FrightMeter Reviews

Dead Hooker in a Trunk (2009)

Ambitious first effort.

[6/10 · 30 August 2010]

Four very different friends, including two sisters, find themselves in an epic predicament when, after a night of partying, they discover a dead hooker in the trunk of their car. While trying to find out just who she is and how she got their, the group encounter several crazy situations, including a serial killer who is hot on their trail.

The film is a breath of fresh air in its originality; it sheds all genre clichés to offer an unpredictable, and for the most part entertaining ride. The film blends several genres, one minute acting as a brutal grindhouse slasher, the next a buddy road trip comedy. I works and it's an accomplishment in itself that a film that attempts to be so many different things never loses focus. Despite this, the film is not as effective as it could have been. The characters are underwritten and unlikable. Their reactions to the situations they encounter are often inappropriate or unrealistic to the point of being distracting at points (after having an eyeball knocked out, exactly how long can one go with no medical attention and a piece of duct tape over the socket?) Still, Dead Hooker in a Trunk is a creative, ambitious first feature from the Soska sisters. With a tighter script and a bigger budget, they certainly could be forces within the genre.

FrightMeter Grade: B-

Basement Jack (2009 Video)

Mediocre at best.

[5/10 · 30 August 2010]

A serial killer, nicknamed Basement Jack because of his penchant for hiding out in his victim's basements before killing them, is released and returns to the small town of Downer's Grove to continue his massacre and finish off the one victim who was able to escape is slaughter years before.

This film desperately tries to be a throwback to 80's slasher films, but it is too slow-paced and padded with the killer's backstory that it commits the worst crime a slasher film can: it becomes boring. The pace does pick up in the end and there are some ambitious attempts at heavy gore; however, it is extremely fake looking and some is obviously CGI. However, the director is able to create some nice atmosphere is spots and, despite the fake looking gore, the film looks great. In the end, though, this is nothing you haven't seen before and it has been done much, much better.

FrightMeter Grade: D+

The Silent Scream (1979)

Nice homage to Psycho.

[8/10 · 30 August 2010]

College student Scotty Parker waits too long to apply for on campus housing and as a result must rent a room at a spooky seaside mansion owned by the equally spooky Engels family. Soon, one of the other college student renters is brutally murdered and Scotty unknowingly begins to unravel the secrets of the Engels family and the murders.

The creepy, atmospheric little gem is a homage to Psycho through and through. Though it is a slow-burner, there is always an uneasiness present as the viewer is made aware through minor clues that something is not right with the Engels family. There is little to no gore; instead the focus on on building tension leading into the frantic and frenzied climax. Barbara Steele steals the film without saying a word and her performance will certainly give you chills. Highly underrated and one of the better entries into the early 80's slasher genre, though today's audience may be turned off by the slow pace.

FrightMeter Grade: B

Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! (2006)

The Easter Bunny doesn't like you....

[8/10 · 9 August 2010]

Following in the tradition of the slasher genre, Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! uses a beloved holiday as the backdrop for a madman's murderous rampage. However, instead of stalking babysitters or sorority sisters, this film tells a much more interesting and sinister tale.

Mindy, a single mother of a sixteen year old mentally challenged son, Nicholas, struggles with the responsibilities involved in raising a special needs child. She often works double shifts at her nursing job and relies on the wife of her handyman for childcare. So when Rem, a smooth talking and by all appearances, a genuinely nice, caring guy comes into her life, she instantly begins to have feelings for him. However, Nicholas is immediately suspicious and takes an instant disliking to Rem, and for very good reason. Turns out Rem is really a cruel, low-life drug addict with ulterior motives. He is cruel to Nicholas when Mindy is not around, calling him degrading names and threatening to kill her new pet rabbit if Nicholas tells. When called into work a double shift on Easter day, Mindy, with really no other option, allows Rem to care for Nicholas. Rem immediately calls his pedophile friend and sells Nicholas to him for the evening while Rem goes out in search of hookers and drugs. When the pedophile arrives to have his way with Nicholas, it doesn't take long for a psychopath wearing an Easter Bunny mask to show up and begin wreaking havoc with various electrical tools. When Rem finally shows back up to the home with his hookers, the stage is set for a bloody showdown.

Though far from perfect, Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! is an ambitious entry into the holiday themed horror genre. The tone of the film is its most effective asset, at while some may find it a tad too cruel at times, it will, without a doubt, stir at least some emotion in even the most hardened horror fans. Apart from the inclusion of such sensitive subjects as the treatment of people with disabilities and pedophilia, the film possesses a grittiness and atmosphere that is unsettling at times. Despite the simple and confined setting of a small, suburban house, the director is able to create some serious tense and suspenseful scenes, mostly involving the various victims making their way through the hallways of the home, which are covered in plastic on both sides because of renovations. The use of the plastic is hugely effective as the viewer at times knows the homicidal rabbit is lurking its prey from somewhere behind it. The deaths are fairly brutal and bloody as heads are drilled, circular saws are wielded, and hammers and brought down. Though the deaths are nasty, they are never over the top, and since most of the victims are vile human beings, these is slight sense of justice. The actors, for the most part, are highly committed to their roles. Timothy Muskatell is truly outstanding as Rem and viewers will be truly disgusting by him.

Still, though the film is highly effective, some will be quick to point out its flaws. The low budget does, at times, show. Some of the scenes, particularly ones involving Nicholas talking to his pet rabbit, come off as extremely cheesy and cringe-worthy. Since the first real kill by the maniacal rabbit doesn't come until at least the halfway point, some may be turned off by pacing, subject matter, and questionable depiction of a mentally challenged teen. Additionally, some scenes are unnecessary and late attempts at humor fall flat and don't complement the overall tone of the film. Though I am sure some figured out the identity of the killer, I was actually pleasantly surprised, though the last few minutes of the film were rather unbelievable and a tad to tidy and storybook.

Overall, Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! is highly effective, low-budget tribute to exploitative grindhouse films of the 70's and slasher films of the 80's. There are some truly creepy, atmospheric, and disturbing scenes, and though the film is a cheesy in parts and seem to loose focus a few times, it is a welcomed and highly recommended entry into the holiday themed horror catalog.

Fright Meter Grade: B

Spring Break Massacre (2008 Video)

Nicely done homage.

[6/10 · 28 July 2010]

The cover art for "Spring Break Massacre" tells you everything you need to know about the film; yes, it's a homage to "The Slumber Party Massacre." Anyone expecting anything but a slasher film featuring a killer murdering topless co-eds will be sadly, sadly disappointed. At least you can say the DVD cover was deceiving.

Plot wise, the film is very similar to the original "The Slumber Party Massacre." A group of female friends decide to have a sleepover where "no boys are allowed" by order of our heroine's father. Needles to say, an escaped psychopath known as the slumber party killer has just escaped prison and happens upon the little gathering. Meanwhile, the local sheriff (Robby Bannister) and his deputy (Linnea Quigley) are alerted to the psychopath's escape and must try to keep the town safe.

Fans of 80's slasher films will undoubtedly enjoy this film because it does possess a nostalgic feel with its simple, straight-forward premise and tongue-in-cheek reference. Though the pacing lags in the second act, enough happens to keep us interested. The kills come fast in the last act and seem a tad rushed. Additionally, they aren't all that gory or bloody, and for a homage to an 80's slasher classic, I'd expect the kills to be better thought out, a tad gorier, with much more suspense leading to them. Along those same lines, there is no final "chase scene" with our heroine that is a staple of 80's slasher films. Still, the film is technically well done and, again, does enough to keep the viewer interested.

Unlike "The Slumber Party Massacre," this film does attempt to be different and set itself apart. Much like his other unknown-killer-stalks-group-of-friends-having-a-sleepover film "Reunion of Terror," screenwriter Michael Hoffman, employs a mega-twist ending and motive that is clever, unexpected, and disturbing. I can see this being his trademark as a writer simply because he is so good at it.

Overall, "Spring Break Massacre" is a nicely done homage that doesn't really offer anything new to the genre, but succeeds in taking us genre fans back to the simpler days of horror.

Fright Meter Grade: C+

October Moon (2005 Video)

Effective character study.

[7/10 · 4 May 2010]

Contrary to my initial assumption, "October Moon" really isn't a horror movie. Not that there aren't some rather disturbing moments, but the film plays itself out more like a psychological drama in the vain of "Fatal Attraction" (yes, the comparison is inevitable) or "Unfaithful." The climax of the film verges on "slasher" territory, but ends up being more depressing that actual scary.

The film centers around Corin, a thirty year old professional, and his younger, party-loving boyfriend Jake. The two have been together for awhile. but it is obvious that all is not rosy in their relationship. While Corin has settled down and likes to spend quiet evenings at home, Jake still loves the "bar" scene, and often views his relationship with Corin as holding him back from enjoying his youth. At work, Corin is able to confide in his boss and good friend Nancy (Brinke Stevens) about his relationship troubles. She listens with a caring ear and seems to be the only person to really understand him. Due to an increased work load and his unstable home life with Jake, Nancy decides to hire an assistant of sorts name Elliot to help Corin with some of his duties. At first, Elliot is awkward and somewhat nerdy, but likable nonetheless. Corin learns that Elliot lives with his over-protective mother (Judith O'Dea) and is engaged to be married to long-time girlfriend, Marti. Corin begins spending some time outside of work with Elliot, inviting him home and to various outings. Before long, Elliot begins to develop feelings for Corin and realizes that he is a homosexual. This causes severe mixed emotions in him; his mother is deeply against this lifestyle because he husband left her years earlier for another man. With no real support for his new feelings, Elliot's feelings for Corin begin to become a dangerous and disturbing obsession, resulting in a dark, depressing climax.

"October Moon" is truly a character driven story and because of this, may cause some viewers to lose interest. No real action occurs until the films final moments, but the build-up is almost more intense. Elliot's behavior does become more and more disturbing and where the film excels is in its believability. The characters actions and reactions are realistic and because the characters are developed extremely well, it is easy to sympathize with their individual situations. Even at the end of the film, it is hard to really blame Elliot for his actions; he desperately just wanted to be loved and accepted, and like many gay men, the emotions that came with falling for another man, when his entire life he had been told how wrong that was, were almost too much to handle. The writers takes careful steps to ensure that Elliot never becomes a despicable character and it works to the film's benefit. While there is some clichéd and dialogue steeped with stereotypes, overall, it does an adequate job of moving the plot along and creating interesting characters.

The biggest flaw present in "October Moon" is certainly its low-budget, resulting in extremely amateur looking production values. For example, the picture looks dated and often times is no better quality than you'd get with an old hand-held camera. The sound fades in and out in many spots, making conversations hard to comprehend. These issues don't necessarily make this a bad film, but do, at times, make it hard to take seriously. The acting really is a mixed bag; the actors portraying Corin and Jake are adequate, but often times some cheesy dialogue interrupts their performances. Jerod Howard is effective as Elliot, but some particular scenes seem to put noticeable strain on his range. Horror veterans Brinke Stevens and Judith O'Dea are both serviceable, but criminally underused. What is really distracting about the performances is that in some scenes, the actors are brilliant, but in the very next scene, verge on being terrible. The climax is rushed and, while somewhat effective, doesn't pack the punch that it really could have.

Overall, "October Moon" is an interesting, engaging little independent film. Like so many other low-budget films out there, it is very apparent that the filmmakers actually cared about the final product and did the best of their ability and resources to make a decent film. While those expecting gore and non-stop action will likely become extremely bored with "October Moon," it is an effective that not only cares about its characters and presents a believable portrait of obsession and desperation, it subtly makes a statement about expectations, relationships, and the consequences of intolerance. It's a slow burn, but "October Moon" is an effective, creepy film that puts substance before style; the end result and a memorable portrait of love gone wrong on many levels.

Dead Snow (2009)

Stay out of the outhouse!

[8/10 · 31 March 2010]

A group of medical students on Easter break decide to spend a relaxing weekend in a friend's cabin located in the isolated mountains of Norway. However, they are unaware that during World War II, a group of Nazi soldiers disappeared into these very mountains never to be seen again, Well, it turns out that these soldiers are all but dead and are now zombies who murder anyone unlucky enough to cross their path.

The Good: The cinematography in this film is breathtaking. Much like the Norwegian slasher film "Cold Prey," the isolated mountain setting is used to full effect here. The production values are all top notch and it is refreshing to see a genre film that looks this good. Similarly, the acting is pretty decent across the board and the actors obviously took their roles seriously. The film is pretty fast paced and plays homage to several well-renowned horror films, most blatantly "The Evil Dead." Suspense is well built, particularly with the outhouse scenes and the zombie attack scenes on the tiny cabin. The film really picks up the last 20 minutes or so, and gore/zombie fans should not be disappointed. These zombies also use weapons, such as bayonets and hammers, as well as their teeth, to attack their victims and the ending of the film is an adrenaline pumping, blood soaked, good time.

The Bad: The film has so much going for it in regards to the horror/suspense elements, but decides to play up some comedic elements that seem, at times, out of place. The film would have been much more effective without the unnecessary comedic elements had amped up the horror. There are some confusing elements, mainly concerning a box of treasure that may or may not be the reason for the zombie's attack on the group of friends and makes the ending rather confusing. The characters are pretty likable, but do some pretty questionable things; for example, late in the film, after several of their friends have been murdered, we discover that a character or two has had a cell phone the entire time. And they actually get a single! Why they didn't decide to call for help earlier is a questionable point and, like the treasure, is an example of some holes in the script.

Overall: "Dead Snow" is a great entry into the zombie genre. It's a great looking, fast paced film that isn't without its flaws, which come mainly from weak writing. Definitely worth a look for horror fans.

My Grade: B

Staunton Hill (2009 Video)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 156

[3/10 · 31 March 2010]

The year is 1969 (supposedly). A group of friends traveling to a rally in Washington, D.C. hitch a ride with a nice enough fellow they meet up with at a run down gas station. However, a few miles along their journey, the fellow's car breaks down, causing the group to have to hike through the hills in search of shelter and help. They happen upon an isolated farmhouse, which at first seems abandoned. They take it upon themselves to camp out in the barn for the night, only to be greeted by the Stauton family in the morning. This odd bunch consists of the the mother, grandmother, and a mentally challenged adult boy. At first, the family is nice (except the boy, who takes a hammer to one of the traveler's face for saying HI to him). It doesn't take long before the true intentions of the Staunton family is exposed and they friends begin getting brutally butchered and dismembered one by one.

The Good: The acting in "Staunton Hill" is actually pretty good. The setting is creepy and used to full effect. However, what the film has going for it is a few inspired moments of gore and how the killer casually goes about brutally disposing of his victims. It is rather disturbing, though the motive behind the killings is confusing and not fully elaborated on.

The Bad: The plot is EXTREMELY clichéd. This is the same old "friends venture upon a isolated house and are slaughtered by a disturbed family" formula that we have seen many, many times before. Worse yet, director Cameron Romero (horror icon George Romero's son) does absolutely nothing new with the formula. It is business as usual as characters do the exact things we expect them to do and the film ends the exact way we expect it to end. The film is also suppose to be set in 1969; however, it is painfully obvious from the clothing, hair styles, and some set pieces that it is modern day. This is troubling because there is absolutely no reason mentioned for WHY the film has to be set in 1969. It would have been the exact same film had it been set in 79, 89, or 09. Romero's direction shows some inspired moments, yet is still pretty run-of-the-mill. When your last name is Romero and you are directing a horror film, you should probably take painstaking steps to make sure your film stands out among the countless others like it; this does not happen here. Maybe it us unfair to hold Cameron Romero to a higher standard, but with the Romero name plastered numerous times of the DVD cover, I think it is fair game. Does he show potential? Yes, but hopefully with his next project he makes an interesting movie that is not steeped in your typical horror clichés.

Overall: While "Staunton Hill" isn't the worst movie of its kind, it certainly has very few redeeming qualities. It's clichéd, rather boring in parts, and offers nothing new to the genre. Rewatching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" would be time better spent if you are dying to see a deranged family kill of innocent victims who stumble upon their residence.

My Grade: D

To Become One (2002 Video)

Two Different Films?

[1/10 · 30 March 2010]

This film begins much like any of your countless teenage slasher films; a young girl named Melinda helplessly watches her mother get brutally murdered by a killer disguised in a gas mask and armed with a sword. Flash forward a year later--this same killer begins picking off this same Melinda's friends one by one on a quest to capture her (why he didn't just get her a year earlier after murdering her mother while Melinda was in the same room is beyond me). In order to escape the killer, Melinda and her few remaining friends pack up their cars and take off for the isolated countryside. Predictably, the killer follows, dispatches Melinda's remaining friends, and reveals his identity to her. Now, this is where the film completely shift gears and tone. You see, the killer is her Siamese twin brother who was separated from her when they were babies. He has decided that this procedure robbed him of his "true" life, so, with the help of a crazy-as-a-loon doctor, he plans on being conjoined with Melinda once again. From this point forward, the film takes place in a giant hospital which looks much like your typical suburban hospital. However, the patients are all mentally disturbed and the doctor and nurses are performing what seems to be religious-themed brainwashing ceremonies on them.

The Good: The film is ambitious with its screenplay and I do not think that I have witnessed a horror movie that has switched plot elements so severely and abruptly. Somewhere in this amateurish mess of a film lies an actually pretty interesting and unique premise. The film is extremely low budget (said to have been filmed for under $2000), and while his fact is painfully obvious, it does make some of the hospital scenes/procedures that much more effective. The acting is a mixed bag, but the main girl is serviceable and carries the film pretty well.

The Bad: Pretty much EVERYTHING else. The decision to switch from slasher movie to psychological drama midway really fails here because it makes the first half of the film irrelevant. Why did the brother have to stalk and kill Melinda's friends if his sole goal was to get her to the hospital? There are other glaring plot holes, but that is the least of this film's problems. The directing is awful. The director finds the needs to switch from color to black and white indiscriminately and without any real purpose except to make himself seem "innovative." There are several shots, particularly in the beginning, that are so dark that the viewer can't even make out what is going on. The dialog is clunky and characters do things (again, particularly in the beginning) that are so ridiculous that it is hard to take the film serious. There is not character development at all and we don't even learn the main character's name until a third into the movie. In fact, it seems like the MAJOR issue with this film is the first 40 minutes when it attempted to be a slasher film. Nothing works here. However, when the film switches gears to the hospital, it becomes incredibly dull and contrived that it becomes a test of patience to sit through.

Overall: I know there is an interesting movie to be found SOMEWHERE in this mess of a film. Unfortunately, this film was in extremely incompetent hands and ends up being an absurd, boring chore. There are really no redeeming qualities present to recommend this film to anyone--even die-hard horror fans.

My Grade: F

Dead Tone (2007)

Entertaining Enough....

[6/10 · 2 March 2010]

"Dead Tone" opens with a group of young children making prank phone calls while their clueless parents party and carry on in the other room. With one of the phone calls, they reach a psychopath who isn't at all happy to be bothered with their childish banter. This puts a damper on their game and they decide to go to bed. A short time later, the telephone rings. When one of the kids wakes up to answer it, he is greeted by an axe-wielding psycho- path who proceeds to murder his parents and their friends. Flash forward 10 years to a group of college students who decide to spend the weekend at the rich jock's secluded mansion for some partying and sex. All is going well when, while drunk, they decide to make prank phone calls as a game. The rule: you must keep the person on the other end for at least 75 seconds. Needless to say, they (again) reach a psychopath who ends up showing up at the secluded house with his trust axe.

The Good: "Dead Tone" is a slasher flick through and through. There is no lame attempt at comedy or self-referential moments. In fact, in resembles something that came straight from the 1980's, where slasher films were only interested in one thing: getting a bunch of teenagers together in an isolated setting and killing them off brutally. The killer, though a rip-off of the "Urban Legend" killer, is quite brutal and it doesn't take long to realize he means business. The production is top-notch and the acting is fairly decent (Rutger Hauer gives some credibility to the film). For the most part, the action is fast paced and there is no real boring parts. Once the killer arrives at the mansion, the killing and action doesn't let up.

The Bad: The script is clichéd as all get out and I swear I have some some of the exact lines uttered in this film said in countless other slasher film. Additionally, the film is VERY formulaic--it is like the screenwriter and director took a cure from "How to Make A Slasher Film in Three Easy Steps." We are even subjected to the "let's stop at the creepy old gas stations where we can get a few false scares while one of the characters ventures into the incredibly filthy bathroom and the be warned by the equally filthy and creepy gas station attendant before we speed off a tad shaken" scene. Really, the filmmakers offered absolutely nothing new to the genre and, again, this film could really be a combination of about twenty five other slasher films I have seen lately. The ending is predictable and a tad silly and unbelievable. Oh, and the main blond girl isn't that great of an actress and is definitely the weak link in the cast.

Overall: An entertaining 80's style slasher film that you just might enjoy if you go into it with no expectations. The action is brisk, there are some decent death scenes for gore hounds, and the production is nice. However, it is clichéd and you will roll your eyes at the predictably of some of the scenes, particularly the ending.

Fright Meter Grade: C+

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006)

The essence of stylish, contemporary horror.

[8/10 · 18 February 2010]

If I had to choose five horror films that represent the decade of the 2000's, "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" would be one of them. The film is an evolution of the post-"Scream" slasher film that not only felt the need to be tongue-in-cheek, but also contain comedic elements. "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" takes the basic slasher conventions that "Scream" also successfully utilized, but abandoned the comedic and self-referential elements for a more stylized, contemporary take on the classic slasher formula.

Mandy Lane is a girl that, like the title suggests, all the boys at her school want to "get with." She has blossomed over the summer from Plain Jane to the hottest, most desired girl in school. After her and her geeky male friend get invited to a party, a freak accident occurs where the host of the party dies while trying to impress Mandy. Flash forward to the following year. Mandy gets invited to a party at a secluded ranch by a bunch of the popular kids. Partying and drinking ensues, and of course, the boys each try in their own way to get with Mandy, who seems uninterested in the whole situation. Needless to say, it doesn't take long before a mysterious killer shows up on the ranch and begins brutally killing off the teens one by one. The film does utilize the now clichéd "Scream" type ending, but with a minor twist that is still somewhat predictable.

Where "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" advances the genre is in style. Whereas slasher films of the past rarely focused on production, cinematography, setting, etc.., the filmmakers behind "Mandy Lane" put a lot of effort into making the film look great. The cinematography is wonderful, and the isolated ranch location is used to full effect. It's like the director is saying, "look, a teenage slasher film can be entertaining AND be beautifully shot." It is definitely the right direction for this type of film, particularly if horror fans want people to start taking these films seriously as pieces of art.

It is sad that, as of even today, this film has not had a U.S. release either theatrically or DVD. Had it been released in theaters, I think it could have revived the slasher genre, which once again has become tired and clichéd ridden, much like "Scream" did in the mid 90's. Horror fans and fans of quality film making should check this film out--not only is it an above average slasher film with interesting characters, brutal deaths, and plot twists, but it is also a wonderful piece of film making with exceptional art direction, cinematography, and direction.

Grade: A-

The Collector (I) (2009)

A gem for true horror fans.

[8/10 · 17 February 2010]

"The Collector" didn't make as big of a bang on the horror scene when it was released into theaters. It's box office take was dismal, which is a shame because it is so much better than "Halloween 2," "The Final Destination." or several other slasher films that have raked in bucks at the box office recently.

Fairly simplistic in its premise, "The Collector" deals with Arkin, a down on his luck guy who does odd jobs to bring in an income. His wife owes money to some loan sharks and to try to avoid having them harm her or his daughter, he decides to break into a home where he is doing some work (owned by a jeweler and his family) and steal a precious gem stone. Unfortunately, when he arrives, he quickly discovers that he is locked in a the house with a unknown killer who has painstakingly rigged pretty much every inch of the house with elaborate death traps. Worse yet, he has the family in the basement and is brutally torturing them.

"The Collector" works for several reason, most of which is the fact the killer is extremely creepy and intimidating. When we do a get a decent glimpse of him (which isn't all that often), the most distinguishable feature are his creepy, glowing eyes. His gait is also unique and unsettling. Because of these tiny details, The Collector really is one of the most interesting slasher villains of the last decade. Additionally, the film works because there is not a boring moment to be found. The action comes fast and brisk and the viewer has almost no opportunity to become bored. The plot proves itself to be unpredictable and the claustrophobic setting of the old house is used very effectively.

Gore hounds and fans of the Saw series might be surprised to find out that this film really isn't all that gory. I definitely wouldn't call it "torture porn," and though there are definitely some brutal murders, they are more in the vain of an 80's slasher film rather than your "Saw" or "Hostel." This film's main focus seems to be tension and atmosphere, and both are achieved incredibly well.

The only flaw to the film is the ending, which is clichéd to no end. We have seen this same ending countless times before and it not any more surprising or different this time around. Still, this film is engaging, creepy, and fast paced. It is what a slasher film should be--tense and entertaining--and it is certainly one of the better efforts to have a theatrical release in quite some time.

Grade: A-

The House of the Devil (2009)

Had potential, but a tad too slow paced.

[6/10 · 16 February 2010]

A cross between "When A Stranger Calls" and the recent little seen independent film "Babysitter Wanted," "The House of the Devil" is an interesting entry into the contemporary horror genre. It centers around a co-ed named Samantha who desperately needs to move out of her dorm into her own apartment due to her roommate's disrespectful and dirty behavior. She finds her dream apartment; the only problem is that she doesn't exactly have the $300 needed to rent the place. So, she responds to a Babysitter Wanted sign posted on her university's bulletin board. Needless to say, she takes the job, which happens to be in an old, creepy house located on the outskirts of town owned by a regal, yet odd older couple. Despite being told when she arrives that she isn't, in fact, babysitting for a child, but rather an elderly lady, Samantha decides to stay because she needs the money just that bad. Predictably, nothing is as it seems, and by the end of the evening, Sam surely wishes she would have opted for a stint as the fry girl at the local McDonald's instead.

The story takes place in the 80's, and the director took painstaking measures to make sure the film appears like it is from that era; the protagonist and her female friend both sport the Farrah Fawcett feathered hairdo; the opening and closing credits are reminiscent of many horror films from the time period; and, instead of possessing a sleek Ipod, the main character hauls around a cassette playing walkman that is just about the size of a cereal box. The film even has that popular 80's grainy quality to it. The film is not polished or sleek like so many recent horror movies, and that is, indeed, what makes the film so interesting. However, this alone can't redeem the fact that the film, for most of its running time, is incredibly slow and there are long instances where nothing happens except for out lead girl listening to her walkman and dancing around to cheesy 80's music. Unlike "When A Stranger Calls," there are not any creepy phone calls or suspenseful action to make the film as effective as it could be. The climax of the film is somewhat creepy, albeit predictable, and really doesn't give the viewer a satisfying pay off.

Still, I see why some people are head over heels for this film; it IS interesting and different, yet interesting and different doesn't automatically equate to a great film. Viewers expecting more will be let down by the slow pace. There are a handful of creepy scenes; but trust me, they are nothing you haven't seen before.

Overall, check it out. Don't go in expecting a groundbreaking film like some of the hype leads you to believe, and you might enjoy the experience.

Grade: C+

Return to Sleepaway Camp (2008 Video)

A real let down.

[3/10 · 29 July 2009]

I am a huge fan of the original "Sleepaway Camp" film and its two original sequels.

Like most fans of the series, I was ultra-excited when I heard that the original director was going to make his own sequel to his film. Though I do like the "Unhappy Campers" and "Teenage Wasteland," they are tad to thick on the humor than I would have preferred. So, I waited and waited and waited patiently for this film to finally be released. Well, it was, and while I appreciate the nostalgic feel to the film, and the fact that is a slasher film through and through and knows its origins, the film, for me, was a huge let down for ONE reason alone: the character that we are suppose to sympathize with the most and who is by all accounts the main character of the film (Alan) has to be one of the most annoying characters in film history. He is rude, disgusting, nasty to everyone, and not likable in the least. When campers pick on him, we root them on and I really wanted him to be the first to die.

What made the first film effective was that Angela, who got picked on the very same ways Alan does in this film, doesn't deserve it. She is quiet, sweet, and introverted. She doesn't cause any problems for anyone, so when the people who harass her the most begin to meet their deaths, the audience can silently cheer. Having a unlikable main character can ruin any film, and this is a prime example.

If you can get past the annoying Alan, "Return to Sleepaway Camp" follows virtually the same plot as the original, but with less originality and more clichés. Ronnie, the counselor from the original, now owns his own camp. Typical teenage behavior is shown, and when the campers begin picking on Alan (who again, DESERVES IT!), they begin to meet grisly deaths. Ronnie quickly blames Angela, even going as far as to accusing another counselor who is OBVIOUSLY much to young to be her, of being Angela. Unfortunately, due to a pretty lame disguise, the killer's identity is not hard to figure out. The "Angela" aspect of the film is also played down quite a bit, so much so that this really could have been any typical camp slasher unrelated to the "Sleepaway Camp" series. Yes, Angela is mentioned, but she is hardly a crucial component to the plot, and even the ending is abrupt and explains very little and certainly isn't the return to glory that one of the most interesting slasher film killers in history deserved.

There are some creative kills, but I honestly thing the original sequels are better and more brutal in this department. The acting is atrocious by most involved and the script is just really bad. In the end, I wanted more from this film and expected the original director to really bring it. Unfortunately, he didn't and the film pales in comparison to the original and even to the original sequels.

I only hope that if "Sleepaway Camp: Reunion" DOES happen, it is much better than this. The series deserves it.

My Grade: D

Putevoy obkhodchik (2007)

Haven't we seen this before??

[3/10 · 16 July 2009]

Obviously blatantly "inspired" by a few other horror films (namely "My Bloody Valentine" and "See No Evil") "Trackman" is a rather boring and lazy film that meanders along through all the typical slasher film clichés that we have come to know. However, a tad of originality never killed anybody and this is a concept that completely eludes the makers of this film.

The plot centers around a couple of criminals who decide to rob a busy bank in the downtown Moscow area. After fatally shooting a security guard the crooks take a few female hostages and escape into an abandoned tunnel that runs below the bustling city of Moscow. However, it seems they chose the wrong hiding place, as a serial killer wearing a variation of a gas mask and armed with a pick axe (sound familiar?) patrols the tunnel, ready to kill and collect the eyes of anyone foolish enough to venture into to it.

The Good: "Trackman" is a great looking film. The production values are top notch and, stylistically, the film the film works better than most horror films that have made it into theaters lately. The tunnel setting is definitely creepy and claustrophobic, but the director doesn't take full advantage of this opportunity. The killer is also pretty creepy and intimidating, and his mask/costume works pretty well. He is certainly your 80's style slasher film killer.

The Bad: For starters, the characters are all annoying as hell (even the two hostages), so it is really hard to sympathize or even care about any of them. Instead of going this route with the plot/characters, I feel the film could have been more effective following the typical "teenagers in peril" formula. Instead of having robbers as the main characters, have a bunch of teenagers who venture into the tunnels for a little partying be the victims. In fact, when I was watching this film, I kept thinking of the film "Catacombs" and how, if we could take elements from each of these films to make one film, it could be pretty darn good. In addition to having uninteresting characters, the film itself gets pretty boring. There are long stretches of time where nothing happens except the group wandering around the tunnel, occasionally stopping to yell at each other or slap around the hostages. It doesn't keep the viewers attention at all, and when the slashing does begin, it's entirely too late and too tame to redeem the film. Again, we don't care at all about the characters, so it is hard to get too invested in what happens to them. When the end finally does come, it is such a head-scratcher that it makes you even more angry that you just bored yourself for an hour watching the dang film.

Overall: A film that is pleasing to look at because of its high production values and stylish setting, but suffers because of a boring pace, extremely clichéd and predictable plot, and unlikeable characters. I'd strongly suggest skipping this one and popping in "My Bloody Valentine"(either the remake OR original!), as no matter how many times you have seen it, it will still be more exciting and entertaining that "Trackman!"

FrightMeter Grade: D-

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

Definitely a worthy remake.

[9/10 · 20 January 2009]

I remember reading the plethora of gripes and groans when it was announced not too long ago that a remake of "My Bloody Valentine" was coming to theaters. "Can't they just leave classics alone!" and "I bet it will suck as much as the "Prom Night" remake" were spouted over and over again across the web. Well...surprise! This joins a very short list of recent horror remakes that is actually a WORTHY companion to its predecessor! Much like most remakes, "My Bloody Valentine 3D" is not a straight remake as much as it is a "reimagining." We get the same basic premise--a killer in a miner's outfit killing off people during the Valentine holiday--and even get the same character's, but a lot is switched up here. Still, it the changes do not ruin the concept original like the changes in the recent "Prom Night" and "Black Christmas" remakes did.

The premise of the original film actually makes up the first 15 minutes of this film. After that, we are introduced to a new story, involving Tom (Jensen Ackles) returning home to Harmony where, 10 years earlier, a miner named Harry Warden went on a murderous rampage after being the soul-survivor of a mine collapse that many blame Tom for. His teenage sweetheart, Sara (Jaime King) is now married to Axel (who is now the town sheriff (Kerr Smith). The three share something in common, as they all were survivors of Harry Warden's murderous rampage years before. Almost as soon as Tom arrives in town, a killer in a mining uniform begins butchering people who survived or are somehow involved with the massacre 10 years earlier. Who is the killer? Did Harry Warden return for revenge? Well, it is probable not THAT hard to figure the killer's identity out, but is sure is a hell of a fun ride along the way! First, this film looks gorgeous. I know that is not something that is often said about a slasher film, but it is very fitting here. The 3D is so effective and the colors and camera shots are crisp and life-like. The setting is perfect and very reminiscent of the town from the original. The acting is decent from all involved and the script and dialogue is surprising NOT hokey. Tension is created very well, particularly during the grocery store chase scene and the atmosphere created in the mine is very effective and claustrophobic. But the real star here are the the gore effects, brought to us in glorious 3D! The film is surprisingly gory--much more gory than the original--and the 3D makes it all that more great! I am SO glad Lussier decided to make this true to its 80's slasher roots because folks, this is a 100% R-rated slasher film through and through and makes no apologies for being so. Yes, there are some blatant clichés and the ending is very predictable, but slasher films are suppose to be brainless fun and that is what this film is: fun.

I can only hope the upcoming "Friday the 13th" remake is this good, though certainly do not have my hopes up. Seriously, if these classic slasher films are going to be remade THIS is the way to do it. Nelson McCormick, Glenn Morgan, and even Rob Zombie could learn a few things from watching this. My bet is this will end up being one of, if not THE, best horror film to make it into theaters this year.

FrightMeter Grade: A

Scarce (2008)

Better than it should have been.

[7/10 · 20 January 2009]

By all accounts, "Scarce" should bore any avid horror fan to tears. It is a plot we have seen over and over and over again, and in the end, offers nothing new. However, the film does so many things well that it ends up being an enjoyable slasher film that is better than a lot of stuff I have seen make it into theaters lately.

The film starts badly. In fact, I rolled my eyes more than once and was prepared to shut it off. We see a bunch of college aged guys at a huge party drinking, trying to get laid and spouting of some bad dialogue. However, this only lasts for about five minutes, when we flash forward to the next morning. We meet our three main characters--all typical college guys--who are heading back home from a short vacation of snowboarding in Colorado. They banter back and forth during the drive and eventual hit a huge snowstorm in Pennsylvania. They stop at a diner, where the have an encounter with some locals after asking for directions. Obviously, any horror fan knows where this leads, as the directions they are given are bogus and they end up crashed in the middle of nowhere in a blizzard. In the crash, one guy breaks his leg, so the other two venture out to find help. They get to a cabin where they meet up with a seemingly friendly local who offers them food and place to stay. Well, turns out (surprise!) this local is actually a cannibal, who, with the help of a few of his buddies, kills travelers and harvests their meat to make it through the scarce winters.

The film is the combination of so many films I have seen from, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to "Hostel" to "Wrong Turn" to "Calvaire." However, the production is top notch and the filmmakers know how to create tension and suspense using wide camera shots and angles. Additionally, our protagonists actually are pretty likable, and though they make some dumb choices, we can't help but to root for them. The gore is pretty well done and plentiful enough to satisfy gore hounds. We get chopped up bodies, slit throats, decapitations, and shotgun blasts. The setting of the film is foreboding and I really did "feel" the cold, particularly the last 10 minutes of the film when our main characters are running for their lives during the wind and snow in nothing but their boxer and T-shirts! It is a scene that is many ways reminded me of the highly stylized and effective final scenes of the French film "Calvaire" and I think is done equally well here.

My biggest qualm with the film is that I HATED the ending. Too many recent horror flicks are using this "twist" to be different and effective, when it is actually becoming a predictable cliché. I was actually pretty invested in the two main characters and really wanted to scream when the film ended the way it did.

Maybe I am becoming too soft in my reviews, but I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit and highly recommend it, despite the low IMDb rating and reviews here. If you can get past the beginning (and the end) of this film, it is a very well done and competently directed film that ends up being a lot better than it had any reason to be.

FrightMeter Grade: B

The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

Certainly not perfect, but effective nonetheless.

[8/10 · 20 January 2009]

"The Poughkeepsie Tapes" is a tough film to review. Much like any recent horror film, there are going to be people who love it and people who hate. Reading some of the recent reviews here and on other prominent horror sites, one would think this film is as sloppy and as terrible as "Ax 'Em" or "Dark Fields." In fact, though this film has a plethora of problems, I believe it is an effective, creepy, and thought-provoking little film.

It is presented as a documentary. Basically, a serial killer has been terrorizing the community of Poughkeepsie, New York for years. Cops are baffled by the cleverness of the killer. He is even able to frame a police officer, who is executed for the crimes. When they discover the home of the serial killer, police and FBI find hundreds of VHS tapes, each detailing the crimes of this vicious killer. We are shown footage of these tapes, interwoven with interviews of police officers, family members of victims, and even a victim herself to get a perspective of the killer and his crimes. Some of the footage is downright creepy and disturbing, including the murder of a young child and torture of several victims. The mask the killer wears is also quite creepy.

One of the main problems with the film is in presentation. We are suppose to be viewing "real" footage of the killer and his crimes, but can't help to notice the convenient "suspenseful" background music that plays during each clip. Did the killer go in and edit and add music to each of his tapes? The killer's identity remains a mystery throughout the whole film and it is a stretch to ask viewers to believe the he was able to get away with some of the stuff he did (framing a police officer). The acting by some is rather hokey, but I can't decide if it was meant to be that way because is is suppose to be "real" people being interviewed, or if these people are just bad actors.

Despite the flaws, "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" does some things extremely well, mainly making the viewer uncomfortable. The killer is pretty brazen, and it is horrifying to think that, yes, there ARE people out there like that. Like the film says, there are anywhere from 25-40 active serial killers working at any given time in the United States. The black and white footage of the "crimes" is pretty effective and provides some great tension. There is also one scene where the killer is walking on all fours toward a victim with his creepy mask on that gave me chills. Though the ending is unsatisfying, it almost couldn't have ended any other way.

Overall, I have seen MUCH worse. Those dismissing this as nothing but brainless torture porn obviously have short attention spans or just weren't paying all that close attention to it. The film is constructed and edited very well (despite the flaws I mentioned above) and the story is actually pretty solid. I can tell a lot of thought went into this film. It could have been better, but that can be said about any film. Go in with an open mind and watch this with the lights off at night. I am willing to be you will be looking behind you and checking to see if your doors are locked more than once.

FrightMeter Grade: B

Gutterballs (2008)

Love It or Hate It

[8/10 · 6 January 2009]

Ryan Nicholson obviously had no intentions for "Gutterballs" to be a serious horror film and it is interesting that some people cannot see that. Being a HUGE horror film fan, I quickly recognized what I was in store for from the first five minutes of the film. It is pure exploitation/80's-slasher homage through and through. Characterization is not a priority. Having a solid, thought-provoking plot is not a priority. Having decent acting is not a priority. And most importantly, having much about the film make all that much sense is not a priority. The priority is to get a bunch of people in a creative location and have them be butchered by a masked killer on by one. It's that simple. "Friday the 13th," "Intruder," and "The Slumber Party Massacre," all classic 80's slashers film followed this same formula and obviously "Gutterballs" was meant to transport horror fans back to the simpler days of the slasher film.

With that said, I understand the divisiveness this film is causing. You will either love or hate it. Personally, I lean toward the loving it side because it has been quite some time since I have seen a horror movie that takes such a care-free "fu** it" attitude and is not afraid nor apologetic for being a pure slasher film where plot and high production values are not the priority. Yet, it is still difficult for me to proclaim my extreme like for a film that contains such brutality and sexual violence. But guess what? I am going to anyway....I thought "Gutterballs" was a great film and had a blast watching it. Should I go to confessional now?

The plot is simple and deals with a bunch of annoying members of rival bowling teams, including a Tranny, who get into a confrontation one evening. This leads to some punches being thrown, and in an attempt to save her friend from having his ass kicked, the resident pantiless girl drops a bowling ball on her rival's foot. He is none to pleased with this, but it does break up the fight. As the girl leaves with her friends, she realizes she forgot her purse. She goes back into the now isolated alley to retrieve it, only to me met and BRUTALLY raped by her rival and his buddies as revenge for crushing his foot. The next night, the teams return to have a bowling competition when a mysterious killer begins killing them in sadistic and gory ways.

First, there is the rape scene, which, as mentioned in almost every review is extremely graphic and extremely long. It seriously has to be one of the most disturbing and graphic rape scenes since "Irreversible," and it just doesn't seem to end. I know this scene is highly criticized for being TOO graphic, but in the scheme of the film, particularly the ending when we discover the killer(s), etc..I think it is quite effective. A brutal rape requires brutal retribution. The extreme brutality of the murders themselves would seem less "deserved" if the viewer hadn't been witness to just what the rape victim experienced. Because we do see the vicious rape in detail, we are able to justify and actually rejoice when the perpetrators meet there gory deaths. The problem, though, is that some of the more brutal deaths are reserved for characters who had nothing do with the rape, which puzzled me. I guess, though, it demonstrates just how much of a emotional and psychological effect the rape had.

The film feels cheap and grainy, but that works in its favor. It definitely creates the whole DTV 80's feel to it. The acting is pretty bad, the dialogue nothing but expletives, and the first main death scene unrealistic and ridiculous. The characters themselves are all pretty stupid and we really don't care for any of them. One thing I kept wondering is why, when it was perfectly clear that nobody else was bowling in the alley, that they thought "BBK" was another player? You see, each time the killer killed a victim, he put a little skull on the scoreboard next to his name. All the characters dismissed this as another player, even though they were the only ones in the alley. There is also no heroine that we can root for, which was a staple of the 80's slasher film. Sure, there is a survivor, but she is a character who probably has the least amount of dialogue or action in the whole film.

The highlight of the film, though, is the gore. Blood is unleashed by the bucketfuls and there are some of the most brutally realistic death scenes I have seen in quite some time. The camera never flinches away as we are exposed to impalement's, genital mutilation, heads in bowling bowl cleaners, bowling pin penetration and much much more. It, perhaps, is gore for gore's sake, but it is extremely well done and effective.

Again, this is definitely a love it or hate it film. It was never meant to be taken seriously, but is still a roller coaster ride of a film and you can certainly say that you don't or won't find many horror films like this nowadays.

FrightMeter Grade: B+

Eden Lake (2008)

Lingers with you for days....

[10/10 · 6 January 2009]

I knew "Eden Lake" would be a divisive film the minute the ending credits started to role. It doesn't take the easy, clichéd, and expected way out, and instead, opts for a more unconventional ending that has succeeded in really pissing some people off. I don't think I have heard some many gripes over the ending of a horror film since "High Tension." Despite how you feel about the ending of the film, it is undoubtedly a brutally realistic, chilling roller coaster ride getting there.

The film's plot sounds as clichéd as they come in the horror genre. A loving couple, Jenny and Steve, decide to take a weekend trip to Eden Lake for some rest and relaxation. When the arrive in town, they witness a group of unruly teens who seem to have free reign of the place. Shrugging it off, they decide to go to the lake and relax by the waterfront. It doesn't take long before the group of teens show up with their loud radio and foul mouths to stir up a little trouble. Word are exchanged, the kids leave, and the couple think again shrug it off. However, later they discover that the teens have stolen their vehicle. They track them down, demand it back, and from this point forward, things spiral out of control and the film escalates in a grueling cat and mouse game, with the teens stalking, torturing, and attempting to kill the couple.

Some scenes of "Eden Lake" are just sickening to watch. Not because the director piles on loads of gore---the film is actually kinda tame in that department--but because the actions are being committed by a bunch of teenagers. A few in particular seem to be emotionless and have no sense of life or death. It is scary because we here so often about violent act being committed by young people and people claiming that adolescents are being desensitized to violence. How true that is is certainly debatable, but "Eden Lake" gives us a disturbing look at what this concept might look like and certainly it isn't all that far-reaching in its depiction.

Everything about this film, with the exception of one key scene, seems utterly realistic. Characters are flawed, and during the most intense torture scene of the film that actually had me looking away in disgust (which trust me...rarely happens!), the filmmaker showed the different reactions of the kids committing the acts. Not all of them wanted to do it...some even knew it was wrong...but they do it anyway because of peer pressure from the leader of the group, Brett (Jack O'Donnell in a powerhouse performance). A girl even stands a casually films the events with a cell phone camera. It is clearly a game for some, yet for a couple of them, they know what they are doing is completely and utterly wrong, but are compelled to play along. As the movie progresses and the violence increases, the viewer is as helpless as Jenny and Steve because their situation seems completely impossible to overcome given the circumstances. Both Kelly Rielly and Michael Fassenbender give completely believable and sympathetic performances as the couple in peril and these are two characters who we quickly form a bond with because they are genuinely nice people who are in complete love with each other.

The film is wonderfully shot with some great cinematography. The pacing is quick, and the dialogue crisp and realistic. However, one scene I found unbelievable was when driving shortly after their first confrontation with the kids, Steve notices their bikes outside of a house. He decides to stop, apparently with the intention of confronting the kids and/or their parents. He goes into the house, only to realize that the father probably isn't much better and has to escape. I just didn't think that a character would actually stop at a house to confront a bunch of kids who cussed at him, particularly on vacation. Most would have let it go and moved on.

The ending, as mentioned is either love it or hate it. I was indifferent at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I think the ending increases the effectiveness of the film. Not to give anything away, but I think it speaks volumes to the state of parental control, involvement, and lack of discipline and parenting that is prevalent in our society. It's a tough pill to swallow for some--that their attempts to be their child's friend rather than parent--could have dire consequences, but it isn't completely far from the truth.

"Eden Lake" is tough to watch and makes you think. What causes kids to become so desensitized to violence? Are parents ultimately responsible for their child's actions, particularly if they take the "my child can do no wrong!" attitude. The fact that the viewer is left to imagine just what does happen to Jenny is also pretty disturbing, particularly when the last frame of the film is the main ring-leader's smiling face.

FrightMeter Grade: A

Inside (2007)

A Grueling Experience.

[10/10 · 6 January 2009]

"Inside" is one of the best--if not the best--horror films of the decade, hands down. One can argue about the stupid actions of some of the characters and that the filmmakers relied solely on gore to shock the audience until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an impeccably directed, strongly acted, and brutally disturbing piece of modern horror that is certainly heads and shoulders above anything horror that has appeared in American theaters in quite some time.

Taking its premise from an seemingly ever growing brutal type of crime, "Inside" deals with a pregnant young woman named Sarah who is home alone on Christmas Eve. Months before, she was in a terrible car accident that killed her husband and left her emotionally broken. She just wants to be left alone, as she states several times to her mother during a phone call. However, this desire quickly gets shattered when a unknown woman shows up at her door asking to use the phone. Smartly, Sarah refuses and asks the woman to go elsewhere. Minutes later, the woman appears outside Sarah's patio door and does not look all too pleased. Sarah calls the police, who come to inspect and find nothing. Sarah decides to call it a night at goes up to bed. However, she awakes to find the woman standing above her with a pair of scissors, and from this point forward, all hell breaks loose.

"Inside" is a visually stunning film and I have not seen color and lighting used so effectively in quite some time. Everything is so dark and dreary and there is always a hint of red glow present in the frame. When Sarah takes refuge in her one safe-haven throughout the film--her bathroom--the color contrast is splendid. The bathroom itself is bleach white, and when the blood starts to flow and virtually covers every square inch of the bathroom, the visual effect is astounding. The direction is crisp and tight and the filmmakers really know how to create tension and a claustrophobic feeling. Most of the film takes place in about three rooms of a small house and the viewer can feel this enclosed and helpless space. At some points, we never know quite where the killer is, but we know she is lurking.

What makes the film so grueling, though, is undoubtedly the gallons of gore that is unleashed. In a move that seems to be a negative for some viewers of the film, the screenwriter resorts to having random people enter the house, including Sarah's mother, doctor, and a few police officers, to serve the sole purpose of being victims for "La Femme." How realistic is some of the actions by these individuals, particularly the cops? Probably not really, but that does not matter here. These characters exist solely to highlight just how brutal and relentless the killer is in her quest and nothing more. And she is brutal; in fact, she is probably the most brutal female killer I have ever seen in a film. The death scenes are as gory as you are likely to see and the camera never flinches away. To some, this will be too much and they will be quick to label it "gore for gore's sake," when in fact, it is much more. "La Femme" has a distinct goal in mind and has her reasons for it. Like Sarah has been broken and left depressed by her car crash, La Femme has suffered a similar fate and is, too, is emotionally void. She justifies her actions and the extreme measures she takes to get Sarah because she truly feels that she is owed what she is after. Both women has suffered almost the exact same experience and both are emotionally numb because of it. The extreme violence that the viewer is subjected to becomes emotionally draining, and by the end of the film, the viewer is numb to it--as numb as La Femme is while she is killing. Beatrice Dalle is perfect as La Femme and has a haunting presence. She projects her ruthlessness and obsession perfectly and doesn't need a lot of dialogue to do it.

The ending of the film is extremely graphic, disturbing, and depressing. There is no happy ending here for any of the characters--how could there be after what they all, even La Femme, have been subjected to? The final 5 minutes of the film will be extremely difficult for some to watch, particularly mothers or pregnant woman, but have to be viewed as something that is a reality. Open your newspaper. Search the web. This type of thing happens more than one could imagine. The filmmakers took one of these headlines and turned into a visceral horror film that hold nothing back, but at the same time is beautifully shot and extremely well constructed. Though not for everyone, I believe true horror fans will recognize this film for the masterpiece of horror film-making that it is. Is it perfect? Hell, no. But it is about the closest thing to a perfect horror movie I have seen in ages.

FrightMeter Grade: A+

In the Dark (II) (2004)

This is no Blair Witch Project!

[1/10 · 6 January 2009]

Count me as one who loves the whole documentary sub-genre of horror created by "Cannibal Holocaust" and made popular more recently by both "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Last Broadcast." Though not a huge explosion of these types of films have popped up, there is a handful out there, such as "Strawberry Estates," "The St. Francisville Experiment," and "The Collingswood Story." These films attempt to frighten the audience by giving them a unique perspective of witnessing the events of the plot unfold through the eyes of a character's own camera lense or, in some cases (such as here), a security camera. Additionally, these films often advertise themselves as being "real, authentic footage!" when in fact, any viewer with any brains knows differently. Often times, these films are able to create adequate suspense and uneasiness. Unfortunately, this is not one of those instances and is really a smear and insult to its much better predecessors.

"In the Dark" presents itself as "real" footage of the events that take place when a group of teenagers break into an abandoned, burned asylum, where years before, a few of them did *something* (raped?) to a female inmate that left her scarred after they started a fire to cover their crime. The footage is presented dually through the camera lense of one of the teens and through security cameras present in and outside the building. Why does a abandoned asylum that is barely standing because of fire damage need security cameras you ask? Well, you're guess is as good as mine and that is just one of many things wrong with this film. You see, viewers are to believe that the girl inmate who was picked on knows that these teens are in this abandoned asylum on Halloween night, is able to escape her current institution and come to seek her revenge. She is presented here are sorta of a cross between a possessed Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" and a zombie from the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, which is puzzling considering she is supposedly just a burn victim. Better (or worse) yet, she is able to smuggle of few other inmates out of her facility to help scare the crap out of the teens. You'd think, since money was invested to have working security cameras in the decrepit asylum, that the security would have been a hell of a lot better at the new one! Apparently not....apparently no security cameras at the new asylum captured a few of the inmates walking out to go wreak havoc next door.

The film's main flaw is the fact that is is extremely boring and filled with extremely bad actors who are portraying annoying characters we could give a crap less about. We are subjected to long scenes of one of the more annoying characters filming himself make rude comments and mock his equally annoying mother, and act like a total retard detailing his plan to sneak out while his mother is fast asleep behind him in the couch. This scene has to be seen to be believed and my jaw was dropped at the ridiculousness I was witnessing. Long scenes of virtually nothing happening are presented as apparently the director's idea of suspense; characters whine and fight with each other and sort of act scared, but for some reason never all just decide to group together and leave the place. After all, there was about 9 of them and only one "killer." Again, nothing about these characters is even remotely interesting and I really just wanted them all to die. The film also feels about 20 minutes too long and the pacing is just horrid. I really really had to stop my self from hitting the fast forward button on my DVD remote, or worse yet, just ejecting the damn thing altogether.

"The Blair Witch Project" worked because it felt real. The acting was superb and there was no ridiculous plot elements that felt fake. Everything the viewer saw and heard looked and felt authentic and it was scary as hell. This film feels fake. There is no suspense because some of the things that unfold (particularly the ending) are so implausible that it is an insult to viewers. I only hope that the filmmakers really did not expect people to believe this was "real" footage because they failed miserable. Avoid this borefest at all costs.

FrightMeter Grade: F

Midnight Movie (2008)

Pretty Solid 80's style Slasher!

[8/10 · 5 January 2009]

"Midnight Movie" is the type of movie that I love to come across because it seems to rare these days to find a movie like it. First, it is a pure slasher flick through and through. There is no tongue-in-cheek horror or comedic undertones that seem so prevalent in a lot of today's horror. More importantly, it plays out like a 80's slasher film and captures the spirit and essence of 80's style horror perfectly.

The film centers around the first showing of a horror film called "The Dark Beneath," since several people were murdered while watching the film. Only a handful of people show up for the showing, including the boyfriend and a couple friends of the high-school aged theater manager, a redneck, motorcycle riding couple, and a couple of cops who think the film's director may show up to cause some trouble. The film shown on screen is a 70's style "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" type film about a group of friends who experience car trouble and seek help at creepy farmhouse, only to be butchered by a killer in a creepy mask whose weapon of choice is a sharp, spiral tool. Somehow, though, the killer is able to transfer himself out of the screen and begins stalking and killing the movie-goers.

The Good: The film looks great. It is competently directed and in lesser hands the whole movie-within-a-movie element could have been a real mess. The killer is pretty cool as well, and definitely reminded me of a Michael Myers, Jason, or Leatherface type killer. My only qualm with him is the weapon of choice, which does manage some good kill scenes, but becomes boring, repetitive, and not at all intimidating. As I mentioned,the film really has the classic slasher vibe going on and is quite effective. Once the action gets going, it is truly a fun ride and doesn't let up until the last frame. There are also some surprises in who lives/dies that took me by surprise, which is always a good thing in a slasher because generally they are so predictable with who lives/dies. Though it initially turned me off, I actually ended liking that there were so few characters in the film because it allowed us to get to know each of them a tad more. I was actually upset to see a couple of them get offed.

The Bad: The acting is a mixed bag. I know it is nit-picky, but the film REALLY could have done WITHOUT the younger brother character. First, the kid is a bad actor, second, his presence serves absolutely zero purpose and actually becomes a distraction to the plot. There is also no real backstory to the killer and why/how he is able to come out of the screen and kill in real life. Some parts were indeed cheesy, particularly the opening scene with the film's director in a mental institution.

Overall, this is a decent horror film and certainly one of the better DTV slashers I have seen in awhile. Everything about the film looks great and it is always refreshing to see a contemporary slasher film successfully pay homage to early genre films.

My Grade: B+

Side Sho (2007 Video)

Nothing New Here....

[4/10 · 5 January 2009]

Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).

This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of "Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.

Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a "so bad it's good" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.

Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.

My Grade: D

Carver (2008 Video)

Decent Take and an Overused, Clichéd Plot

[6/10 · 28 October 2008]

Here we have yet another movie with one of the most clichéd plots in slasher movie history: a group of young friends travel to the country for a weekend camping trip, only to encounter a extremely brutal maniac who resides in a run down house in the middle of the woods who begins butchering them one by one. However, this is probably one of the better, more gritty and realistic takes on this plot that we have seen in quite some time.

The first thing worth noting about this film is its tone. It definitely makes no qualms about being a brutal, disturbing, and downright cruel film. From the opening murder and title sequence,there is a gritty, almost dirty feeling to film through most of its running time that is quite effective. How the director achieved this is definitely the question of the day, as I am not sure it because of the lighting, film stock, framing, or a combination of all, but the grittiness is definitely present. Moreover, the deaths in this film are extremely graphic and brutal and the camera does not flinch away. Everything is show in gory detail and some deaths are just extremely hard to watch because of how just downright nasty they are, such as the now infamous outhouse scene and a particularly nasty hammer and nail death scene that is also cringe-worthy. The Carver is an extremely intimidating killer and there is a sense the minute he appears on the screen that he means business and escaping him will be an almost impossible task, which it certainly proves to be. While the acting is uneven at times, it is still more competently acted than a lot of other slasher flicks lately. The characters aren't terribly annoying, and are actually somewhat likable.

However, as likable as they may be, they are still some of the stupidest characters in slasher film history. They make decisions so ludicrous that it is hard to feel bad when they meet their fate. This is best illustrated by one character, who after seemingly killing the Carver, turns the shotgun on herself and blows her brains out. Seriously one of the biggest WTF? moments I have seen in any film in recent memory. After discovering what they all agree to be real snuff films in the "abandoned" house, a few of the morons decide it is a good idea to go back to the house to return an item one of them lifted. That's right. They are far away from the house at one point, but decide to go back IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT to return something after watching videos they found in this very same house that showed people being murdered. Then, when the surviving character actually has the chance to get away, they decide it is a better idea to hang out in the house's living room to watch the tapes again! These actions end up leaving a bad taste in the viewers mouth because we can't help be to think if the characters are going to do something that stupid, then they deserve whatever happens to them.

It is these sloppily written plot details that really hurt this film. Yes, we have to suspend belief when watching a slasher film, but having characters do downright stupid, unbelievable things is going a tad too far. Still, the film is crazily effective and brutal and competently directed with a tone rarely seen nowadays. It won't be for everyone, but as a slasher film, it succeeds better than expected.

FrightMeter: C+