Godzilla: 2014

   When I say monster, what sort of thing comes to mind?  Maybe you think of the Universal monsters like The Wolf Man, or The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Or maybe you think of the creations of special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen. But if you're like me, then the first thing you think of when you hear "monster" is Godzilla. A name that implies ultimate power and destruction...and dinosaurs. Godzilla began his reign of destruction in 1954 with the release of his first feature film entitled, "Gojira". The monster was supposed to symbolize the power of nuclear weapons, and the destruction the monster caused mirrored (more or less) the devastation of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is  who Godzilla originally was, but as he began to appear in more films the giant thunder lizard would become both friend and foe to the human race through one way or another.  And once again an American director has decided to wipe the slate clean and retell the first appearance of a scary, green, scaly, atomic breathing, giant monster. Let's take a look at Gareth Edwards' Godzilla!

   Now before I begin I would like to clarify something. I am a huge Godzilla fan. I love the monsters and robots that he fights. I love Monster Island. I love everything from Mecha-Godzilla to Jet Jaguar and I was really excited when I heard tell of a new Godzilla movie! Like, oh my god. For once in my adult life I would have a modern release to call my own! I was hyped, and I hoped that this revamp of a franchise would succeed in reminding audiences who the king of monsters was. However, I understand that writing a review of a film with this big a fan base is a heavy burden to carry, and in doing so I need to remind those who have an opinion to also respect mine for what it is. To you I might be wrong. To you I might not have fully understood the kind of Godzilla movie that was meant to be made. Maybe, to you, Gareth Edwards exceeded your vision of Godzilla to the nth degree. I'm trying to break to you that I didn't like this movie. Let me tell you why. Who knows, you might be really disappointed. 

   The plot follows Joe Brody (Cranston), his son Ford (Taylor-Johnson) and their efforts to uncover a conspiracy hidden by the government. As you may have guessed that conspiracy is Godzilla, and it later escalates as more monsters reach more populated areas. And the first thing that I want to talk about is Godzilla which was, after all, the main selling point for the film. There is a ton to consider when you take the helm for a job like this, and I think that Edwards did the most that he could do. And it looks beautiful. The pacing, every movement, his face, the moves! It's all there! And it looks so cool!!!!! As far as I'm concerned Godzilla looks perfectly fine. I heard that some people thought that Godzilla's legs and feet looked fat, and I can see where they're coming from, but it never really bothered me because he's a giant monster and I was prepared for him to be lumbering around a metropolitan area. In other words, his size matched his speed. 

For a movie called, "Godzilla" there really isn't all that much Godzilla in the film. The full screen time that Godzilla has might clock out to a half an hour at the most, and only half the time he's fighting other monsters. When I watch a Godzilla movie I expect it to revolve around him for the most part, but instead Edwards decided it would be better to star two actors to carry our story from beginning to end.

   I want to explain why a main character is important in a story for a frame of reference to this movie. The main character is who the audience vicariously lives through. It is important to have a character in a story that doesn't understand the driving action at hand so that when he is learning about the situation, so are we as an audience. The way that Jo works with Ford is similar to a movie like Back to The Future however only in the sense that there is an experienced man trying to explain a discovery to an inexperienced apprentice. But in a movie like Back to the Future we care a lot more about Marty than Doc Brown because we like his character, we want to see him overcome obsticals, and we know he's not perfect (when he loses his temper after being called "chicken"). Marty McFly is a well rounded character. Ford is not. I have no disrespect towards Aron Taylor Jonson's performance, but his character has nothing interesting set up during the entirety of his screen time. I don't care about him as a character at all. I don't care about his wife, or his job, or his well furnished house. The only reason I think he needed to be in the movie was to give us perspective of a human in comparison to Godzilla...which was incredible. 

   Bryan Cranston's performance was incredible as well and while I don't believe that he was picked simply to grab more of an audience, I don't think it hurt the film during box office weekend. His performance was so good, I can honestly say that I cared infinitely more about Jo and his wife with the ten minuets they were interacting together, than the entire rest of the film that had Ford and his wife interacting together. The very moment that Bryan Cranston died I had no one to follow in the movie that I remotely cared about. It relieved all the tension because I didn't care about Ford or his wife. He was the only interesting character and when he left I had nothing to invest in for the rest of the film. 

   Many people had gone into this movie with different expectations because while there is generally a formula to a Godzilla movie, there are also different aspects of the franchise that fans like to focus on. My ideal Godzilla movie would be a bunch of never-before seen actors playing scientists with no names that try to kill Godzilla with a science thing...but that will never happen. I didn't expect it to happen, but I hoped it would. This is not that movie.

   There were a few minor problems I had with Godzilla, like how everything seemed a little too convenient for our main characters when they were everywhere Godzilla was, and when Ford makes it his mission to save one child out of the fifty people that are on a train literally speeding towards one of the monsters. But I can look past those flaws. All in all Godzilla takes itself a little too seriously for me. There are several dry spells in the film where nothing happens, the actual story that doesn't involve Bryan Cranston is terrible, and I didn't care about the main character. But if you're willing to put up with that to get to the best ten minuet monster fight you've ever seen, I recommend it.

6/10

Trailer

Misery: 1990

   There's this weird treatment that Stephen King novels get when being adapted to film and television. While his novel adaptations into "Mini-Series" have become infamous for their lack of direction, laughable production value and terrible acting, his other films have become cinematic classics. A couple really good Stephen King novels that have been made into movies include The Shining, Carrie, Stand By Me, and The Shawshank Redemption. The great thing about each and every one of these films (not excluding this one) is that they all are really good, and each have their own style while still retaining the same essence of fear and suspense that King so often adds in his writing. Although Rob Reiner's Misery is not graced as the greatest Stephen King adaptation, it is certainly an honorable mention, and truly a classic from the horror category. 

   Misery is about Paul Sheldon (James Caan), a writer who has just finished the final book in his series entitled, "Misery". After getting into a car accident during a blizzard he is rescued by a die hard fan (and deranged ex-nurse) named Annie Wilkes (Cathy Bates). When Wilkes finds Sheldon's final book she is horrified to read that he has killed the main character of the series as a finale, and forces him to write a new book. Throughout the film, there is this underlying theme of isolation. Paul Sheldon spends almost the entirety of the film on the Wilkes' farm, which is planted significantly far from any means of help, or any hope of escape.

Like I said, most of the film takes place in the Wilkes' farmhouse where Paul Sheldon is held captive, isolated from the rest of the world for close to the entire movie. And that's the key word here: isolation. Rob Reiner does a great job of making you feel like you are alone with Sheldon. You do get to look outside of the house to see the lazy, but fortunately keen sheriff, Buster, played by Richard Farnsworth attempt to solve the case of the missing writer. I didn't think about it at the time, but I now find it very clever the way that Buster concludes Wilkes to be the kidnapper and killer. Cathy Bates' performance as Annie is the first and foremost reason why this is a good film. Her sweet and tender outer shell lures you into a false state of security, so when she snaps for the first time it's actually scary. This "ticking time bomb" of sorts is built up perfectly from beginning to end. The film has a wonderful way of taking you through different kinds of fear. I can't explain this without spoiling what happens in the end, but I will say that whatever you thought was going to happen...It's much worse than that.

"Misery" is surprising. As soon as you're comfortable with where the film has established itself, it has an abrupt way of changing the game, setting new rules, and escalating the tension and fear till the apex. Reiner's filming can get away with some corniness here and there among the torture and bloodshed, but at the core "Misery" proves to be cold-hearted in tone, and incredible in execution.


8.3/10 

The Haunting: 1963

Release date: September 18, 1963 (USA)

Director: Robert Wise

Adaptations: The Haunting (1999)

Adapted from: The Haunting of Hill House

MPAA rating: G

Let us all give a hand to one very talented man, by the name of Robert Wise. A man who is able to make one of the greatest musicals of all time, as well as some fantastic horror films. Ending his film making career after close to fifty years, he has come to be known as a true inspiration to us all. Honestly, the guy's a genius! You take the genre of musicals and define it, using one film as a precedent for all musicals to come after, and then you do it again, directing and producing one of the greatest (and in my opinion scariest) ghost stories of all time.  And now, without further ado...The Haunting!

The film follows one Eleanor Lance and her dangerous exploits to feel wanted by someone, anyone. She is invited by Dr. John Markway to take part in an experiment on fear at "Hill House", a residence with a very twisted past. The house is believed to be haunted, but as we continue to lower ourselves even further into the muck of Lane's mind, we are also plagued with the question "Is the house haunted, or is Eleanor?" It's a fantastic premise, and the perfect buildup to a ghost story done right. 

But how do you make a good ghost story? Well, in my opinion, it comes down to a few elements. First you have to have a developed background about the house that the haunting is taking place in. I won't give away the spooky background of the haunting of Hill House, so you'll just have to trust me when I say, "It's kind of a big deal". Next, you need compelling characters to frighten or be frightened by...The character of Eleanor Lance is exceptional for this part because as we get to know her better we are compassionate towards her and don't want her to get into any trouble, but there remains still a sense of lingering uncertainty regarding her actions and delusions of grandeur. There is a duality that I don't think any other character presents to her but herself, and therein lies the craft of her character! We as an audience do not know if she is a character to be trusted for we are introduced to her in a rather violent way. First we don't see her in a very positive light. She argues with her siblings who think she's crazy. We are invited into her inner monologues that tell a great deal about her inner psychosis and deep seeded issues. 

She is invited to Hill House and does not know who else will be there besides Markway, the man who invited her; she only knows that for once in her life she is expected. That someone (it didn't matter who) wanted her to be somewhere (it didn't matter where). Robert Wise deals with this urge to be wanted by someone. Lance is constantly remarking (sometimes silently) that even though she is afraid, she was still expected to be here. And it's actually her inner desires and flaws that haunt her, as opposed to the ghosts of Hill House. But I could talk about Eleanor and her role in the story for hours on end, so it's best that I leave you here in terms of character design and simply say that everything about her , from beginning to end is perfect. And this has a little to do with what I had mentioned earlier as well as the rest of the cast being sort of one sided and simpler than Eleanor's character.

The set design in "The Haunting" is truly frightening. And this brings up an important topic, about what it is that actually scares people. Most people think that "horror", at least in film terms, must be updated to stay fresh in the minds of the consumer. That if you've seen it once, you never want to see it again. Now, this is sort of true. Of course an idea that is used time and time again might seem a little cheap and shallow to general audiences. Like a jump scare, if it's used too many times in the same window it ceases to be scary because you expect it, and you can pick up on certain cues to prepare yourself. And I have no problem with jump scares...when they're done right, but if I start to talk about that, I'll just keep going, and this review will never end. The point is an idea done before can be scary if everything around the stale idea is fresh and, well, executed correctly.

Let's use this film as an example. As Iv'e explained earlier, this is a movie about "ghosts" in a haunted house scaring people. And on the surface, that's all it is. It's what's under the surface that makes this film work, and actually scary. First, there's the house itself. The set and location of "The Haunting" is amazing. I just love it, from the long, creepy, narrow hallways to the damp creepy garden with the creepy statues, and the creepy staircase, and the super scary nursery with the creepy double doors and the dude's all like, "don't go in there, it's the heart of the house," and his wife's all like, "I don't even care if I'm awakening this self aware haunted house that has the souls of hundreds of children trapped in the walls..." "Who careeees?" "I don't care." And then there are, like, all those parts where the camera gets really close to the walls of the house, and the intricate designs start to look like faces and then you start to hear children laughing, and crying faintly, and then you hear like, this one creepy dude that Markway was talking about before. Y'know, the guy who owned the house, and you start to hear the creepy dude making this super scary, far off, moaning noise, that gets louder and louder from the other side of the wall. And then you start to think to yourself, "Hey this house means business! This is scaring the pants off of me! And the worst part is that the only person I know well enough to hide behind...is Eleanor Lane. But how can I do that when all this might be in her head? What if she's the haunting of Hill House? How can I trust someone who might not be entirely sane to begin with? Why Robert Wise? Why would you direct a film where the only character we know well enough to consider our main protagonist, our hero, is possibly insane? There's no one to hold onto, is there? There's nowhere to hide, is there? Sweet Jesus someone let me out of this house!!!!!!!!!!!

Sufficed to say, "The Haunting" is ahead of its time. And part of the reason that it stands out among the rest of the sixties schlock that was coming out around the time like "Carnival of Souls",  and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die" was because of the serious tone, and the cinematography. The camera work in "The Haunting" is unlike anything I've seen during that age in film. Everything works to the film's advantage; The acting, set design, shots and angles and tracking, and the story! I'm happy that a film exists containing all these attributes. And I really can't think of anything more to say. I guess it's been awhile since I've written anything. And I think it's been awhile since I've written anything with a lot of substance. I do this for me. And I do it because I like to think about movies. I want to continue, but it's been hard. I turned 18 a few weeks ago. School's been laying it on pretty thick for awhile now. But I don't think I want to grow up. I just want to write.

8.9/10

Watch Trailer Here

Next Review: Misery - 1990

Dawn of The Dead: 1978

Release date: May 24, 1979 (USA)

Director: George A. Romero

Prequel: Night of the Living Dead

Sequel: Day of the Dead

Screenplay: George A. Romero

"When there's no more room in @#!*% , the dead will walk the earth...and George A. Romero will direct a sequel to Night of the Living Dead". Dawn of the Dead is drastically different from it's predecessor for many reasons. I couldn't tell you which of the two is the better one for this reason. They are both great zombie movies in their own ways. But I don't want to talk about "Night of the Living Dead" because I already did. Let's dive right into the sub-genre that won't stay dead! This is "Dawn of the Dead".

Four people try to survive inside of a shopping mall inhabited by zombies. 

Many wacky hi-jinks ensue.  

The film begins just like any zombie film introducing us to the situation at hand. Romero teaches newcomers what a zombie is without someone shouting exposition...almost. We are also introduced to two people who work in news and two others who work as SWAT's (or police or something like that). These four people will take the audience out of one genre, and into another...sort of. I mean, we all know what a zombie is, right? For whatever reason, the dead rise from the earth and devour the living. The living die and turn into zombies. Rinse and repeat. And this is scary! Mostly a film like this will stay within the confines of horror, but there are certain moments where "Dawn of the Dead" turns into a comedy! And it works for one main reason. The zombies serve a different purpose than they did in "Night of the Living Dead". In that film, zombies appeared at night, at cemeteries, hunting the living who needed to band together in an abandoned house or cabin, in the middle of nowhere. These ideas are very Gothic and dark and they all work. For George A. Romero a zombie movie wasn't defined by how fast the zombies ran. In fact, the focus was on everything but. 

You focus on the characters and their efforts to work together and survive. You focus on the mood and setting, be it cemetery, or shopping mall. Production value is a whole different thing, and if you want a vomit inducing film then practical effects are the way to go, and we'll get to that later. But at the moment those elements are all you really need in a good zombie film. But I think that "Dawn of the Dead" took the genre one step further by having zombies serve as a statement rather than a plot device. The film explained that the reason so many zombies have congregated inside the mall is because is was their basic human instinct to do so. They all traveled to a place where they once felt happy. I think that this idea alone is what made "Dawn of the Dead" a comedy for me. And I can't really explain how even having people being eaten alive by zombies won't take comedic value away from it. If you don't really consider it as a sequel to "Night of the Living Dead", and look at it as it's own world, then you shouldn't have a problem with the differences between the two.

And the shopping mall! What a wonderful place to have all to yourself! I believe that "Dawn of the Dead" is the first to experiment with this sort of thing, because afterwards movies and games have taken this idea to other levels. But it all started in a shopping mall. Maybe the idea of having everything for the taking is capitalizing on this idea of greed, and a need to need things. I think that it's sort of a parallel to how zombies need to consume the living to stay un-dead. And that's pretty cool. I mean, if that's what Romero was going for. I might be thinking too deeply into that, but it might be something to think about.

The practical effects in "Dawn of the Dead" are amazing! They only show up mostly during the last quarter of the film, but it's totally worth the wait. And that isn't to say that the film pays off then, or that someone who doesn't appreciate practical effects isn't going to like it. You're going to like "Dawn of the Dead" if you enjoy a good zombie movie. There's surprisingly more survival aspects in this film than it's predecessor. You spend a little more time loving the characters than you do hating them, I can't complain about the actors...hell, I don't think I can complain about anything. But if I had to find something to nitpick I suppose it would have to be the lack of psychological trauma. I would have liked to see the whole shopping center, where everything's all fake and smiling, be contrasted by someone losing their grip on reality. But maybe I'm wrong, and this isn't the film for that kind of approach. And if I am wrong, then this movie is fantastic. All elements of a zombie film are done correctly and very well, the setting and characters are original, the effects are stunning, and I just love this movie so much! I could write a book about George A. Romero and why this movie is so good, but I guess now I don't have to.

8.5/10

Watch the Trailer

  Next Review -  Little Miss Sunshine 2006

Predator: 1987

Release date: June 12, 1987 (USA)

Director: John McTiernan

Sequel: Predator 2

MPAA rating: R

Screenplay: Jim Thomas, John Thomas

   There are a couple Schwarzenegger movies that I would put above all else. Running Man, The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Commando, Total Recall...Heck, I could keep going forever! It really is difficult when trying to choose a favorite among so many grade-A action titles.  Not many of his films have much in common with one another, besides the fact that most revolve around him, his imperviousness to bullets, and ability to throw one liners faster than you can get to the chopper. John McTiernan's "Predator" is no exception in this case. Schwarzenegger plays Dutch, an ex-commando dropped into the wild and forced to pit himself against an extra-terrestrial, heat visioned, tactical assassin! This is gonna be awesome.

   "Predator"! The classic tale of a muscle bound solider and his friends fighting for their lives against a cloaked...well...predator. To get an idea of how the film plays out, just picture any Friday the 13th film, add a jungle and much better direction, and preheat the oven to fully bake what would otherwise become known as a half baked movie trope. It really does follow this pattern of masked killer/body-count/assassin flick though. And that's not necessarily a bad thing! In fact, I find those movies quite entertaining. However, with the system being recycled so many times one tends to find the same premise rather boring IF all other elements surrounding the system are ALSO stale. This fortunately is not the case. "Predator" stays entertaining until the very end because it attempted to a very interesting combination of two genres of film: action and horror.

   It's great fun when you have two genres that work together so well! James Cameron attempted this in "Aliens", venturing far away from its predecessor and adding a whole new level of craft that continues to amaze me to this day. But I could talk for hours about the "Alien" franchise and I intend to do so...but that will be for another time. Bottom line, "Predator" is able to work on multiple levels, entertaining not only the horror fans with the predator's scary looking face and freaky sounding alien noises, but also the action fans with the great utilization of characters adding suspense, guns, bullets, and most important of all, explosions. 

  But the reason that I like "Predator" the most is because it's an entertaining film. It's really fun to watch, and if you've seen any Shwarzenegger film you should know what to expect. I understand that I have neglected to address any negative aspects about the film, but I have to explain something before I do. You either will like it or you won't. What I mean is, with a movie like "Predator" you have to judge it differently than you might judge "Chinatown" or "Terminator 2". "Predator" is something that shouldn't be taken too seriously, like most Shwarzenegger films. And I am in no way trying to suggest that movies like this are a novelty or expendable or anything like that. It's very good, and besides the dated special effects, I'd say it's pretty @#!*% good! In fact, that may be my only gripe with this film. I suppose the way the predator looks, the cloaking device, the cheesy acting and dialogue are getting in the way of me being able to rate it higher than I want it to. But I don't want that to be the case. Wanna know why? Because That's Why I Like It! 

7.5/10

Watch The Trailer Here

Next Review: Jack Frost 1998

Carrie: 2013

   We all know the story about "Carrie" right? Girl get's bullied, girl gets endowed with telekinetic powers, girl gets revenge. It's a horror film classic by Brian De Palma, adapted from the lengthy horror novel by Steven King with the same name. Recently, a shot for shot remake of the same film was released, directed by Kimberly Pierce. This is that movie. I do not know why "Carrie" was remade. When audiences think, "horror film" nowadays, they think "constant, bloody, body count", but with this movie, they've sort of only got the nonstop violence saved up until the last half hour. It did appear that the director was trying to market a horror film from what can only be described as a "teen drama supernatural...movie?" But the film is certainly no horror flick, as the drawn out, comedic-ly forced soft core gore suggests in the climax. And I'm not saying that a horror film has to be exactly that, but if you're trying to warp a film's structure in order to comply with the consensus then you're doing something wrong.

   I also found it hard to believe that Chloe Grace Moretz  was the right person to cast as Carrie White herself, not because of anything wrong with her acting but because she...wouldn't...be...unpopular. Sissy Spacek in the Brian De Palma film looks like this abused, misunderstood, teenage girl, whereas Chloe Grace Moretz looks like someone who might be the one picking on Carrie! However, she does do a good job as Carrie, and Julianne Moore does an even better job as Margret White, Carrie's mother. The only reason that people should watch this version of "Carrie" is when they watch it back to back with the incredibly superior original film. I would not even go as far to say that "Carrie" is a good movie on its own. Truth be told I had very high hopes for this film. I only forgot to stop and ask myself, "Why does there need to be a remake of a timeless film?" 

If your thinking about watching "Carrie", do yourself a favor and stick to the classic.

6.0/10

Watch the Trailer Here

Next Review: Predator 1987

Carrie: 1976

Release date: November 3, 1976 (USA)

Director: Brian De Palma

Cast: Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, John Travolta

   I know it's November, but I just love horror films so much it's hard to stay away. It's like a drug. This sort of thing just plays with my mind and I can't tell the difference between TV and reality. I'm about to don a Scream outfit and butcher Neve Campbell in a broom closet. But let us venture away from the masked killer genre of horror, but not too far. We will be dealing exclusively with high school. High school drama, boys, girls, gym, prom, revenge, and John Travolta. Those two last one's are the most important parts to a good, old-school, high-school slasher flick. This is Brian De Palma's "Carrie".

   Once upon a time there was a girl named Carrie White, who lived with her psychopathic mother, Margret White in a weird and spooky house that everyone stays away from. Carrie is hated by almost everyone at school, but her luck begins to turn around for once when mostly popular student Tommy Ross asks her to the prom, and when she suddenly is endowed with telekinetic powers from beyond in order to exact her revenge on all the kids who tormented her in the past...MUUUHAHAHAHAHAHA! So, yeah, just your average, ordinary, quirky high school movie. I don't even know why I'm including a synopsis for this review in particular, because almost everyone knows the story about "Carrie". It's classic, and as far as I know, not many directors have borrowed this story-line about unpopular girls gaining powers to exact revenge on others. 

   It's not very simplistic of a story, but it's not so crazy that the audience can't connect to the characters. In fact, Brian De Palma does an exceptional job of revolving a film around high school kids that relates to adults. However this may have a little to do with the fact that most of the "high school students" that were cast are almost all out of high school. I know it is very strange, but it's true! Adults like the kids in "Carrie" more because they're older. If you want to test that, look at the recent remake of "Carrie" starring Hit-Girl I mean Chloe Grace Moretz. But I digress, If I wanted to compare the two films realistically I would probably do a back to back review of both of them...

   I can't really explain the joy that Brian De Palma brings to the horror genre with "Carrie". He can make a scene scary. He can do it very well (I'm looking at you, ending scene)! But there is something that he brings to the table, that I don't think I have ever seen in a horror film so far. There are certain scenes in the  movie that are dedicated to developing character, and it's done in a very subtle and quirky fashion. That might seem like a death sentence for a horror film, but the writing is so flippin' good that it works. Nearing the climax Tommy is dancing with Carrie and the conversation that follows is so good! And for a moment you forget what the entire movie is building up to. Scenes like this, where Tommy and his friends go out to buy tuxedo's and where Ms. Eleanor Snell is teaching gym class, are so well done and contrast from the dark and dismal predicaments and settings Carrie finds herself in. "Carrie" is able to accurately depict life being in High School by placing rather comedic sequences next to horrific and depressing one's

   "Carrie" is both a technically and aesthetically appealing film. The story is incredibly crafted, backed up with stunning performances by both Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie as Carrie and Margret White. It's a wonderful example of a "revenge" movie centering more around the characters and less around the whole "revenge" aspect. Brian De Palma has done an excellent job accurately depicting High School life (for the most part) and centering a simple plot of "prom drama run rampant" around a character that we can connect with and follow through her rise and fall journey.

7.7/10

Watch The Trailer Here

Next Review: Carrie 2013     

The Conjuring: 2013

Release date: July 19, 2013 (USA)

Director: James Wan

Running time: 112 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Cast: Mackenzie Foy

   James Wan, director of the acclaimed "Saw" series, has attempted to give the haunted house/possession genre of horror a new paint job with his latest (and not to mention greatest) film yet. This director had audiences saying, "ehhh, it was okay" with his previous film entitled, "Insidious." It dealt with a small child who fall into a comatose state of sorts, and becomes trapped in a place known as the further. His father is apparently the only one who can save him. I was really happy to find that I didn't hate "Insidious". In my experience, modern day horror films are more focused on torture porn than the situation or story. And it's quite ironic that the man behind the most beloved torture porn series of films is the very same man to direct one of the most impressive horror films to date. Yes, I said it. This is, "The Conjuring." 

   Our story follows a couple who specialize in ridding places and objects of those that possess them. They come across a very interesting case in the Warren household, where the mother of the family is has fallen prey to demonic possession, and the rest of the family is haunted by similar supernatural occurrences that plague their home. And...that's it. I'm surprised that such a recent release from a seemingly renowned horror film director is so simple. Granted this sort of thing has been done before, and the genre of horror that is demonic possession has recently become popular with general audiences. However, it's "The Conjuring" that takes this idea (or actually "Insidious") and does everything mostly well. The key word here is mostly.   

  James Wan is very good at making very effective horror films (for the most part). However, it's the third and final act that falls short. Throughout "The Conjuring" there are many subtly moments that are very effective and VERY scary. He's very good at making a house seem claustrophobic, and inescapable (even though the character probably could have left the house at any time...) However, the main problem that arises during the film is...well...let me explain something first. In a horror movie...or at least in any GOOD horror movie you have the horror aspect of the film which can be implemented at virtually any point as long as it is done well, and the characters that interact with the situation at hand. Sometimes the characters in the story can be the cause or BE the horror aspect and we not only learn more from each character but also the horror related plot device. Long story short the characters in the movie need to bounce off of the plot in a clear, and concise way. That is how it works. And to be perfectly frank, the dialogue in "The Conjuring" is abysmal. I just. I can't! Why in almost every single James Wan movie is the dialogue so...JUST OH MY GOD! I just can't! It's so hard to focus on the good aspects in his movies when I'm constantly being taken away by realllllyyyy badddd writing! But I'm just a stupid critic. What do I know?

   Despite the film's lack of engaging dialogue, I did actually find this film very scary. There were many moments where I saw great use in set design and ambiance. "The Conjuring" is in no way a perfect movie. I thought that James Wan had missed an opportunity when casting so many Warren children, but not really using that number to make an excessive body count. But I suppose that isn't necessarily what the movie wanted to have accomplished at the end. "The Conjuring" is no body count film, like "Friday The 13th" or "Halloween" and I'm thankful for that. I encourage a deviation from trendiness from time to time, and I know that soon every genre and type of horror film will be done to death and I'll have to find something new to waste my time with. It's just nice to see that, for the most part, someone did something right.

7.0/10

Watch the Trailer

Next Review: Carrie 1976

   

John Dies At The End: 2012

Release date: January 25, 2013 (USA)
Director: Don Coscarelli
Screenplay: Don Coscarelli
Story by: David Wong
Genres: Fantasy, Horror, Comedy

   When you see a poster that advertises, "From the director of Phantasm, and Buba Ho-Tep" You might think, "Oh boy, 'Phantasm', but oh...oh yeah...'Buba Ho-Tep." I'm not saying that "Buba Ho-Tep" was a bad movie. It was very silly, and very strange, and if you don't like that sort of thing, you may find it very stupid. And I feel very sad to admit that "John Dies At The End" doesn't really work in most areas of the horror-comedy film genre. In fact, the film would continue to surprise me with strange occurrences one after the other...and it would never stop.

   Do I recommend "Phantasm" lovers...no. Actually, I don't recommend this film in general, and I don't think I can really compare this to any other film I know. Our film takes place mostly in a Chinese restaurant over an interview that explains the effects of a new street drug called "soy sauce." The drug itself...is not soy sauce, but it has the ability to send the user across time and space, sometimes landing in other dimensions. There's a catch however. At any moment the drug can turn you into a freaky alien from another dimension...so there are moderate side affects at best. To friends use this ability to do their job...which is killing inter-dimensional beings that have infested choice homes. It's like "Ghostbusters" with no dignity and less humor. And it is a stupid movie, and I really didn't want it to be. But what was I really expecting from the guys who are well known for the stupidly strange. 

   The camerawork is done well, and I like the surrealism of the real world mixed with other dimensions. Even the acting is done well, and great performances come out of the majority of the cast. Almost everything about the film in general is...good. It is, and I don't have too many complaints, with the exception of a few upcoming complaints. I did not like the story, or at least its execution. And, I'm not saying that I don't like the story because it's bad, but because it's just waayyyyy too strange for me. But, then again, what was I expecting from the director of "Phantasm"? Of course it's going to be strange, and If you like strange, this might be for you...? But I don't know! I can't tell these things. It was kinda just too weird for me...and this is kind of hitting the same level of weird as "Dr. Tarr's Tourture Dungeon," just more awkward. The only other thing that I didn't really like about the film was the CG, and I know that if you've read my review of "Star Trek" then you know my feelings for it's overabundance in current films. But, you may be surprised to find out that the reason I didn't like the CG in "John Dies At The End" was because the developers of the film clearly didn't have the budget to render much of anything. And that's very sad to me because I wonder if I would have liked it better if the CG was better, but I'm not sure.

   Well, I think I'm going to end things here. I know that this review was very short and I apologies for that, or at least to anyone that cares. Do I recommend this film, no. Go watch something better, because there are many things in this movie that could have been improved upon and have been improved upon in several other films. And I really don't like having to say that, because I was excited for this film. But when finally watching it, I didn't like the humor because it didn't work with the story. Well, at least for me it didn't. It was so strange! So if you really want to, go and watch it, and if you already have I'm sorry but I can't refund you eight dollars. 

6.0/10

Watch the trailer

Next Review: Star Trek - Into Darkness 2013

Scream: 1996

Release date: December 20, 1996 (USA)
Director: Wes Craven
MPAA rating: R
Screenplay: Kevin Williamson
  
   In the mid 90's and most recently, last year, a series of films have been released that attempted to satirize and cash in on the slasher craze. These "slashers," include "Halloween," "Nightmare on Elm Street" "Friday the 13th," and the list goes on. All of these films began very small, some of them being very low budget, such as the first "Halloween", directed by John Carpenter.   But, humility can only last so long. Scream, like the films before it, transformed into bloated, corporate monsters, with films being systematically released annually in order to line their suits with greenbacks. Wes Craven, the director of this line of films, as well as the "Nightmare on Elm Street" franchise, tries to tell the audience what horror films are doing wrong, and will constantly make fourth wall winks whenever he can. Let's talk about that. This, is "Scream."

   For a movie that satirizes the slasher category of the horror genre, It does a good job of becoming exactly that. A slasher flick. And a good slasher flick I might add. Director Wes Craven, who has dabbled in the horror genre quite a bit, has decided to completely destroy the slasher genre by blurring the lines between film, and reality. In fact, one of the main controversies this film brings up, is the connection between film violence and actual violence. Personally, I do believe that in certain cases films can inspire violent outbursts, but these would only happen to people who should not be watching the movies in the first place. Film is reserved for entertainment purposes only, and should almost never be replicated. Its why we have actors, and stunt doubles, and controlled explosions, and computers. Movies aren't real. End of story. 

   Now that that's out of the way, lets get to the plot. A group of teenagers is stalked and executed one by one by an unidentified costumed killer until he or she or they are caught. Now, I'm not going to give anything away, because it is actually a very good movie. The surreal nature of the characters in the film constantly knocking at the fourth wall doesn't get too annoying. It's quite enjoyable. But when the third and fourth movie come around things begin to get stale. But that's what happens when you milk a franchise for too long. You get more money, but you also get sloppy, and you get less respect. John Carpenter, stop it! Sean Cunningham, stop it! Wes Craven, stop it! Here's another notoriously terrible analogy for you. lets pretend your drinking your favorite juice, and you pour yourself the very last cup of whatever it was you were drinking. You drink some, but not all of it. Instead, you take whatever was left of the juice in the glass and you refill it with water. And you leave the juice in, so that the water will mix with it and retain it's flavor for a bit longer. Then you rinse and repeat three more times. Now all you have is water. No more juice, no more  flavor, and no more of what you originally enjoyed to begin with. Did you get that? Good. 

   I love classic "who done it" films, where you have to constantly sleuth around the film to figure out who the killer is. Is it the garbage man? The file clerk? William Shatner? You have to watch the movie all the way through to find out. In this way, this style of horror is a bit gimmicky, but I like it (as long as it's done correctly, of course). Think of it more as "And Then There Were None," instead of "Clue." This movie is spectacular in that sense. It keeps you guessing and on your toes until the very end, and when you finally know who it is...BAM! The killer is about to bleed twenty five gallons of blood, and come back to life at least three more times. But whoever said these films were meant to be taken seriously. Of course, I may have enjoyed these confrontations a bit more if Wes Craven HAD made the decision to film these scenes more realistically. However, one downside to that is that one good blow to the head with a tire iron will do any psychopathic teenager in for good, and that just isn't too much fun. There is a certain charm to the simplicity of the "Scream" films, but as for the best one of the franchise, I would recommend the first one. It's fresh and hadn't gotten to the point were a scenario like this one had been done to death, which is essentially the biggest problem with the rest of the "Scream" films. Sadly, this was the end of the Slasher genre of horror films for me, that is until every 80's horror character was renovated, modernized, and brought back from the grave once more to bomb at the box office. I wouldn't review those films if you held a gun to my head, but next up is...an interesting one...

7.2/10

Watch The Trailer Here:

Next Review: John Dies At The End 2012

   

The Vampire Bat: 1933

 Happy Birthday Dad, This Review Is For You...

   Since the beginning of horror films and literature, the vampire bat is probably, in my opinion, the most well known out of all the horror cliché’s.  In fact, this device has been used so much, that it is considered to be symbolic, to both the written word and cinematography to this day.  However, in some senses, the vampire bat is quite real to areas such as Europe and South America, where on occasion, they spread famine and disease.  It is a sad truth, one that is covered by Hollywood to make it 

appear as though a fairy tale.  It is often put next to The Vampire, and more famously, "Dracula".  But today I will not be reviewing Dracula:  1931.  Instead I will go just a bit farther, after Todd Browning's success with Bela Lugosi (I'm saving that for later).  Today I will be reviewing, "The Vampire Bat", from 1933!

   In the small village of Kleinshloss, the locals are scared with a serial killer that is draining the blood of his victims, and the Burgomaster Gustave Schoen is convinced that a vampire is responsible for the deaths.  The skeptical police inspector Karl Brettschneider is reluctant to accept the existence of vampires, but the local doctor Otto Von Newman shows literature about cases of vampirism inclusive in Amazon.  When the apple street vendor Martha Mueller is murdered, the prime suspect becomes the slow Herman Gleib, a man with a mind of child that loves bats.  The group of vigilantes chases Herman, while Dr. Von Newman's housemaid Georgiana is attacked by the killer.

   Although more prominently a horror film, "The Vampire Bat" kind of has a little bit of everything.  At first it’s a Mystery, then a Horror, then a Comedy, and finally a Science Fiction film.  The two genres’ that stood out to me the most were Horror and Mystery.  However beware, because this movie plays out as if it were a horror film.  And just as my review of, “The Invisible Man” tricked me, so has this film of leading me to believe that what I was watching was a horror flick.  

   But its main attraction is the perfect distraction making it seem like one genre of film when it’s actually another.  For, "The Vampire Bat" is actually, and always has been...a Mystery Film!  Just look at the facts; first, you have many disappearances in a small town.  Yes, there is some supernatural nature to the idea as well as horror, but how the townsfolk deduce the dilemma is executed as though from a mystery movie!  One of the occupants of the area is accused, however you yourself aren't fully convinced that he is the actual culprit because of the true nature this character has.  

   He is very shy, and though strange at times has an innocence to him that would compel the viewer to believe that he did not commit the crimes he was accused of.  This works well in the favor of the movie and I guess that it also balances the line between Horror and Mystery as well.  In this way, "The Vampire Bat" also reminds me of, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".  There is a mystery to the plot as well as implementing horror, the supernatural, and a dream state.  This was where the movie swayed more towards being a horror film above all else.  Each scene was distorted, warped and didn’t have a full grasp on the proportions of things, as if you were dreaming.  It is in this way that, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was more of a horror film than, "The Vampire Bat".  But I'm really sidetracking into something I could keep writing about for hours.  

   The movie is marketed and sold as a horror film, so I guess its false advertising but in a positive way.  Its like if you suddenly win a free cruise to (insert tropical island name here).  When you leave on the cruise ship back home, the people there give you the cruise ship with everything you liked on it and everything you didn't like on it even though it wasn't included in the prize, and you like it for a while until you realize you have nowhere to keep it, and you realize that you just wanted the vacation instead...or something like that.  So anyway, there is also a connection between this review and last review because Majestic Pictures, who produced this movie, was making B-Movies way before Rodger Corman (who directed, "The Terror"...sort of) was in the business.  He made B-Movies fast and inexpensive, which was the polar opposite of this film because they use a diagonal wipe for every transition!  Obviously this was overused because it was a new technique at the time.  It’s similar to, "The Guardians of GaHool" film adaptation and their new discovery of the SLOW-MO shot for every single epic fight scene.  And everyone in the cinema world knows that an overuse of an effect in a movie can be the very thing that leads it to its downfall.  

   Speaking of effects, the bats in the very beginning of the film look better than in, "Dracula" from 1931, because of the film’s use of lighting.  The screen is just dark enough so that you can see the bats but not the strings.  It’s a very good illusion and is pulled off very nicely.  However, the diagonal wipe is not the only aspect of the film, because this movie has also managed to use a device that almost all the early Vampire movies share.  They have one of the main characters at first disbelieves the rumors that there are such things as vampires.  But this fact isn't shoved in our faces for long, or at least not as long as, "Nosferatu" did it.  Although this establishes the super naturalism in the town is not something of the norm, it is very redundant if you have seen something like this time and time again.  As I've said before, "film is an art form that repeats itself".  

   However they do add comedic relief in some way, which isn't too overdone and for this movie adds a nice touch. However Herman, the assistant to the victim, reminds me a little bit of the two insane people from, "Nosferatu", and "Dracula".  This type of sycophantic side character is not new to vampire movies.  One thing that is used well is the whole aspect of hypnosis when murder is brought into a plot.  It reminds me of the character Murder Legendre, played by Bela Lugosi in "White Zombie", made a year before; "The Vampire Bat" was released.  Although somewhat similar, Lugosi's performance is much more memorable than this, because...well...he's Bela Lugosi!  But alas, just as Bela Lugosi does not star in this movie, neither do music.  That is to say that there is music, it’s just only in the opening and closing credits.  But I'm going to let this fault slide for now because this was very common for the thirties.  Music during the acting scenes was very new at the time and although as the years went by it wasn't being used regularly until the forties.  Also as an added bonus I am so happy with the supporting/lead actress, because she is not foolish or risky, rather smart, powerful, and independent without being in your face about it.  To go even further, she has screamed the least amount of times out of all the horror movies I’ve seen so far! And that just makes it so much better without succumbing to the normal cliché of acting.     

  To wrap this review up, The actual killer isn't that surprising so if you’re waiting for something big and dramatic, go ahead and don't be although there is a small twist at the end.  The film is just under an hour, so if you don't mind a-little-bit-of-everything-but-especially-horror-film, I encourage you to check it out!  This is also to those who especially love a good mystery once and awhile.

Verdict

I give this film 3 nice juicy apples out of 5

Next Review:  The House on Haunted Hill 1959   

     

 

The Terror: 1963

   
  Rodger Corman was, and still is known as, “The B-Movie King”.  He was the director of many horror flicks, most of which were made fast and inexpensive.  Around the time this movie came out, Corman was working on, "The Raven", an adaptation of the book by Edgar Allen Poe.  He must have been fond of Poe's work, because he made many more film adaptations like it, including, "The Pit and the Pendulum", and, "The Black Cat".  Anyway Rodger Corman finished, "The Raven" two days before its expected release, so instead of just making an audience wait two days to see a movie, he decided to make another film entitled, "The Terror", the film I will be reviewing today.  "The Terror", was filmed in the two days left over from the early release of, "The Raven", and it used the same props, sets, cast, and crew left over from, "The Raven".  Why not?  

   If you know the cast from the raven, then it won't be a surprise when I tell you the cast of this film are Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson.  I bet you never would have thought these people would have crossed paths ever in the history of cinema, but there it is!  Wow!  You've got the famous older Boris Carloft with younger-soon-to-be-star, Jack Nicholson, while directed by the B-Movie master, Rodger Corman!  How could this movie possibly go wrong?  Francis Coppola worked on the film a little bit after Rodger Corman gave up the production.  Okay, you might think that this is the time that I go into the movie review like I normally do, but today we're going to do something different.  I'll be moving on right into my conclusion, but instead of labeling it, "In Conclusion", I'm not going to be making any separation from the back story and the actual review of the movie.

   This was a sad film, but not for the acting or the story or the characters.  It wasn't any of those things.  It was simply the fact that it was a clash of actors in the same year.  Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson both have had their share of horror films, only, for one it was the beginning of a career, and for another the end of one.  But as for the story, it went everywhere with its twists and turns and changing of roles.  It never stopped!  My guess is that Rodger Corman made it this way, because of the lack of time.  He may not have known that his idea for, "The Terror” needed more separation between each possible explanation to a mystery.  To space out the twists until it was appropriate to use them.  There were some confusing parts too, like the very first scene, where you watch Boris Carloft travel down into the castle to open a door to find a skeleton.  This had no purpose to the story whatsoever.  It’s even in the beginning of the movie, so it seems as though it was meant to be paid attention to.  

   Ronald Stein composed the music for the film, and I'm sure that it was meant to be a powerful piece, but it ends up being redundant and forgetful.  Not only was this rushed, but the dialog and timing are sub-par, making for mediocre conversations, and since there is a twist every three scenes, you end up becoming unattached to the plot.  The performances were standard; however, Nicholson   interacting with Carloft was very interesting.  If you'd like to see what Jack Nicholson's career was like before he became famous, you should check this out.  However, it comes with a price.  In the climax its shown clearly, That Boris Carloft cannot do hand to hand combat at all, and you reflect upon the time that has gone by with his career, you now know his former way of life has come to a close.  The turning point of film has arrived with Nicholson, and ended with Carloft.  Out with the old and in with the new, I suppose.  Out with the old and in with the new... 

Verdict:  I give this film 3 unexplained skeletons out of 5

  

         Next Review:  The Vampire Bat 1933