a victimized survivalist than a whiny damsel in distress(Susan George's characterization in the original was good, but far from greatness), Bosworth understands Amy and hits all the right buttons. Another awesome performance is given by James Woods as the football coach with a seriously bad attitude, drunk or sober.

Lurie provides some very good symbolism in his version of the movie, as well. Using the town's fascination with football as a metaphor for damage to a human being (physically and emotionally) adds unsettling detail to some scenes. And the decision to change David from a troubled mathematician to a screenwriter writing a film about Stalingrad(a metaphor for the film's psychological warfare) is a risk worth taking.

Overall, as much as I loved the remake of Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left," I think those expecting a horror movie with intense gore and nude blonds will be disappointed by "Straw Dogs." Those who want an entertaining, full-throttle psychological thriller with good suspense, the right amount of violence, and nifty performances from the cast will find it to be an exceptional remake that stands out among other failures (ahem, Gus Van Sant's duplicate of "Psycho"). I really enjoyed it!

Malevolence (2003)

Malevolence: A Surprisingly Effective Low-Budget Slasher Effort

[20 September 2011]

The slasher genre is filled with clichés and the viewer is often left longing for something new. However, if you can make a horror film that makes up for clichés with genuine fear and dread, audiences will enjoy it. Stevan Mena's 2004 film "Malevolence" is a stand-out among the disreputable rip-offs. It's not without its flaws, but for a low budget film that got the direct-to-DVD treatment, it's much better than one would think. And much more creepy, as well.

The plot is fairly simple: after four people rob a town bank and take a mother and daughter hostage, they hide out in a deserted, lifeless house, hoping to figure out how they will handle the money. What they don't know is that a few houses down, a killer is hiding out, and has set his eye on his new targets.

Stevan Mena has an obvious love for the more classic horror films of the 70's/early 80's, when such movies as "Halloween," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and "Friday the 13th" came out. And with that, a low budget, a nifty choice of a photographer, and some eerie music(by Mena himself, who also edited and produced the film, and wrote the script), "Malevolence" scores big on the genre scale.

The setting of a little town that is right next to a slaughterhouse sets the tone for a "Texas Chainsaw" style horror film. The film is a lot like Tobe Hooper's film in that it is brutal, but not in the way "Hostel" was brutal. Actually, most of the violence is quite minimal. Mena favors tension and atmosphere over splashes of movie blood.

The film's tone is also a highlight. Nothing is particularly fun about "Malevolence," and neither was "Texas Chainsaw." Right from the start, the mood is heavy, and we're in for a frightening ride.

Lighting is also key to the horrific experience that "Malevolence" offers. The film mostly takes place at night, and instead of staying in pitch blackness, the movie's moon sends a glowing ray of light onto the scenery, bringing more atmosphere to the film.

Mena has crafted an excellent, foreboding score that is not overly used. There are moments when the music will instantly echo John Carpenter's score for "Halloween," and I love that. The music is original and disturbing. More points for Mena.

Now, here's where "Malevolence" is flawed. There's only one quirk that can be found here, and that is in the casting. The acting is decent, but nothing particularly special. In such instances of danger or horror, the cast delivers the screams and the struggle for survival. But when it comes to the more dramatic situations, mostly involving the robbery, the cast can be slightly wooden.

Otherwise, there's really not much wrong with this film. It is malevolent enough and made well enough to get a good recommendation, and for a film that went straight to DVD, that's rare. For Stevan Mena, "Malevolence" is a very good first impression. It doesn't beg for attention, but it definitely deserves it.